Birdman: Long Takes (or The Unexpected Influence of Max Ophüls) | Film Analysis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- Now that the dust has settled and the hype subsided, we can look again at Birdman’s much-heralded formal innovations and see whether the whole thing soars, or if it’s not a bit of a turkey?
Birdman’s director Alejandro G. Iñárritu has stated on record his admiration for the renowned long-takes of the great filmmaker Max Ophüls. So let’s take this opportunity to compare each director’s long-takes side-by-side and see what they have in common, and more importantly, how they differ.
Potential Spoilers. For educational purposes only. Fair Use.
Todd Haines - Infinite pleasure Le Plaisir de Max Ophüls (2005) • Video
DP/30: Birdman, Alejandro G. Iñárritu (2014) • DP/30: Birdman, Alejan...
Jimmy Kimmel Live! Edward Norton on Birdman (2014) • Video
Patreon: / takemetoyourcinema
Facebook: / takemetoyourcinema
Twitter: / filmworks88
Instagram: / takemetoyourcinema
Please Like and Subscribe
Fantastic video! I find Iñárritu's condescension towards a lot of things pretty frustrating but I liked how you approached him with analysis of his words and formal techniques rather than falling into the trap of discussing whether it's a gimmick or not (which is usually lacking in discussion of its formal characteristics beyond the lack of visible edits). Looking forward to more videos. This has also inspired me to hurry up and watch some Ophuls movies
'This has also inspired me to hurry up and watch some Ophuls movies' - that is really music to my ears. That's what is was all about really. I recommend you check out 'La Ronde', that's my personal favourite. Thanks.
Great work! Very interesting. I really like how you take a stand and defend it, as opposed to the typical musing "consider this" style we typically see in video essays. I always thought the one-er format of Birdman was somewhat gimmicky, and the way you demonstrate how it just masks a typical film grammar was exactly the argument I was looking for.
One small format suggestion - sometimes there is too much going on. The music might be a bit loud, there might be subtitles, there might be some voice audio from the clip you're showing and then you'll be talking all at one. It can be hard to pull out the salient feature of that part of the essay when all this distracting stuff is shown. The sequence at 1:50ish is an example of this.
Thanks for the feedback! I don't think the idea of a film being done entirely in one shot (or having the appearance of having been done so) is necessarily gimmicky - but definitely in Birdman I'm not sure what we gained from that.
I think I know what you mean about its being a bit-overcrowded - I'll work on that for the next one. Thanks again.
very nice essay!! Learned a lot more about longshots!
This is great video breakdown man!!👍🏻
Great essay and sequence selection. Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Amazing essay, Luke :)
Thanks!
A nice analysis breaking down some of the flaws of birdman and the powers of the long shot. A few notes, your audio recording has an echo to it that makes it hard to understand everything you are saying. This is also with combined with poor audio leveling. In the last little bit there you'll want to make sure you're voice it louder than the music because it was about the same level for me and hard to understand your voice through it. Last thing, this is more my preference, I'm not a fan of the old TV filter, it didn't serve any purpose than to show you know how to use editing software.
Thanks for the feedback. I've always struggled with balancing the audio (it seemed fine to me, but then I knew what I was saying, so I suppose that interfered) - so I'll definitely aim to get that sorted for the next video. Thanks again.
3:00 Alejandro G. Iñárritu is speaking truths
great essay!
Glad you enjoyed it
I'm very glad to see an essay about Max Ophüls, i've only watched La Ronde (and after this video i'm definitely gonna check out more, starting for Lola Montes) and i loved it. However i would have liked it more if it was about him rather than X movie negatively compared to Ophüls' work, i think a video like that could have got deeper into his style, but it was pretty damn good.
And also i gotta admit i liked Birdman, actually i loved it, and although you make very good points i'm not 100% convinced. Sure, Ophüls' direction is a lot more inventive and simnply better, but i believe the direction they took with Birdman still served the film properly instead of being just a gimmick. I believe that the camera pulls you in in what is like to be on stage and walking around in a theatre, sort of like the scene in the tv studio in Magnolia. At least for me, it was a very dreamlike experience, which i guess was the general idea, and the transitions within the same scene that were physically impossible along with the constant play between diegetic and non-diegetic elements were possible because of this long takes and were a very important part of a movie whose protagonist is walking the line between reality and fantasy all the time. I don't know if that is jut a lot of crap, but that's my opinion, you earned a new subscriber anyway.
Hey, thanks for the feedback. I definitely agree, Ophüls is somewhat short-changed in this video. That said, he is one of the major artists of the 20th century, so I think he's probably always going to be short-changed in any discussion of his work. However, there's no reason why there can't be more videos about him.
Secondly, I've found that people who enjoyed Birdman are less likely to find it's formal conceits problematic (that seems obvious, I know). I didn't - I thought it lacked insight into the nature of the artistic process, I thought its satire of the show business was not particularly cutting or perceptive. I didn't find it particularly funny, despite the fact that it was clearly trying to be. There were positives (a great cast doing great work; Chivo is clearly a genius), but not enough. Nonetheless, it always good to hear well though out, nicely expressed opinions to the contrary, so cheers!
