British auteur Andrea Arnold gallantly sorties into magic realism in her fifth narrative feature BIRD, which might recall Alan Parker’s BIRDY (1984) as both films feature a key character endowed with an ornithological disposition.
Continuing her preoccupation with the western sink areas, Arnold emplaces the film’s standpoint exclusively from the young protagonist Bailey (Adams), a 12-year old British girl belligerently navigating the shamble of a dysfunctional family life.
Her layabout father Bug (Keoghan) is getting remarried, and pins his gainful hope on an exotic toad, who supposedly should secrete some hallucinogenic substances. Her half-brother Hunter (Buda) knocks up her girlfriend and might tread the same road like Bug by entering fatherhood at the mere age of 14.
On the distaff side, her mother Peyton (Jobson) is helplessly in the claws of an abusive live-in boyfriend Skate (Nelson-Joyce, perfecting a menacing and aggressive deadbeat) and Bailey has an additional 3 younger half-siblings who are often left unattended.
Apart from the external pressure, Bailey herself is on the cusp of adolescence, experiencing menarche and cutting short her nappy hairs. Her seemingly dismal life finds a curveball in the person of a strange man named Bird (Rogowski), who is looking for his mother in the neck of the woods.
An initially defensive and leery Bailey becomes intrigued by Bird’s quirky but innately kind personalities and takes to herself to help him locate his parents. The two develop an inarticulate friendship that never transgresses toward impropriety. In turn, Bird warms up to her siblings and when things ineluctably head to a violent confrontation, his surreal transmogrification emerges as the secret weapon to throw off the anathema and bring peace back to Bailey’s family. In another magical moment, a crow seems to understand Bailey’s thoughts by helping her deliver a note. Is it also Bird’s incarnation?
Arnold’s numinous construct continues to the end, a valediction between Bailey and Bird ends up in a feathery embrace and the sudden color change of Bailey’s eyes hints that she may acquire the same feral puissance as Bird, an almost instinctive quiddity that others them from the multitude. They are liberated souls, soaring in a vast world untrammeled.
Arnold’s characteristic shaky, deceptively off-the-cuff camerawork, in tandem with Bailey’s cellphone videos, imparts BIRD with a spontaneous, kinetic energy that conforms to Bailey’s age of the scooter-riding, angst-driven restlessness, a stylishly crafted cinema vérité. Burial’s heteroclite, subliminal score is sparsely used but hypnotically underscores the recalcitrant teen spirit along with Arnold’s cherry-picked anthems like Irish post-punk band Fontaines D.C.'s TOO REAL.
Adams is another blue-chip finding by Arnold, retaining an unbending fierceness that is inherited from Sasha Lane in AMERICAN HONEY (2016), yet her precociousness is more acutely felt as her tender age is masked by her foisted-upon parentification. We often forgets that Bailey is just a teenager, her expedited maturity is an outgrowth of her tough habitus. While we are beholden to Arnold’s humane intention to lend a platform to the marginalized and the neglected, the film seems irresolute in pinpointing the banes of Bailey’s plight. Both Bug and Peyton are inadequate in parenting yet that doesn’t stop either to keep bringing new lives into the world, not to mention how come Peyton ends up living with a dangerous douchebag? Is her poor taste in men be at least partially answerable to Bailey’s dissatisfaction? Also, Bird’s own backstory is another tale of woe where it appears his mother has a screw loose. Those are the bullet points Arnold show but doesn’t tell, which leaves a somewhat uneasy impression that BIRD might be viewed as an apologist for poverty-porn.
Still, if Keoghan’s casting is more of a gimmick, whose gregariousness looks a shade forced and ebullience feigned, Rogowski, insouciantly concealing his continental alterity, stands out as the real deal that projects a mystical feeling of innate beneficence that emanates only from his conceit-free tenderness and affection. Bird is a sympathetic enigma, a young girl’s best imagined friend, who sees her as who she is and comes to her rescue when needed (It is a major letdown there is no interplay between Bird and Bug). Arnold’s film makes for a thorough diagnosis of the problem but offers no simple solution. A metamorphosis is indicated but in Bailey’s case, the whole process unfolds elliptically, leaving much to flights of fancy.
