Birdman Group Analysis

analysis
#61

Something like…

Birdman to Riggan: You’re not one of these dumb f*cks, you’re the the man, the BIRDMAN!
Riggan to Birdman: You’re just a mental formation, a voice in my head.

Riggan is struggling to make something meaningful, to have meaningful relationships, but the Birdman insists he’s above all that crap and proves it when Riggan flies through Manhattan on his way to the theatre, “Yeah, that’s it baby. Look at you, you’re a god.”

EDIT: Birdman VS Riggan seem to have the “we’re nothing alike / we’re the same you and me” exchange if that helps the argument for them being MC/IC.

#62

Sounds good to me, @Jerome. From the screenplay, some other things Birdman says, in V.O.:

-That pretentious, little, theater f**** is stealing your thunder.
-You are lame, Riggan. Rolling around with that third rate actor in an 800 seat shole like this.
-Stop that s. I am not a mental formation. I am “you”, a*****

Birdman (V.O.
You were a movie star, remember?
Pretentious, but happy…
.
Riggan opens his eyes, slowly. A sad expression on his face.
RIGGAN
I was not happy.
BIRDMAN
…Ignorant but charming. Now you are a
tiny bitter c*******.
RIGGAN
Shut up! Stop whining! I was miserable!
BIRDMAN (V.O.)
Yeah. But fake miserable. Hollywood
miserable.
Riggan points his fingers at a lamp and sends it flying.
BIRDMAN (V.O.)
What are you trying to prove? Huh? That
you’re an artist? You’re not.

later:

RIGGAN (CONT’D)
What part of that don’t you get? You’re
f***** dead.
BIRDMAN (V.O.)
We are not dead. We’re–
RIGGAN
Stop saying ‘we’! There is no ‘we’. I am
not you. I’m Riggan f**** Thomson.
BIRDMAN (V.O.)
No. You’re Birdman. Because without me, all that’s left is “you”. A sad, selfish, mediocre actor, grasping–

BIRDMAN (CONT’D)
C’mon, buddy. Tell me we’re going back
to the big leagues. Let’s do this. Shave off that pathetic goatee, and put the mask back on! Batman my balls. We’ll start a new franchise. Birdman: Phoenix Rising. Trust me! A billion world wide. Swear to God.

Riggan-Birdman: serious actor vs. Hollywood star.

Sam-Riggan. It would be mostly on page 50, where she says “You’re the one who doesn’t exist. You’re doing this because you’re scared to death, like the rest of us, that you don’t matter. And you know what? You’re right. You don’t. It’s not important. You’re not important. Get used to it.” Other than that I don’t see their interactions as Influence Character.

#63

Right - I was looking more for the actual Relationships that you wrote towards the end:

With Birdman you have actor/star, with Sam you have father/daughter.

While I think that scene you mention on page 50 is strong, I’m not sure if the father/daughter relationship represents the heart of the story or the central relationship present in every Act, that eventually leads to the final Outcome and Judgment.

#64

I really feel that Birdman was in the MC throughline. That he catered to what would be considered Riggan’s Symptom and not his actual Problem, which I would describe as something closer to real love or real appreciation. I mean Riggan seemed very apathetic to the news of the success of his play. There was no outburst or anything. But the moment his daughter came in and gave him the flowers, the correct ones this time, and the heartfelt hug did we get that close up and start to see his eyes soften and his mood change. I think that moment informs the MC Judgement.

Even on the title card as the drummer’s snaps remove each red letter leaving BIRDMAN as the final words in white the final remaining letters in red were AMOR which is Spanish for love. It didn’t stand out as an OS theme, not every character was looking for love, only admiration…

BUT! … I am obviously in the minority here and am definitely OK with retiring my argument in favor or continuing the analysis. Perhaps something will stand out to me as compelling evidence in favor of Birdman.

#65

@jhull: Yes, I also don’t think the father/daughter relationship it’s the heart of the story. But that specific moment she doesn’t voice a father/daughter concern, but an actor/star concern. Maybe it’s a quick handoff? Or just expressing it through a third party?

What if to find the MC and IC we look which dynamic pairs are made in the classes assigning them to throughlines?

Riggan serious actor as MC with Fixed Attitude leaves Birdman/Celebrity Riggan as IC Situation - doesn’t sound right to me.
Riggan serious actor as MC with Manipulation seemed right to me. But Birdman/Celebrity Riggan as Activity doesn’t sound right also.
Riggan serious actor as MC with Situation (externally considered just a star), Birdman/Celebrity Riggan Fixed Attitude (wants to stay a star). Could be.
Riggan serious actor as MC with Activity (setting up the play) sounds nice. Birdman/Celebrity Riggan as Manipulation could also fit. OS as Situation, RS as Fixed Attitude. What do you think?

