MovieChat Forums > Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014) Discussion > Meaningless ambiguity

Meaningless ambiguity

posted 9 years ago by Roonil_Wazlib_97
6 replies | jump to latest

Not all kinds of ambiguity are bad. But here it seems that the filmmakers threw a bunch of disparate, random ideas/images together in the final section with no regards to how any of it would cohere. I've yet to hear a satisfying, coherent interpretation.

Here's an example. In the words of an IMDb Trivia entry:

Ironically, at the end of the movie when Riggan is supposedly rid of Birdman, he ends up in a face cast resembling Birdman's mask. He removes this to reveal a new nose shaped like a beak, then sends out his first "tweet", and proceeds to "fly" out the window.

These choices only confuse readings of the movie. Is it a good thing that he’s become Birdman, ie. a super-guy thanks to the theater, somehow instead of Movie Birdman? Or is it, as the movie has been saying all along, a bad thing that he’s still Birdman, a product, and he can’t make Birdman go away despite his efforts? And if the latter, how come, since his play and his acting were such a success? It's all left muddled up in the air.

I've devoted a few hours reading what's been written by others on this movie to see if some meaning can come out of it and it hasn't. I'm giving it 6.5/10 because I can appreciate some of its qualities like style, acting and the ideas in the initial premise, but in my opinion it's far from a great, meaningful work.

[–] lordDEMAXUS 9 years ago

Movies like this dont have a certain meaning. there is nothing called a "coherent" interpretation. interpretation is neither right and wrong so your comment is BS.

Is it a good thing that he’s become Birdman, ie. a super-guy thanks to the theater, somehow instead of Movie Birdman? Or is it, as the movie has been saying all along, a bad thing that he’s still Birdman, a product, and he can’t make Birdman go away despite his efforts?

It is all up to YOU. you can choose what fits right. this is like saying some f the best paintings in the world are awful because people have different interpretation. great art is shown whenever the audience can come up with different ideas, interpretations. It just shows that the art form juggles with lots of meanings and can be a personal experience for everyone. Kubrick himself never wanted his movies to answer the meanings/ messages shown in the film but just show it so we can reflect on it with our own lives and that the movie can be more personal to each individual. Birdman is a great representation of great art.

[–] Roonil_Wazlib_97 9 years ago

It's your comment that's BS because you entirely missed the point of mine. I didn't say it's a bad thing if there is more than one interpretation/meaning. That would have been fine. I was showing how in this case there doesn't seem to be a single one that makes sense because whenever you try to form one, there are other things in the work itself that debunk it. If you think Birdman is great art, do share your interpretation of its ending section and I might help you see the holes in it. And please spare me the tired lecture on "great art" and the random big-name-director name-dropping.

[–] lordDEMAXUS 9 years ago

I have two interpretations. My first interpretation is that he died and that his daughter has the same psychological condition as him and my other interpretation(which i thought of right now) is that the the movie's ambiguity is meaningless but intentionally to satirize how directors/ writers/ actors add artsy scenes to makes it more interesting but is meaningless. You might think i am looking too much into it but the ENTIRE movie is a satire of the Hollywood industry.

Also the name dropping wasnt random. Kubrick does do exactly what i said and this movie takes a LOT of inspiration from his films.

[–] Roonil_Wazlib_97 9 years ago

My first interpretation is that he died and that his daughter has the same psychological condition as him

He finally has the life he wants: getting love and recognition from his family and from the public and critics. That's when he decides to jump off the window?
Also, his condition (which by the way was played more as a light movie element than a serious psychological disorder) was specific to his own struggle between commercialism/movie-heroism, represented by Birdman, and artistic validation, represented by the theater. So I don't see a reason why his daughter would have the same thing.

my other interpretation(which i thought of right now) is that the the movie's ambiguity is meaningless but intentionally to satirize how directors/ writers/ actors add artsy scenes to makes it more interesting but is meaningless. You might think i am looking too much into it but the ENTIRE movie is a satire of the Hollywood industry.

Yeah it is a satire of many things. Could it also be a satire of meaningless ambiguity? I don't know, but hearing the writers, they seem to believe in the open-endedness of their ending. When the interviewer shared with them his take on it (he treated it as symbolic of Riggan's happiness - I can find you the link if you're interested), they said it's close to what they had in mind. You can read it as satire if you see it that way, but me, I don't have the impression that it was played on a tongue-in-cheek note, plus the writers don't seem to have intended it.

[–] partydjz (425) 8 years ago

You're comparing this film with Kubrick ?

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 8 years ago

I think he chose to end it all, with his imagination letting him fly off as Birdman, while reality taking his leap to incidental suicide.
Either way, I think his daughter was content because in a way she knew he'd reached his finish.

...top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/