OUTSTANDING DIRECTORIAL ACHIEVEMENT IN FEATURE FILM
ALEJANDRO G. IÑÁRRITU
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
(Fox Searchlight Pictures)
OUTSTANDING DIRECTORIAL ACHIEVEMENT IN DRAMATIC SERIES
LESLI LINKA GLATTER
Homeland, “From A to B and Back Again”
(Showtime)
OUTSTANDING DIRECTORIAL ACHIEVEMENT IN COMEDY SERIES
JILL SOLOWAY
Transparent, “Best New Girl”
(Amazon Prime)
OUTSTANDING DIRECTORIAL ACHIEVEMENT IN MOVIES FOR TELEVISION AND MINI-SERIES
LISA CHOLODENKO
Olive Kitteridge
(HBO)
OUTSTANDING DIRECTORIAL ACHIEVEMENT IN DOCUMENTARY
LAURA POITRAS
Citizenfour
Oh, yeah, I should probably re-post my reply to you from the other thread here as well! 🙂
SPOILERS
“Emma Stone? The first time we see her she is aggressively berating a nice old flower shop worker while being toxic to her father during a FaceTime chat.”
She’s very nasty on the surface, but clearly there’s a lot more to her. She’s very nice to her father in a lot of scenes, and very cool with Ed Norton’s character. Given its background, I doubt that character could be any nicer. She’s almost unrealistically nice (though not really), most of the time. You probably have a lot less tolerance for people’s tantrums than I do. Also, apart from Riseborough’s character – Amy Ryan’s and Naomi Watts’. The women are all pretty decent, to say the least. Also, given what I said you before, you can probably deduce that I don’t have nearly as big a problem with the male characters as you do, either, I’m sure.
“Innaritu casts everybody as a douche, and makes no mention that maybe there aren’t ONLY horrible people in show business.”
So, no. The WORST you can accuse him of is FOCUSING on the nasty characters, but that’s normal, I think, because they’re usually the most interesting, in any story. Plenty of other, almost universally beloved, movies do it, and nobody complains.
“He says something to the effect of “fuck you” to his imaginary companion.”
He’s saying “fuck you” to his alter-ego because he doesn’t need it telling him to accept what he is anymore. He’s done that. It’s a “farewell” scene, if you like. Consistent with the theme of liberation present throughout the epilogue.
“The standing ovation after the gunshot already establishes the play is a hit.”
But not if it’s a hit with the critics, which Riggan cares about above all else…
“The very act itself of attempted suicide on stage”
How do you know it’s attempted suicide? I see no proof of this in the movie. It can just as easily be a crazy way for him to guarantee the play is well-received (which, of course, he’d never admit to, because people thinking it was attempted suicide gets him a lot more sympathy, while the other thing might get him into an insane asylum). He knows what people want (in fact, Birdman tells him during his street monologue: “give the people what they want etc.”, which I think is where the idea is born in his mind – and reveals itself in its final form on the roof, when he says he knows what he has to do, or whatever it is he says exactly), so he takes advantage of that to reach his goal of making the play a success.
“None of this needed to be restated”
If the movie ends before, the possibility of him not having died on stage never even enters most people’s minds, I’ll bet, which is one of the reasons why a final scene is needed. Also, the critical reception is never established, like I said. Also, there is no real closure with anything, including his relationship with his daughter, until the final scene. I mean, it’s key in so many ways… it makes the whole movie work.
“Suddenly, in the final shot, Emma Stone’s character is in on something only the audience and Keaton has been in on for the duration. Why pull the rug at the 11th hour?”
Like I said, it symbolizes her acceptance (at least in his mind) of him for what he is. Which is hard to show any other way. Would you rather she just SAID it to him somehow? Does that seem like a plausible thing a character like Emma Stone’s in this movie would do? I don’t think so. Also, wouldn’t you be complaining the movie is too obvious then? Plus, the scene is much more about him than about her. And there’s no rug pulling, since she’s not in on anything – I repeat, it’s ALL IN HIS HEAD (from the second he opens the window, or thereabouts).
“I’ve read that Riggan is actually dead after the cut to black and all of this is one final hallucination where he “gets what he wanted out of this life”
Of course, me too. That works, mostly. I accept it as a valid, though, I would say, thematically less convincing, alternative. But there’s no actual evidence of it being more likely than my interpretation. I thought there was, at some point, but I was remembering a few things wrong, which I noticed when watching the ending again.
