dindi-se

Modern cinema is commonly accused of favoring profit over art, of no longer providing the same space for artists to allow exploration and new techniques. It is certainly a false presumption considering difficulties, obstacles, pre-prepared formulas and studio demands always existed to a certain extent in the movie industry. « Birdman » and Iñarritú come to challenge this assumption and show that artistry and experimentation have not lost their place in this world. This is why it is so unfortunate that the movie spends most of its time talking about itself and its alleged qualities, preventing the viewer from engaging in the story. It is almost as if you are listening to someone perform while they keep shouting what a fantastic artist they are.

The plot centers on the story of Riggan Thomson (a big comeback part for Michael Keaton, long trapped by his role in « Batman »), a Hollywood actor whose fame and glory is experiencing a downfall. Tormented by his voices and visions of his big « Birdman » superhero role of the past, he plans to reinvent his career and show, on Broadway, that he can still work as a writer, actor and director. Some friends and family members work with Riggan and contribute, in major or minor parts, to the further development of his hallucinations. The movie counts with actors like Emma Stone, Edward Norton and Naomi Watts in good performances but repetitive roles.

The movie shows Riggs in a self-absorbed manner. His torments are often displayed in the form of satire. Everything around him, unfortunately, seems very stereotypical and calculated: from the Broadway critic to the addict child depicted in the movie, the lesbian making out session backstage, persons and elements seem heavily thought of but not deeply felt, it is hard to connect to anything or anyone in the story. Technically, it displays a superb exercise of camera work: it often feels like it is done in a single shot. The narrow corridors, tight rooms and backstage scenes can represent both the narrow mind and confusion experienced by Riggs, but also how it pushes the viewer to feel, and unfortunately what he/she cannot escape from. The constant self-boosting of worth, bragging and confidence of the movie, added to the never-ending drumming of the music score, feels exaggerated, fluttery and unrelenting from beginning to end.

Perhaps it would be safe to say that what « Birdman » lacks is some soul, a heartfelt connection to any sort of plea, self-analysis, redemption. As it constantly revolves around itself and tells the viewer what to do or make of it, it makes it difficult for persons to go beyond what it shows. It seems very convinced of its superiority, the main problem being that it certainly says more than what it does.

We are often accused of being nostalgic, of irrationally defending the works and achievements of the past in detriment of keeping up with the times, accepting the changes as a natural part of life, a sign of evolution and growth. Take « Casablanca », for instance. The story is constantly placed at the top positions in specialized lists that name the best movies ever made. Michael Curtiz never managed to become one of the greatest directors of all times. Visually, « Casablanca » is not at all very different from many of the other movies made during its era. Can it really be so? Can it really be that in more than seventy years of movie-making ever since, few pictures can come close to claiming this spot?

Set in the title city, « Casablanca » centers itself on the story of Rick Blaine (a majestic and sombre Humphrey Bogart), a seemingly cold and cynic north-American bar owner living in the midst of World War II and who wants to state, above all, his political independence. Different nationalities find in the bar owned by Rick a meeting place to relax, listen to some music, or design escape plans to other destinations. Being able to leave Casablanca seems, to some, just a wish, and Rick's bar is the place where they can allow themselves to dream, or see their wishes of freedom crumble due to the prolongation of the wait.

Enter Ilsa Lund (the always perfect Ingrid Bergman) and her husband, the activist Victor Lazslo (played here by Paul Henreid). The reencounter between Ilsa and Rick brings back memories of a romance that has passed, a story that came to pieces on the same day the city of Paris fell to the Germans during the War. Romance and politics appear heavily interlinked, and start to expose that certain things may be beyond our control, that personal sacrifices may be called for when one faces the War.

« As Time Goes By » played by the pianist Sam (Dooley Wilson), the great friend of Ilsa and Rick, becomes a character in itself, larger than life, and reminds all of the characters that certain feelings do not change with time. The expressions in their faces reveals all of the feelings that they so strongly tried to suppress.

Rick, however, is the only alternative for Ilsa and Victor to reach safety. He will have to struggle between keeping his widely defended neutrality, recovering an old love or turn Lazslo in. The story delivers in every single aspect: it brings together politics, romance, betrayal, action, friendship and melancholia while exploring the historical context and presenting a magnificent story that certainly resisted the test of time. The script and dialogues are on point here - emotionally heartbreaking and exciting.

While certain movies can indeed be considered technically superior to « Casablanca », few have managed to conquer, snatch up and connect with the viewer as well as this one. Built with a fantastic cinematography work based on chiaroscuro and sublime close- ups, mythical scenarios and superb use of mise-en-scène, it adds something to every new viewing. The city of Paris becomes a place to represent dreams and heartbreaks and Casablanca a place where we may never want to leave.

