3) Its cinematography is dynamic and dazzling, not a gimmick
Two of 2014’s best, boldest films have been accused, quite wrongfully, of being little more than gimmicks. I feel sorry for any person who thinks Boyhood’s adolescent-spanning length is little more than an indulgent creative touch. Similarly, I pity those who feel that all the praise Birdman has received is due to its gutsy, grandiose cinematography, several long takes composed in a way to resemble a continuous near two-hour take.
Emmanuel Lubezki has experimented with wondrous, inventive camera innovations for years. His work for Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men and Gravity remains some of the most impressive achievements in contemporary cinema. Those who complain that Birdman’s cinematography, which won Lubezki his second Oscar in a row, is art for art’s sake miss the point of why this approach works so well in a film like this one.
Without interruption, the intensity builds and we become even more immersed into the world of the St. James Theater. The camera walks, swoops and soars with Riggan as we gaze into the artifice of his artistic demands and he transitions between his real life and his subconscious alter ego. By collapsing the walls between truth and fiction, the films flows seamlessly between the realms, forcing the audience to pay attention. Meanwhile, the high-wire energy from the long takes end up mining richer performances from an already surefire cast. Due to the strength of the actors and the writing, it is easy to forget about the unique cinematography and just enjoy the action.
