Bird (1988)

I watched about a third of this and got so fed up I just put a Charlie Parker cd on instead. The movie looks great and the principals are good especially Forrest Whitaker but there's very little about the music and his interactions with fellow musicians and producers. That would be interesting, instead we get typical Hollywood romance/tragic romance stuff. Bird focuses almost exclusively on Parker's relationship with Chan and his drug addiction, Bird suffers because of that. It's kind of like the bebop version of Titanic. Eastwood is a good sometimes great (Mystic River,White Hunter Black Heart ) director but often he seems entrenched in Hollywoodisms, sort of Ron Howard on steroids.

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.

The music in here is excellent and makes jazz appealing even to a non-jazz enthusiast like me. It better, because that's what the subject of the film is: jazz, and Charlie Parker, in particular. "Bird" was his nickname, and Parker was a good subject matter for a film - not a pleasant subject most of the time, but for jazz fans the man is a legend.I thought the acting was good, especially by the two main people: Forest Whitaker, playing Parker, and Diane Venora as wife "Chan." My major complaint was that it was too long. To make a film over 160 minutes when much of it is a "downer" it tough to sit through. It's generally a story about what can happen to a man who is addicted to drugs, which is what happened to this giant of jazz. That's the part of fhis life that is emphasized,, so it makes this movie a very long, sordid tale, not a happy one. Unless one is a big jazz aficionado, one viewing of this would be plenty.

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+