issue 09 / volume 41

War

~_T
~ a *

 

arts // 9

of the Words: Birdman, Best Picture?

 

Still of Michael Keaton in Birdman © 2014 - Fox Searchlight (Above), Still of Ellar Coltrane & Ethan Hawke in Boyhood (Below)

» The unexpected virtue of movies about movies

Angela Espinoza
News Editor
Minews
@theotherpress.ca

 

s

Bern or (The Unexpected Virtue
of Ignorance) took home the
Academy Award for Best Picture, as
well as Best Director, Screenplay, and
Cinematography on February 22.

There are a lot of positive aspects
to Birdman that make the film work as
a whole. The film carries a consistently
intense and unsettling tone, yet its
wit keeps the grip of its tone from
suffocating the audience. Antonio
Sanchez’s fantastic score constantly
edges its jazz drumming from relaxed
to chaotic, coupled wonderfully with
baffling cues of classical music. Creative
editing and special effects add a unique
ability to the film that plays with the
audience, always steering the viewer
in one direction before taking yet
another sharp turn down a jagged albeit
stunning cliff.

But Birdman’s strange, oftentimes
uncomfortably realistic tale of an actor,
Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton),
desperately wanting to be respected by
his audience is likely what secured the
film’s Best Picture win.

In recent years, films that directly

to grab the attention of the Academy.
Of the past five Best Picture-winners,
Birdman (2014), The Artist (2010), and
to an extent Argo (2011) all explored

: different aspects of filmmaking. All

: three films focussed on the art of acting
: in particular, and how the lives of those
: “actors” depended on their craft.

In the case of Birdman, Thomson

: has a yearning to be recognized as a

: great actor, to the point that it affects

: his sanity. In The Artist, George Valentin
: Jean Dujardin) struggles asa silent film
: actor trying to stay relevant in the new

: era of talkies. As for Argo, six members

: of the US Embassy risk their lives if their
: “performances” as a Canadian film crew

: don't fool their captors.

Keaton’s casting was reportedly

: sought from the start, the actor being

: best-known for his role as Bruce Wayne/
: Batman in Tim Burton’s Batman (1989)

: and Batman Returns (1992). Like most

: well-known actors, Keaton has had a

: long career starring in films ranging

: from great to terrible, but up until

: Birdman, most loved and remembered

: him specifically because of the Batman

: films. Birdman’s plot, title, and casting

: of Keaton all directly play off of that fact,
: creating a borderline parody, borderline

: self-addressing realm that asks the

: question of, “What if my popular

: superhero movie(s) technically ruined

: my career?”

So while Birdman is (arguably) a

: great film overall, Birdman won and
: deserved Best Picture not because it
address “Hollywood” or filmmaking tend : was great but because it was existential
: about the process and execution of

: acting in a way that won over its desired

: audience: fellow actors.

 

» Why ‘Boyhood’ should have won at the Oscars

Andrew Perkins
Contributor

f the purpose of the Academy Awards
Best Picture category is to reward
the single most significant piece of
filmmaking in any given year, 2015 is
a year when it failed. Among IMDB,
Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic scores
for Birdman and Boyhood, Boyhood
beats Birdman on every account.
Birdman is perhaps an Oscar
winner in an average year. It is
well-paced, features an incredible
performance from Edward Norton,
and provides a compelling look at
the commercialization of the theatre
industry. But it is also self-indulgent,
largely overacted, and overly long.
Birdman is full of clichéd speeches,
and ends in a parade of ambiguous false

to a front-heavy film with little payoff.
Worst of all, it’s ultimately guilty of all
the sins it indicts Hollywood for, such
as placing the artifice of filmmaking
above its purpose: to illuminate
something about the human condition
though a visual medium. It ends up
writing largely sophisticated but
ultimately shallow critiques. Boyhood
takes a suburban story and makes it
universal and timeless. Birdman paints
caricatures in a universe seemingly
comprised solely of New York and LA.
Boyhood exploits filmmaking to
its limits for the sake of honesty. It
abandons conventional plot in favour

: of reality without sacrificing pace,

: and adds a revolutionary temporal

: element, thus blending the realism of

: documentary with the condensation of
narrative in revolutionary ways.

Beyond even that, Boyhood’s

: crowning achievement is its respect for
: the audience. It doesn’t pander and it

: doesn’t overstate. Boyhood never tells

: you what to think the way Birdman

: does. Boyhood lets you feel things on

: your terms, which is remarkable in

: a largely prescriptive medium. It isa

: unique work of art that feels like an

: extension of the human condition, not
: a critique of it. In two hours and 30

: minutes, you really feel like you've been
: through 12 intimate, fleeting years in
someone's life, passing like a memory.

Boyhood introduced me to depths

: that I didn’t know movies had. In
endings that add nothing but confusion : Boyhood, art doesn’t imitate life—the

: twoare inseparable. Birdman tells you
: what film can’t be. Boyhood shows you

: what it can be.

There’s a prevailing cynicism about

: the Oscars. People argue that it is a

: political, self-indulgent, and classist

: parade. However, when it recognizes

: achievements that truly move

: filmmaking forward, the Academy has
: the power to make a cultural impact.

I have no doubt that history will be

: kind to Boyhood, and director Richard

: Linklater. Can the same be said for

: Birdman? As it stands, the Academy has
: rewarded cynicism over realism.