Birdman

So the short form: Critics who praised it didn’t praise it enough – literally it is better than I expected even with the praise.

So basically, you’ve heard the story: Michael Keaton plays a former superhero actor trying to revive his career by doing an adaption of a Raymond Chandler story, and it’s a bit of a dark comedy/character piece. That honestly doesn’t do it justice as it’s far more complicated, deep, heartfelt, and clever.

The film is extremely well-crafted, and doesn’t use the standard three act structure – it uses a single camera view (the directing and editing is exceptional) to tell the story with occasional “sped time” or “scenery-as-wipe” transitions, which makes it even more powerful. The film in an amusing way limits itself from using many Hollywood tropes. Which is sort of the point.

Mildest of spoilers, the film’s themes include but aren’t limited to:

  • Madness and embracing madness.
  • A critique of Hollywood.
  • A critique of theater.
  • A celebration of theater.
  • A critique of AUDIENCES.
  • A critique of critics (in an exceptional scene).
  • A celebrating of the power of actors.
  • Pretty much noting actors aren’t gods.
  • The need for love.
  • The need for identity.
  • Some Buddhism on top of this.

Plus there’s a variety of self-referential and foreshadowing elements elements that put me in mind of both “Fuse: Memories of a Huntress” only the references are thematic not causal. it also reminded me of the storytelling work in “Laura.”

The performances are great and the film remains grounded in its humanity, in all its flawed and human characters.

It’s the kind of film that made me believe in films again. Often I leave my intellectual stimulation to text and use visual entertainment for less intellectual pursuits except for documentaries. This is making me rethink my habits.

Only warning? See it with someone. You need someone to discuss the film when it’s done.

I will see this again. I will probably buy it. It probably will become a regularly-viewed cult film.

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, publishes books on career and culture at http://www.informotron.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.

Fan I Am #7: Looking At Things With A Fandom Eye

Viewpoint Telescope

After having discussed fandom, its role, and fandom as a culture, I want to share an interesting lesson that came from this analysis. This . . . really long analysis.

We may question the primacy of fandom as identity for some people – I certainly do. I think fandom can serve as a primary part of identity for some people who are intimately involved in the relevant material, industries, and so on. I do think it’s not a good idea for people not so involved as they can become disconnected and unaware, investing time in something for social benefits but no other.

But the thing is that there are fandoms that we don’t think of fandoms.

And they can be just as empowering – and just as messed up as any anime fandom or group of band followers.

Let’s talk religion and Politics.*

Read more

Fan I Am #6: Fandom And Larger Culture

Scientist Scope Technology Science

I’d like to take a break from my deeper musing on Fandom to look at how having a Fandom as an identity and as a culture really isn’t that different from non-fannish stuff.

Its probably easy to think of those that identify heavily as Fandom as different. After all most people, say, are not obsessed with “Sleepy Hollow”* Ergo fans are “different” from “other cultures,” which of course is basically bollocks because people are people. We’re just different people.

But when we step back from Fandoms we realize they really are their own culture, albeit embedded in a larger culture. Now, as I’ve argued, identifying primarily with that culture is not always a healthy or positive thing. But cultures they are.

Consider what they have.

Read more