“the only evidence that this may be a hallucination is the final look on Emma Stone’s face.”
Again, to me that’s IRREFUTABLE evidence. How else do you explain her exact reaction? I bet I can disprove any theory you can come up with in which that scene is real… except pure randomness, which makes no sense with a director so obsessed with detail.
“If the writers wanted that to be inferred you’d think they would’ve found other ways to indicate that”
Not ways as clever and awesome as that. What’s wrong with being clever?
“Also, how many fucking movies have to have an “Is it all a dream” or “He was actually dead at the end” resolution before we demand something a little less been-there-done-that?”
It’s not ALL a dream. Just the last 2 (according to me) to 10 minutes (or whatever the exact runtime of the epilogue is). Don’t remember that having been done before TOO often…
“The epilogue is made up entirely of used parts”
So, based on everything I’ve just said, I can’t agree with your conclusion above at all.
Claudiu, tell me, can you name one sympathetic character in Birdman? One single person in the whole film that demonstrates that not every person involved in showbiz is a total scumbag? Emma Stone? The first time we see her she is aggressively berating a nice old flower shop worker while being toxic to her father during a FaceTime chat. Zach Galifinakis? He lies to his supposed “best friend” about Scorsese being in the audience and promptly makes a snide remark to Naomi Watts about it (“Yeah and the Pope too!”). He also only gives a shit that the play is a hit at the end and shows very little regard for Keaton’s well-being. Ed Norton? C’mon. Perhaps Andrea Riseborough’s character could have served as an anchor, but she’s first shown as the cliched “actress who sleeps her way into a Broadway role” and then promptly shoved to the margins of the film. Keaton? He is vain, shallow, self-obsessed and callous, and there’s plenty of evidence of past transgressions involving his ex-wife. That is the “problem” I’m referring to that I think gets a pass from everyone and wouldn’t do so if the film weren’t so well-staged. Innaritu casts everybody as a douche, and makes no mention that maybe there aren’t ONLY horrible people in show business. It’s an unfortunate sin of omission on par with Eastwood’s complete non-representation of any sympathetic Iraqi characters or dissenting opinions about the Iraq War in American Sniper.
With regards to the epilogue, what ACTUALLY happens is this: We are told that the play is a hit and the Times critic raves about it being a new form of theater. Keaton has one last moment where he can apologize for being a bad father and husband to his ex-wife and kid. The daughter leaves to get a vase. We have a “symbolic” final encounter with the Birdman in the bathroom and Keaton unveils his new “mask”, aka his new nose. He says something to the effect of “fuck you” to his imaginary companion. Then he sees birds in the sky, steps out on the ledge and then he’s gone. Emma Stone walks in, sees an open window and initially has a horrified look on her face before looking upwards and smiling. The end.
What is wrong with this in terms of storytelling is this: Much of what happens has already been expressed in the film. Keaton’s confessional talk with Amy Ryan on opening night already establishes his regret about the past. The standing ovation after the gunshot already establishes the play is a hit. The very act itself of attempted suicide on stage is already a strong rebuke of himself and the specter of his alter ego the Birdman. None of this needed to be restated, but it wouldn’t make sense to simply cut to a hospital room where Keaton seemingly jumps out a window, or did he because of Emma Stone’s reaction? So they hit a bunch of bullet points a second time simply to get us to this ambiguous conclusion where we’re supposed to say “Wait, did he have powers for real? Is all of this a hallucination? Is he actually dead already?”
I was on board with the magical realism of the super powers throughout the film, and the film even tips its hand several times and shows that all of that clearly is only in Keaton’s head (we see the cab driver he took to get back to the theater complain about not getting paid, we see him manually trashing his dressing room once Galifinakis walks in). Suddenly, in the final shot, Emma Stone’s character is in on something only the audience and Keaton has been in on for the duration. Why pull the rug at the 11th hour? It smacks of ambiguity for ambiguity’s sake, but let’s take some popular theories that have gone around. I’ve read that Riggan is actually dead after the cut to black and all of this is one final hallucination where he “gets what he wanted out of this life., as the Carver quote states at the beginning. He gets a hit play with rave reviews and his daughter sees him as a superhero. That seems vaguely plausible in terms of intent, but in terms of execution of that intent, the only evidence that this may be a hallucination is the final look on Emma Stone’s face. If the writers wanted that to be inferred you’d think they would’ve found other ways to indicate that. Also, how many fucking movies have to have an “Is it all a dream” or “He was actually dead at the end” resolution before we demand something a little less been-there-done-that? It was already getting old when Inception came out the same year Lost ended. I’m not arrogant at all when it comes to film. I’m well aware there are countless other people with greater knowledge than me and therefore more valid opinions, but I do call em like I see em. The epilogue is made up entirely of used parts, and the rest of the film leading up to it felt fresh. Had they cut off right after the standing ovation, I’d have very little in terms of genuine criticism of the storytelling. It would still be a film populated entirely by awful people which reinforces a false impression of what Hollywood types are like, but I’ve liked plenty of other films that exclusively feature unlikeable characters.
