We’re about to launch into our “The Case For” series but this is a great case for Boyhood to win. The Brits aren’t caught up in the industry flurry of superhero movies, which could explain why they are as in love with Boyhood as so many outside the insular world of the Hollywood industry are:
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
Results are up, in the comments section on the page indicated above!
Preferential ballot simulation results will be here (soon): http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2015/02/weak-year-for-oscar-movies-who-cares-its-been-a-stupendous-years-for-movie-movies/#comment-4266819
You’re so cool!…
No, I don’t have an interpretation of the ending actually. I think it’s gibberish and meaningless.
“re: the writers plus that originally planned ending featuring Johnny Depp”
I wasn’t referring to that. I was referring to the fact that they have an interview I found where they clearly state that they wanted to have an ending open to interpretation. Nothing to do with the Johnny Depp thing.
Also, they re-affirm this here: http://www.goldderby.com/news/8476/oscars-birdman-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-emmanuel-lubezki-entertainment-13579086-story.html
“I cannot tell you how many people approach me to ask ‘Can you explain? Is he dead? Is he not dead?’ And I just love these images that are almost a poetic approach to the story that don’t really explain but make you feel something. They create emotions and I think that’s almost more important than explaining and being clear on certain things.”
Doesn’t mean they’re confused. It just means they purposely left it so there is more than one possible interpretation. I have mine, you have yours. Let’s move on!
Claudiu, you are clearly much more passionate about the movie than I am, so I won’t argue with you and I’m glad it means something to you. I am of the opinion that the movie really doesn’t know what it’s about or wants to be, and the ending perfectly follows suit. What you’re saying re: the writers plus that originally planned ending featuring Johnny Depp playing himself – it all lends more credence to the idea that Innaritu et al., are as confused about the movie as I am.
“If that were really Inarritu’s intentions, they would have been much plainer (and by that I mean, any evidence whatsoever).”
They have CLEARLY stated that they WANTED an AMBIGUOUS ending, and that the writers are, even now, still trying to figure out EXACTLY what it is himself. So, yeah, you’re dead wrong about that…
I’m not saying they INTENDED anything – I’m saying that, based on what’s on screen, my interpretation is at least valid, and, in my personal opinion, also the most valid.
“Moreover, seeing how just about everybody else is in disagreement with you on this one, and
I’m mostly past thinking that, when everybody holds a certain view, that view is more likely to be true JUST BECAUSE more people have it than don’t. You’ve brought no actual arguments to sustain WHY people are right about this, so even this reply is more than your arrogant attitude, hiding behind the opinion of the majority, deserves.
“the movie clearly lends itself more readily to the idea that Riggan was trying to kill himself”
That’s your opinion. You haven’t proved this – far from it. I, however, have brought arguments to sustain my point of view, which you are just ignoring…
“Claudiu, I will only say that there is scant evidence if any in the movie to support your theory.”
See above: “[…] which you are just ignoring…” The crux of your whole most recent post is that whole first like I quoted, which I can simply PROVE is wrong. Do you REALLY need me to post the link here? Just say the word! Although I do wish you wouldn’t bother…
P.S.: I know for a fact Chris ALSO will not be able to let this go… this is sad… maybe he shows the class I fully believe him to be capable of, and surprises me in this particular case. Personally, I can’t not respond to challenges – I don’t like to quit, in anything. It’s this whole big flaw of mine… So, things WILL, sadly, drag out indefinitely, unless we can agree to disagree right now. This is our chance, people! Let’s do more productive things with our lives today!
***
Ryan, you’re being too nice to me, as ever!… 🙂
“You’re not obligated to keep battling endlessly with anyone and everyone who wants to latch onto ransom points to dispute.”
Yeah, like I said… I wish I had that kind of wisdom in me! 🙁
“These discussions with strongly worded differences of opinions are never about “who’s right and who’s wrong” and it’s sheer folly for any of us to ever expect that we can convince very many people to come join a team that they’re opposed to.”
Of course! It was I who needed convincing when I made that call for help earlier, about Birdman’s merits – and I have been. So, yeah, like I said, there’s no real point discussing it anymore. I do wish the others would also see this as quickly as you did!…
“If Pauline Kael had to fight everybody who disagreed with her reviews, she wouldn’t have had time to write reviews to fill 7 books.”
