The Opposing Sectors of Cinema: An Academic Paper
Greetings one and all. I am here tonight to acknowledge my absence once again, only without the theatrically long intro. The purpose of this post is merely to share a movie-related paper that I had to write for my English class. In case you cannot already imagine, this assignment was an absolute thrill to receive. Seriously, I do not recall enjoying a school assignment this much, and when I finished I felt genuinely happy. I felt myself glowing as if I went under some sort of detox. I never went through detox personally, but I think you would feel pure or amazing or whatever. I wouldn't even consider detox. I like drinking way too much. Anyway, the topic of this paper was to contrast two movies. My choices? Grand Budapest Hotel and Birdman. Refer to An Unimpressive Year for the Oscars where I discuss both films. Spoiler: Birdman sucked. As you read the paper, just remember that this had to be turned in to an English professor, so it's written as a formal essay. Enjoy!
The Opposing Sectors of Cinema
Entertainment
is usually considered to be the primary purpose of cinema. Ideally, every film
should fulfill this purpose in some aspect. Whether it involves an interesting
plot or a meticulous detail in cinematography, the viewer should be captivated
by what they perceive on the screen. The films Grand Budapest Hotel and Birdman
differ in various ways. For starters, the actors’ portrayals of their
respective characters are remarkably real in Grand Budapest Hotel and clumsy and artificial in Birdman. As the plot in Grand Budapest
Hotel moves forward gracefully, the plot in Birdman experiences disturbing
halts that ruin its overall flow. Lastly, the director of Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson, orchestrates a symphony on the
screen, while the director of Birdman,
Alejandro G. Iñárrito, stumbles in the procession of his flawed creation.
While the casts of Grand Budapest Hotel and Birdman
are full of talent, the performances given in each film were vastly different
from one another. Beyond filling the roles of quirky characters, the actors in Grand Budapest Hotel gave praiseworthy
and realistic performances. Like most directors, Wes Anderson has a specific
posse of actors he utilizes in each film. This specialization works in the
film’s benefit, for it enhances the quality of the film and its characters
while allowing the actors to exert their utmost potential. Among Anderson’s
oddball round-up of actors are Ralph Fiennes (who has never appeared in his
films yet fits right in), Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, Bill Murray, Owen
Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and more. Each of his team members has a unique role
to fill in the movies, to some degree, which provides the actors an opportunity
to embody a zany character. Edward Norton, who is known for more serious,
Method roles, assumed the persona of Inspector Henckels of Zubrowka (the
fictional region in Eastern Europe where the films takes place; moreover, his
performance was seamless and utterly amusing, permitting the film as well as
Norton himself to shine that much more. The centerpiece of acting in this fine
picture is, indubitably, Ralph Fiennes, who portrays the suave concierge of the
Grand Budapest Hotel, M. Gustave. Like Norton, Fiennes is recognized for
dramatic roles like the ruthless Nazi commandant, Amon Goeth, in Schindler’s List. In Grand Budapest Hotel, however, Ralph
Fiennes had the surprisingly challenging task of a lighter role; indeed, making
audiences laugh is typically more difficult than making them cry. As expected,
the talented Fiennes shrouded himself into the role, transforming on screen
into the dashing M. Gustave and captivating viewers in the process. His
performance was enveloped into the smooth elegance of his character, convincing
audiences that was the greatest concierge in Zubrowka. It is truly abhorrent
that he, as well as the rest of the actors, received no award recognition for
his astounding performance. The acting in Birdman,
on the other hand, did not merit the accolades it received, for it bordered
along the lines of mediocrity. The assembly of actors in this film equates the
caliber of those in Grand Budapest Hotel,
more or less; however, the acting portrayed in Birdman did not mirror the talent of its players. In situations
where the actor’s performance is not compatible with their capabilities, the
director is the prime suspect to blame. Interestingly, the sole actor whose
performance was not lacking was Edward Norton, who also appeared in Birdman as a Method actor with
“performance problems” off stage. As for the remainder of the cast, their
acting faltered due to some anomaly. Michael Keaton, the leading man of the
film, assumes the role of a washed-up actor, Riggan Thomson who directs and
stars in a play he hopes will serve as his comeback. Irony aside, Riggan used
to be a superhero in a franchise called “Birdman,” which has led him to form
mental manifestations of the actual Birdman character to constantly whisper
insults in his ear. Subsequently, Keaton must portray a mentally disturbed and
slightly manic person; instead, he utilized the comedic chops which served him
favorably in 1980s goofball roles to embody a depressed and realistic
individual. This results in an awkward, haphazard performance that jolts viewers,
confusing them as to who exactly is he trying to portray. Perhaps his character
demanded this brand of madness, but Keaton was far too agitated and scattered,
much like the film itself. As talented as the actors in both films are, the
performances in Grand Budapest Hotel
gleamed while those in Birdman
stumbled upon each other.
