Bird (1988)

Fantastic!

As Good As It Gets

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Miles Davis said "You can tell the history of jazz in four words: Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker." I bet Armstrong is the one all jazz non-experts will immediately think of... and I'm no jazz expert.I wish I was but I'm not... but what even my feeble ear could gather from Clint Eastwood's "Bird" is that Parker's music was jazz all right but something more... or let's just say something else. It doesn't exactly ring a bell but it reminds me of the kind of music we hear everyday, it's modern but jazzy enough to fly above today's modernity. The word "Bebop" wasn't used in the film, I got it from Wikipedia but I don't want to be technical in a field I don't master. I'll say with all humility that I liked the music, no matter the branding.But it's one thing to make a movie about a musical genius and another to show you the psychological struggles of the artist. Oh, he wasn't misunderstood and his talent was acknowledged by his peers but the man, how to put it, took himself in a path of self-destruction that is hard to understand. The film doesn't imply that the drugs he took to ease the pain of his ulcers influence his style but they didn't impair his talent either, substance abuse was as much part of his legend as the cymbal thrown at his feet in that humiliating day where he couldn't adapt to the chords changes of tunes.The flying cymbal is used as a poetic leitmotif symbolizing Bird's epiphany, the pivotal moment where he decided to work his way out, not to become the best, but to be able to adapt to every possible tune. I don't know what it means technically but I can tell it means a lot of work, in fact, the kind of work that is so overwhelming in content that it ends up opening new breeches of creativity. Parker would become so good he'd invent new forms of improvisations, new sounds that were pivotal in the evolution of jazz music. And he was loved and admired by his peers, the audience and the woman who was his number one fan, Chan Parker. The relationship between Chan and Charlie is like nothing you've seen before, it's so complex and unpredictable that it can only be real, it's full of heart, passion, tragedy and the same dedication to music. She knew him from a friend, "is he cute?" she asked, "no, but you're gonna like him". I said I was no musical expert but sometimes, I could just tell how good Parker was from the eyes of Chan, he had won her from the start and the courting phase of their relationship was only a matter of 'how to put it'. Chan was still frustrated that a man with such a capability of creativeness could be so lacking in basic interactions. But there's no doubt he's the man of her life, no matter how many conquests he had. And that's a key aspect of Parker's life, people 'forgave' him, drugs, women, coming late, not honoring his schedules, if anything, his talent was his one saving grace. And Dizzy Gillespie (Joe E. Wright), third major 'player' in the film, realizes Parker is destroying himself with drugs and lack of structure, but he also knows that jazz is the kind of music that needs these destructive souls, he knows Parker will die earlier, and will be a legend, but Bird's a martyr while he's a reformer, jazz needs both, constructors and "deconstructors", leaders and drifters, music needs rules and freedom.And "Bird" is a fascinating non-linear immersion in the drifting of one of jazz' most blessed souls, from his spectacular debut to his slow downfall and the way he never ceases to attract crowds and fans, there's a wonderful sequence set in the Old South where he took a Jewish saxophonist Red Rodney (Michael Zelniker) and presented him as an albino, it's for touches like this or the jazz playing during the Jewish wedding that you realize how life isn't a matter of the number of years you lived but how they're lived. When Parker's own life ends, the coroner states his age at 64, he was thirty years too many, but many lives are longer yet with a lesser legacy.I said that I didn't want to use data from websites for this review but one bit of information I found interesting is that there was no visual footage of the artist, so Eastwood had to use recordings and adapt them electronically to the movie so the sound we could hear would really come from Parker's old records (some borrowed from Chan Parker herself). That's how te film won the Oscar for Best Sound and it says a lot about the perfectionism that drove Eastwood, you know when he makes personal movies, he always hits the right chord, ever since "Play Misty for Me", Eastwood showed that he took music personally and the film ends with a fitting dedication to all the musicians in the world.I shouldn't say musicians in the world, because sometimes musicians recreate the world through the movement of their fingers, lips or the infinite brain capacity to adapt, Parker was known to have an intellectual approach to the music and even without perceiving it, I could understand it... and admire it. "Bird" is a movie that can make you feel such abstractions and I think it has a lot to do with the powerhouse performances of both Forest Whitaker and Diane Venora, snubbed by the Oscars and I mean it."Bird" is a rather dark film, mostly set at a nighttime but there's a fire burning inside, and for all the sadness carried in Parker's eyes, we know that there's joy and lust for life devouring his heart. Time to end this review before I sound too corny, but watch "Bird" is a solid jazz drama and a fine tribute to one of the best...

