It did have some really good perfomances, especially by Norton, and it was an original, inventive idea.
The problem for me was I just don't care that much about the middle aged crisis of a formerly famous actor.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sky-Sea-Poetry-Prose/dp/1481766449/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380162609&sr=8-
It's more about an actor who wants to be taken seriously and not be labeled a celebrity.
It's his attempt at achieving that by discarding his past glory, and doing something that he percieves as "true art". It's also about how critics can see it differently, and just bash his work down the gutter, and about how the final product can be affected by the personal trouble of each person involved in its production.
And it's an actors film, where the performances are the highlight and the story could really be anything and it wouldn't matter.
Satire and a criticism of Broadway and the social media.
Okay, sure, it is also that. Still doesn't make me interested in it. It reminded me of Ed Wood--a film that the critics loved but I found exceptionally boring. If you're not involved the acting, you (or I, anyway) don't really care too much about the struggles the actors/directors go through.
To quote Patton Oswald, "We don't want to know where the things we love come from, we just want the things we love."
Yeah, I love acting. A good acting performance can save a mediocre film for me. And this film was littered with good acting performances.
Not that I believe it needed that, as I thought it was already above average just for the story it tells and how they filmed it. Did I mention that originality, cinematography, dialogues are all more important to me than having a character I can relate to?
So, yeah, I get your point, but I myself don't apply those restrictions to my enjoyment of filmed entertainment.
Btw, I love Ed Wood too, though I don't find it as good as Birdman.
shareIt's certainly got some difficulties. Though I do think it's worth a watch. Good or bad: who cares? As long as the movie is interesting. When Keaton blasts the critic at the bar about how she's made a career off judging individuals, which can end said career, while she, herself, has NEVER taken a chance like those people she judges: that was a very insightful nugget of the movie. Yet some of the things she hurls at him are also true. It's an interesting dynamic.
You just have to probe more. It isn't for everyone and a movie shouldn't be for everyone. There's nothing creative or brave about a movie that appeases EVERYONE