🙂
This is what I was hoping to avoid, Ryan… see, it still happens. We should have talked privately. Now I have to answer obvious questions (from people who seem to think I’m some moron who HASN’T considered all the evidence or all of the most likely explanations, even though I’ve told people specifically that I HAVE) and reject leaps of logic that ignore scenarios that are equally, if not more likely, as well as evidence within the movie, and waste LOADS of time doing this
welcome to my world, Claudiu. 🙂
Your explanation and analysis are deep and beautifully well-thought out, full of interesting new angles that help me see Birdman in new ways.
So.in that regard and to that extent: your job is done, my friend. Bravo. You’ve done right by Birdman with your eloquent support.
You’re not obligated to keep battling endlessly with anyone and everyone who wants to latch onto ransom points to dispute.
If you feel compelled to clarify something that you feel someone has misunderstood, then of course, please set them straight. But at some point you have to give up on some people (and that might include me) who can’t find a path to see things the same way you do.
Claudiu, be proud and happy that you did a brilliant job explaining your feelings about a movie you love. Many many people agree with you and admire your articulate defense. Other people may not agree with you, but they’re crazy if they do not also admire your articulate defense.
These discussions with strongly worded differences of opinions are never about “who’s right and who’s wrong” and it’s sheer folly for any of us to ever expect that we can convince very many people to come join a team that they’re opposed to.
You did a great job. I really appreciate all your effort.
But it’s not your responsibility to keep arguing with people who disagree with what you’ve written.
If Pauline Kael had to fight everybody who disagreed with her reviews, she wouldn’t have had time to write reviews to fill 7 books.
Claudiu, I will only say that there is scant evidence if any in the movie to support your theory. Moreover, seeing how just about everybody else is in disagreement with you on this one, and the movie clearly lends itself more readily to the idea that Riggan was trying to kill himself, if you were correct the final scene would have indicated clearly that all of our assumptions were wrong. That would have been a twist then. If that were really Inarritu’s intentions, they would have been much plainer (and by that I mean, any evidence whatsoever).
Oh, and, I will be removing that other thread from my bookmarks now – it’s become too cluttered, and there are other, more important links to keep there right now. If we MUST continue this conversation, it’ll have to be here…
Of course, I’m well aware that it’s MY fault for thinking it wouldn’t happen, Ryan, and responding here, instead of mailing you my answer. 🙂
It’s nothing personal, Chris – even if you could somehow tell me something I don’t know and blow my mind (and, honestly, I’m pretty sure if you had anything like that to say about Birdman, you would have said it by now), I simply don’t care anymore. I’m sure my explanation is AT LEAST valid, because I’ve looked at all the clues multiple times, and analyzed everything properly – I tend to know, deep inside, when my logic on something isn’t sound, and I just don’t have that feeling right now, not even close -, and, even if it’s not THE most valid, I just don’t really care, because, as long as it’s valid, and the ending is CLEARLY ambiguous enough to allow for more than a single possible interpretation (the writers have said very clearly that it is, and it was their intention to leave it that way), I’ll stick with it because I like it and it makes sense to me. So, we can go back and forth for 4-5 more messages, in vain (since you clearly won’t be convinced either – you have your prejudices about how people are and what they, in your mind, INEVITABLY do in certain situations), or we can just stop now. I value my time a lot more than this pointless discussion. I’ve had my fill of Birdman discussions this season, and everybody had their chance to engage me on the movie when I made my request for backup earlier on. I’m past it, I understand everything about it and have no wish to understand more, even if there IS more to understand (which I’m pretty sure there isn’t, anyway, or I would have heard about it by now from one of the many intelligent people I’ve talked to about it, yourself included). And definitely NOT at the expense of hours wasted formulating, writing and editing several replies to messages containing things I already know. So, I propose we just agree to disagree now, and spare ourselves the aggravation and time-waste – I don’t see why it would be hard to agree to this. If you think I’m still ignorant on some key aspect of Birdman, and can’t explain it to me in a single, shortish paragraph, I’d very much rather you just left me in the dark on it. 🙂 There are more important things in life than Birdman, or any of my other favorite movies, from this or any other year, and I’d prefer to have some time left for those as well…
I honestly see no value in these discussions (since it’s clear nobody has any real arguments, just opinions about how thing should be interpreted, based on their own biases and life experiences, and which ignore the possibility that others (like me) have different perspectives on things, while knowing just as well what is LIKELY to happen in this or that scenario.
