“I tend to think people who like BIRDMAN are the type of people who let movies wash over them and they don’t get caught up in accuracies and explanations.”

I’m sort of both of those. What I want is to be sucked into the movie’s world, and not be pulled out. But I also very much care about cohesion and sense, because if I see something in the movie that doesn’t feel right (for whatever reason, and there are many possibilities), it pulls me out of that world, even if just a little bit, and I don’t like that. (Or if I find out about it afterwards, or figure it out on my own, and it bothers me, it affects my subsequent viewings of that movie.) I don’t know… I might be over-analyzing the issue of over-analyzing now. 🙂

@Claudiu Just because people pick a movie apart doesn’t mean they’re right. Take the Cinema Sins guys. I watch their videos all the time because they’re funny but a lot of the time they pick on things that aren’t wrong because they’re mistaken. I tend to think people who like BIRDMAN are the type of people who let movies wash over them and they don’t get caught up in accuracies and explanations. I like BIRDMAN, but I also didn’t give a crap about the “inaccuracies” in either SELMA or AMERICAN SNIPER. They’re movies to me, not science. lol Once Roger Ebert linked to a video of a guy who was supposedly explaining why THE DARK KNIGHT was so bad because of the perspective or point of views Nolan used. It was like an hour long and I couldn’t understand why anyone would take the time to do that. To me that’s just people looking for a reason to justify why they don’t like something that other people love. I think Ebert was convinced, which is kinda sad. I really don’t understand the motivation in having to prove how bad a movie is with so-called facts. In my opinion, those people should just stay home and do equations or puzzles or something. I think when they look at a Monet all they see are dots.

“Because at this point it feels too much like homework?”

I know, you’re right, guys, and I’m not trying to waste anybody’s time here, believe me – I’m probably wasting too much of my own on it, as it is… So all should feel more than free to step out of the conversation at any time! You’ve provided valuable insight already, and have made me feel a little better about it, even though my central problem hasn’t been resolved, exactly. Which is: why is it SO EASY for those who dislike Birdman to come up with such specific and convincing arguments for that point of view, including with reference to the message being deep or not, and those like me, who like it, find it to be such homework – and, in my case, near-impossible – to do so? My own possible conclusions, that I draw from this… I find both of them quite unpleasant. 🙁 But it’s OK, if there’s no answer, there’s no answer! I can live in the dark – I’m good at that, actually. I was just hoping there was an answer, that’s why I started this whole thing…

I can feel it – American Sniper wins Best Picture!

Sarah Palin should be the one to introduce the “harrowing” trailer during the Oscars telecast, the segment reserved for each of the Best Picture nominees. I would LOVE it if this came to be!

I agree wholeheartedly, Daveylow — and this is the textbook definition of a movie that’s “ahead of it’s time,” yes?

You’re both wrong. 😛 Brokeback Mountain cannot be moved into a more favorable future for a gay cowboy movie because it had a huge hand in creating that favorable future. It’s like a time travel paradox. Without Brokeback, changes might have taken a lot longer or maybe not even happened.

“OK – then, surely, if there’s no “right” or “wrong”, one can come up with equally convincing (and equally subjective, while also equally objective-seeming) pro-Birdman arguments, that negate those of the people who dislike it. Yet, nobody seems to be doing this. And I don’t understand WHY… :(( ”

Because at this point it feels too much like homework?

“I should just be giving up on this movie, and start hating it like everybody else

My dear, why would you do such a thing? *sigh*”

I’m not saying I WILL ever do it. I’m saying, given everything I’ve heard about it, I just don’t see how I will be able to JUSTIFY (to myself, or anyone else) the fact that I won’t.

“None of this is fact. Only opinion.”

OK, but it SOUNDS like fact, and the unanimity among people who discuss the movie in depth makes me think it might be. If it’s not fact that the movie is pretentious, unnecessarily/ineffectually ambiguous, cliched and devoid of deeper meaning, then how can one PROVE this? Because I don’t find it plausible anymore, given everything I’ve heard. I can’t agree to disagree anymore, now I’d just feel stupid and out of the loop.

“But minds can be altered and persuaded. I’ve changed my mind on movies as I contemplate on them over time. Humans are fallible. We can all be seduced by frauds.”

But we can also be convinced by superior minds, no? And I’m pretty sure Ryan and all of the other smart people who have expressed their dislike of Birdman are not frauds.

“people should be allowed to like what they like and dislike what they dislike.”

