Red Mosquito

i can't imagine how anyone could dislike birdman. i'll chalk it up to a language barrier issue. vinylguy, you know he wasn't supposed man/bird hybrid, right?

RANK THE BEST PICTURE NOMINEES

AMERICAN SNIPER
SELMA
THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
BOYHOOD
WHIPLASH
BIRDMAN
THE IMITATION GAME
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

A PRETTY POOR GROUP ALTOGETHER

birdman forever

durdencommatyler wrote:And I'm not sure why people keep using the word "clever" as a bad word when they talk about Birdman.

Pretentious?

I wont call "gimmick" to the fact that Linklater pull something very very interesting off...and its on favor of the story.
I felt it was a very heartfelt movie. Even if its not a masterpiece by any chance...

Alex wrote:i can't imagine how anyone could dislike birdman.

FOR ME IT WAS THE TERRIBLE DIALOGUE AND FLIMSY, SUPERFICIAL EXPLORATION OF ITS THEMES. ON AN AESTHETIC LEVEL I REALLY LIKE IT. THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS DAZZLING AND THE ACTING IS REALLY GOOD. THE SCORE IS VERY ORIGINAL. I APPRECIATED THE NODS TO FELLINI AND GODARD. I JUST WISH SOMEONE ELSE HAD WRITTEN IT

apples vanguard wrote:

Alex wrote:i can't imagine how anyone could dislike birdman.

FOR ME IT WAS THE TERRIBLE DIALOGUE AND FLIMSY, SUPERFICIAL EXPLORATION OF ITS THEMES. ON AN AESTHETIC LEVEL I REALLY LIKE IT. THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS DAZZLING AND THE ACTING IS REALLY GOOD. THE SCORE IS VERY ORIGINAL. I APPRECIATED THE NODS TO FELLINI AND GODARD. I JUST WISH SOMEONE ELSE HAD WRITTEN IT

i'd think terrible dialogue is something that the creator of apples vanguard could support

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:And I'm not sure why people keep using the word "clever" as a bad word when they talk about Birdman.

Pretentious?

I wont call "gimmick" to the fact that Linklater pull something very very interesting off...and its on favor of the story.
I felt it was a very heartfelt movie. Even if its not a masterpiece by any chance...

So you mean pretentious, not clever? Well, at least I understand using pretentious as an insult. But, obviously, I disagree that it's pretentious. But for some reason people attaching that word to his work, so it's a fair word to use. Even if I don't get it.

Call it whatever you want it's still a gimmick. It's a good gimmick. It's the best kind of gimmick because it absolutely serves the story. But it's also the only thing remarkable about the movie. Like I said, I enjoyed it. But I won't watch it again. Linklater's made many many many more interesting and effective films.

Alex wrote:

apples vanguard wrote:

Alex wrote:i can't imagine how anyone could dislike birdman.

FOR ME IT WAS THE TERRIBLE DIALOGUE AND FLIMSY, SUPERFICIAL EXPLORATION OF ITS THEMES. ON AN AESTHETIC LEVEL I REALLY LIKE IT. THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS DAZZLING AND THE ACTING IS REALLY GOOD. THE SCORE IS VERY ORIGINAL. I APPRECIATED THE NODS TO FELLINI AND GODARD. I JUST WISH SOMEONE ELSE HAD WRITTEN IT

i'd think terrible dialogue is something that the creator of apples vanguard could support

I'D PULL YOUR EYES OUT OF YOUR HEAD

apples vanguard wrote:RANK THE BEST PICTURE NOMINEES

AMERICAN SNIPER
SELMA
THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
BOYHOOD
WHIPLASH
BIRDMAN
THE IMITATION GAME
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

A PRETTY POOR GROUP ALTOGETHER

haha

Birdman
Grand Budapest Hotel
The Theory of Everything
Boyhood

Those are the only ones I've seen.

Alex wrote:

apples vanguard wrote:

Alex wrote:i can't imagine how anyone could dislike birdman.

FOR ME IT WAS THE TERRIBLE DIALOGUE AND FLIMSY, SUPERFICIAL EXPLORATION OF ITS THEMES. ON AN AESTHETIC LEVEL I REALLY LIKE IT. THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS DAZZLING AND THE ACTING IS REALLY GOOD. THE SCORE IS VERY ORIGINAL. I APPRECIATED THE NODS TO FELLINI AND GODARD. I JUST WISH SOMEONE ELSE HAD WRITTEN IT

i'd think terrible dialogue is something that the creator of apples vanguard could support

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:And I'm not sure why people keep using the word "clever" as a bad word when they talk about Birdman.

Pretentious?

