Anthony Stokes on Birdman and its ending (major spoilers follow)…
When I first heard about Birdman, I was cautious; I tend to get annoyed with any movie that does the “one long take” gimmick because it seems to serve little purpose besides drawing attention to itself, and add in the idiosyncratic score, and it seemed like it was trying just too hard.
Watching the film, I was pleasantly surprised that there was not an ounce of pretentiousness to be found. It wasn’t even as dark as I initially thought, and it seemed like it was genuinely just trying to tell its story, which is more than I can say for a lot of the movies the Academy deems “Best Picture” material. The long take camera work and unconventional score didn’t detract from the film, and actually added to the madness the movie was going for. Somehow it made it feel like a stage play about making a stage play. The performances were all great and Emma Stone was robbed for a Best Supporting Actress nomination.
99 percent of the movie was great up… until the last minute.
The ending, without going into too much detail, essentially results in what is a well-earned happy ending. The protagonist gets everything he wants professionally and personally. He and his daughter reconcile and all ends well. And then, for no reason, the movie decides to go for an ambiguous ending that isn’t earned, and makes no sense for the movie or the character arcs.
Throughout the entire movie Riggan Thomson, the movie’s protagonist, has hallucinations of Birdman – a fictional character he played at the peak of his career. These hallucinations are explained in the real world. It’s supposed to show how the character is getting crazier as the production of the play he’s making goes on. Personally I felt like they did nothing but distract the movie. The score, direction, a
nd acting drive that home, but the Birdman hallucinations really just seem to be there just to draw attention to itself. Ultimately it goes nowhere and does nothing. Compare this to the hallucinations in Black Swan and it points out how insignificant it really is here.
This is made all the more noticeable by the ending, which felt like the equivalent of a studio adding another scene into a blockbuster. It’s as if Damon Lindelof came in and wrote the last minute. The movie ends with our main character, who has got everything he’s ever wanted, jumping out of a window and his daughter – who has forgiven him for not being the best father – looking out and smiling. As I said the movie has established that the hallucinations are in his head, and offers real world explanations for what’s happening. So him jumping out of the window means he jumped out of the window and fell to his death, and his daughter smiled at seeing her father’s body laying on the cement below.
Now I’ve heard arguments supporting this and why it’s a good ending. Namely “everybody has their own impression of what happened” and “it’s ambiguous”. But just because something isn’t spelled out doesn’t mean it’s good. Sure some movies can pull it off, but is this really a movie that needs an open to interpretation ending? And if so wasn’t there several spots in the movie that were better suited to end it on?
The theories as to what could have happen are all really broad stroke ideas which weren’t set up by the movie. If Birdman wanted this ending, it shouldn’t have specifically explained the hallucinations. I think if I had a gun to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s head he wouldn’t have a real explanation as to what happens, and that’s what frustrates me. I won’t say it’s a pretentious ending, but it definitely was unnecessarily artsy.
Birdman is still a good movie, but it stopped shy of being great for me. I’ll just have to turn it off when it nears its conclusion.
What are your thoughts on the ending to Birdman? Let us know in the comments below…
Anthony Stokes is a blogger and independent filmmaker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qqtW2LRPtQY&list=PL18yMRIfoszFJHnpNzqHh6gswQ0Srpi5E