Which is why I REALLY wanted to stop having them, EVER. It’s OK, that’ll happen once this Birdman thing gets older and nobody cares anymore. I’m hoping it’ll happen sooner than that, but they probably won’t be able to help themselves answering with more irrelevant assumptions and questions.
This is what I was hoping to avoid, Ryan… see, it still happens. We should have talked privately. Now I have to answer obvious questions (from people who seem to think I’m some moron who HASN’T considered all the evidence or all of the most likely explanations, even though I’ve told people specifically that I HAVE) and reject leaps of logic that ignore scenarios that are equally, if not more likely, as well as evidence within the movie, and waste LOADS of time doing this without actually learning anything new about the movie. It’s tiresome and pointless. I wish they’d stop – unless they have something useful to say, something I might NOT have considered…
SPOILERS
“Come on. That’s a huge reach and you know it. There is NOTHING in the film to suggest that, but plenty of evidence that clearly supports a depiction of a manic depressive, highly unstable man at the end of his rope. If you really believe he was trying NOT to kill himself in that moment, I will be sincerely shocked.”
I believe it’s perfectly possible. Why is it a huge reach – because suicide is what you EXPECT him to do? People think in more twisted ways than that. ESPECIALLY crazy people. And there’s simply no ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the movie that it’s attempted suicide. Just that he’s unstable, which could lead him to several outcomes.
Besides, I don’t care. I can interpret it any way I want, because the evidence supports my theory as well. If you are too narrow-minded to see that it’s perfectly possible he was doing what I say he was doing, and the movie’s ending bothers you because of it (although my explanation still works just as well if it WAS attempted suicide – people usually regret trying to kill themselves, and won’t do it again, at least not right away -, it’s just not as convincing thematically), fine, I don’t NEED you to see it my way.
“The other possible explanation is, you know, that he actually CAN FLY and was flying around and she saw him. ”
Except that that MAKES NO SENSE because of the cab driver scene (again I ask you to explain it to me in a plausible way that DOESN’T mean he’s imagining his flying around).
“Which would be a betrayal of the logic we were presented earlier”
Oh, so you agree, and you still have a problem with my version? Without presenting an alternative…
“What exactly are we saying he is?”
Crazy, but still her dad, if you will – it’s not important. It’s a symbol of how HE sees her acceptance of him (which can be any crazy version of it, since he’s, everybody seems to agree, pretty crazy himself).
“Well, then where is he during this time?”
Next to the window, daydreaming – duh…
“I would just as soon assume he actually DID jump out the window and is hallucinating her reaction in his final waking moments.”
OK. You can see it that way. I just told you why it doesn’t make much sense above (because they almost never try again so soon). But, sure, it’s possible. Not likely, but possible. Why see it that way, though – just for the sake of a darker ending?
““And did you get what you wanted out of this life?” “I did.” Him dead at the end is the natural conclusion when you set your film up with that specific quote.”
Why? People can get everything they want out of life mid-life – in fact, if they EVER do, that’s usually (please not I say USUALLY) when they get it. The rest is generally just enjoying it (if that), or getting sick of it (fame, love, whatever), while decaying and moving towards the end. Sure, some are more successful towards the end, but most aren’t, I’ll wager.
“This is why we don’t need to know the play was “a hit with the critics”. Because he has basically shown us that he’s moved beyond that.”
Maybe. We don’t know he’s moved BEYOND that. He’s moved beyond BEING OBSESSED with that, but why would he now not care AT ALL if the play succeeds or not? ALSO, question – if he’s so “at peace” with everything, WHY would he feel compelled to kill himself? Seems much more likely to me he would do something crazy (he’s still crazy, just relaxed-crazy) like blow his nose off, even if just to see what happens, but more likely to get a reaction from the critics.
