Should Birdman have won the Oscar?

Was it a worthy winner? Source: Supplied

IT'S weird, it's divisive and it's just picked up the Best Picture gong at the Oscars.

If the reaction around you was anything like in the news.com.au office, you'll be wondering whether or not Birdman was a natural winner.

I'm going to be upfront here. More than a month after seeing the film, I'm still not sure if I loved it or hated it.

I immediately thought it was a masterful piece of cinema. It was incredibly well-acted with raw and powerful performances from the whole cast, but especially from Michael Keaton whose volatility and vulnerability was always on screen for the viewer to appreciate. Edward Norton also dominated every frame he was in with the kind of chutzpah he was lauded for in his early roles in Primal Fear and Fight Club.

Edward Norton was a scene-stealer. Source: Supplied

On a technical level, the movie was brilliant. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's direction had a manic and desperate energy that lifted the whole picture, aided by the gorgeous cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki. And, of course, the editing. The seamless transitions not really seen since Hitchcock's Rope that gave the impression that it was all done in one shot.

But I still don't know if I loved it or hated it.

The session I went to at the local independent cinema saw two different couples walk out halfway through, never to return. So, it's clearly put quite a few people off.

And the argument in the news.com.au office erupted straight away with some declaring their love while others said the film left them cold. One reporter said he had never even heard of it.

Other critics have said Birdman is the kind of movie the industry loves because it's a film about acting. And fame, or fading fame — it's Sunset Boulevard without the scary melodrama or death. It's being accused of being "without a story" and "unemotional".

Brave was one way to describe Birdman. Source: Supplied

One of my colleagues said: "Just because it's doing something new, and pushing the boundaries, doesn't mean it's good. It doesn't mean it should be getting all these awards."

Just because something's different, doesn't mean it's good. Just look at The Blair Witch Project. How well does that stand up 16 years later?

But what should've won instead? There were several wonderful films in this year's field but none of them (other than Boyhood) screamed 'Best Picture' — and I cannot emphasis how big a fan I am of Wes Anderson.

Personally, I would've liked to have seen Boyhood take home the big prize at the Oscars. It had heart, and perfectly captured the extraordinariness and the mundaneness of growing up. Richard Linklater, who I do think should have won Best Director, made an incredible piece of cinema with his ambitious 12-year non-epic.

Boyhood was the only other real contender in the category. Source: Supplied

But Birdman was a worthy winner — this is not the Crash debacle of 2006, or, dare I say it, Shakespeare in Love.

Whether you liked it or hated it, you can't deny that it's a powerful, well-crafted and clever film. It even had a little heart, it was just hidden under the hardened layers of cynical thespians' inner worlds.