Birdman ou (A Inesperada Virtude da Ignorância)
Título original: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Um fracassado ator tenta recuperar sua carreira com uma produção da Broadway que ele escreve, dirige e protagoniza.Um fracassado ator tenta recuperar sua carreira com uma produção da Broadway que ele escreve, dirige e protagoniza.Um fracassado ator tenta recuperar sua carreira com uma produção da Broadway que ele escreve, dirige e protagoniza.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Ganhou 4 Oscars
- 193 vitórias e 297 indicações no total
Avaliações em destaque
I'm not exaggerating when I rate this movie a 10/10. From the first minute it's intriguing, you want to keep watching, not just for the impeccable performances, but for the incredible montage of scenes and the quality of the script. And best of all, as time goes on, the movie gets better in every way. Without a doubt, it is one of the best films in the history of cinema.
I'll start by saying this movie is worth seeing at least once, at least to see what it is doing. It is shot much like Hitchcock's *Rope*, though not exactly. It isn't all one shot, but there are many shots that flow from scene to scene. The catch? Those scenes are not always chronologically continuous. This is a fact you very well might miss if you are distracted or have something inhibiting you (the theatre I watched it in first however many years ago had abysmal audio, so this was me the first time).
This may sound disorienting, but if you change the way you are viewing the movie, I think it will help. Don't look at it as a standard movie: instead, view it as a stage play whose stage is an entire neighborhood, mostly one building, and which was mostly captured as it was being performed by a cameraman. This means that the actors moving in and out of scene have the same flow that a stage play has, and this also explains the presence of the drummer that you randomly see in the background performing the soundtrack to the movie. (Yes, the soundtrack is mostly a drummer; it works really well somehow.)
There's only one tiny wrench in this, the movie has all sorts of elements that are generally assumed to be hallucinations or imaginings of the main character (Keaton). In different scenes where he is alone, we see him using various telekinetic powers. Occasionally, we actually see his younger self as Birdman (an action-movie role from his younger days) in person, although usually he just antagonizes him via voice over. Some of the few hard cuts in the movie that do not follow an actor from one room to another are used to establish that the telekinesis in the previous scene is probably just Keaton throwing stuff around the room in anger.
How to reconcile this is... well, difficult. It certainly plays with the tension between stage plays and movies. In neither is everything you see always taken literally, but in stage plays it is much more figurative (hence the bending of time and space from scene to scene). But on stage, you usually can't perform the kinds of special effects (characteristic of movies) that we are being asked not to take literally. (I'm trying to stay spoiler free, so I'll not say what I'm thinking right now.)
This is where we should look at the themes of the movie, because these formal elements in conflict that I mentioned mirror the thematic conflict between cinema and theatre. Long story short, the premise of the mov... (movie? . . . stageplay? . . . ) ...of the story is that Keaton is a has-been actor, known (very well known) for superhero movies he did ten or twenty years ago, all based around a character named Bat*coughs* I mean, Birdman.
Sound familiar? Okay, good. Well the inciting incident in the story is that he is trying to reclaim his career as an actor in general, and with it his artistic street-cred, so to speak, by writing (adapting), directing, and starring in a play. It is based on a novel by someone who encouraged him to be an actor when he was a child. Therefore, this isn't a move of cold calculation, trying to get famous again after years of not being as successful as he was as Birdman and therefore being artistically inauthentic, although he is certainly accused of this. But it is instead a very real attempt to reconnect with his younger, artistic self, before Birdman, which he sees as the inauthentic detour of his career and as not what he wants to be remembered for.
The conflict is, he seems to be finding that the film world doesn't translate to the stage world. He seems to be hitting the problem that there may not be such a thing as an "actor-in-general" but only two separate things called "stage-actor" and "screen-actor." On multiple occasions, this film criticizes the spectacles that saturate Hollywood and the celebrity culture it grows in the Petri dish of its award shows. Edward Norton plays his foil, someone else who finds himself on stage more than he does in his natural life, yet a stage insider, rather than a film one.
The film isn't all anti film culture, however. In many ways, film has its last laugh when we see that the kinds of things that make the theatre-world fall in love with you and fawn over your talent are superficial as well.
The formal conflict inherent in how the film is delivered therefore mirrors the thematic content that is being delivered, which is almost always the optimum result.
