Birdman Is Pretentious, But That Doesn't Mean It's Not Fun
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I'll be that guy and say that Birdman's (supposed)* mockery of superheroes probably didn't win it any points with Bob.
* = From what I hear. I haven't seen the movie for myself yet.
* = From what I hear. I haven't seen the movie for myself yet.
Uriel_Hayabusa said:
I didn't get that impression at all, it sounds more like the movie engaged in light-hearted ribbing of superhero movie tropes, which Bob has enough self-awareness to be fine with. Despite what people who liked Amazing Spiderman and Man of Steel will tell you, Bob doesn't really hate on movies for petty, self-interested reasons, he hates on them 'cause they're shit.
This seems like an important fact.
Bob, for a movie with the title of BIRDMAN, you didn't once make any joke involving Harvey Birdman. Not even one of Phil Ken Sebben's trademark "Ha ha!"'s at any of the casting choices from those who were in comic book movies. And speaking of:
Anything to say about Emma Stone appearing in this? Especially since she's going to Broadway as the female lead in Cabaret. And if anyone's got a picture of her in costume, yeah, that'd be greeeeeaaat.
Anything to say about Emma Stone appearing in this? Especially since she's going to Broadway as the female lead in Cabaret. And if anyone's got a picture of her in costume, yeah, that'd be greeeeeaaat.
McGuinty1 said:
Bob strikes me as more than a little overdefensive when it comes to superhero/geek stuff. Remember, he devoted a whole Big Picture episode (Stay Classy, San Diego in case you're wondering) to defending Comic-Con from mean, elitist film snobs not too long ago.
Hell, Bob seems rather passionate about defending superhero movies from film snobs in general:
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2014/07/o-heart-weeps/#comment-1507365036
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2014/10/cultural-genocide-thing/#comment-1649541742
Hell, in one of his comments in that second link he compares ''film snobs'' to Gamergaters of all things. Yes, he compared people who don't like a particular genre of movie he's passionate about to a (hate) group that's best known for harassing women. So yeah, pardon me if he strikes me as rather defensive about his superheroes.
I assume it's meant to be a demonstration of how the actor is dismissive of superhero characters. Perhaps implying that the actor didn't really give a flip about his role as Birdman.
Either that, or it was chosen to be familiar to the anti-comic snobs watching the film, since they likely wouldn't know much about superheroes other than passing knowledge that you identify someone as a superhero by putting them in tights and a cape... so they needed a readily identifiable brush-off.
"There's also some places where pop-culture point-scoring just plain goes off the rails: "They put him in a cape, too?" laments Thomson, having been informed that Jeremy Renner is among the actors not available for his play because he's busy making comic books movies; a weird observation, since Hawkeye doesn't have a cape..."
This is so Comic Book Guy XD
This is so Comic Book Guy XD
I was really looking forward to this for a while. Seemed like it'd be a lot like Bojack Horseman. But it looks like it's just some twat raving against the superhero genre.
DEADLINE: Is there anything you enjoy about these superhero films?
GONZALEZ INARRITU: I sometimes enjoy them because they are basic and simple and go well with popcorn. The problem is that sometimes they purport to be profound, based on some Greek mythological kind of thing. And they are honestly very right wing. I always see them as killing people because they do not believe in what you believe, or they are not being who you want them to be. I hate that, and don?t respond to those characters. They have been poison, this cultural genocide, because the audience is so overexposed to plot and explosions and shit that doesn?t mean nothing about the experience of being human.
http://deadline.com/2014/10/birdman-director-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-writers-interview-852206/
Ignoring the fact that most superheros have a no-killing code, is it really that right-wing to oppose people who believe it's ok to take over the world? I mean, yeah, he goes on about how many superheros are billionaires, but hat makes sense. Billionaires typically would be the only people with the resources to be able to wage a one-man war on crime. Is it right-wing? Sure, a bit. More libertarian than fascist, though. The core of a superhero is that it's an individual that takes an extralegal approach to fighting crime. They ignore due process and every other bureaucratic regulation in a way that would be an Orwellian nightmare if the authorities did it, However, despite operating under virtually no oversight, superheros aren't the jackbooted oppressors this guy is making out them to be. Seriously, what superhero gives a shit what people believe aside from stuff like "I believe I should rule the world!" or "I believe it'd be funny to drug the city's water supply!"?
