The reason should start from a classic line of Mike played by Norton. During the dress rehearsal, he had a dispute with Reagan, during which he said excitedly: "popularity is the slutty little cousin of prestige" . But it is more complicated than this. He is quite concerned about his 50,000 clicks on his massive hard-on, and he is also quite concerned about being on the headlines of the art page of the New York Times. Since the existence of theaters and book markets, the value of artists has been dominated by factors that have nothing to do with art. What is the status of art, what is influence (box office, media exposure, public attention, or stimulation of art itself?), how to judge the ultimate value of art, and who will judge? These issues are inconclusive, they are all waves of injustice in the hearts of artists and literati. Today's popular culture has exacerbated the contradiction between artistic standards and social influence, but this contradiction has existed for a long time. We media and social media have only done what newspapers, magazines and booksellers did before. Media culture has been a disaster for artists since its birth. A disaster draped in the cloak of opportunity has a cradle with a gun hanging on top.
Mike is not a bad person, he is just very contradictory, really capable, and really vain. He misappropriated Reagan's story when interviewed by reporters. The method is indeed inferior, but it is not difficult to understand. Half of it was out of ambition, half of it was out of jealousy. The fame was in front of him. With a short thought, he did something degrading. Know the prevalence of such lies). Recall that after seeing the little piece of paper that Carver gave to Reagan to encourage him, Mike was very dismissive on the surface, but his face was clearly jealous. As far as this lens is concerned, Norton has a good grasp and has an inner substitution. , There is also a mastery of acting. In short, Norton is not a bad guy, just a kid who is just like Reagan, who is easily influenced by the outside world. This has nothing to do with ability. No matter how high he is, he may feel unsafe.
Just as Naomi Watts (she herself was an actor who had a difficult time and became famous later) said in the play: "I dreamed of going to Broadway when I was a child, but now I’m on stage, only to find that I’m just a child." Many people who are involved in art are childish and need to be loved and spoiled.
Once, when I talked about deep desires with a friend who I didn't know before, I said that many people actually want to be "loved." This kind of remark is easy to misunderstand. Later, I also realized the serious consequences of talking shallowly and deeply, and never got sick again. But I still want to say that wanting to be loved is a legitimate thing, and this desire is somewhat related to many types of creation. (Hello Freud.)
You watch the vicious female critic in the play, how gnashing her teeth when expressing her hatred, and how harsh her comments are. She said that Reagan’s play presented a kind of hyperrealism (do you know how sinful it is to say that artists are "hyperrealistic"? If the long shots in the play are judged to be hyperrealistic, the director must be disgusted), and even this pitiful advantage It was only inadvertently inserting willows, that's why her review title "The inadvertent subtlety of ignorance" (this sentence was used as the subtitle of the movie, which shows that the director used this bad comment to laugh at his own shooting philosophy). But why is she so perverted? She was said to be "a man is a critic when he cannot become an artist" all her life, and she was said to be incapable of artistic ability before degrading to criticize. How could she not be aggrieved and try to retaliate by demeaning the famous actor's artistic accomplishments? She also represents the pain of not being loved.
Yes, literati and entertainers are sometimes narrow-minded and willing to talk about each other, but among them, there are few people who commit great evils, and most of them have the temperament of children. Too weak and wayward will be disgusting, and mature and strong will be quite cute. But no matter what, the nose is knocked off and the bandaged bird hero (old man's Icarus) is a group portrait of men and women who are creative in media culture. The bandages on their faces are the real big bird sign.
ps Although the film is generally good, the facial mockery of female reporters and Asian reporters makes people a little angry. Why does the original good work have to use such vulgar and inferior funny methods? Commendation Guan praised, this flaw is still very dazzling.
View more about Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) reviews