but I would like to know why you keep coming directly after me the way you just did
Antoinette, just stop taking things I write that are simple obvious facts and then exaggerating my feelings to the point of absurdity and then pretending to be shocked at the absurd paraphrasing you invented.
I wrote a fact: There are some people who sneer at Captain America, think it’s silly, and then those people turn around and swoon over Birdman. – FACT
You twist that into: “How does it follow that if you like BIRDMAN you also think CAPTAIN AMERICA is silly”?
Do you not even see what an underhanded and misleading thing you’ve done there?
There are people who like Captain America and they like Birdman too. You’re one of those people. But I am NOT fucking talking about those people.
I’m talking about people who sneer at CGI flying guys in one movie and then they’re blown away by CGI flying guys in another movie.
my point is So Simple: some of those people seem to think Innaritu is doing something sophisticated while Joss Whedon is doing something childish. I disagree, ok? I judge a movie on how much it entertains me. I judge a movie for what it is. Not by what it tries to pretend to be.
I never said that nobody can like Birdman and Captain America both — so why the hell would you try to nail me on that ridiculous point? I never fucking said that.
It’s annoying as hell, and you do this to me a lot lately. Please cut it out, I’m tired of this dumb bickering over things I never wrote, alright?
yes, I get irritated at you and anyone else who paraphrases me and then tries to back me into a corner to make me justify the dumb oversimplified exaggeration that they falsely attribute to me.
It’s a boring waste of my time. I am asking you: Please stop that shit.
Ryan, I didn’t say you were talking about me. I said I am a person who likes both those movies. And this is the second time you’ve accused exactly me of getting offended by what you’ve said and I don’t get offended by what you’ve said but I would like to know why you keep coming directly after me the way you just did. Or did I not just read my name a bunch of times in your above comment? When you say things like “Jesus, Antoinette” i assume you’re talking to me as well. Otherwise unless you refer to me directly I don’t assume you’re talking about me.
but I would like to know why you keep coming directly after me the way you just did.
come at you? you addressed a question to me. I answered you.
“just because you think a movie is better and because you might have a lot of critic backup on it, does not make your opinion of that movie mean more than someone else’s.”
This, too.
“Now I want to see Birdman win just so it pisses off Rob Y:)”
Yeah, me too – talk about overreacting…
“I did think that of the nominees for Best Director that Iñárritu did the best job of directing, according to what I think a director’s job is”
Me too.
“Godzilla was plausible insofar as the screenplay made a serious attempt to explain the craziness, and once the movie committed to its premise it respected its own fantastical conceit by remaining cohesive and coherent. None of that can be said about Birdman.”
I respectfully disagree – with the Birdman part. But I’m so over trying to argue in-depth about such things…
“And then all that selfish indulgent mishmash is literally thrown out the window with an ending that betrays every fraudulent puzzlebox mindfuck that went before it.”
I disagree once more.
“Still, even if that weren’t the case, what actually does happen in the epilogue is all kinds of wrong in terms of storytelling.”
I think you meant to say “what I BELIEVE happens in the epilogue” (which maybe isn’t what ACTUALLY happens, if you’ve properly analyzed the many clues before, and during, said epilogue).
“If the film wasn’t as brilliantly staged and performed, I suspect many more of you would notice these things and take issue with them as well.”
You are wrong. The truth is that YOU have issues with Birdman, and see problems that aren’t there for others. It’s just arrogant to presume we can’t see past the technical brilliance, but you can. Also: REALLY good job by the Birdman defenders in this thread, especially (but not only) Alex and Jonathan – I am proud to be on your side, guys! This is what I wanted to see earlier…
“I haven’t been happy with the BP award since Slumdog, but I don’t allow that to ruin the movies and the show for me…”
Good for you, sir!
“It’s a divisive movie, and no guild award can prove the opposite.”
