Film Series: Understanding “Birdman”
If you haven’t seen “Birdman,” this is going to spoil your movie watching party.
For too long I’ve been hearing people say that “Birdman,” which is written and directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, didn’t really make any sense; and, therefore, it is dismissed as an Oscar-winning fluke or some kind of signal of Illuminati corruption in Hollywood. Please stop with the conspiracies. The tricky thing about “Birdman” is that it is good, and, I’d even say, maybe it is too good. This flick’s complex, layered themes flew over the mass public’s head like a CIA drone in Pakistan, and this left the Academy Award audiences with a serious case of Whiplash.
I prefer to break this movie down into two layers. The first, which is the one that everyone seems to pick up, is the shallower theme: The one with a wider focus. Now when I use terms like wide and shallow synonymously, I really mean less subjective, more obvious, and less complex. From this angle, this movie is about Theater vs. Theatre, Hollywood vs. Broadway, Movies vs. Film, Entertainment vs. Art and so on. Non-subjective. That’s okay, those are good themes and they make sense.
But, there are problems with this wider, and more obvious, viewpoint; and I think that this is the major source of the public frustration surrounding “Birdman.” I don’t know too many actors in the midst of an existential crisis that gain the unexplained ability to, oh I don’t know, fly around the streets of New York. Not to mention the unexplained moving of objects with his mind. Oh, and he can levitate too. Can’t forget about that. How does that fit in with Hollywood vs. Broadway?
And what about that ending? Oh man, the ending. I’ve heard some of the most outlandish theories around this ending: everything from Riggan really dies on stage to the whole thing was a drug-withdrawal induced hallucination of his daughter. Come on. This movie won awards. The truth is that, from this wider view, none of that “extra” and super-natural stuff makes any sense. You know it, I know it, we all freaking know it. You can’t connect a Hollywood vs. theater themed movie to an ending like that without really stretching out those right-side neural pathways. It’s just not going to happen.
Alright, then what does it mean? Well, this is where it’s going to get really tricky. Digging deep into this movie’s other layer, the one where the fantastical stuff occurs for a reason, is difficult to explain, and I think that this is a large reason why few have really bothered to try. I do know that since “Birdman” is so complex and confusing, chances are pretty good that my explanation of this movie’s complex and confusing elements is probably going to be just as complex and confusing. See? I’m already not making any sense. But here goes nothing. I’m going to try to do this very slowly and carefully.
To understand this flick you have to go way back, and I mean way back. Now please, before you click that X because you assume I’m over-reaching and a total nut, just hear me out. (Clears throat) You have to go all the way back to Greek Mythology, and, in particular, the story of King Minos’s Minotaur. I was seriously considering digging into this whole myth, but, after a couple runs through it, I figure it’s just going to take too long. But if you are interested in the details of this myth, which is one of the most important from literature to psychology, go here:
http://www.greekmyths-greekmythology.com/myth-of-theseus-and-minotaur/
To summarize what is important to “Birdman,” the myth contains a half-man, half-bull trapped in a near-inescapable maze called a Labyrinth. I realize that this sounds bizarre, so just to establish a little trust: in “Birdman,” do you remember when Edward Norton climbs out of the tanning bed reading a book? Well, the book that he is reading is Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges. Also, if that doesn’t convince you, a L.A. Times article (see link below) actually quotes Inarritu: “I wanted the audience to be navigating the labyrinth of what [Riggan] is going through” (Gettell Los Angeles Times). See? It’s really not that crazy after all.
Good, I’m glad we made it through that together, but now this stuff is about to get a little more confusing, and we’re going to go from Greek Mythology to -who else but- Edgar Allan Poe. Ol’ Ed was a master of the psychological thriller, and he skillfully symbolizes the depths of the human mind with the metaphor of the labyrinth, and, in case you’re not aware, Edgar Allan Poe was a genius, and this -human mind as a maze- trope is still present today. A lot. Think about “The Shining,” and Jacky boy being trapped in that Colorado maze. Yeah, you could say that Jack is a good and evil split-person (instead of a split-species beast), and Danny trapping him in that maze contains him (to the hotel forever), just like that poor old Minotaur of Greek Mythology. Think about the end of “True Detective,” when Rust is tracking that psycho through long maze-like corridors, or “Alien,” which involves escaping a demented acid-blooded creature thing through the tightly packed hallways of a spaceship. There are tons and tons of examples. Poe figured out that this is a good way to reach back into the deep recesses of our minds without us even being aware of it. Something about being trapped in a maze with a monster. Freaky.
