Oscars Countdown 2015 - Birdman

Ensign Lestat's Oscars Countdown, 17/01/2015

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor (Michael Keaton), Best Supporting Actor (Edward Norton), Best Supporting Actress (Emma Stone), Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

Birdman is so quintessentially a film to be picked up by the Academy voters. A self-aware film dealing with an aspect of film-making is always going to appeal to the panel.

The film follows washed up actor Riggan (Michael Keaton) staging his first play based on Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. He's struggling with his lead actor, Mike (Edward Norton), his girlfriend Laura (Andrea Riseborough), his leading lady Lesley (Naomi Watts) and his recovering daughter Sam (Emma Stone).

The setting for the play is frought with anxieties and tensions between all the characters. Throw into the mix Riggan's alter-ego, Birdman (his most successful on-screen character), and you've got a story ripe for the taking.

Except, it doesn't quite get there. Without giving away too many spoilers, I can say that the film is amazing in parts. I caught myself mind-clapping several moments, but they always got dumbed down by the preceding and succeeding scenes.

Norton's character is hilarious in his craziness, but brings along way too much sleaze to make it comfortable. The worst is the women characters, all of whom are tropes. The drug-addicted daughter trying to recover and form a bond with her absent father. The ex-wife/ mother, a non-entity till she appears in the protagonist's life. The actress with the pathetic self-esteem, mewling and grateful. The cold, hard, cruel female critic who needs to be brought down several pegs. And finally, the put-upon girlfriend desperate to start a family with the protagonist, despite him being a selfish a-hole (I tried to come up with another adjective, but that's the only one that suits him).

This film may just walk off with the big prize because the voters will see themselves in the characters - washed up old white guys hoping beautiful nubile young women will throw themselves at them, because... art! 

If I seem harsh, it's because this film just panders to a select audience. There isn't a single character of colour. Not one! It took me aback from the get-go. This film doesn't question the status quo. It is singular in its theme - a commentary on the acting life. 

Which would have been a noble enough theme had it not been so singular in pleasing only one section of the audience as well. Don't get me wrong, the film is unique in that it doesn't include gratuitous nudity (no, Ed's scene does not count). But, there are two women kissing for no apparent reason other than to sate the male gaze, and that, to me, ruined the film. That and the cliched characters. This was the trouble with last year's American Hustle as well. Unattractive male leads being fawned over by gorgeous young women and throwing in a kiss for no good reason! 

It wasn't a completely negative experience though. Keaton puts in the performance of a lifetime in this film. He has his ticks, he takes incredible risks. The parallels with his own life cannot be disregarded, but he wears the role boldly. Only once did I feel he was overdoing it, but it was, as a whole, an achievement in itself. I reserve judgement on the surety of his win till I see the others nominees, but considering the Academy's predisposition to reward senior actors, he may just take home that golden statue come February.

I wasn't enthused by the other performances. Naomi Watts, I felt, deserved better - but she plays the hapless actress pretty well. Didn't think Riseborough stood out at all and Amy Ryan as the ex-wife was bland to the point of being invisible. Emma Stone's performance hinged on how long she survived the takes. She didn't bring anything new to the role - it's a bit surprising she's got a nomination at all. Again, this is probably a testament to the poor choice and diversity of the roles available to women; that, or the fact that the Academy couldn't be bothered to watch female-centric or female-driven films that have great performances (and I'm not talking about chic flicks).

Edward Norton is great in this role. His intensity is riling and I think he would have been the runaway winner in this category, but this category is chock-a-block with talented names and performances. He's a good bet for the win, though.

Out of the nine nominations that this film has received, the one it most deserved and unsurprisingly didn't get is that of Editing. It physically hurts me to think that this film's editing has been overlooked. The entire 2 hour length is shot as one take. What forethought by director Alejandro González Iñárritu to make this film as claustrophobic as its protagonist's life. It was beautiful to see his film-making technique, and I know that it was probably the toughest challenge most of these actors have had to face in their acting careers. But, it's a travesty that the editor's brilliant work has not been recognised. The director may just walk off with a gong for his technique, though. 

The Academy's become so narrow in its vision of good cinema. It continues to dwell on the same themes, around the same kind of people. We have the token black film, which is given a nod, but even that deals with an important but singular theme.

The film has received rave reviews, but has yet to hit the cinemas in most countries. In all honesty, I think most nominated films are released only after the ceremony not just to boost sales, but also to assuage us from guessing exactly which films will be nominated beforehand. The Oscars used to give a glimpse into the range of projects being undertaken in Hollywood. Now, the nominees are selected on whether they fit a specific mould, 

Birdman's worth a watch, on the basis of the film-making alone. This is what cinema should be. It should push the boundaries of its medium, and preferably the boundaries of its story and characters as well (and no, a kiss between two straight women for the male gaze's pleasure does not constitute pushing the boundaries). It's not a masterpiece, though people are calling it thus. It could have been amazing, but it decided not to be.