In other words, I have a lot of respect for this movie. I rate it 9 stars because that is how I say I think everyone should give it a fair chance.
This may sound disorienting, but if you change the way you are viewing the movie, I think it will help. Don't look at it as a standard movie: instead, view it as a stage play whose stage is an entire neighborhood, mostly one building, and which was mostly captured as it was being performed by a cameraman. This means that the actors moving in and out of scene have the same flow that a stage play has, and this also explains the presence of the drummer that you randomly see in the background performing the soundtrack to the movie. (Yes, the soundtrack is mostly a drummer; it works really well somehow.)
There's only one tiny wrench in this, the movie has all sorts of elements that are generally assumed to be hallucinations or imaginings of the main character (Keaton). In different scenes where he is alone, we see him using various telekinetic powers. Occasionally, we actually see his younger self as Birdman (an action-movie role from his younger days) in person, although usually he just antagonizes him via voice over. Some of the few hard cuts in the movie that do not follow an actor from one room to another are used to establish that the telekinesis in the previous scene is probably just Keaton throwing stuff around the room in anger.
How to reconcile this is... well, difficult. It certainly plays with the tension between stage plays and movies. In neither is everything you see always taken literally, but in stage plays it is much more figurative (hence the bending of time and space from scene to scene). But on stage, you usually can't perform the kinds of special effects (characteristic of movies) that we are being asked not to take literally. (I'm trying to stay spoiler free, so I'll not say what I'm thinking right now.)
This is where we should look at the themes of the movie, because these formal elements in conflict that I mentioned mirror the thematic conflict between cinema and theatre. Long story short, the premise of the mov... (movie? . . . stageplay? . . . ) ...of the story is that Keaton is a has-been actor, known (very well known) for superhero movies he did ten or twenty years ago, all based around a character named Bat*coughs* I mean, Birdman.
Sound familiar? Okay, good. Well the inciting incident in the story is that he is trying to reclaim his career as an actor in general, and with it his artistic street-cred, so to speak, by writing (adapting), directing, and starring in a play. It is based on a novel by someone who encouraged him to be an actor when he was a child. Therefore, this isn't a move of cold calculation, trying to get famous again after years of not being as successful as he was as Birdman and therefore being artistically inauthentic, although he is certainly accused of this. But it is instead a very real attempt to reconnect with his younger, artistic self, before Birdman, which he sees as the inauthentic detour of his career and as not what he wants to be remembered for.
The conflict is, he seems to be finding that the film world doesn't translate to the stage world. He seems to be hitting the problem that there may not be such a thing as an "actor-in-general" but only two separate things called "stage-actor" and "screen-actor." On multiple occasions, this film criticizes the spectacles that saturate Hollywood and the celebrity culture it grows in the Petri dish of its award shows. Edward Norton plays his foil, someone else who finds himself on stage more than he does in his natural life, yet a stage insider, rather than a film one.
The film isn't all anti film culture, however. In many ways, film has its last laugh when we see that the kinds of things that make the theatre-world fall in love with you and fawn over your talent are superficial as well.
The formal conflict inherent in how the film is delivered therefore mirrors the thematic content that is being delivered, which is almost always the optimum result.
In other words, I have a lot of respect for this movie. I rate it 9 stars because that is how I say I think everyone should give it a fair chance.
Despite the near-universal acclaim from critics, 'Birdman' very much divided audiences to a quite extreme degree. This division is very much understandable, 'Birdman' has a great many merits but not everything will work for everybody.
To me 'Birdman' was an excellent film. Maybe not quite as good as the hype suggests, but nowhere near deserving of the many 1/10 votes when its merits are a great many that some people seem to have not acknowledged. Although, from personal opinion, a little over-hyped, 'Birdman' ('Gone Girl', 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and 'Whiplash' were also personal favourites, and 'Boyhood' was also better than given credit for considering the amount of hate it's garnered) was a 2014 highlight and a worthy Best Picture winner.
Not everything in 'Birdman' works. Some of the pace is a touch frenetic in parts of the second half and not everything feels quite as tied up as ought with things left a little loose.
However, 'Birdman' is an exceptionally well made film, with some of the best and cleverest cinematography of the year, some of the cinematography and editing is so dazzling it's enough to take the breath away. The special effects are also tremendous. Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu (in the first of his deserved director wins, the best being 2015's 'The Revenant), 'Birdman' is one of the best directed films of 2014 too and shows Iñárritu's immense talent as a director, with breath-taking vision, sense of mood and the ability to make the story as gripping as possible.
