It’s not a secret that the theater industry is poor, and the film industry tends to make a lot more money than it does, because there are more distribution channels. Unless you can get to the level of Broadway, there will be a lot of financial difficulties. This is why the role of Naomi Watts in the film is so excited that he can go to Broadway, because it is not easy for a person in the drama circle. It is precisely because the stage plays have a lot of copper odor (except for the old brand "The Phantom of the Opera", change the cast to continue to make money), so it is very suitable to compare with the big movie stars, which is why many movie stars are in After being famous, they are willing to show their faces on the Broadway stage and improve their style.
"Art" is a broad term, which can be reduced to "performance" in this film. There are often the best performances in a stage play, because you have no chance to hide it. You have a lot of adjustment space for the performance in the movie. Editing, makeup, and lighting can all help you. The role of Edward Norton seems to exist for this pursuit. He is like an exaggerated version of the "methodist" who believes that even the performance must be real, which is why he loses his temper for the small detail of replacing wine with water. . For example, in the recent "Golden Age", the director believes that cold and hunger cannot be performed, so he really put the crew in a frozen area to shoot. What exactly does Norton's exaggerated desire for truth show? Are you ridiculing that many actors only perform for something other than acting? What is the essence of performance? What is the role of an actor? The cynical daughter of the male protagonist (Sister Shishi) is also saying to him, "You aren't doing this for the sake of art" (you aren't doing this for the sake of art), which is also correct. The actor is both a director and an actor. He wants to control everything and works hard to please the critics. He must be trying to prove his ability, but we don’t know whether his motivation is to prove that he is a lifeless actor or is it true. For the love of drama? The critic also said that he is just a celebrity, not an actor. It can be seen that fame is not the same as true learning. Regardless of his true motives, everything is deeply overwhelmed by the complexity of the showbiz. There are too many aspects involved, and people cannot be pure after all. It is not easy to get self-identification in this situation.
The irony of the current showbiz in this film can be said to be no longer obvious. The film title "Birdman", Michael Fassbender, Woody Harrelson, Jeremy Renner mentioned in the lines are all talking about the recent wave of superheroes; when my daughter quarreled with him, she said, "You don’t even have Facebook, as if you don’t. "Existing is the same", and near the end, with the help of the Internet, he used the video of running Times Square naked, and he became famous. It can be seen how vain and funny the "famous" thing is. Once Jin played the role of a superhero, he felt more empathetic. His reputation was fleeting. Nothing is forever. So what should he grasp? Where is your value? Perhaps everything is a dream that will eventually die.
The technical aspect of the film is also dazzling and cannot be ignored. funeral! Heart! sick! mad! of! long! mirror! head! We floated smoothly from the dressing room to the front desk, back to the backstage, then to the street, and back again. It was really silky smooth, like a flexible ballerina. Surprisingly, there are still close-ups. We can't switch back and forth between panoramic mid-range close-ups like normal editing to appreciate the relationship between characters and inner experience, but the director did not ignore the power of close-ups, which made me very moved. In addition, this kind of frenzied long shot is really challenging for the actors. There will be a lot of rehearsals in the early stage, because if one person makes a mistake, everyone has to start from the beginning, so every actor must be under great pressure. I can't make a mistake or else. Everyone will hate my entanglement. Many transition shots must have taken a lot of thought.
I was really shocked by this amazing attempt, but in the middle, I felt that the form began to outweigh the content, and I could clearly perceive that the writing of the script was created for this kind of one-shot model. Many "little cleverness" are a little too obvious. . For example, the subtitle of the film The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance, I think it’s a bit too much. It’s just the rhythm of saying "Look at how smart our film is, wow haha" in your ear. Individual lines also give me this impression, a kind of "We are just satirizing the feeling of how humorous the showbiz is." It is because everything is done very carefully and without leaving room for rehearsal. Instead, we do not have the "unexpected" in the subtitle, which reduces the space for audience participation.
I personally think that in terms of form, drama will increase its distance from the audience (more abstract), while film will reduce the distance (more immersive). However, the film is in an awkward position between the two. The footage that has been in motion makes me feel very restless. Even though I and the characters are very close, I have no space to stop thinking, but make them seem far away, as if I was sitting on a roller coaster spying on them, all trajectory It is designed for you, no deviation is allowed. This is certainly stimulating, but it is inevitably monotonous, because the track is fixed, and the result after repetition is the same. Maybe this is cleverness instead of being clever, and it is impossible for people to get everything.
This is a rare and good film with ambition, technique, thought and performance. Just wanting to be a masterpiece, it seems that it's a little bit close. It depends on your personal hobbies.
Take the comment of Douyou Peter Cat: Inarrido has the same problem in all movies. It's just a mystery. In other words, his ambition and taste are very good, but his thinking is very cheap compared to the many topics he has to deal with. But he is particularly strong in that he will use excellent audiovisual and topical advantages to cover up the lack of depth. You can recall how many topics were dealt with in this movie, but each one just threw some chicken soup. Of course, the outstanding audiovisual is indeed obvious to all
View more about Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) reviews
