Birdman (2014)
Sam: And let's face it, Dad, it's not for the sake of art.
It's because you want to feel relevant again. Well, there's a whole world out
there where people fight to be relevant every day. And you act like it doesn't
even exist! Things are happening in a place that you willfully ignore, a place
that has already forgotten you. I mean, who the fuck are you? You hate
bloggers. You make fun of Twitter. You don't even have a Facebook page. You're
the one who doesn't exist. You're doing this because you're scared to death,
like the rest of us, that you don't matter. And you know what? You're right.
You don't. It's not important. You're not important. Get used to it.
Tyler has pointed out to me that I never reviewed last year’s
Best Picture Winner, Birdman, so I will now right that wrong, albeit briefly.
Birdman was…odd.
Really odd. I had been looking
forward to seeing it after reading such great reviews, but pretty quickly
realized that it was not going to be my thing.
In fact, if I hadn’t forked over $5 to rent it, I probably would have
turned it off. Turns out, it’s good I
made it all the way through. Not because
it was worth finishing, but because I would have had to go back and finish it
anyway when it won the Oscar.
Michael Keaton plays an actor, Riggan, who became famous
playing a superhero called Birdman (Get it?
‘Cuz Keaton was Batman.), and is trying to establish himself as a
serious actor by putting on a serious play.
Tyler says it’s a movie made for film makers.
There’s a part where he really lets a critic
have it, which probably appealed to people in the filmmaking industry.
I just know that when it won, all I could say
was, “Huh.”
Artsy, pretentious, and…what’s the word? Weird. Everything
about it. And there are these annoying
drum riffs playing throughout that are really irritating. A big letdown for me, but I’m glad so many
people seemed to enjoy it.
And you know what Riggan would say to me?
“There's nothing here about technique! There's nothing in
here about structure! There's nothing in here about intentions! It's just a
bunch of crappy opinions, backed up by even crappier comparisons... You write a
couple of paragraphs and you know what? None of this cost you fuckin' anything!
The Fuck! You risk nothing! Nothing! Nothing! Nothing! I'm a fucking actor!
This play cost me everything... So I tell you what, you take this fucked
malicious cowardly shitty written review and you shove that right the fuck up
your wrinkly tight ass.”
Clouds of Sils Maria (2015)
Maria Enders: For me, it was more than a role.
Valentine: It's theater, it's an interpretation of life. It can be truer than life itself.
Just to show that I am not completely lacking in artistic sensibilities, I thought I would juxtapose my Birdman review with a review of another movie about an aging actor doing a play: Clouds of Sils Maria.
It’s a totally different story, but it still involves an actor haunted by a defining role (not quite so literally in this case –Sigrid doesn’t actually follow Maria around yammering in her ear). Like Birdman, Clouds is on the artsier end, exploring themes of aging, mattering, and considering what roles and films/plays have value. It does not, however, feel pretentious. The acting is so much more genuine, the dialogue subtler. The tone is more honest, less frantic.
A lot of the movie involves conversations between a famous actress, Maria, and her assistant, Valentine. Maria originated the role of Sigrid (a 20-year-old who is clever, but manipulative) in a famed play, Maloja Snake, twenty years before. The play is being revived, and she is being asked to play the other main role, Helena, the 40-year-old businesswoman seduced by Sigrid. Maria and Val heatedly debate the value of the Helena character. Maria finds her repugnant, and only wants to play characters she can identify with, while Val believes there is much to admire in an actress who can take a character, even one that seems limited, and flesh them out, finding and embracing their humanity.
I liked watching the relationship between Maria and Val, and seeing the parallels between these two characters and the Sigrid/Helena characters. Seeing them interact was fascinating for me. Maria has just enough diva in her to make her interesting, but not so much that she becomes unlikable. There’s a part where she googles the young actress who will be taking over the role Sigrid that feels very true –you can see yourself doing the same thing. Val does not shirk from challenging Maria’s preconceptions, dolling out opinions and daring to contradict her boss, becoming frustrated when Maria doesn’t take her seriously enough. I would add that I don’t think Maria meant to be disrespectful. I believe she was using Val as a sounding board, and didn’t realize she was offending her with her flippancy.
The two leads were excellent (Juliette Binoche as Maria and Kristen Stewart as Valentine). Jo-Ann, the volatile young actress playing Sigrid in the revival, was so irritating (particularly in her last scene) that I wanted to smack her, so Chloe Grace Moretz did her job well.
One downside: I wasn’t in love with the frustratingly vague ending. I understand why it needed to be mysterious, but as a person who likes a clearer conclusion, it was hard to take. Still, I liked it. Overall a good movie.
Ian McKellan plays Mr. Holmes in his 70s, as he works his final case, and his 90s, when he is in retirement and working to recall how the case was resolved, and why it ended his career. It can be a bit of a downer seeing Sherlock Holmes (or anyone for that matter, but it's particularly poignant here because Sherlock always had such a keen intellect) struggle with his increasingly failing memory as he tries to remember the details of this final case. 