DEADLINE: Is there anything you enjoy about these superhero films?
GONZALEZ INARRITU: I sometimes enjoy them because they are basic and simple and go well with popcorn. The problem is that sometimes they purport to be profound, based on some Greek mythological kind of thing. And they are honestly very right wing. I always see them as killing people because they do not believe in what you believe, or they are not being who you want them to be. I hate that, and don?t respond to those characters. They have been poison, this cultural genocide, because the audience is so overexposed to plot and explosions and shit that doesn?t mean nothing about the experience of being human.
http://deadline.com/2014/10/birdman-director-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-writers-interview-852206/
Ignoring the fact that most superheros have a no-killing code, is it really that right-wing to oppose people who believe it's ok to take over the world? I mean, yeah, he goes on about how many superheros are billionaires, but hat makes sense. Billionaires typically would be the only people with the resources to be able to wage a one-man war on crime. Is it right-wing? Sure, a bit. More libertarian than fascist, though. The core of a superhero is that it's an individual that takes an extralegal approach to fighting crime. They ignore due process and every other bureaucratic regulation in a way that would be an Orwellian nightmare if the authorities did it, However, despite operating under virtually no oversight, superheros aren't the jackbooted oppressors this guy is making out them to be. Seriously, what superhero gives a shit what people believe aside from stuff like "I believe I should rule the world!" or "I believe it'd be funny to drug the city's water supply!"?
So basically he's using the film to ***** about dumb action films and laments that smarter films do not do so well. But could have easily made a smarter action film.... I guess the artsy types that are trapped in their own little world didn't get the memo that only in the painting and sculpting world you can sale the concept of anything as art even nothing, however in group effort arts like film you have to take the intangible and make it into something the non art world wants. You can make Superhero/action films that have substance that are not fodder for the masses. /art rant
Sometimes the English language really fails at a very basic level where a words can have vastly different meanings depending on user context. "Art" is one of those words. At a basic level, art can be considered any creative output. Does a finger-painting five year old make art? Yes they do. At the same time, there are pretentious people who like to elevate themselves by a belief that 'true' art has to have some deeper meaning that only they (and others they approve of) understand.
A lot of this has to do with the subjective nature of art. Creative output of the producer should be governed by personal expression, and whether the consumer enjoys the end-product by personal impression. The problem comes when people blur the boundaries between the technical achievements of producing the creative output (something that can be comparatively rated in a scale that others can relate to) with their personal subjective consumption of it (which can also be rated, but only on a internal scale that will differ from person to person).
This is where pretentiousness comes in. Discuss and rate the technical achievements of (for example) super-hero movies all you want. Everything from the script to directing to set, music, visuals, editing, acting, etc. But to say that it has no value because you don't enjoy it? F*** off. Believing your subjective consumption of a creative work is more important or relevant than anyone else's is pretense of the highest level.
But did you enjoy it, Harold?!
A lot of this has to do with the subjective nature of art. Creative output of the producer should be governed by personal expression, and whether the consumer enjoys the end-product by personal impression. The problem comes when people blur the boundaries between the technical achievements of producing the creative output (something that can be comparatively rated in a scale that others can relate to) with their personal subjective consumption of it (which can also be rated, but only on a internal scale that will differ from person to person).
This is where pretentiousness comes in. Discuss and rate the technical achievements of (for example) super-hero movies all you want. Everything from the script to directing to set, music, visuals, editing, acting, etc. But to say that it has no value because you don't enjoy it? F*** off. Believing your subjective consumption of a creative work is more important or relevant than anyone else's is pretense of the highest level.
But did you enjoy it, Harold?!
Hey, don't insult Neechy. His thoughts on the Lubermenshe are unparalleled in philosophy. I bet you don't even know how to pronounce his name right. It's pronounced "Carl."jabrwock said:
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take complaints about pretentiousness seriously, especially when people cite a lack of self-awareness while displaying so little themselves.
His commentary seemed to be about the whining where movements like GamerGate starts. With "take back my (videogame/movies/country) from the X (insert strawman threat)". These death threats don't come out of left field. They come from a growing perceived loss of privilege, and a slow build up of resentment by those who believe themselves slighted. Eventually culminating in the crap that became GamerGate.Uriel_Hayabusa said:
I'd argue that the comparison is still highly uncalled for since I can't recall any instances of so-called film snobs threatening to kill directors of superhero movies.jabrwock said: