Monday, January 19, 2015
not buster. not diane.
Applause and cheers!
But, then, who doesn't like the affable Michael Keaton?
Another revelation: I could hardly make it through "Birdman," Keaton's celebrated "comeback" movie. (I put comeback in quotes because, frankly, while his last notable film work was in the mid- to late-1990s, Keaton hasn't exactly been inactive. Check his IMDb filmography.) Anyway, that's right. "Birdman" did nothing for me. There, I said it.
I know, I know. Blasphemy. I clearly never received the memo that stated that anyone who is even remotely interested in the future of film is obliged to show enthusiasm for "Birdman." Period. More disclosure: Along the same contrarian ethos, I could barely tolerate that other 2014 critics' darling, "The Grand Budapest Hotel." Too twee for me. (Hey, a rhyme!)
But back to Michael Keaton. In spite of my aversion to "Birdman" (I still have recurring head pain from Antonio Sanchez's intrusive, clanging drum score), I am heartened that Keaton is receiving belated recognition in his career and appreciate the critics' avidity for his achievement in "Birdman."
What I don't understand is the excitement that goes beyond his performance in this particular film - the enthusiasm about his mere return, as if his absence left some kind of void. I remember Michael Keaton as a competent, reliable actor with a fairly good filmography. But the way that some critics are behaving, one would think Gene Hackman deigned to come out of retirement - or that Brando himself has risen from the dead.
Am I missing something?
Posted by joe baltake at 3:09 PM