“AND closure involving the play he worked tirelessly to produce.”
Not really. He doesn’t know what the critics thought of it, again. See above.
“The ONLY thing you could argue we don’t get without an epilogue is closure with the daughter, but you also said that the final moments are about him more than her, so is it REALLY necessary?”
The FINAL moments, yes, but they also have a very important moment BEFORE that. Very necessary!
“Emma Stone’s character is a complete shit almost constantly”
Fine. How about the other women?
“No, it’s not “key”. And no, it doesn’t “make the whole movie work”. Quite the contrary.”
Wrong and wrong.
“Given that the last thing he talks to anybody (Amy Ryan) about before the act is about the last time he tried to kill himself, I think it’s pretty clear what his intention is.”
No, it’s clear what YOU DEDUCE from it – the logic behind your assumption is questionable. I would say the fact that he talks so openly about trying to kill himself shows he’s actually very relaxed, but that’s about it. Don’t see how that NECESSARILY (or even more likely than not) leads to him killing himself.
*heel Daniel Bryan
To quote hell Daniel Bryan “No! No! No! No!”. The gimmick helps this movie a lot but it’s just a long documentary with no story. Maybe it’s because at my age my “boyhood” wasn’t that long ago so it wasn’t special to me like it was a lot to old critics bringing back memories. Oh look a GameBoy Advanced. I think I still have mine in a box somewhere. All the acting was great. I’ll give it that. But seeing these character’s grow up on screen? Harry Potter did it first.
Given that the last thing he talks to anybody (Amy Ryan) about before the act is about the last time he tried to kill himself, I think it’s pretty clear what his intention is. This is a pretty out-there argument.
The whole “there aren’t any likable characters” angle is so non-sensical to me. Who cares? What matters is “is the movie likable?” Does it speak to you in some way? Does it say something about the world we live in? There Will Be Blood is one of the best movies there ever was, and I can’t think of a likable character in it.
Claudiu:
1. Boyhood
2. Grand Budapest
3. Whiplash
4. Selma
5. Imitation Game
6. Birdman
7. Theory of Everything
I’m not ranking the other one.
Claudiu:
1. Boyhood
2. Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Selma
4. Imitation Game
5. Birdman
6. Theory of Everything
7. Whiplash (#5-6-7 too close to call)
8. American Sniper
Here’s my ballot –
1. The Imitation Game
2. Birdman
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. The Theory Of Everything
5. American Sniper
6. Whiplash
7. Boyhood
8. Selma
For everyone else, the best film of 2010 is Black Swan.
Claudiu, I don’t comment much but let me throw in my ballot:
1. Boyhood
2. Selma
3. Whiplash
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. Birdman
6. The Theory of Everything
7. American Sniper
8. The Imitation Game
I can’t comment on your opinion that these people aren’t all horrible. But I have to say. Emma Stone’s character is a complete shit almost constantly, including to Norton and basically everyone else. The only time she’s even close to “nice” to her father is the toilet paper scene and even then she’s condescending. And in the epilogue, yes, she’s nice after her father SHOOTS HIS FUCKING NOSE OFF. That opening bit at the flower shop, she’s not throwing a “tantrum”. She’s the worst person ever. She turns and screams “SHUT UP!” right at the worker’s face while simultaneously being the Worst. Daughter. Ever. to her father. If I saw her on the street in that moment I’d probably stop dead in my tracks in amazement of how terrible this person is.
“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).”
Come on. That’s a huge reach and you know it. There is NOTHING in the film to suggest that, but plenty of evidence that clearly supports a depiction of a manic depressive, highly unstable man at the end of his rope. If you really believe he was trying NOT to kill himself in that moment, I will be sincerely shocked.
“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.”
The other possible explanation is, you know, that he actually CAN FLY and was flying around and she saw him. Which would be a betrayal of the logic we were presented earlier and I would definitely like that version of the ending less than any other possible variation.
“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’m confused about the part where you say “her acceptance of him for what he is”. What exactly are we saying he is? I don’t read that as acceptance of what he actually is, because he isn’t a real superhero, he can’t fly and he’s not actually worthy of awe or adulation. He just wants to be, so I read that moment as her seeing him the way he wants to be seen, not how he actually is.
And as a side note regarding the last sentence of that paragraph: so it’s in his head from the minute he opens that window until the final shot. That’s what we’re saying, right? Well, then where is he during this time? Did he jump out the window? Is he still asleep in bed? When he hallucinated flying back to the theater he simply just walked back down to the street and took a cab back, and when he imagined he was telepathically trashing his dressing room he was instead just smashing things with his hands. But what are we supposed to gather about where he is in the final moments? I would just as soon assume he actually DID jump out the window and is hallucinating her reaction in his final waking moments. Just a thought that crossed my mind.
“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.”
1. He should have died at the end of the movie. That’s what you call full circle. “And did you get what you wanted out of this life?” “I did.” Him dead at the end is the natural conclusion when you set your film up with that specific quote.
2. The entire final performance on Opening Night, and the conversation with his ex-wife in the dressing room, paints a picture of a man who is coming to terms with what is really important, and letting go of his constant need for approval. He realizes what a piece of shit he’s been to the people who matter most, and his acting in his final moments on stage are his best because he’s not playing to a crowd, or acting at at really. He’s just in the moment. No critics or audience members there at all. This is why we don’t need to know the play was “a hit with the critics”. Because he has basically shown us that he’s moved beyond that.
3. There IS closure with his ex-wife in the scene I mention above, and closure involving his letting go of the need for approval, as I also mentioned, AND closure involving the play he worked tirelessly to produce. The ONLY thing you could argue we don’t get without an epilogue is closure with the daughter, but you also said that the final moments are about him more than her, so is it REALLY necessary?
4. No, it’s not “key”. And no, it doesn’t “make the whole movie work”. Quite the contrary.
“I can’t vouch for IMDb, but I don’t think I’m popular with that crowd so I think overlap with IMDB is unlikely.”
Good enough for me!
“and we trust our friends to not vote twice.. right? :)”
Correct! 🙂
“so I can link you to the replies.”
“one thing these straw poll lists show: it’s far from proven that everyone falls neatly into team Boyhood or team Birdman”
Thanks – awesome! I’ll have to trust you to post the results there that I post here, though, if anyone there is interested. 🙂 I’m not even sure I’d KNOW how to tweet – well, I’d probably figure it out, but, still…
Yup, further proof that Birdman isn’t that divisive and actually has a lot of support.
Going to sleep now. Will return!
Kudos to Peter Bradshaw. I thought Linklater’s movie would be too ”American” to win the BAFTA, but that it even beat out two British biopics (”Theory” and ”Imitation Game”) proves its appeal can be universal.
Thanks, Bryce, for bringing up Linklater’s ”Me and Orson Welles.” I AM a Broadway junkie, and that IS one of the best movies about theater in recent years. Christian McKay deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally, I saw ”All That Jazz.” I loved ”All That Jazz.” But ”Birdman” is no ”All That Jazz.” 😉
one thing these straw poll lists show: it’s far from proven that everyone falls neatly into team Boyhood or team Birdman
If you’re sure it’s likely none of them will be the same as the voters here or at IMDb
I can’t vouch for IMDb, but I don’t think I’m popular with that crowd so I think overlap with IMDB is unlikely.
Most of the readers here get quite enough me without following me on twitter too, and lots of my twitter followers refuse to let me lure them here. you can sort of match names to see that there’s not much overlap. (and we trust our friends to not vote twice.. right? 🙂
nobody is paying attention to my suggested hashtag, so I can link you to the replies.
My ranking:
1. Boyhood
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Selma
4. Whiplash
5. The Imitation Game
6. American Sniper
7. The Theory of Everything
8. Birdman
And yes, you can just give me the hashtag, of course. 🙂
If you’re sure it’s likely none of them will be the same as the voters here or at IMDb, then that’d be great! 🙂 Thanks!
Claudiu, what if I asked on Twitter for my movie followers to rank the nominees? Would that help your sample size? and would you think those lists were valid? I can copy/paste any replies I get , transport them here for you, or link you to the hashtag so you can see who cast all the votes.