If that’s the case, then Birdman’s PGA win is even MORE worrying for Boyhood – it means Birdman had an overwhelming number of 1st places, or maybe that Boyhood is even MORE divisive, or just less liked. Either way, nothing good…
“I still have a hunch they will annoint Boyhood as Best Picture. BAFTAs tonight will be interesting, but AMPAS doesn’t pay much attention to them.”
You gotta love it when a guy who’s predicting Boyhood admits that “AMPAS doesn’t pay much attention to them” just before Boyhood wins the BAFTAs, so that they won’t then be able to say the BAFTA wins are the only ones that matter, after all. :))
“The only good news for me is that if Birdman wins Picture and Director then Eddie is your Best Actor! Birdman is not winning 3 majors!”
I hope so, but it seems a bit optimistic to think that…
“Why do people still think that their opinion on any BP contender (cue the Birdman hate) has any bearing on the race?”
Good question.
“Then join me, Al, in the somewhat small club that loved both Boyhood and Birdman.”
Can I join too? Birdman is my no.1 and Boyhood my no.4 of the year.
“If Birdman wins BP, it will be at the bottom of my list of 86 BP winners—below Deer Hunter (I really hated that film)”
The Deer Hunter is an excellent winner.
“Get over it people. Birdman is pure cinematic experience and great filmmaking as GBH and Boyhood.
Wes Anderson and Linklater work is not better than Iñárritu this season.”
This.
“was the last film to win BP/BD while losing three or more acting categories Rocky or have I missed one?”
Plenty have lost 2/2 since then, though, so to set the bar at 3 just because Birdman has 3 exactly seems a bit arbitrary… There’s no logical correlation, either. Also, Keaton’s still in it.
P.S.: Sam L. – thank you! Dances with Wolves – I didn’t manage to spot that one myself…
“Last film to win BP / BD with three or less acting wins was The Hurt Locker with no acting wins. Before that, The Departed with no acting wins. Both Slumdog Millionaire and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King received 0 acting nominations.”
:)) Yes, exactly. I’m glad there’s somebody with a little perspective… What the above person is basically suggesting is that Birdman is somehow a WEAKER contender than THL, The Departed, Slumdog (and others) because of the fact that it has MORE acting nominations. 🙂 Wishful thinking taken to the extreme… Seriously, guys – a stat has to have some actual LOGICAL BASIS to be anywhere near valid. Stop it with this nonsense! These are not stats, just trivia answers.
“Literally nothing statistically makes any sense with this race, even Birdman boosters have to see that.”
You’re wrong if you think a Boyhood win makes more statistical sense than a Birdman win. The precedent broken (no PGA/SAG/DGA) would be at least as strong – probably stronger, considering the logic behind it, as opposed to that non-stat people keep mentioning (the comedy Globe thing, which I deconstructed earlier, in another thread – I have it saved and can copy/paste, if necessary), the non-stat with the acting noms above, and the editing nom stat, which clearly doesn’t apply to Birdman as much as other, traditionally edited movies (if it applies at all, that is).
“And FYI American Cinema is from Argentina to Canada. America is a continent.”
Movies from the United States are called American cinema. Movies that come from Canada are Canadian cinema. And movies from Argentina are called Argentinian cinema. Get over it.
@Zooey:
“But sometimes awards just miss opportunities…”
This is true! What a perceptive and honest comment. The “award-giving bodies” have bountiful choices to choose from but they miss a lot of opportunities to reward the “deserving” ones (based on relative judgment).
Well I can’t believe I tried watching the BAFTAs Online- and NO LINKS worked. All I could get was the stupid red carpet. How exactly does this work??? I will never again tune into Sunday Online streaming- and will watch the BAFTAs in privacy when they air properly. How is it 2015 and it’s still complicated to download a live fucking stream?
I think all this general insanity can be easily overcome by everyone simply taking a step back and realizing that the awards race is fun because people have different opinions. In fact, the various organizations we follow give out awards with the understanding that the winners could be different. I, for one, wouldn’t care to see a race where every body agreed on the same film, even if there was a clear Schindler’s List or Citizen Kane in the running. What’s the point of that??
I think all this general insanity can be easily overcome by everyone simply taking a step back and realizing that the awards race is fun because people have different opinions.
different opinions are fun, yes.
general insanity can be fun too.
🙂
I loved Birdman, and Captain America, and XMEN, and Spider Man 2 is one of my favorite movies of all time. You can’t equate liking one movie with hating others.