Imagine if everything you were ever taught about moral, ethics and karma turns out not to be true? « You get what you give », « Good things come to good people », « Instant karma is gonna get you! ». We hear and often repeat these phrases, try to live well with ourselves and with others, be good citizens, do good. Many of us believe that this is not only the good way to go about life, but also expect to be rewarded because of our good behavior, to get what we want, to grow in life, have a great job, meet a nice partner, live well, prosper.

This is, however, a Woody Allen story, and it may as well be his masterpiece. The story can be roughly divided in two, and centers on the lives of two very different men. One is Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a married and successful ophthalmologist who suddenly starts facing problems with his lover (in a good performance by Anjelica Huston). The other man is the idealist and broke moviemaker Cliff Stern (played by Allen himself), facing family problems, a broken marriage and a work crisis. The stark difference between these two men turn the movie into a would-be duel between idealism and superficiality.

Themes like our roles in society, religion, morals, existentialism, the final judgment and philosophy are thoroughly discussed in the movie, both directly in conversation but also reflectively through the actions of the different characters, without ever compromising the development of the story, nor the viewer's interest in it. Balanced in the comic paranoia of Allen's writing and acting, the story finds a meeting point between drama, irreverence and meaningful topics. Pertinent reflections and dialogues drive characters to often funny, often heavy situations, and many times both.

« Crimes and Misdemeanors » represented a return of Woody Allen to comedy, after flirting with more psychologically driven stories, clearly influenced by Ingmar Bergman, as shown in previous works like « Another Woman » and « September ». Still, comedy here exists and at the same time does not, as the deeper reflections proposed by the movie can push the viewer into a different direction.

Rosenthal's tale shows a man initially consumed by anguish over the decisions he needs to take. Whatever path he chooses will certainly leave a long-lasting and deep scar in his life. Humor is absent here, and Sven Nyqvist's cinematography (the same that often worked with Bergman) is dark and somber, reflecting the state of mind of the central character. Cliff's journey, however, is lighter and more comical, a typical portrait of Allen's characters played by himself. The different stories balance each other out perfectly: they offer the light after the darkness, the calm after the storm.

Finally, and only towards the end of the movie, the two men meet and talk about the crimes and sins of real life, and what can their real consequences be. The encounter of these two seemingly so different characters, but who then suddenly realize that perhaps what they were always taught about life and morals could be wrong, could be considered an anagnorisis of Aristotle, a final realization, a critical discovery of things as they show themselves to be, not as we had constructed them in our imaginary. Are we indeed the sum of our choices?

Cinema, as the seventh art in the words of Italian film theoretician Ricciotta Canudo, can be, in itself, so naturally complex, full of mystery and meaning. It is in simplicity, however, that art may find its best and final form, and this may be director and writer Richard Linklater and « Boyhood »'s strongest suit.

Filmed and produced over the course of twelve intermittent years, « Boyhood » centers on the story of Mason Evans Jr. (Ellar Coltrane), a regular boy, as he grows up and lives alongside his divorced parents (played by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke) and sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater). The variety of specific and episodic events the movie delivers during the course of its 165 minutes make it clear that the circle of life continues to spin, moments and people change, and no matter - and perhaps specifically because of - what we go through, it seems we are all going to be okay. It is a message of growth and hope, an assurance that it is all part of life.

Delivering what can be considered an imitation of life itself, most of the events depicted in the film are mundane, even ordinary. Mason and Samantha have sibling fights, have to adapt to new cities and school environments, learn to live with new family members, play video games, go to parties. Linklater delivers a movie about the beauty of the ordinary, no events shown are extraordinary in themselves - that characteristic can be saved for the movie as a whole. Even the camera work showed by Linklater - in the absence of extremely warm colors - is simple, natural.

Time transitions in the movie are seamlessly performed, and the soundtrack helps situate the viewer and create an environment for the scenes. With songs that include the works of Paul McCartney and Lady Gaga, Arcade Fire and Wilco, Blink 182 and Pharrell Williams, the movie manages to be, at the same time, already inserted in the current pop and internet culture, as well as a nostalgic piece, all the while relieving successes of the past decade (as the Harry Potter movie premiere scene, for example).

Easiness is a key concept in « Boyhood ». There is comedy, drama, angst and another plethora of feelings, and yet nothing is overplayed, no moments are overdone. Linklater, through his story and characters, gives us perspective, focuses on the big picture and still delivers delicate beauty in simple scenes as the one of the proud mother who watches a child's graduation ceremony, or a family that gathers and sings.

« Boyhood » can be considered more than a movie, it is an experience. It invites the viewer to immerse him/herself in there, and recognize moments of his/her's own life on the screen. It appeals to the humanity of us all, and connects us through similar life experiences. It runs for nearly three hours long, but had in run for six, it still would not be a problem.