The script is fun, thought-provoking and at times touchingly profound. The story mostly, while sometimes thin, is gripping and the characters engage.
Michael Keaton gives his best performance in years, an outstanding performance and perhaps a career-best. Edward Norton is similarly superb, his performance also ranking among his best. Emma Stones charms and delights too.
Overall, very much divisive, with some people adoring or admiring it and others hating it, personally was one of the people who loved it while acknowledging its imperfections. 9/10 Bethany Cox
To me 'Birdman' was an excellent film. Maybe not quite as good as the hype suggests, but nowhere near deserving of the many 1/10 votes when its merits are a great many that some people seem to have not acknowledged. Although, from personal opinion, a little over-hyped, 'Birdman' ('Gone Girl', 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and 'Whiplash' were also personal favourites, and 'Boyhood' was also better than given credit for considering the amount of hate it's garnered) was a 2014 highlight and a worthy Best Picture winner.
Not everything in 'Birdman' works. Some of the pace is a touch frenetic in parts of the second half and not everything feels quite as tied up as ought with things left a little loose.
However, 'Birdman' is an exceptionally well made film, with some of the best and cleverest cinematography of the year, some of the cinematography and editing is so dazzling it's enough to take the breath away. The special effects are also tremendous. Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu (in the first of his deserved director wins, the best being 2015's 'The Revenant), 'Birdman' is one of the best directed films of 2014 too and shows Iñárritu's immense talent as a director, with breath-taking vision, sense of mood and the ability to make the story as gripping as possible.
The script is fun, thought-provoking and at times touchingly profound. The story mostly, while sometimes thin, is gripping and the characters engage.
Michael Keaton gives his best performance in years, an outstanding performance and perhaps a career-best. Edward Norton is similarly superb, his performance also ranking among his best. Emma Stones charms and delights too.
Overall, very much divisive, with some people adoring or admiring it and others hating it, personally was one of the people who loved it while acknowledging its imperfections. 9/10 Bethany Cox
Former star, Riggan Thomas, once famed for playing superhero Birdman, tries to get his career back on track, writing, starring and directing a Broadway play.
I can't lie, I quit when I first tried to watch it, I got twenty minutes in, and struggled, I found it a little too heavy, this time I stuck with it til the credits rolled.
I'm so glad I stuck with it this time round, it took a little time for me to get into it, initially I found it quite pretentious, but it does settle, and genuinely becomes quite engrossing. The turning point came for me, when Riggan receives a roasting from his daughter, it really helps explain where he's at.
Sublime cinematography, it's a gorgeous looking film, the camera work is impeccable, the film flows incredibly well. You also get to see a great deal of Edward Norton.
The cinematography is great, but even that is trumped by the acting, some superb performances. Art does seem to imitate life, it seemed relevant for Keaton, who of course played Batman, but definitely had a lean spell, his performance here was spellbinding.
Credit to Edward Norton, Emma Stone and Andrea Riseburgh, I thought the whole supporting cast were excellent.
There was a massive hype surrounding this film, I understand why it's loved, I can't say I deem it as a masterpiece, it's somehow too niche for that, it's definitely going to alienate some viewers, the mood was right for me tonight though, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
If you haven't seen it, or quit early as I did, I urge you to give it a chance.
8/10.
I can't lie, I quit when I first tried to watch it, I got twenty minutes in, and struggled, I found it a little too heavy, this time I stuck with it til the credits rolled.
I'm so glad I stuck with it this time round, it took a little time for me to get into it, initially I found it quite pretentious, but it does settle, and genuinely becomes quite engrossing. The turning point came for me, when Riggan receives a roasting from his daughter, it really helps explain where he's at.
Sublime cinematography, it's a gorgeous looking film, the camera work is impeccable, the film flows incredibly well. You also get to see a great deal of Edward Norton.
The cinematography is great, but even that is trumped by the acting, some superb performances. Art does seem to imitate life, it seemed relevant for Keaton, who of course played Batman, but definitely had a lean spell, his performance here was spellbinding.
Credit to Edward Norton, Emma Stone and Andrea Riseburgh, I thought the whole supporting cast were excellent.