Moreover, as the script of Grand Budapest Hotel flows smoothly onto
the screen, Birdman exhibits
awkwardness in its progression. Indeed, the enchanting originality of Wes Anderson’s
script becomes realized once the image of the Grand Budapest Hotel and its characters reaches viewers’ eyes. With
this film, Anderson demonstrates his signature craft which includes aesthetic
screenshots and idiosyncratic plot twists. The band of unusual characters in
the film is amusingly varied: a decrepit and wealthy widow, a diabolical heir,
a mysteriously peculiar assassin, a naïve and thorough inspector, and a secret
society of hotel concierge. These characters make up a supporting portion of the
film, contributing to its overall eccentricity and level of enjoyment. The essential
plot of Grand Budapest Hotel involves
the murder of the aforementioned widow and the implication of M. Gustave, who
supposedly sought to gain the wealth she had left behind for him. As intriguing
as this story already seemed, the film managed to branch out to degrees of
sheer hilarity and adventure. The concise dialogue that resonates Anderson’s
style somehow conveys purpose in an objectively meaningless film; truly, it is
the artistic value of the film that makes it consummate cinema. On the
contrary, the banality of Birdman’s
premise is exceeded by the ineptitude among the players on screen. The general
idea of the film sounded reasonably pleasant: an actor who once portrayed a
superhero in a movie franchise seeks his comeback on stage, while having to
confront his ego in the midst of a mid-life crisis. In fact, this plot sounded
very familiar and therefore hackneyed. With this categorization in mind, it is
nearly impossible not to notice the clichés the film succumbs to. In addition
to the protagonist’s status as a flawed, desperate has-been, he must face his
troubled daughter, Sam Thomson, who has just overcome a drug addiction in
rehab. Sam, portrayed by Emma Stone, is now begrudgingly working as her
father’s assistant; however, as expected with her addict background, there are
critical issues between the two as she belittles his stance in the world of
fame that he craves. She roasts her father’s intentions for producing the play
not for the sake of art but as a pathetic attempt to stay relevant in cinema.
Another obstacle Riggan Thomson faces is the appearance of Edward Norton’s
character, Mike Shiner, a last-minute replacement of a supporting actor in
Riggan’s production. Because Mike is a renowned Broadway star, Riggan feels he
may be overshadowed in the play; therefore, he would return to a life of
nostalgia and inferiority. The primary conflict is within Riggan himself, which
is evident in the external ridicule he has faced. These scenarios of conflict
are very predictable with such an insecure protagonist, and, as a result, the
entire film becomes irksome and pretentious. The writing of a film can
contribute to its dreamlike production as in Grand Budapest Hotel or to its pitiful prosaicism as in Birdman.