This is the way I voted for BP on Dr Rob’s simulated ballot
1. Boyhood
2. Selma
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. The Imitation Game
5. The Theory of Everything
6. Birdman
7. Whiplash
8.
(leaving the 8th slot blank. because if I had a real ballot, under no circumstances would I ever want my ballot to end up in the stack of American Sniper, no matter how unlikely it would be that none of my first 7 picks would fail to prevail.)
No other votes? Have I pissed off too many people and that’s why they won’t contribute? 😀
I like this Peter Bradshaw critic. He has discriminating taste. Did we post this video last year here?
http://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2014/feb/18/12-years-a-slave-should-win-best-picture-oscar-video
Sasha, attempting to belittle Birdman by saying people like it only because it is an anti-superhero movie is silly.
The three nominated actors from the film were all in comic book movies. Iñárritu’s good friend Del Toro has directed quite a few superhero films of his own. Anyone who actually saw Birdman would easily realize that the movie is an equal opportunity offender. It chastises low-brow art and high-brow art. Men and women. Actors, audiences and critics.
Reducing Birdman to that one facet would be akin to saying that the only reason people like Boyhood is due to the fact that they filmed it over 12 years with the same actors. Be fair.
Claudiu, mine would be:
1. Birdman
2. Selma
3. Boyhood
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. Whiplash
6.The Imitation Game
7. American Sniper
8. the theory of Eveything
Thanks, Bryce. Yeah, I was originally thinking of doing it like that, in a State of the Race thread, but then I realized it might not be coming for a while, and yesterday, when Sasha posted her post-BAFTA State of the Race article, I wasn’t quick enough, so now it might be too late to post in that one…
On Birdman’s ending (SPOILERS):
I would have returned to that thread, Chris (I usually leave threads in my bookmarks bar for about 3 days if there’s no reply to my comments) – but we can discuss it here, sure. 🙂
“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.
You guys, if you haven’t, y’all need to check out Linklater’s little seen ME AND ORSON WELLES, one of the if not the best movie about the theater of recent times (according to many critics I read and trust. I myself am not an authority of the theater). The movie is really ace and made my Top 10 that year.
Claudiu, I think one of those “sate of the race” threads would get more people to notice your project, but here’s mine:
1. BOYHOOD
2. SELMA
3. THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
4. WHIPLASH
5. BIRDMAN
6. THE IMITATION GAME
7. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
8. AMERICAN SNIPER
Nice testimonial from him; shame he didn’t fix the error ‘every 12 years’ should have said every 12 months. But, yes, i agree with him.
Claudiu, I just read your response to my comments in the DGA thread, and since I’m not sure you’ll be returning to that thread, I thought I’d repost my response here:
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.
@PADDY MULHOLLAND, actually Sasha is right. The Brits aren’t as crazed over superhero flicks as American’s are. Just pop over to boxofficemojo and look at the all time biggest openings in the UK vs the US. In the UK, the first superhero movie is The Avengers coming in at number 13; in the US, superhero movies take up 5 of the top 10. I do think that Birdman has struck a cord in Hollywood because of its satirization of the comic book obsession. Keaton’s character succumbs to the pseudo-reality of the superhero by jumping out the window, pursuing the superhero. I think both films are so different, that it just comes down to individual experiences and how we relate to either film. And that’s what has played out in the last few weeks. Sasha, you’re hitting the nail on the head with your analysis. In my opinion.
Thanks, Chris! Counted! 🙂
Claudiu, happy to oblige:
1. Whiplash
2. Boyhood
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. Selma
5. Birdman
6. The Imitation Game
7. The Theory Of Everything
8. American Sniper
No votes?… I have almost 30 at IMDb already. Let’s not make this an all-IMDb edition, guys! 🙂
An old white guy likes it enough to lie down on the cold ground. That’s gotta be a good sign.
Bravo, Bradshaw!
Opening the post, great video by the way, there are older episodes of Two and a Half Men on the TV. There is something a little bit Boyhood about seeing Jake morph from a little boy to, well, he must be a man now. I haven’t watched it since the Charlie Sheen meltdown, but just to note it has been airing for 12 years. Just sayin’.
