Watts is a highly respected actress, and she’s been getting pretty meaty roles for over a decade. While she’s perhaps not one of the top leading actresses, she’s BY NO MEANS a washed up actress and her career is FAR from lackluster.
Now Keaton and Norton? Yes, their art-imitating-life-roles in Birdman were not coincidental. While apparently neither role was originally written for them, the similarities the characters of Riggan & Mike share with Keaton & Norton are undeniable; as Alejandro said, he knew that Keaton was made for this role when he finished the script. And sure, after he was done with Batman, Keaton had a number of memorable roles (not too many high-profile projects but some notable stuff nonetheless). Not to mention his role as Beetlejuice is iconic as well. But as with Riggan, his career seemed to slow down and obviously many still associated him with one certain superhero role decades later. So yes, Norton’s reputation as a control freak rang true in the film while Keaton’s role to some extent mirrored his connection with Batman.
Anyhow, it’s great how things changed for Keaton after this film. (At least, that’s what it appears like to me.) He’s been getting cast in more high profile stuff... both blockbusters and Oscar-friendly films... and he may be more in demand than he’s ever been (certainly in a long time). In terms of tentpole films, take his role as Vulture (Birdman indeed, hehe) in the latest Spider-Man... it’s a fantastic role+performance. If that’s “limiting”, then I hope he continues to limit himself because he acted the hell out of that great role! Awesome baddie :>
reply
share