Well, in that case i will be waiting for that video ;). Regarding Birdman, i'd say it's not a movie for everyone. Not in the annoying ''oh, you just didn't get it'' kind of way, but in the way that it maybe depends on what you're looking for in the movie, since there are a lot of movies that i didn't like, or even hated, but i can see why some peolpe liked them. Of course i'm not trying to say you're wrong, just that there might be two ways to look at it, and like i said, you make very good points about it, which i can't contradict, and it's good to be aware of the shortcomings of movies you like.
The point is, keep up the good work! This channel looks like it could be one of the best video essay channels.
thank u
Glad you enjoyed it!
What are you on about with trying to refute Innaritus claims around 3:15? In the clip you show of him he explicitly says that the use of close-ups/two-shots/etc is conventional. Thats how i interpret it anyway; he isnt calling other films conventional/lazy/safe, he is acknowledging that he himself used these conventional techniques in Birdman.
That's not how I understood him - I understood it as him complaining that using close-ups/two-shots/etc is conventional and that his using long-takes in Birdman was in an attempt to get away from being so conventional. You can watch the original interview where he says it here: ruclips.net/video/VLUWpbTbi4U/видео.html
@@TakeMeToYourCinema I watched the interview; I think his point is that the usual approach of editing allows for a lot of laziness in that one can shoot a lot of material and then cut it together using the common vocabulary. Making it look like one shot means one has to do more and harder work in planning the shots. That is undeniably true, one needs a lot more planning for a movie like Birdman. He was rely focussing on the production side, not the audience, which was not part of the "we" here.
Its funny how evident it is that this " critic" was affected by what this film says, precisely about the" critics". Most "critics', like this one, are well known for their artistic mediocrity and limited intelligence. This guy have never touched in his life a film camera and the certainty of his conclusions just exposed his ignorance and personal resentment toward a film that portrayed with genius and humor the struggles of the mind and ego during the creative process and how ridiculous and intranscendental critics are. Even though most of the "critics' of the world surrender to this incredible cinematic achievement because his visual grammar and almost imposible execution. Iñarritu gave lots of interviews where he clearly and humbly explained why he did that way. He wrote it and conceived this way and he wanted that the audience experienced the character's journey sensorially in an extreme point of view. This way, he wanted to explore the possibility of creating a stream of consciousness and live the film the way we live our lives, with no cuts and in a long take. To compare this film with any other film, from Max Ophuls to Alexander Sokurov its not only useless but stupid. This film, as any other film, have his time, themes and extremely different purposes, subjects and intentions. The film Birdman and Iñarritu took a big risk and challenging exploring this cinematic approach and the results are so powerful that are beyond any dull interpretation or comparison. The film was shot just in 19 days and with a low budget. Its subject its so abstract and difficult to express that I think its the reason it was considered the best film that year and a film that will be study during the next decades in every film school. Every frame, the performances, the tone and the pace of this film its something almost impossible to achieve.
The certainty and arrogance of this "critic" just exposed his pretentiousness and ignorance.
Birdman or The unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. The title of this film said it all !
What do you think of steven spielberg's long takes?
I'm an unashamed fan of them (and Spielberg in general). He's more classical with them - using them to cover lots of material at once, as opposed to rushing the camera between setups - so that they're moving masters, which is something I very much appreciate.
when did you learn all of this stuff? can you recommend me any interviews, books that can teach me more about filmmaking
Hey. The best book on filmmaking that I’ve read is called, ‘On Filmmaking’ by Alexander Mackendrick, who made ‘The Ladykillers’ and ‘Sweet Smell of Success’. Also, ‘Hitchcock/Truffaut’ is indispensable. ‘Film Art’ by David Bordwell & Kristin Thomson is also worth it, as a introductory text. I’d definitely recommend scrolling through the archives of their blog as well, at www.davidbordwell.net/blog/. Hope that helps.
Why is this unavailable?
There is a copyright claim on the video, so it is blocked on certain devices.
This video is not available for me 😫😫😫
KissMyAsthma There are a couple of copyright strikes on the video, so it's blocked on all devices except desktops - so maybe try watching on a desktop, unless you're in Germany - its blocked there as well. I'm thinking of uploading it to Vimeo.
Take Me To Your Cinema It's fine I could watch it now. I downloaded the tunnelbear app and switched my location from the UK to the US
Saying ignoring the pans is... a bit ridiculous. The whole thing is a meta take on a play within a play. It's a play within a reasonably self aware film and the "long take" feel (even with the "whips") enhances the feeling that you'd get from a play. That there's no editing, just like reality. Imagine if there were a reality TV show with 0 edits and only "whips". It would TOTALLY change the show and how we watch it.
Except that it doesn't. A play offers only one, static, objective view of the scenario - that of the audience in front of the stage. You could argue that it emulates what it's like to be an actor performing in a play. Anyway, I'm not saying ignore the pans - I'm actually saying pay attention to the pans. Cheers.
Well you did say if you ignore the pans then they are just the shots that he criticized as being lazy. I don't agree. The pans make it different. The camera has more presence within the scene and it feels much more live. Like a play.