OK, I said I was going to do this thing after the BAFTA’s, and this seems like a decent thread that should attract enough attention to give me as many results as possible. If not, then I’ll try in other threads as well. Here’s my yearly Best Picture Preferential Ballot Simulation! Past winners:
2011 – The Social Network
2012 – not held
2013 – Zero Dark Thirty
2014 – Her
So, anybody who wants to help me out in trying to get as big a sample size as possible (and, thus, a result as relevant as possible): rank the 8 Best Picture contenders as you would if you were an Academy voter! Preferably, if you’ve seen them all, or at least the ones most likely to win (I won’t say which I think those are, because I might influence voting). Even if not, and you still want to vote (though I would recommend not to), rank them all anyway, to make the results more relevant!
The results will be a combination of the votes in this thread and the votes I collect at IMDb. I will, of course, post the results both here and there.
Here is my vote:
1. Birdman
2. Selma
3. The Theory of Everything
4. Boyhood
5. Whiplash
6. The Grand Budapest Hotel
7. The Imitation Game
8. American Sniper
Good luck to everyone’s favorites – may the best-liked movie win! 🙂
I agree on “Birdman,” Danny. Although from the moment I walked out of the theater I couldn’t help but note how much it reminded me of “All That Jazz” in so many ways. Love both movies, by the way. In any case, I agree that it being any sort of statement against superhero films is being sort of overstated.
I think it isn’t fair for all of us to keep comparing the two films, because whatever your feelings are towards the one you like less of the two, one must admit anyone would be a worthy winner. The academy judges, like we all do, based on subjectivity and it is a consensus vote, after all. Sometimes they’ve gotten it right and sometimes wrong and only time tells which movies are best. I am team Birdman this year but I have to say I am not one to go with stats this year when it comes to predicting the big award; it really is anyone’s game and we should just stick to what we consider best.
At least, there’s comfort in that no one can really say both films are so far apart in quality as King’s Speech and Social Network were. I just started getting over that last year w/ 12 Years’ win lol….that was Crash/the other nominees, Apocalypse Now, Citizen Kane, 2001, Vértigo-loss- bad, this year that is not that case; let’s enjoy that actual race!
The Brits aren’t caught up in the industry flurry of superhero movies, which could explain why they are as in love with Boyhood as so many outside the insular world of the Hollywood industry are
This is basically not true. Making a superhero film requires not only a lot of money, which few British studios are capable of providing, but a number of other factors which make them inviable propositions for British backers: the financial ability to allow for early box office losses, a source property with a high degree of audience familiarity, direct access to A-list international stars. But audiences are just as obsessed here in the UK with superhero movies as they are in the US.
I’m going to see Boyhood for the third time this week and it has already grown on me after the second viewing. I think it had a problem with my sky-high expectations when I watched it the first time…
Now, why does the industry dig it? Well, the reasons are individual and myriad, but I’ll speculate. The actors dug it because there are several very flashy acting performances in it. Plus it’s about acting. It is a more impressive ensemble than Boyhood’s. The producers dug it for various reasons but one because IFC is a small fish and hasn’t done much gladhanding. The director’s dug it because in many ways Birdman is an awesome directorial achievement (in other ways of course, such as knowing what the hell you’re trying to say, it’s a failure).
I think when it comes time to vote for Best Picture, however, the Oscar voters have a different choice to make. The actors won’t necessarily go for Birdman just because they gave it Best Ensemble. That and BP aren’t precisely equivalent awards.
I disagree with you a touch on Birdman and why the industry is digging it, Sasha. The movie doesn’t strike me as having particularly strong feelings about superhero movies. One character (the critic) does, but I wouldn’t say her point-of-view is the movie’s (or Riggan’s, or Innaritu’s, what have you). What’s Birdman actually about? Well, if I’m being catty, I’d say, “I really have no idea.” That’s coming from someone who likes the movie quite a bit, by the way. But no, the movie – if it’s about anything – is about a middle-age male’s discontent with his own life. Nothing new. It has a lot in common with The Wrestler, although Birdman doesn’t have the pathos, the nuance, or ultimately the same emotional impact that that movie had.