There was a massive hype surrounding this film, I understand why it's loved, I can't say I deem it as a masterpiece, it's somehow too niche for that, it's definitely going to alienate some viewers, the mood was right for me tonight though, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
If you haven't seen it, or quit early as I did, I urge you to give it a chance.
8/10.
I have a tendency to check user reviews on IMDb before watching a film. I was surprised to see how divided people were for Birdman. Most of the reviews were either 9-10 stars or 1 star. This made me want to watch the film even more and by the time I finished watching it, my faith in people had decreased by a little bit.
Birdman is brilliant! This is not just an opinion, I wouldn't even consider it as one of my favourite films, I didn't even give 10 stars. When I say it is brilliant, I don't mean that I liked it too much, I mean that every aspect of the film is masterfully dealt with. Sublime acting, excellent cinematography, interesting and unconventional directing and a wonderfully original score. OK there wasn't a fast-paced plot with lots of plot twists, but not every movie has to be like this. One of the reviewers who gave one star complained about the plot and suggested to the readers to go watch a Kubrick film instead. Well, Kubrick himself made movies with minimal plot which were nevertheless proved to be masterpieces (2001: A space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut). He once said: "A film is (or should be) more like music than fiction". Films are supposed to make us think and feel, like music does. You can make a good song by adding story-like lyrics and you can make a good song by adding no lyrics at all. The same applies to movies. There are plot-driven masterpieces and there are no-plot- driven masterpieces. Birdman is one of the latter.
I don't want to spoil the film. I just want to say that I would highly recommend it for anyone, except people who only want to see pointless action and superhero films. Birdman will make you think, reflect on similar situations you might have experienced and discover the other side of actors and films. I can absolutely understand people not liking it. There is not a single film that appeals to everyone. What I cannot understand though is people calling it a bad movie.
Birdman is brilliant! This is not just an opinion, I wouldn't even consider it as one of my favourite films, I didn't even give 10 stars. When I say it is brilliant, I don't mean that I liked it too much, I mean that every aspect of the film is masterfully dealt with. Sublime acting, excellent cinematography, interesting and unconventional directing and a wonderfully original score. OK there wasn't a fast-paced plot with lots of plot twists, but not every movie has to be like this. One of the reviewers who gave one star complained about the plot and suggested to the readers to go watch a Kubrick film instead. Well, Kubrick himself made movies with minimal plot which were nevertheless proved to be masterpieces (2001: A space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut). He once said: "A film is (or should be) more like music than fiction". Films are supposed to make us think and feel, like music does. You can make a good song by adding story-like lyrics and you can make a good song by adding no lyrics at all. The same applies to movies. There are plot-driven masterpieces and there are no-plot- driven masterpieces. Birdman is one of the latter.
I don't want to spoil the film. I just want to say that I would highly recommend it for anyone, except people who only want to see pointless action and superhero films. Birdman will make you think, reflect on similar situations you might have experienced and discover the other side of actors and films. I can absolutely understand people not liking it. There is not a single film that appeals to everyone. What I cannot understand though is people calling it a bad movie.
Oscars Best Picture Winners, Ranked
Oscars Best Picture Winners, Ranked
See the complete list of Oscars Best Picture winners, ranked by IMDb ratings.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesBecause the movie was carefully rehearsed and shot in sequence, editing took only two weeks.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen Riggan goes back to the theater after a drunk night out, right after he's touching ground beneath his feet again, there can a couple be seen walking from the left side of the frame to the right, away from the camera (we can only see them from behind). When Riggan passes the couple the right man can be seen making a very sudden quick (and very unnatural looking) hand-movement in direction to Riggan's back. This movement might have been necessary to detach the cables from Michael Keaton's back that he needed to be attached to for the flying scene.
- Citações
Note on Riggan's dressing room mirror: A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosBegin and end credits are presented in a peculiar style with the rhythm of the drums
- Versões alternativasThe Sundance TV broadcast removes the swearing and crops the scene featuring Edward Norton's butt so that it is not shown.
- Trilhas sonorasBirdman Blind Melody
Composed by Joan Valent
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Centrais de atendimento oficiais
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Birdman o (La inesperada virtud de la ignorancia)
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 18.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 42.340.598
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 424.397
- 19 de out. de 2014
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 103.215.094
- Tempo de duração1 hora 59 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
What is the streaming release date of Birdman ou (A Inesperada Virtude da Ignorância) (2014) in Canada?
Responda