When you really, really think about it, this metaphor actually kind of makes sense in a kind of, sort of empirical fashion. Think about the human mind; somewhere deep down in there is a force of instinctual desires. You know, sex, violence and food: all my favorite things. However, this stuff is contained and controlled by society, relationships, and other aspects of outside reality; and this keeps that monster-like force of our personalities contained. Yep, just like the Minotaur in his Labyrinth. So, Poe was just writing about Freud’s Tripartite Model of human psyche: The Minotaur is the “Id,” right? Well that’s a good way of looking at it, except for the fact that Poe died almost seven years before Freud was even born. Huh, Poeian Psycho-analytical Theory. It has a nice ring to it. Don’t you think?
Anyway, back to “Birdman.” For this layer, or deeper focus, you have to look at the whole movie in an entirely different light. You have to really tighten-up your focus. You have to go subjective. Hard. Think about the main character’s (Riggan played by Michael Keaton) life and personal-mental state during this movie. He’s writing, directing, and starring in a play in an attempt to prove his self-worth as he ungracefully ages: an obvious sign of his insecurities. Dude even wears a wig to look younger. He also has an actor that is younger, better, and more popular working next to him, questioning his authority, and also hooking up with his “always watching” and judging daughter that just happens to be in a state of insecurity with a looming drug-addiction. Also his girlfriend and co-star’s pregnant with his unwanted baby, his ex-wife pops in periodically to remind him of a better past, a brat of a critic is threatening to completely smash his play, and all of this occurs while his entire financial welfare is tumbling down the mole hill. Damn, just thinking about this guy’s problems makes me want to take a Xanax.
This is where you’re going to have to take a leap into the metaphorical. All of these characters are not real, they are simply representations of an area of Riggan’s insecurities. The lawyer is finances, Mike is his age, the critic is his reputation, his daughter is his family. The whole thing -i.e. the characters, the set, the stage, the hallways- are all just an aspect of Riggan’s Labyrinth (inside of his mind). None of it is real and it is not meant to be taken literally. At all.
Take note of the cinematography: the whole movie revolves around tightly packed hallways, with key events happening in the same locations. (i.e. the stage, the dressing room, the bar). Think about the time that Riggan leaves the Labyrinth, and gets stuck outside the theater in his tighty-whities. Everyone out there judges him, takes photos of him, and, if you listen carefully, you can even hear one woman say, “Ugh, you’re so old.” Riggan couldn’t leave the Labyrinth, because he hadn’t shed his insecurities. Get it?
So… Riggan is the Minotaur? Yeah, he sure is. Instead of being half-man, half-bull; he is half-man, half-Birdman. Birdman is the larger representation of all of Riggan’s insecurities combined into one nagging goofy-looking superhero that is attached to Riggan all the time. They are one or, if you will, “twone” (James Joyce Finnegans Wake). Riggan is never going to get out of the Labyrinth unless he is no longer a Minotaur. He has to shed Birdman, and thus shed all of his insecurities to escape.
By now you’re either pissed that you just read all that, or you’re picking up what I’m laying down. Just for all the haters, here is a quote from Inarritu from an article by Steve Persall (link below) that provides evidence of what I’m talking about:
“You catch what you're not aware of, how the ego works, how sometimes it misleads you … this dictator, tyrant, this subconscious voice that all of us have. … I thought it would be a good idea to have this struggle of a human being with that abstract thing in a film” (Persall Tampa Bay Times).
This essay does not even come close to tackling all the possible questions of this movie. Why did he shoot himself? Flying? Love? Admiration? Farrah Fawcett? There is a rhyme and reason to all of that, and I have my own opinions, but, honestly, there is no way I’m going to dig into all of that. I’m not trying to write a dissertation over here. But of all the movies out there, “Birdman” is one of the few that you actually could write a dissertation about. That’s why it got Academy Awards, not because Inarritu was sacrificing goats to the Illuminati.
But, to sum up, what is the deal with that ending? Inarritu is probably never going to explain it, because I don’t think he wants to shelter his film to his audiences. Leaving it up to interpretation is going to spark more curiousity, attention, and, therefore, more long essays on Tumblr just like this one. Therefore, I’m not going to explain it either. But if you can’t figure out my take from what you just read, then maybe you’ll never get it, and this movie just isn’t for you. Give up on “Birdman” and go watch “The Revenant,” because, let me tell you, that movie is good, and, I’d even say, maybe a little too good.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-alejandro-g-inarritu-birdman-20141031-story.html
http://www.tampabay.com/things-to-do/movies/inarritu-interview-go-inside-the-mind-of-the-man-behind-birdman/2205405