Jonathan, for you, the artifice works, for me with this film it’s a complete distraction to the point that I hated the film. Very little of it is redeeming.
Criticizing “Birdman” for its artifice is like criticizing oranges for being too citrusy. Artifice is an undeniable part of the cinematic art form, and since its beginnings has been something filmmakers have actively acknowledged and foregrounded in their films. “Birdman” does this like Godard did it (Godard is actually quoted several times throughout the picture). The artifice IS THE POINT. The single take aesthetic serves to disorient us, make us question what is real and what is not when everything is being captured by the same camera without any cuts. If there were cuts, then it would be easier to say “Oh, THAT’S a dream, or that’s being imagined.” Because there aren’t any cuts, all of the film’s fanning realities – performance, authenticity, simulation – are a seamless part of one continuously unfolding reality, and thus you are forced to consider them all as being equally valid.
It boggles my mind how people on this thread are missing what this film is doing. Self-consciousness, self-referentiality, meta-textuality – NONE of this is new. “Birdman” is merely carrying on a great cinematic tradition in exciting ways.
“…Great action movies are beneath their dignity but they’ll eat up a has-been actor flying around NYC like it’s sophisticated creme brulee. And they lick the spoon.” I love you Ryan.
Some have said that Boyhood fans don’t seem to compare the two films without relying on the 12 years it took to film as the central reason it should win.
So here’s my $.02. Birdman is built on artifice. Nothing says it more than the celebrated single shot.
The contrived single shot does little except to distract and make the film seem extremely planned and staged. What is the point to having the film do one long “single” shot? Considering that time elapses between some of the (laughable) edits, it can’t be to create a real time account of Riggan’s life. Why use it? The single shots would have been effective for the stage work sections as acting on stage is literally a single shot. It could be to emphasize the claustrophobia of a theater, but why do it through the film? In general, long single shots are an artificial distraction as much needed choreography between the actors take away from the emotional connection; the audience is somewhat focused on how things maneuver within the scene and not on what is going on. That’s the weakness in Hitchcock’s Rope. Both Touch of Evil and The Player had their single shots in the beginning, and both were designed to establish the mood of the film, afterwards the artifice is abandoned. Cuaron has several in Gravity but there the fluid single shots served to amplify space’s lack of orientation; it also created a sense of urgency within the film as the action was playing out in real time. In addition the POV of the camera moved in 3 dimensional space very on a path with no sharp turns that didn’t have momentum going into it (no jerking to the left, right, up, or down). All that is lost with Inarritu’s need to show the back’s of actors walking down a hall literally bumping into other characters or coming across other characters casually waiting for the focal actor to show up.
There is a long single shot in Boyhood; it appears at the 1:12:57 mark and lasts for about two minutes. Nobody seems to have mentioned it, at least not in what I have read. The reason no one seems to have caught on to it is that it effectively blends into the film. The scene is stripped away of anything other than two teenagers talking. The focus is on that interplay between Mason and the girl trying to figure him out; the focus is on nothing but them. Inarritu’s direction for the camera work on the other hand distracts the viewer as if he’s on screen every so often (like the stupid drummers) to announce “Look at what I can do.” But really, what is more difficult to do: choreographing highly-skilled actors to come and go—acting on cue, or having two young untrained actors walking down an alley carrying on a realistic and effortless conversation?
Linklater does it subtly to create authenticity; Inarritu does it with bull horns blaring to create a DGA Award. I could go on and on why Birdman is a truly awful film or why Boyhood is one of the sublime films of the last decade. But I will leave it here with the use and abuse of the long single shot.
I”m really happy. ‘Boyhood” is a great experience, bur ‘Birdman” is so much deeper and complex. I’m really happy for all that team. They did a masterpiece contemporary!
By the way, I am from México and I really like González Iñárritu’s work throughout the last decade; but Boyhood is WAY MUCH BETTER THAN BIRDMAN! It is the most international film this year – even more international than the ones in the foreign language category. Birdman is really good, but Boyhood is the best film of the year. Let’s see what surprises may the BAFTAS bring us.
Greeting from México!
Oh Boyhood! The sweet kid who died of “bird flu” when he was 12.
“Nobody said anything about getting fooled or being smarter than anybody else.”
“So, I’m not happy Birdman is fooling so many people, and sorry if anyone gets offended… it’s just not brilliant on any level, with the exception of the actors.”