But I don’t want to BE ALLOWED to like it. I want to EARN THE RIGHT to like it. I want to understand it at least close to as well as those who hate it. And I’m not sure I do anymore. Their views on the movie give me the impression that they know things I don’t.

“We’re talking about subjective opinions.”

OK – then, surely, if there’s no “right” or “wrong”, one can come up with equally convincing (and equally subjective, while also equally objective-seeming) pro-Birdman arguments, that negate those of the people who dislike it. Yet, nobody seems to be doing this. And I don’t understand WHY… :((

Ryan, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with you more than with these Jennifer Lawrence digs. I’m cackling.

“It just seems very personal and angrier this year than in years past.”

Yeh, me too, Alicia. It’s a good thing the movies and performances I am passionate about this year are not in the running so I can just sit back, relax, and listen to the mob.

Like Ryan says above, most of us come here for the movies. The Oscars is that annual and interminable family picnic where loose tongues, jealousy grudges and food fights occur. *ducks flying salad*

The DGA will tell who wins best picture. It could be another split this year. Eddies may not get a clear picture of who’s going to win the top two categories best picture and best director. Acting races, best actor they could be a upset but the rest are all locked.

This race is giving me serious stomach aches this year. I am actually starting to stay away from a lot of message boards because of the vitrol (not this board). I agree with Anotinette – people should be allowed to like what they like and dislike what they dislike. It just seems very personal and angrier this year than in years past.

“You love your movies! Don’t ever change your mind because someone else doesn’t like them.”

I know what you’re saying. Don’t deny your feelings. But minds can be altered and persuaded. I’ve changed my mind on movies as I contemplate on them over time. Humans are fallible. We can all be seduced by frauds.

Speaking of editing capable of inducing a state of discomposure, what was THE PAPERBOY of 2014? Or was it overall a boring year?

WW, thank you for linking to that Thompson article on the editing. Am I the only one that noticed how very little both Thompson and Adair actually had to say about the EDITING of Boyhood? All Adair talks about is the relatability of the film, but nothing about the work or art of her editing.

Curiously, Thompson had a lot of specific things to point to re: editing for all 4 of the other nominees…………………

Alan of NY, I purposefully used the phrase “art of editing” because I don’t think there’s anything artistic about the way Boyhood was edited. Is it a lot of WORK going through 12 years of film? Surely. Was it handled as artistically or precisely as I think it could have been? No. Sorry.

and re: “The scenes were cut so well together that you don’t even notice for a moment that the characters have just aged before your eyes.”

100% disagree. I was removed from the thread of the story EACH AND EVERY TIME THIS HAPPENED. Horseshit garbage editing.

(I hope the moderators let me post this, because I’m at my wits’ end, and I don’t know what else to do here…)

OK – I have a challenge for you guys! 🙂 I need the help of some Birdman fans, if there are any here (that feel strongly enough about it to help me out)… It seems every thinking person in this world hated this movie, and for mostly the same reasons (which will be given below). I loved it, but I’m simply not smart enough to be able to counter these people’s arguments effectively, or even figure out whether they are clearly right about the movie sucking, and I am clearly wrong, or if it’s, at least, dependent on the person, and not a fault of the movie itself.

I feel stupid that I simply can’t hate the movie too, like all the cool kids, so I’m going to try one last, desperate thing: let other people, smarter than I, try to see if they can come up with a good rebuttal to this person’s comments on the movie, which, I believe, reflect rather well pretty much everybody’s criticisms of it. I’m sorry if you think this means I can’t think for myself – maybe you’re right, even though you should know I’ve tried, and I just can’t find the arguments, but don’t FEEL, in my heart of hearts, that I should just be giving up on this movie, and start hating it like everybody else. Which is why I’m asking for your help… Can anybody, please, help me?

The person who wrote the initial comment will, of course, be able to counter any arguments brought forth to defend Birdman, should there be any (I’m hoping against hope). I will confirm the person’s identity, should they decide to come forth and defend their point of view, which I believe they will, since they seem to feel rather strongly about it, as does everybody else who hates the movie. I hope they can forgive me my little indiscretion (not asking for permission), but, if they can’t, they should at least know that I take these things to heart, and I have been very upset by all of the hate this movie has been receiving. I’m not doing this for fun, or to try to play a sick joke on anybody… Besides, the post is public, so I could have just linked to it instead. I just think this is better for all those involved.

