Review: Birdman (2014), The Revenant (2015)
Having missed these two acclaimed films by acclaimed director Alejandro Inarritu when they were released, I recently watched both of them, and did not care for either one.
Birdman concerns a washed-up superhero actor, played by former Batman Michael Keaton, striving for artistic recognition on the stage in New York.
Keaton is a very odd choice for this role, considering how good and acclaimed he was as Batman (and everything else, for that matter), since Birdmanâs stance is that Hollywood and genre films, particularly comic book films, are inferior and of lesser artistic value than stage work.
Makes you wonder then why Frank Langella, arguably the finest living American actor, still calls Skeletor in Masters of the Universe (1987) one of his favorite parts. Â Or why Max von Sydow, one of the finest actors in the world, is so memorable as Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon (1980). Iâd argue that whatâs really important is doing the work with professionalism and integrity, no matter what the job may be. People who crave recognition are losers.
The film is presented as unfolding in one uninterrupted take. With todayâs technology, thereâs nothing impressive about this. Itâs just a gimmick that calls attention to itself, adding nothing to the drama. Frankly, itâs the sort of thing you ought to get out of your system in sophomore year film school.
Birdman has no subtext, as everything is overt. Characters walk around announcing exactly what they want and how they feel about each other. Performances are all right, with Emma Stone being the standout as the lead characterâs daughter.
The Revenant, loosely based on the true story of American frontiersman Hugh Glass, has Leonardo DiCaprio being mauled by a bear and left for dead in the wilderness by his travelling party. He then drags himself on hands and knees two hundred miles or so to the nearest settlement, seeking revenge for his murdered son.
I found The Revenant to be problematic in several aspects. The first is its authenticity claim, which is bullshit. Glass did not have a son, and was not out for revenge. He was more interested in getting his rifle back.
Inarritu also insisted on shooting only in natural light, and DiCaprio âsufferedâ for the film, eating raw bison liver and floating down icy rivers. This adds nothing to the film except as an anecdote. You might even argue that instead of adding to the film, it turns it into a story of two grown menâs quest for awards, instead of Glassâ quest for survival. (DiCaprio is quite unconvincing as a rough mountainman, no matter how cold or dirty he gets.)
The second problematic aspect is the storytelling. The Revenant has undeniably nice cinematography (although I personally donât care for wide-angle shots). Â But the directorâs insistence on dragging out every single shot for poetic effect adds at least an hour to the overall running time. The use of overt symbolism also grows tedious. At one point, DiCaprio sleeps in an animal carcass, Luke Skywalker style, and emerges naked and bloody. Reborn. We get it.
Inarritu has stated that he does not consider The Revenant a western, as he thinks âWestern is in a way a genre, and the problem with genres is that it comes from the word âgenericâ, and I feel that this film is very far from generic.â
Iâm not certain how spot on Inarrituâs ethymology is here, but fair enough. I would argue, Â however, there are worse things a film can labelled as than âgenericâ. âSophomoricâ and âpretentiousâ would be at the top of my list.
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
areudirty
janainaart
2087
andulkaphoto
dailybridgerton