Birdman

Did it deserve the Oscar?

yee

'Deserve' is tough because so many of them are imperfect. For me this film was very good, the absolutely muddled, meandering and ultimately meaningless script kept it from being great. The direction, photography, acting, score, etc were perfect, but there was no critical purchase. It wasnt about anything, and in saying a lot of stuff all the time, didnt say anything at all.

it was about theater people and if youve ever been in that world you would appreciate the script because it nails it

Great. What about them?

the paradoxical combination of narcissism and insecurity

Yes.
Score was great.
Editing was great.
Story overall was good but only one or two scenes mattered.

that's not really paradoxical, a lot of people with disorders bounce between those two states (me included).
but then again people always tell me I would make a good actor, so maybe there's a correlation

Was pretty good

Also, dat Emma Stone, oh boy

I understand that and appreciate your response, i'm not being facetious but still wondering what the critical takeaway is. Simply that theater people are this way?

it's in the top five of the decade, easily

It wasnt harvey birdman so of course it didnt

the accurate portrayal of actors is one nice thing about the movie but i think the main thrust of it is about the eternal conflict within an artist between being famous and making money (i.e. being birdman) or creating meaningful art. theres also the whole generational conflict/family drama as well that gets played out between emma stone and michael keaton. in fairness the movie is all over the place but i think that messiness was deliberate and meant to reflect the chaotic nature of theater but i can understand why that could also be offputting to people.

Well i appreciate that, and will keep it in mind on the next go 'round. I felt that it wanted to have its cake and eat it too, especially w/ the ending but the art v. money conceit was interesting.

Oscar didn't mean shit. So yes, whatever

>what's Opening Night

What user really meant to say is that any movie fellating Hollywood and its underbelly is 10/10 by the Academy Standards, IE La La Land, a mediocre movie with mediocre performances getting prizes left and right because it puts hollywood on a pedestal.

To answer OP, considering it was either that or 12 year a boyhood, the lesser evil won.

it definitely wanted to have its cake and eat it too but again theater people are like that as well. hope you enjoy rewatching it because i thought this was one of the better movies that has come out relatively recently

birdman isnt about hollywood though and if anything that culture is portrayed negatively (the whole premise is that keaton is sick of capeshit and wants to get back to basics so he goes to broadway)

That's the point: in its hypocrisy, the Academy "critics" see themselves as men from the Broadway era, not from the recent capeshit era of sequels and reboots.
And it's still a movie about actors and acting as a profession, see the scene where he angrily lashes at the critic in the bar, it's all a huge self-referential film.

I watched it on netflix and thought it was pretty shitty. I heard everyone raving about it, and after seeing it I was like "Thats it? THATS whate evryone was excited about?"

Yes

That's what my wife's son said, I didn't like it personally.

i think its possible to distinguish between promoting acting and promoting hollywood. in fact you could even argue that theres a broadway vs. hollywood/stage vs. film subplot to the movie. i think its much different than la la land which was an overtly pro-hollywood wankfest

>us actors lead such hard lives
>a bloo bloo bloo

except birdman pokes fun at how actors are maudlin crybabies imo