It's been claimed that this is the Best film about Jazz ever made and whilst the glib response may be yeah, maybe, but how MANY films about Jazz have been made, the tendency is to agree. What is undeniable is the fact that director Eastwood - a well-known jazz buff - has not been content with the four-bar taste of the music then cutting away from the band to a dialogue scene approach which is what fans usually get fobbed off with, here we actually are allowed to savour (assuming, of course, the music is our prime reason for watching the film) not only the genius of Parker but also the music scene as it existed roughly between 1945-55 and though he isn't named aficionados will know it was Jo Jones who threw the cymbal at Parker to register disgust. 52nd St - known as Swing Street - has also been lovingly recreated so already we have accumulated a host of positives, throw in the remarkable lead performance from Forest Whitaker and we are talking great movie.

Clint Eastwood's love for jazz is clearly reflected in this marvelous piece of tragedy. 'Bird' is indeed about the one and only legendary Charlie Parker who lived a somewhat tortured life supported by his wife Chan, alcohol, substance abuse and jazz and yet he became the greatest give to jazz. His contribution remains one of the most essential to the music and he is one name that's required to be known by all jazz lovers. 'Bird' is one film that will especially appeal to jazz lovers.The cinematography and lighting adds to the 40s and 50s chaotic jazz atmosphere. However, I thought that perhaps Parker's solos would have been better left with the original music instead of integrating it with modern musicians. Nevertheless this is one minor flaw. 'Bird' isn't told in chronological order and I was a little confused about the time-line but quickly it got clear.I also loved the way Clintwood focused on the love story between Bird and Chan. There clearly was a deep love between the two but Parker was a difficult tormented soul and his wife always had a strong presence in his life, always being there for him despite his chronic abuse of drugs and alcohol and his infidelity. Forest Whitaker gives the performance of a lifetime. He's sublime but also ravaged and disturbingly tormented as Charlie Parker. I haven't seen 'The Last King of Scotland' but I wonder why it took years for this actor to get the deserved recognition. Diane Venora is just as good and in spite of having numerous good work to her credit, she too does not seem to get the deserved recognition.I think 'Bird' would have been a better film about Parker, had Eastwood shown more of Parker's contribution to jazz in 'Bird'. I was already a little familiar with Parker's works and influence. We do catch a very little glimpse of Parker's struggle in getting accepted as a musician. As a result, 'Bird' isn't exactly a 'complete' biopic. I remember watching another beautiful biopic called 'Iris' but was very disappointed that there was no mention of the great writers works. Perhaps Eastwood wanted to limit the film from exceeding the length (it's already longer than two hours) yet at places the pace is quite lethargic.Having said it all, in spite of its flaws, it remains a fantastic film that I recommend to everyone, not only jazz lovers. A fine piece of film.

Clint Eastwood's direction was very suitable for the material in this film, dealing with subjects he cares much about (music, loners, risking on the edge), and his handle on Bird, for my money, was wonderful. It's not an easy film to take, and it asks a lot from one in the viewing (it's a big film, with a plot complex, but not confusing, but is rewarding for those with a good interest Charlie Parker and the days of 40's-50's jazz. It's arguable whether there might be flaws in some of the uses of symbolism or bits of dialog in Joel Oliansky's script. But it's strong points - Forest Whitaker's major breakthrough in the title role; the bountiful and superb collection of Parker songs on the soundtrack (with a fine score by Lennie Neuhaus); a keen eye for getting the atmosphere and lighting right by Eastwood - are worth the viewing. Like most films about musicians with demons in the back of their heads (i.e. Ray, The Doors, even Amadeus), there is a level of possible melodrama that has to be crossed. With Bird, Parker is an interesting subject with this, and is ultimately shown well to be redeemed by the music. Likely to become more appealing, or at least easier to take on a second viewing, Bird is a solid, inspiring movie, with a kind of feeling to it that is unique. A+