Bird is the Word

This past weekend, I went to see one of the likely Best Picture contenders for the coming Academy Awards, Birdman. It's the story of a fading actor trying to reinvigorate his career by directing and starring in a Broadway play, and of all the chaos behind the scenes and in his life as opening night approaches. But the movie puts two twists on that rather straightforward plot.

The first twist is technical. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu chose to stage the movie with the appearance of a single, unbroken take. He's hardly the first director to do this; Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is arguably the most famous example, but there have been others since. But the choice here is particularly challenging for several reasons:

The movie does not actually unfold in real time. The story takes place over a period of several days, with scenes set both during the day and at night. There are scenes both inside and out, including movement between buildings, and an impressive sequence in Times Square. There are also a number of visual effects throughout the film, meaning that on top of getting a number of actors to deliver good performances during long, single takes, the camera has to be where it must to accommodate the effect.

The second twist is in the casting. It's sort of a secondary plot point, but the washed-up protagonist's career fell into decline when he walked away from starring in a hit superhero movie franchise. And for this role, director Iñárritu sought out Michael Keaton, who did exactly the same thing as the character when he left the Batman films behind. Keaton's performance here is pretty remarkable, a reminder than once upon a time, he was versatile in both comedy and drama. Indeed, he will be a serious contender for the Best Actor Oscar here with his raw and vulnerable performance here.

But the "meta" casting didn't stop with Keaton. The film also stars Edward Norton, another actor who starred as a superhero (The Hulk) only to walk away from subsequent sequels. And in this film, Norton plays an egocentric method actor, talented but difficult to work with -- an exact embodiment of the reputation some people have given him. Emma Stone, yet another actor with a superhero past, plays Keaton's daughter -- a disaffected rebel fresh out of rehab. (There, at least, the "art imitating life" stops. Perhaps Lindsay Lohan wasn't judged to be reliable enough for a single-take movie.) The cast also includes Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Amy Ryan, and the equally talented (though rather less well-known) Andrea Riseborough and Merritt Wever. It's a powerful roster, likely to generate at least one more Oscar nomination for acting when all is said and done.

But how is the movie itself? Well... pretty good. Anyone who has ever worked in theater, even at an amateur level, is sure to love it. Though much of the movie is over the top, it still accurately depicts the sort of people you encounter working in theater -- the bizarre "processes" they use, the odd issues they have bubbling near the surface. The movie is a hilarious pulling back of the curtain.

Yet while the story is great and the acting even greater, I'm not entirely convinced that the artifice of it is strictly necessary. When you pull off a nearly two-hour one take movie, it's hard not to get distracted by the technical accomplishment... and inevitably, to be sometimes pulled out of the story. Even more intrusive is the jazz drums soundtrack used to score the movie. It's a cacophony of noise, like Neil Peart and Keith Moon's jazz baby falling down a flight of stairs. And while I get that it's supposed to be representative of the main character's turmoil, it's just damn distracting.

Still, I'd have to give the movie my overall recommendation. At a B+, it won't be my personal pick to win Best Picture. But I won't begrudge it being in the mix. And it most certainly will be.