?????
Ryan, your short analysis of Birdman largely summarizes why I think it’s SO GOOD – I think part of the point is that it IS saying something about hypocrisy, right down to the fact that its most elated moments rely on … well … superhero gimmicks.
That being said, I’m rooting for Boyhood to win for a host of other reasons, and honestly I don’t think the Academy will go for Birdman beyond best Actor at this point, even with all the precursor wins.
Also anytime someone says Anderson deserves something I want to completely throw up, but I’ve already gone on that rant on this site.
Ryan, your short analysis of Birdman largely summarizes why I think it’s SO GOOD – I think part of the point is that it IS saying something about hypocrisy, right down to the fact that its most elated moments rely on … well … superhero gimmicks.
Alex, that’s a great angle, and it wasn’t lost on me when I saw Birdman the first time. I thought and hoped that it would come across even more strongly on second viewing — I really opened my heart and mind to that idea. It’s for sure part of Inarritu’s intent, and I’m glad that so many people can get off on what he’s doing.
But I’m so jaded or something, I can’t ignore the thing that bothers me that’s right on the surface: it’s a matter (for me) of feeling Inarritu wants to piss on the cake and eat it too. I can’t get on board with him slamming and mocking the very things that his movie relies on for all its impact.
I get what you’re sayimg, that’s all part of the reflexive meta-message. It’s just a little too self-satisfied for me. I’d like it better if it was darker and bleaker. I wish they hadn’t tried to make it so comedic (especially since none of it struck me as very funny 🙁
“The things you hate about Birdman are the things I love about it.”
That’s cool. I could say the same thing to someone who likes country music 🙂 That doesn’t mean nobody should like country music just because I can’t.
(Although I do wish none of the people who like Birdman were Academy members) 🙂
What an absolute travesty! The first 10 minutes alone of Birdman bored the heck out of me. To think that once upon a time, Best Picture Oscar winners were sweeping epics. Now it’s all about voting for some quirky satire that made them chuckle.
Get a grip people .My favorite movie of the year wasn’t even nominated. It’s better than Boyhood and Birdman and thanks to Harvey Weinstein it wasn’t nominated for anything – The Immigrant .
I’d like to second the predictions for Mad Max: Fury Road to sweep next year:
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor (Tom Hardy)
Best Actress (Charlize Theron)
Best Supporting Actor (Nicholas Hoult)
Best Supporting Actress (TBA)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Editing
Best Production Design
Best Costume Design
Best Makeup
Best Original Score
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects
16 Oscars, shattering the all-time record.
What a lovely day.
Steve – your comment is the best comment of all the comments
“Stephen HAWKING is on the red carpet !! Bad news for Michael Keaton!”
Wait!?! What is Stephen going to do? Michael, watch out!
I have to get offline for a few hours, I want to watch this thing “live” on television. Byeeee.
I think what upsets me most about the comments here is that people seem to say with fact that Boyhood was better Birdman, and that The Social Network was better than The King’s Speech, and that the Academy made a mistake. The Academy can never make a mistake because they are quite literally voting for what they themselves want to win. Isn’t it at all possible that some people just like one movie better than another? And that just because critics have so much consensus on something doesn’t mean that that is the right end-all be-all answer? Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE arguing about films and Oscar races, but I also respect someone’s right to like or not like a movie, or perhaps like BOTH movies that we have created a binary competition for. I was in that boat with The King’s Speech and The Social Network. TSN was my favorite movie of that year, but I also loved TKS and was quite happy to see it win. And now I am in the same position with the two movies this year (both in my top 3). Quite simply, if I were a voter I would vote Birdman because I enjoyed it more. But that doesn’t mean I don’t like Boyhood, just like it won’t mean that the Academy doesn’t like Boyhood (if it loses Best Picture). Or The Social Network, or Brokeback Mountain. On the contrary, those movies won pretty major Oscars, and that is what we should be celebrating. Anyway, I’ve gotten way off track. What I came here to say was that just because you think a movie is better and because you might have a lot of critic backup on it, does not make your opinion of that movie mean more than someone else’s. No one can be wrong about what movies they loved, and about what movies they want to vote for.
First of all, my favorite is still WHIPLASH.
Second of all, I think BIRDMAN is a massive achievement from a technical standpoint. Innaritu pairs beautifully with Chivo to deliver an immersive experience, and the acting is across-the-board wonderful, so I can’t ever say Innaritu didn’t perform admirably as a director. In that respect, I won’t begrudge him a win at the DGA, or even the Directing Oscar were things to go that far.
