reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/16/85)
I'm not a really big Alan Parker fan. His films are usually
marred by the fact that he doesn't really seem to care about his
material. "Birdy" is the first of his movies free of this de-
fect. Parker appears to care deeply about this story, which al-
lows his talents to make the film come to life, whereas in previ-
ous films they were engaged in pro forma exercises which suggest-
ed ability without benefiting the film much.
I'm not sure why Parker cared about this story while his
earlier material failed to move him. Filmmakers are particular-
ly, but not exclusively, susceptible to this artistic pitfall.
Films cost so much to make that it's much easier to do what you
can sell rather than what you love. Moreover, filmmakers do not
usually have the choice of starving for their art, an intellectu-
ally comforting course available to authors and painters. If you
don't have film, and a camera, and lighting equipment, and sound
equipment, and editing equipment, and people to run all of the
above, you can't make any movie, period, and these are expensive.
(The French New Wave got a little boost from the fact that Louis
Malle was the heir to a tremendous fortune, so he could help his
friends get some financing for their films.)
So, you must make what you can sell or make nothing at all.
Some filmmakers get enough clout to sell almost anything. Some
are fast enough talkers to convince others that their vision is
marketable. Some are fortunate enough to have tastes conforming
to those of the bulk of their days' filmgoers. Some are able to
accommodate their abilities to almost anything. Some find a sym-
pathetic patron who is either wealthy or in charge of a studio.
Those who don't fit into these categories may never get to show
how good they are. Parker has had enough influence to do what he
wants (within reason; currently, only Steven Speilberg and George
Lucas have the kind of clout necessary to do whatever they want,
without reason) for some time now. Perhaps he didn't know what
he really wanted to do. At any rate, now he's found out.
"Birdy", based on a novel by William Wharton, is an unlikely
subject for a film. It tells the story of two friends, one of
whom is obsessed by birds and flight to the exclusion of all else
except their friendship. Birdy starts off raising pigeons, then
moves on to an attempt to fly in a homemade ornithopter, then
falls in love with his canary. Meanwhile, his friend Al watches
him move further and further away from reality and their friend-
ship. Finally, after they separately go off to war (World War II
in the book, here updated to the Vietnam War), Al returns with
serious wounds to his face and Birdy comes back so traumatized
that he sits in the corner of a room, silently imitating a perch-
ing bird. Al must try to bring him back from insanity before the
Army writes him off as hopelessly insane. Besides the unusual
subject matter, the book contained many highly poetic passages,
integral to its theme, which were obviously unfilmable. Parker
and his screenwriters (Sandy Kroopf and Jack Behr) were thus
faced with the challenge of reshaping the material to a cinematic
form without losing what was important in the book.
Not having read the book, I cannot say how well they suc-
ceeded in this task. Parker has, however, produced a very fine
film, particularly distinguished for the performances of Nicholas
Cage and Matthew Modine. Parker integrates these performances
into his film, supporting them with a good script, fine produc-
tion values, and some very inventive camera work.
Matthew Modine, as Birdy, has the showier of the two roles.
Insanity, even in a relatively gentle form, has a certain fasci-
nation, especially when it manifests itself in bizarre behavior.
Modine gets to persuade his friend to dress up in a pigeon cos-
tume, attempt to fly off a garbage dump, and generally show off
his character's peculiarities. He does this very well. Birdy is
clearly a career-making role for Modine. None the less, I think
I was more impressed with Nicholas Cage's performance as his best
friend. Al is frequently no more than an observer, so it is a
much harder part to play. Cage deploys his considerable charm to
get us to identify with him, but also reaches much deeper than in
his previous roles. We never understand why Al and Birdy are
friends, but Cage makes it clear that Al doesn't understand ei-
ther. Cage's ability to integrate Al's rage and bitterness at
his war experiences into the character of a normal American boy
is also impressive. (I have heard that Cage had two teeth pulled
to play this part, presumably because of Al's war injuries. If true,
the sacrifice certainly doesn't show directly. A British actor
commented on this saying, "That's the trouble with American ac-
tors: they can't make believe.")
Performances cannot exist at all without a script, and are
not likely to be very good without a strong screenplay to bolster
them. Cage and Modine are well supported by "Birdy's" script.
"Birdy" uses a plot method now becoming almost a cliche: it
starts out in the middle of the story, presenting a mystery, in
this case Birdy's catatonia. Flashbacks and scenes in the
script's present are alternated; the past gradually sheds light
on the present. Finally, a last, usually traumatic flashback re-
veals the heart of the mystery, allowing the film to return to
its present to wrap things up. "A Soldier's Story" is just one
example of recent films which have used this device. It can be
effective when well-used, and Alan Parker cuts back and forth
between the two time lines in an intelligent way which allows the
experiences of the past to reflect on the problems of the
present.
Parker's attempt to express the poetry of flight is fairly
successful. The flight sequence is an impressive and imaginative
bit of camerawork which gives a plausible visual account of what
it is like to be a bird. It certainly works better than any at-
tempt to render poetic prose directly on screen would have. That
this device is not completely convincing is related to the
script's major failing. We do not understand Birdy and his prob-
lems well enough. Parker, Kroopf, and Behr needed to give more
explanation or to tilt their interpretation so that the lack of
explanation was an integral part of the story. Since we don't
understand Birdy, we don't get a good handle on what is behind
the flight sequence. Other than this problem, and the minor but
irritating flaw of the too thoroughly unsympathetic treatment of
the Army doctor, "Birdy's" script is very satisfying.
I liked "Birdy" quite a lot. An interesting story, fine
performances, and good direction make it one of the best films
I've seen in the past year. Peter Gabriel contributes a good
score and Michael Seresin's photography is well up to today's
standards. Seresin deserves particular credit for his excellent
work on the flight sequence. "Birdy" bodes well for Alan
Parker's future as a director, and Nicholas Cage's and Matthew
Modine's careers in acting.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher