56
FILM.
Friday 20.03.2015 to Sunday 22.03.2015 | Dubbo Weekender
Ignorance no virtue from Birdman critic HE winner of the most recent Academy Award for Best Film, Birdman, has evidently done what any superior artistic expression should – it’s received polarising reviews and even been the basis for an irrational and dangerously ignorant comment from a former federal opposition leader, Mark Latham. The first mistake Latham made in his comments was not once referring to the the hated film by its complete name. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) has a deliberately original screenplay and cinematography, and would be found on the margin of normal entertainment. However, having reflected intermittently for the past month since watching it, I realise its content is comparable with Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking Blade Runner. Birdman utilised cinematic genre and technicality to uphold its content’s integrity, much like Blade Runner did, by consciously incorporating sophisticated camerawork and scene setting into the storytelling. These films don’t just rely on headline film techniques such as characterisation and dialogue, but create underlying values and ideas for the entire film’s features to communicate a more substantial narrative. Because Birdman simultaneously delivers several story levels, the audience needs to be totally engaged with the film to appreciate its purpose – which isn’t to give viewers a physiological rush as boundless action and booming complementary non-diegetic music does. It’s probably the opposite. The final few minutes of the film reveal this when the protagonist Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), descends into a psychotic episode (with the license of characterised supernaturalism – meaning he flies over New York City as the Birdman), takes flight and encounters an action scene not unlike those of any recent superhero movie. Birdman was essentially written to communicate to different people on dif-
T
Comment by GEORGE BAKER Born and raised in the central west, George Baker is busy adding to his diverse skill base while he prepares to fly south of the border to pursue his interests in media and psychology at university.
ferent levels. It takes a cynical swipe at the film critic’s occupation, reveals the vanity and self-absorption of a playwright or any script writer, gives contemporary comment on the superficial power and exposure especially a celebrity can receive through viral social media for doing seemingly very little, highlights the sexism that most probably exists in the film industry (which not only Mario Puzo’s The Godfather did in the 1960s, but also in the Australian medical industry as recently exposed), shows the particular consequences of negligent and single parenting, just to name a few. But mostly, Birdman is a milestone in film because of its deliberate idiosyncrasy. We are all well aware of the franchises that perpetuate sequels delivering millions in profits, and that seemingly don’t provide much intellectual stimulation. However, for what hugely financially successful films lack, it is contained in Birdman’s discourse; that because this film sticks out from others, it will be hated by the mainstream. A film such as Birdman can never be ‘epic’ like the Godfather saga, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, or The Shawshank Redemption all are. However, its contribution to discourse surrounding cinematography and more technical aspects of film is profound. Back to Latham. The film motivated him to deliver an irrational and ill-in-
A screenshot from Birdman: The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. PHOTO: FOX
formed comment piece on mental health in which he described the serious issue as an ‘in-vogue’ subject which, granted, it is. I don’t see why this is a bad thing. Among a number of superlatives and universal declarations he makes, one was: “The latest fad is to diagnose every citizen as suffering from depression and anxiety.” With Australia’s current shortage of psychiatrists, I find this difficult to believe. I wonder if Latham is aware that anxiety and depressive disorders are just two of 20 categories organised in the seminal psychiatric manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 5th Edition. I also wonder if he is aware that according to that manual, Birdman’s Riggan Thomson is most probably suffering from a disorder on the schizotypy spectrum, in that he experiences auditory and visual hallucinations, believes he has supernatural powers, and at times exhibits grandiose delusions. These diagnostic criteria could be associated with delusional disorder, brief psychotic disorder, or schizophrenia, to name just a few. Latham’s use of statistics is unreliable in that he doesn’t state the source
or year in which the statistics were recorded. Additionally, he seems to have a cynical viewpoint that the “new social critique” has been created for the profit of medical and pharmaceutical industries. I can’t identify a premise to this argument, which many more people perpetuate. I have been medicated for mental health issues for some time and along with psychotherapy and personal development, medication enabled my life, rather than disable or end it. With continued treatment, I believe my brain will eventually regain its correct function and no longer need psychotropic assistance. There is very little substance to Mark Latham’s arguments contained in his comments in the Australian Financial Review earlier this month. I’m concerned by the belligerent, closed, and irrational beliefs and attitudes a former federal opposition leader exhibits. Before specialist shortages reduce and funding for mental health increases, we first need to be educated about this area of health and have the motivation and compassion to improve the population’s collective mental health. Latham’s ignorance isn’t a virtue.
1ST
Ad space supported with a smile by
www.dubbocountrymusicassociatio.com
ANN
UAL