BUT………
BIRDMAN did a few things on a storytelling and thematic level that really turned me off. The first is that I felt it had the perfect ending (gunshot, standing ovation, cut to black), but it kept going for another 10-15 mins. That’s a major pet peeve of mine and admittedly it’s a subjective thing, but I can’t help it when I feel the perfect ending coming and then the film blows its chance. It just completely loses me after that. Still, even if that weren’t the case, what actually does happen in the epilogue is all kinds of wrong in terms of storytelling. We get things spelled out and underlined thematically that didn’t need spelling out or underlining. Then the window bit happens and Emma Stone’s reaction completely confuses the whole superpowers thing after the film has basically (elegantly) explained it several times earlier. It just seemed like an ending they tacked on to try and end on an ambiguous note simply for the sake of ambiguity. I’ll say again now that my disappointment in the ending is greatly compounded by the fact that the film had a MUCH BETTER ending available to it only 10-15 mins earlier.
The other thing that bugged me about the movie was its bitterness. It basically paints everyone on screen with the same toxic brush. Everyone’s an asshole and nobody is worth caring about. This misanthropic view seems to say “This is what Hollywood is. This is what Actors, Directors and Producers are”. Not only is that a fish-in-a-barrel argument that has been made countless times before (and better elsewhere), it just seems too anachronistic to be a valid critique. Innaritu clearly hates the Hollywood machine and clearly has had some bad experiences with actors. But he has probably had wonderful experiences as well. Also, his good friends Alfonso Cuaron and Guillermo Del Toro have had great success within the Hollywood apparatus and been able to maintain their artistry while doing so. Could it be that this bitterness in BIRDMAN might come from envy? In any case, this wouldn’t be a problem if only ONE character was presented as something other than a completely shallow, vain, selfish ball of shit. Alas, this is the kind of one dimensional characterization we’re dealing with here.
If the film wasn’t as brilliantly staged and performed, I suspect many more of you would notice these things and take issue with them as well. As it stands, BIRDMAN is not a film I hate, but I find it to be a deeply flawed piece of writing that is rescued by a phenomenal team of filmmakers who elevated it into something people can feel good about praising. That elevation was good enough to place the film in my top 20 (it was tied at number 15 with “Maps To The Stars”) but it also means I cannot endorse a Best Picture win. I like 4 other BP nominees better (WHIPLASH, BOYHOOD, THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and SELMA). But if it does win (looking likely), it will sadly be par for the course. My favorites almost never win.
My favorite Best Picture nominee of every year since I’ve been paying attention:
2013: HER
2012: BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
2011: HUGO
2010: BLACK SWAN
2009: A SERIOUS MAN
2008: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (but ALL of the best movies weren’t nominated this year)
2007: THERE WILL BE BLOOD
2006: LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA/THE DEPARTED
2005: MUNICH
2004: SIDEWAYS
2003: LOTR: RETURN OF THE KING
2002: THE PIANIST
2001: LOTR: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
2000: CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON
1999: AMERICAN BEAUTY
1998: LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL
1997: LA CONFIDENTIAL
1996: FARGO
1995: APOLLO 13
1994: PULP FICTION
4 times in 20 years my favorite nominee won.
Just curious….Stephen Hawking being on the red carpet….is it really bad news for Keaton? I think Redamyne is pretty far out front….but I question how many voters actually know Hawking will be on the Red Carpet. The Academy can’t even get all the movies watched…I doubt they keep track of who is in attendance.
Seriously Ryan is such a whiny little bitch when he doesn’t get his way…
In the 10 years I’d been reading this site I’ve never told another reader to explicitly go **** himself. I’d like to keep that streak going.
“Then join me, Al, in the somewhat small club that loved both Boyhood and Birdman.” Okay Robert A, and Roberto from Italy, done. I have just joined the club. 🙂
OT: The last time I took the personal strenghts test, one of my top 5 strenghts was “Harmony”, which makes a lot of sense. http://www.strengthsfinder.com/home.aspx
Seriously Ryan is such a whiny little bitch when he doesn’t get his way, I feel like rooting for Birdman purely out of spite of his immaturity regardless of how much I enjoyed Boyhood. This may be their website, but Sasha and him are just completely ridiculous when things don’t go the way they want, cry me a frickin river, I haven’t been happy with the BP award since Slumdog, but I don’t allow that to ruin the movies and the show for me…
Birdman is the second best film of the year.