I wont call "gimmick" to the fact that Linklater pull something very very interesting off...and its on favor of the story.
I felt it was a very heartfelt movie. Even if its not a masterpiece by any chance...

So you mean pretentious, not clever? Well, at least I understand using pretentious as an insult. But, obviously, I disagree that it's pretentious. But for some reason people attaching that word to his work, so it's a fair word to use. Even if I don't get it.

Call it whatever you want it's still a gimmick. It's a good gimmick. It's the best kind of gimmick because it absolutely serves the story. But it's also the only thing remarkable about the movie. Like I said, I enjoyed it. But I won't watch it again. Linklater's made many many many more interesting and effective films.

Oh i agree...i wasnt even commenting on the place of this movie in his career. And i dont agree its a gimmick at all. Its something the story needed, why call it a gimmick?

I forgot Whiplash is on the race as best movie. Yeah, fuck this movies.....its Whiplash.

apples vanguard wrote:

Alex wrote:

apples vanguard wrote:

Alex wrote:i can't imagine how anyone could dislike birdman.

FOR ME IT WAS THE TERRIBLE DIALOGUE AND FLIMSY, SUPERFICIAL EXPLORATION OF ITS THEMES. ON AN AESTHETIC LEVEL I REALLY LIKE IT. THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS DAZZLING AND THE ACTING IS REALLY GOOD. THE SCORE IS VERY ORIGINAL. I APPRECIATED THE NODS TO FELLINI AND GODARD. I JUST WISH SOMEONE ELSE HAD WRITTEN IT

i'd think terrible dialogue is something that the creator of apples vanguard could support

I'D PULL YOUR EYES OUT OF YOUR HEAD

but seriously, why do you think the dialogue was terrible? did it try to achieve something that it couldn't? did it aim low, and hit its target? was the tone a mismach for its themes? i really don't know what the gripe could be, so please enlighten me.

Alex wrote:

apples vanguard wrote:

Alex wrote:

apples vanguard wrote:

Alex wrote:i can't imagine how anyone could dislike birdman.

FOR ME IT WAS THE TERRIBLE DIALOGUE AND FLIMSY, SUPERFICIAL EXPLORATION OF ITS THEMES. ON AN AESTHETIC LEVEL I REALLY LIKE IT. THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS DAZZLING AND THE ACTING IS REALLY GOOD. THE SCORE IS VERY ORIGINAL. I APPRECIATED THE NODS TO FELLINI AND GODARD. I JUST WISH SOMEONE ELSE HAD WRITTEN IT

i'd think terrible dialogue is something that the creator of apples vanguard could support

I'D PULL YOUR EYES OUT OF YOUR HEAD

but seriously, why do you think the dialogue was terrible? did it try to achieve something that it couldn't? did it aim low, and hit its target? was the tone a mismach for its themes? i really don't know what the gripe could be, so please enlighten me.

The dialogue is spot on.

how was birdman superficially interested in its themes?

VinylGuy wrote:And i dont agree its a gimmick at all. Its something the story needed, why call it a gimmick?

It's a gimmick because it's not necessary to tell the story. The story was designed around the conceit. And I'm not using the word gimmick as a bad word here. It's not a criticism. It is what it is. It's a daring gimmick. The only problem is that when the movie is over there isn't much to talk about beyond that successful gimmick. We've seen this movie a thousand and twelve times, but never with this conceit, or gimmick.

in the absence of a follow-up, i'm thinking we should interpet vanguard's assessment of birdman as a decree and adjust our opinions accordingly

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:And i dont agree its a gimmick at all. Its something the story needed, why call it a gimmick?

It's a gimmick because it's not necessary to tell the story. The story was designed around the conceit. And I'm not using the word gimmick as a bad word here. It's not a criticism. It is what it is. It's a daring gimmick. The only problem is that when the movie is over there isn't much to talk about beyond that successful gimmick. We've seen this movie a thousand and twelve times, but never with this conceit, or gimmick.

i'm compelled to agree with both of you, depending on what we decide was necessary for linklater to make his movie.

on one hand, if you take as central the film's commitment to documenting (rather than "representing") the passage of time, filming over 12 years is totally central to the film, though the commitment may place it outside the realm of art. if, as d,c seems to assert (i'm extrapolating some), that documentation is unnecessary because an effect (makeup, etc.) could produce a representation of the passage of time, then it could be said to be a gimmick. but for me the movie splits the difference, and ultimately is art, as it's more interested in representation than indexicality.

i watched Birdman again over the weekend, and finally saw it. inarritu is totally interested in all the right questions, and i think in the end, he's on the right side. but his critique of superhero films (or fantasy more broadly) is mistaken.