#66

I say hold off on the Domains for now …

OK, so we have a tentative consensus for Birdman as the IC, with Sam as a possible hand-off or perhaps the “real” Influence Character. For now, we’ll leave it a bit open-ended.

How about Main Character Resolve?

1 Like
#67

I’d say steadfast. Riggan is dead set on putting up a play and giving a career defining performance. He sticks with it all the way through, despite all the obstacles.

#68

I also think he’s steadfast. Goes to the extreme trying to show he’s a serious actor.

#69

How is this different from his role as Protagonist?

And do you think him trying to kill himself at the end has anything to do with this dynamic?

#70

Not sure he’s trying to kill himself at the end. Think it’s more about giving a career (life) defining performance.

Like hm standing on the rooftop with the lady shouting, “Is this for real, or a movie?” Riggan shouts back, “Movie.” The lady responds, “You people are full of shit.” Riggan merges fiction with reality when he jumps off the building and flies to the theatre / in a cab.

#71

A performance as real as Mike drinking real gin. I’m not sure he deliberately tried to kill himself. It would be interesting to know if the writers think Riggan or Birdman pulled the trigger. Probably we’ll never know.

But the act of shooting himself - I do think it’s the ultimate action to show how steadfast he is.

#72

Well he does have a history of attempting suicide, with the jellyfish, but ultimately fate steps in and messes it all up. I think there was a certain significance to that scene between Sylvia and himself.

I bring up the question because it’s important to separate his role as Protagonist from his function as a Subjective Character. The Protagonist will always pursue putting on the play despite obstacles.

So while I don’t think suicide on stage is too far fetched. What I’m trying to understand is whether he attempts suicide because that’s what he has done before, therefore he continues to solve problems the way he always has Steadfast or has he denounced his ego, the “This matters to me” argument by finally saying “I am nothing I don’t exist” just before pulling the trigger Change?

#73

Is the way Riggan goes about solving problems at the end of the story the same as it was in the beginning?

#74

Yes. At the beginning, he uses his super powers to knock the bad actor out of the picture. At the end, he uses his super powers to fly out of the hospital.

EDIT: Actually, wait, he deals with the voice in his head, Birdman, but acknowledging it. At the end, he’s still acknowledging Birdman, but Birdman is no longer imposing his opinion on Riggan, so IC’s resolve is change (if we stick with Birdman being the IC).

#75

Hmmm… thinking about it, he’s very relaxed in the hospital. When they tell him about the favorable review he “just sits there, in silence” (those are the exact words of the screenplay) I’d need to see the movie again, but he probably found peace or doesn’t care anymore. "In the reflection, Riggan sees Birdman sitting on the toilet. They look at each other, but say nothing. " Acceptance?

Maybe he does change.

#76

Well Birdman does say something he says “Goodbye and Fuck you.” just as Riggan exists the bathroom. So I guess Birdman changes. But how is Riggan Steadfast?

It could be how Jerome states, but aren’t we explicitly shown his powers aren’t real? So how could he actually hurt someone with them and how does Sam see him fly?

#77

Not to veer too far off topic, but I think the style of the narrative fully embraces the magic realist form of story telling where the line between fantasy and reality is constantly being blurred.

#78

So a couple of things, mainly for my understanding… Is this really all there is to change/steadfast? What makes this option different from MC Problem Solving? If these dynamics are supposed to operate independently I didn’t think it was necessary to show he goes from linear to holistic in order to convey Change or stayed linear or w/e to convey Steadfast.

I always thought Resolve was asking ‘is the nature of the MC intact at the end of the story or did he change his very nature’. That’s why I tend to look a little deeper than black/white ‘is he solving problems the same way’.

#79

@Jerome, If I remember correctly most of these moments happen when Riggan is alone. Only in the end probably Sam enters the fantasies. Stress on probably.

And this ending could help us determine his steadfast/change.

#80

I guess if we understand that Riggan deals with his problems through a fantasy world (speaking to Birdman, telekinesis, etc), then at the end he’s still doing the same thing. The only change is that he’s able to continue doing what he does WITHOUT Birdman, but he’s still doing the same thing, living in a fantasy world where he can fly out of windows.

That his daughter is able to see that, to me, indicates that he’s only managed to infect Sam with his fantasies, or maybe she herself is feeding into the fantasy machine. Now she gets to play the adoring daughter, caught up in the image of her father (taking pictures of his face and posting them on Twitter, etc.). Reality’s gone bye bye and they’re living a life of social media, living the digital dream à la Second Life. As Mike puts it, “cultural genocide.”

EDIT: Okay, that’s a downer of an interpretation, but I think it’s what the writers were going for.