在电影开头，12 岁的小演员 Nykiya Adams 饰演的主角 Bailey 和她年轻的父亲 Bug（由独一无二的 Barry Keoghan 饰演）在 scooter 上疾驰过凶猛却又充满生命力的英国底层街区。背景音乐是 Fontaines D.C. 的 Too Real，爱尔兰口音嘶吼着“Is it real for ya?” —— 这是一个很精彩的开场。
全程手持，现实与超现实交织，一场关于一个活在底层家庭的女孩内心变化和震动的故事。在摇晃的镜头和大段的沉默里，我看到她细腻的情感和需求，同时在结尾看到变化，是一部虽然缓慢碎片但却很细腻的作品。
海报，Barry和Franz两位我很喜欢的精湛演技的男演员的飙戏，关于青春期孩子的内心世界，这些都是吸引我打开这部影片的理由，这些内容也没有人失望。同时我在故事里感受到了成长所带来的微弱的又与众不同的心理变化，这是细腻的产物，在我看来是难呈现的。活在散养父亲家的女孩想要获得父亲和哥哥更多的关注，想要融入强装大人的时刻；回去看望被男人暴力对待的母亲和其他的姐妹们，想要用仅有的手机和弱小的身躯保护他们的时刻；想要逃离这个环境，成为与众不同的自己的时刻；在旷野里看鸟奔跑呼喊的时刻……回顾自己的青春期，很多感受会在记忆里浮现，对自由的向往，对生活的一点惆怅，对家庭温暖的渴求，对身体变化的惶恐，想要证明自己长大的内心等等。也是因为这些微小的乱糟糟的情感，她开始沉默，开始叛逆，然后生长出一位鸟先生保护和探索自我。
鸟先生是她的一部分，来自向往，来自渴望。所以他在高处，他寻找家人，他也保护了她和她的家人，最后的拥抱和离开是融合，是成长，是不再需要外界的力量去和解和面对，而是她足够成为一只鸟，飞翔的同时也可以拥有想象中的窝。她可以保护母亲一家，也可以和哥哥爸爸和解，自由不是逃离，而是成长的平衡。
手持镜头毛茸茸的胶片感跟着主角的眼睛去记录生活的各处，一切的记录和创作恰恰是内心的映射。女孩用手机记录着她看到的一切，导演也用她的镜头看到女孩，观察和触碰的过程恰恰把细腻隐秘的情绪呈现为影像，一切都变得柔软细腻。我很喜欢结尾，还是爸爸的滑板车，但一切都不太一样了。细微的变化发生的温润无声，但正是这样的变化让人感到欣慰触动，甚至直戳心窝。
#ICA 现实主义作品夹杂着一些超现实的情节，英国底层人的状况，依然是找寻自我，跟之前看的那部《银色薄雾》有点儿像，超现实主要反映角色内心，比较不错的是依然是自我救赎，不过结尾处有点儿妥协大团圆。视觉上，没记错是全手持，今天第四场看得我有些疲惫，还好坐的靠后，情绪状态还是很多起伏变化，靠前感觉可以把握晃吐，闪回的记忆，人格分裂般的状态，那一阵阵风带来的也只有自己。听觉上，音效使用的不错，歌曲也是朗朗上口，看到了图帕的海报，结尾跳舞的地方是不是演员撞到了摄影师。
角色上，女主演绎的非常好，尤其是小孩子强装成熟的状态，Barry的气质还是独特，非常契合角色状态，而且之前比较喜欢他，还查过他一些资料，感觉经历真的是很独特，他就是小时候辗转多个寄养家庭，12岁跟祖母一起生活的，不过对照影片的角色，总感觉还是太年轻了，可以理解讲述了底层人育儿的状态，也能接受他本人也是30多了，12岁的孩子蛮正常的，可能是因为他前几个角色还是演孩子。
鸟，在我看来是一面镜子也是女主内心的呈现，寻找家人是因为她自己没有归属感，状态上也是一种孤独的呈现，内心投射希望的化身吧。她希望她能像鸟儿一样自由逃离，她希望能通过鸟的兽性帮助母亲和兄弟姐妹，所以鸟人最后离开预示着成长，离开的话也是电梯中的一句涂鸦，希望也在涂鸦之中。影片中也有几种鸟出现，整点儿薯条和渡鸦可能是对于心内情绪的外化体现，不过肯特郡是没鸽子么？
British auteur Andrea Arnold gallantly sorties into magic realism in her fifth narrative feature BIRD, which might recall Alan Parker’s BIRDY (1984) as both films feature a key character endowed with an ornithological disposition.
Continuing her preoccupation with the western sink areas, Arnold emplaces the film’s standpoint exclusively from the young protagonist Bailey (Adams), a 12-year old British girl belligerently navigating the shamble of a dysfunctional family life.
Her layabout father Bug (Keoghan) is getting remarried, and pins his gainful hope on an exotic toad, who supposedly should secrete some hallucinogenic substances. Her half-brother Hunter (Buda) knocks up her girlfriend and might tread the same road like Bug by entering fatherhood at the mere age of 14.
On the distaff side, her mother Peyton (Jobson) is helplessly in the claws of an abusive live-in boyfriend Skate (Nelson-Joyce, perfecting a menacing and aggressive deadbeat) and Bailey has an additional 3 younger half-siblings who are often left unattended.
Apart from the external pressure, Bailey herself is on the cusp of adolescence, experiencing menarche and cutting short her nappy hairs. Her seemingly dismal life finds a curveball in the person of a strange man named Bird (Rogowski), who is looking for his mother in the neck of the woods.
An initially defensive and leery Bailey becomes intrigued by Bird’s quirky but innately kind personalities and takes to herself to help him locate his parents. The two develop an inarticulate friendship that never transgresses toward impropriety. In turn, Bird warms up to her siblings and when things ineluctably head to a violent confrontation, his surreal transmogrification emerges as the secret weapon to throw off the anathema and bring peace back to Bailey’s family. In another magical moment, a crow seems to understand Bailey’s thoughts by helping her deliver a note. Is it also Bird’s incarnation?
Arnold’s numinous construct continues to the end, a valediction between Bailey and Bird ends up in a feathery embrace and the sudden color change of Bailey’s eyes hints that she may acquire the same feral puissance as Bird, an almost instinctive quiddity that others them from the multitude. They are liberated souls, soaring in a vast world untrammeled.
Arnold’s characteristic shaky, deceptively off-the-cuff camerawork, in tandem with Bailey’s cellphone videos, imparts BIRD with a spontaneous, kinetic energy that conforms to Bailey’s age of the scooter-riding, angst-driven restlessness, a stylishly crafted cinema vérité. Burial’s heteroclite, subliminal score is sparsely used but hypnotically underscores the recalcitrant teen spirit along with Arnold’s cherry-picked anthems like Irish post-punk band Fontaines D.C.'s TOO REAL.
Adams is another blue-chip finding by Arnold, retaining an unbending fierceness that is inherited from Sasha Lane in AMERICAN HONEY (2016), yet her precociousness is more acutely felt as her tender age is masked by her foisted-upon parentification. We often forgets that Bailey is just a teenager, her expedited maturity is an outgrowth of her tough habitus. While we are beholden to Arnold’s humane intention to lend a platform to the marginalized and the neglected, the film seems irresolute in pinpointing the banes of Bailey’s plight. Both Bug and Peyton are inadequate in parenting yet that doesn’t stop either to keep bringing new lives into the world, not to mention how come Peyton ends up living with a dangerous douchebag? Is her poor taste in men be at least partially answerable to Bailey’s dissatisfaction? Also, Bird’s own backstory is another tale of woe where it appears his mother has a screw loose. Those are the bullet points Arnold show but doesn’t tell, which leaves a somewhat uneasy impression that BIRD might be viewed as an apologist for poverty-porn.
Still, if Keoghan’s casting is more of a gimmick, whose gregariousness looks a shade forced and ebullience feigned, Rogowski, insouciantly concealing his continental alterity, stands out as the real deal that projects a mystical feeling of innate beneficence that emanates only from his conceit-free tenderness and affection. Bird is a sympathetic enigma, a young girl’s best imagined friend, who sees her as who she is and comes to her rescue when needed (It is a major letdown there is no interplay between Bird and Bug). Arnold’s film makes for a thorough diagnosis of the problem but offers no simple solution. A metamorphosis is indicated but in Bailey’s case, the whole process unfolds elliptically, leaving much to flights of fancy.
referential entries: Arnold's AMERICAN HONEY (2016, 7.9/10), WUTHERING HEIGHTS (2011, 6.2/10); Charlotte Regan’s SCRAPPER (2023, 7.0/10); Lynne Ramsay’s RATCATCHER (1999, 8.1/10).
有点想到了另一部coming of age的青少年电影《伯德小姐》（意象同为Bird）。被困住的青少年总想着像鸟飞出牢笼，飞跃群山，但同时，这个题材的电影也在讨论“家”，颇有些是枝裕和《小偷家族》里聚在一起相互取暖活着的“一家人“所体现的温情。
英国拍青少年（我在英国最害怕的teenager混混青少年）群体的生活，似乎drill音乐、迷幻电子乐、涂鸦、暴力成为了一种标配。但可能对于反映这个群体的真实生活和困境来说，可能需要拒绝一些象征，或者把信号浓缩在象征里的讨巧。这部电影具备当下社会关注议题的获奖必备元素，但总觉得还是少了一点点什么。结尾的强行大团圆和和解，相比于同样反映脆弱家庭、未婚先孕青少年独自抚养孩子母亲、社会贫富差距、性暴力等困境的《弗罗里达乐园》、还是少了一些直击现实的力度，反而有点像淡淡忧伤的sadness fantasy。
PS：我觉得男主演还挺吸引我的，有一种《去他妈的世界》男主演的气质、但他更为阳光和温和。
在电影开头，12 岁的小演员 Nykiya Adams 饰演的主角 Bailey 和她年轻的父亲 Bug（由独一无二的 Barry Keoghan 饰演）在 scooter 上疾驰过凶猛却又充满生命力的英国底层街区。背景音乐是 Fontaines D.C. 的 Too Real，爱尔兰口音嘶吼着“Is it real for ya?” —— 这是一个很精彩的开场。
对《鸟》的理解就如同片名一样，需要从贯穿全片的动物性入手。Bug 全身覆满动物刺青，他的脸上纹了一只巨大的蜈蚣。Bailey 潜入水下，在浑浊的棕色的水中她看到无数游动的鱼，从水下探出头来，还是英国浑浊的天空，旁边有一只雪白色的海鸥。廉价公寓的女租客养着一条巨大的金色蟒蛇。Bug 从科罗拉多搞来一只蟾蜍，为了让它分泌体液（这种蟾蜍的体液可以用来制作致幻剂，他想借此为自己的婚礼筹钱），他们对着蟾蜍深情演唱 Coldplay 的 Yellow。在母亲的家里，家暴的情人用啤酒瓶杀死了一只猎狐梗。
在这个意义上，《鸟》中的人比这些动物意向更具有动物性。Bailey 今年 12 岁，她的父亲 Bug 刚过三十，而他又要结婚了。Bailey 是非裔，Bug 是白人。Bailey 的两个妹妹和一个弟弟和母亲生活在另一片贫民区，家里又搬进来一个暴戾的白人男性。Bailey 的隔壁住着 Hunter，Hunter 是白人，今年 17 岁。Hunter 是 Bailey 的哥哥 —— Bug 在 14 岁时有了他。而 Hunter 刚刚致使另一个 14 岁的女孩怀孕 —— 他们密谋逃往苏格兰，但私奔的早晨女孩没有来，他哭得天昏地暗，Bailey 和 Bug 把他从车站带回家 —— 他套着三件卫衣，因为苏格兰冷得刺骨。
而由 Franz Rogowski 饰演的“鸟”（熟悉**佩措尔德**的观众一定很爱他）则象征着另一种动物性。他以一种阴柔的、模糊性别的方式无中生有地出现在草地上与 Bailey 相见。他想找回自己的父母 —— 但母亲早就死去，父亲早就再婚且再也不愿要小孩。在最后的关键情节中，他从抽象的鸟变成具象的鸟，用一种机械降神的英雄姿态完全改变了整个故事的进程。我认为这是影片一个令人迷惑的败笔。
《鸟》属于这样一类电影：它出现在每一位成功导演的作品序列的中间，它（几乎有些功利性地）为电影节而创作却没有获得奖项，它不算糟糕但也当然算不上出色，它没有溅起多大的水花，几乎只有偶然间走进影院或者有意识地想要补完某位导演或某场电影节的观众才会去找来它看。但对于所有 —— 有意或无意 —— 看到这部电影的观众来说，你总会感受到一点点动人的私人情绪，就像电影里永远站在廉价出租公寓楼顶的鸟。