Boyhood is no only the best film of the year but of the decade.
I have almost given up .
The results of the Bafts won’t effect the oscars but I still would love to see boyhood win best picture and director.
There is always a possibility that boyhood could still win bp and or Bd but it’s slim.
I’ve said it before Hollywood is the worst judge of their own industry.
I think we are lucky to have enough good films that there is reason for debate. Birdman is not my favorite movie of the year, but I did enjoy it and consider it a reasonable BP winner. Boyhood was on the top of my list, but if it does not win BP, at least it was a good run and Linklater is getting recognition beyond what I could have imagined all those years ago, sitting in a theater in Austin watching Slacker for the first time.
I would like to point out that the Directors branch is a very small (one of the smallest, really) branches of the Academy. And AMPAS in the last few years doesn’t like to be dictated to. They are a creature amongst themselves . . . and will vote just how they feel, thank you very much. Regardless of DGA. I know. I know. Usually AMPAS follows the DGA and PGA. But there are other factors at play at the Oscars. And one of the most influential factors is sentiment. I still have a hunch they will annoint Boyhood as Best Picture. BAFTAs tonight will be interesting, but AMPAS doesn’t pay much attention to them. The only real indication of a BAFTA win is how the British members of AMPAS may vote. And lord knows how few of them there may be in AMPAS, given all the public relations hacks who are members (i.e., all of those “MEMBERS AT LARGE” branch . . . which outnumbers the directors branch by the way).
Eddie Redmayne, one step closer to gold after tonight.
@Steve50…..Totally agree….This site is great for the passion of movies, but when you like something other than what the editor like….it is tough to get through sometimes.
This site is great for the passion of movies, but when you like something other than what the editor like….it is tough to get through sometimes.
🙁 sorry to hear you think that.
your font is the same size on this page as my font.
do you not think I feel outnumbered and out-shouted and out-done by the many fans of Birdman? I’m out here on the fringes with my disdain for it. You guys are getting what you want. Cheer up. (Try to see if you can cheer me up while you’re partying)
“Let’s avoid this “Birdman fooling people who want to act snotty” thing, what do you think? Thinking Boyhood or Birdman (both in my case) are great movies doesn’t make someone fooler or smarter than anybody else.”
I agree, Roberto, but this is, unfortunately, the period during the Oscar season when all reason gets tossed out the window, and people embrace mockery, condescension, name-calling, straw man arguments and clumsy generalizations. It will be a blood bath for the next 2-3 weeks. Fasten your seat belt!
@Julief…..you make great points. I wish everyone could like what they like and everyone talk intelligently about movies. Ryan Adams seems to be doing exactly what you are talking about…..with his Shit Sandwich comment…….shit sandwich sounds so intelligent when discussing movies. I don’t think Ryan is on point at all….
Stephen Hawking is on the red carpet! What a campaign move for Redmayne. That’ll be tough to beat!
“Comparing to Godzilla really just makes you look like…well…..not even going there. ”
No, by all means – go there.
Ryan and I got into a tussle last year around the time of Godzilla’s release, regarding the artistic value of tentpoles. I was firmly on the side that Jim, above, seems to be. Well, I’m eating crow now.
I’ll gladly assume the role of wingman to Ryan and his comments on this.
“This was always what I expected of the BOYHOOD fans. That the vast majority of them were either born in the last two decades or raised children in the last two decades.”
Nope – that’s about as valid as saying the vast majority of Citizen Kane fans or Social Network fans are shithead media moguls. It is possible to appreciate great filmmaking without seeing yourself up there on the screen.
Let’s avoid this “Birdman fooling people who want to act snotty” thing, what do you think? Thinking Boyhood or Birdman (both in my case) are great movies doesn’t make someone fooler or smarter than anybody else.
Let’s avoid this “Birdman fooling people who want to act snotty” thing,
Christ. It’s YOU who said “fooled” not me. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then throwing a fit over wording that I never wrote.
Don’t whine about strawmen and then try to turn me into one for your own purposes.
FACT: There are people who are snotty about movies with superheros and CGI. If you don’t know any of those people, you’re lucky.
Roberto from Italy, Robert A.
Nobody said anything about getting fooled or being smarter than anybody else. How about you guys cut me a break today by NOT paraphrasing every thing I write until you can twist it into something to be pissed about. I’d appreciate it. Thanks.