Here is the comment in question, word for word, edited only as far as spacing of paragraphs goes, to avoid that the poster be TOO easily identified, in case they should wish to avoid it:

“I still don’t really like it, despite all of the technical flair with which it’s executed (and the ensemble doing pretty much exemplary work). What I see is still a script laden with pretension heavy as lead. I don’t think the writing is anywhere near as inspired as some of the technical marvels at display. There are numerous examples: The most satiric moments in the movie (the scene with the critics for example) is a cheap shot (that Barthes allusion is pointless and not very well executed), the rendezvous at the bar with the theater critic is a parody (I only accept it as somehow valid if the entire movie is seen through the prism of Riggan’s madness, and that’s not really interesting to me, because he’s not an interesting character to begin with, an ignoramus, basically, but an ignoramus devoid of comical meaning – as a case study his is more tedious than tragic).

Everything Inarritu says about modern life (the usual qualms of the contrarian) is so basic to invite only a shrug. He doesn’t say anything that I would consider challenging or deep. He says whatever is expected of the modern-day contrarian who views Hollywood with disdain and thinks social media have a corrosive influence on our everyday existence, our ability to be in sync with ourselves and the reality at hand. Whether he is right or not, is not really important. It doesn’t enhance the art, it only enhances his agenda.

The problem with Birdman ultimately is this: It’s a movie that so obviously pines for seriousness, but in a deceptively light form (the comic aspect of the movie), it’s trying to deliver a message but at the same time trying to obscure that message so it seems shrouded in ambiguity. But Inarritu at heart is not an ambiguous filmmaker, he is a didactic, message-driven filmmaker. His technical solutions are well-executed this time around, but the core of his movie is the same old Inarritu: ‘The world is fucked, but I have figured out what’s wrong. Now go, follow me!’ To me, that’s not interesting. I want artists probing questions, not pointing to solutions.”

Koles, you’re right. I thought ”Black Hawk Down” WAS a Best Picture nominee, but that was back in the day (2002) when there were only 5 of them. Had it been expanded, it probably would’ve made the cut. It was on AFI and NBR’s top 10 list. And Ridley Scott got an Oscar and DGA nomination for directing it.

”As a filmmaker who has worked with many editors and who has edited his own work, and who has intimate relationships with film editors in his life, I would say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Alan of NY, thank you for sharing your eloquence and insights on the topic. I agree that the best kind of editing serves the story and doesn’t necessarily call attention to itself. I especially like how Richard Linklater and Sandra Adair seamlessly have handled the passage of years without posting time stamps. I hope your brethren use the same criteria. But I fear, like Steve50, the voters will go for the ”flashiest” work; the movie with the most hyper quick-cutting.

Keifer, I couldn’t agree more with you about ”Bullitt,” which won only 1 Oscar: for Editing. … Nowadays, it’s so rare for a movie to win the Oscar for Editing without being a Best Picture nominee. Since 2000, it’s happened only twice: ”Bourne Ultimatum” (2007); ”Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” (2011).

I think so too – not being an editor and not being able to speak for what they value but I would suspect that Birdman makes an argument to get rid of editing altogether, to create a film that doesn’t need one, in fact.

Kind of a weird claim, no? Not only was the editing in Birdman crucial to its success (not many cuts, but the few that were there needed to be perfect), but unless single-take-shot-through films become anything more than an occasional production stunt (more Russian Ark than Birdman), I can’t imagine how film as a medium can exist without editing.

That said, I’m really pulling for Whiplash in drama (because that film lives and dies by how effectively and energetically it’s strung together – and does it ever live!) and, perhaps against consensus, Inherent Vice in comedy (because the film has a seamlessly constructed tone and cadence that works perfectly with how the story rolls out, plus I walked out of the theater feeling kind of like I just smoked a bowl, which is indicative of some good craft, at least). However, I agree that the drama categorically is certainly going to Boyhood or American Sniper, and comedy to Grand Budapest or Birdman. Pity,

I also sometimes yearn for the days when a an editor like Frank P. Keller won for the movie “Bullitt” in1968). He walked off with the best editing award because it was so richly deserved. One of the best edited film ever.

I’ll bring up another AMPAS travesty when they failed to reward “The Exorcist” best editing in 1973. While “The Sting” (the winner) contains very good editing, “The Exorcist” is a master class of how to edit a film magnificently. When you watch it again, pay particular attention to the editing and I think you’ll agree with me.

🙂 Fair enough…