My take away: This is a fucking kick-ass amazing movie. I think I explained it in part 4 comments.

Jon, agreed. Certainly a big takeaway for me, too. That Keaton did not receive Oscar for his performance, complete robbery. Stunning acting job. All of the actors were great. Writing great. Directing great. Tremendous movie.

Here is my main takeaway: Birdman proves once again how a simple movie with complex characters can work and work wonderfully. It has a single Protagonist. Compressed time frame. Just a handful of locations. Clearly defined characters, each with a distinctive world view and voice. Some nifty plot twists. But all in all, a clean central theme and straightforward plot occupied by compelling, complex characters. Simple plot. Complex characters. Combine that with a great story concept, that is a solid foundation for a strong script.

Thinking of takeaways reminded me of a post Scott did about "is your script big enough to be a movie". I think that's close to the title of the post. For Birdman, three ideas jumped out to me: 1.) As Doc pointed out: "The story within a story, within a story. Casting Michael Keaton to play this role with his Batman backstory is just perfect. You’d almost think this was a story written for/about Michael Keaton. Talk about a tapestry!" Fantastic idea. The story within the story is nothing new, but to go one more level... Even if you wrote it for Michael Keaton on spec, I don't think it's an unheard of idea. Wasn't Being John Malkovich written on spec? I could be wrong about that, but still a huge idea. 2.) Jon pointed out: "As an aside, the film/theatre theme is carried out in the execution of the film itself. We watch Birdman, a movie shot in the style of theatre, where actors play out scenes in one uncut take as they would on the stage." Another great idea. I'll have to go back and look at the transitions more closely. Just to add another another dynamic to the theatre v. movie aspect, how about the realism (within the theatre) v. surrealism (outside the theatre). 3.) Birdman. Was kinda like a Tyler Durden thing but different and unique in its own way. The movie just felt big, with Riggan risking everything: his relationships, his finances, his career, his sanity.

John, excellent point. And it really shines a spotlight - in a particular way - on the problem facing so many of the superhero movies: How many times can you play the "The World Is In Peril" card before it gets played out? Yes, the imminent destruction of the planet (or universe) is BIG. But time after time after time after time as a plot device, it loses its 'bigness'. Meanwhile we have Birdman. In his past, the Protagonist had PLAYED a cinematic superhero. And no matter the faults and flaws of Riggan's character, he KNOWS in his gut that is bull shit - at least insofar as craft, artistry, and ultimately meaning is concerned. Thus this little story. On the surface, nothing much happens. A play in trouble. Characters argue. A guy shoots off his nose. And yet it feels big. On a personal, human, and emotional level, really BIG. Whereas the current crop of superhero / comic book movies rely on spectacle for their 'bigness,' movies like Birdman, Whiplash, Boyhood, The Skeleton Twins, and the like rely on the emotional travails of the characters to achieve a sense of importance and scope. There's room for both types of movies and everything in between, of course. But Birdman reminds us, as writers, that when we drill down into our characters and discover emotional arenas universal to the human experience, no matter the scope of our plot... our stories can be big enough to be a movie.

Agree with you 100%, Scott. This actually reminds me of something Michael Arndt said. His view, if I remember correctly, that the external stakes don't need to be big at all. Your characters just need to believe in them, and the audience needs to believe in the character's quest for them. I think he even said that the smaller and more specific they are, the better.

I just realized Being John Malkovich was a bad comparison, that the two aren't really analogous. JM plays JM; MK plays a character that we associate with MK. But nonetheless, casting Keaton added another cool dimension to this film and he kicked-ass in the role.

If you Google Michael Arndt on the blog, you'll see a ton of posts including some video clips and what-not going into detail about story beginnings, story endings, and his whole tripartite approach to story structure which is very similar to the one I've been teaching for over a decade. He divides a screenplay into: External Stakes Internal Stakes Philosophical Stakes Mine: External World Internal World Psychological Journey It's those last two dynamics in both which speak to your point: The emotional life of the story. And often, it is the SPECIFICITY of what's really going on which creates the point of emotional resonance with a script reader / moviegoer. I recently saw John Wick which is an entertaining elevated action genre piece. The emotional focus of the story is quite specific - the fate of a beagle puppy and the whereabouts of a car, both symbolic in a way of a previous tragedy in Wick's life. So it's not the universe in peril. It's not the world about to explode. It's this ONE GUY. Dealing with GRIEF. A few specific TALISMANS (dog, car). And an accelerated desire for REVENGE. Quite effective for the type of movie it is. BTW Michael Arndt and Pixar is a match made in cinematic heaven.

Great back'n'forth gents ... glad each of you enjoyed the film as well. ;-) A super-complex and rewarding read. It's also been a pleasure chatting with friends and family who have seen this film about *their* takeaways ... everyone's perception of the film is different! And, John, thanks for the compliments ... I think that's at least two now. ;-)