Finally, the methods in which Grand Budapest Hotel and Birdman were filmed demonstrate why one
film triumphed and the latter plummeted in quality. Wes Anderson, like most
talented directors, understands his task is to create a setting where all
aspects of Grand Budapest Hotel are
in harmony. Indeed, he dazzles the audience’s eye with his distinctive filming
style and choice of setting. Here in Grand
Budapest Hotel, he transports viewers to the fictional city of Zubrowka, a
region in Eastern Europe that beautifully mimics the charm of folk villages. In
some scenes, he reportedly used handmade miniature models for certain shots;
the wide shots of the hotel itself, for example, are artificially constructed,
giving the film a kitschy ambience. Many of the scenes are filmed in a rather
two-dimensional manner, such as the ski chase scene between M. Gustave and the
inspector. This simplicity gives the film a sort of pure innocence that
characterizes both Grand Budapest Hotel and
Anderson’s technique alike. Beyond the visual pleasures of the production
design, the course of the film as a whole evolves tastefully. Wes Anderson
conducts his cast with finesse, ensuring that the set environment is productive
yet balanced. He organizes his troop of performers in a manner that provides a
foundation of sound direction that permits them to act to their fullest
potential. With this golden formula, Anderson brings to a life a gratifying
rapport between the actors on screen, which in turn satisfies audiences with
absolute entertainment. The execution of Birdman,
however, was jarring and faulty in practically every sense. Films are often
designed as a play within a play, underlining the historic link between the
stage and the screen. What Birdman accomplished
was a futile attempt to honor that cinematic tradition that resulted in
pseudo-intellectual disorder. The entire production felt as if director
Iñárritu was purposefully trying to make an artistic film, and this intention
forces Birdman to enter the realm of
pretentious cinema. Aside from the setting of a Broadway play, there are
several other facets of the film that give away its pompousness. The
cinematography itself was unsettling, as the cameraman hurriedly follows
Keaton’s character around New York City. The camera movement gave the film the
feel of a reality television show, which is enormously unfavorable for
audiences expecting a movie. While many viewers interpreted this shaky
cinematography as artistic, aesthetically-speaking, it is rather disturbing and
redundant. The musical score of the film was bombarded with cacophonous jazz
and rat-a-tat drumbeats. Oftentimes, this noisy score blocked out some of the
film’s dialogue, inevitably making part of the script lost in translation. Throughout
the film, Keaton’s character is harangued by this imaginary Birdman figure who
represents his own self-loathing as a washed-up actor. While this inner
conflict is logical considering Riggan’s insecurities, what the director choreographs
near the end of the film is a preposterous action-packed scene involving
building-size robots reminiscent of Transformers.
This demonstration is all in Riggan’s head, of course, yet the transition in
the movie itself is sudden and discordant; moreover, as Riggan witnesses this action
circus, he begins to believe that he himself is actually the Birdman. The final
act of the film perhaps completes the absurdity of its production: Riggan
Thomson confronting his Birdman identity and flying out of a window into the
sky. These countless inconsistencies and lack of order render Birdman as a film to be meaningless and
appalling with no attributes of virtuosity. Direction of a film is incredibly
significant regarding the final product, as it is verified with the illustrious
Grand Budapest Hotel and the
atrocious Birdman.
In many ways, Grand Budapest Hotel and Birdman
contrast with one another. First off, the talented actors in each film gave
astonishingly dissimilar performances. Furthermore, the plot development of Grand Budapest Hotel glides along on its
own smooth momentum, while Birdman trips
on itself innumerable times with its defective script. To conclude, Wes
Anderson guides Grand Budapest Hotel with
the steadiness of a true artist and Alejandro G. Iñárritu steers Birdman into incomprehensible disarray.
The ultimate determinant of a film is the director who must organize his
production in a manner that causes everything involved to synchronize
beautifully. From the cast to the elements of the set, each aspect of the film
must harmonize in order to create a piece of moving art. What is peculiar is
the fact that actors can sometimes counteract the symptoms of a director, such
as Edward Norton who was talented in both an excellent movie and a terrible
one. This highlights the tantamount importance of an effective cast, for they
can potentially save a film from infamy. Overall, every aspect of a film is
crucial to its success and cinematic value, and talent is definitely key.
There you have it. That is how I am in the world of college and proper academia. While I feel it is a strong paper--I got an A+ after all, applause--I still enjoy my standard of writing on this blog. It resembles more of how I think and speak, and it is not as restrictive obviously. My grammar is better in college essays, of course. Anyway. I hope this post wasn't made in vain and that you at least enjoyed reading it. I said enjoyed a lot already. Have a good night.
Comments
Post a Comment