ElMaruecan82
John Frankheimer's "Birdman of Alcatraz" was adapted from the novel of the same name written by Thomas E. Gaddis. The original material was already a fictionalization of the life of Robert Stroud, a convict sentenced for life in solitary confinement in Leavenworth prison due to his rebellious and psychopathic behavior yet, thanks to his predispositions for intelligence, he turns into a self-taught expert on birds and avian pathologies writing many scientific essays and becoming an authority among bird lovers and poultry risers. The film tells the story of this evolution, and one of the most intriguing and captivating premises from any prison movie.So how futile and sterile can all these debates about the accuracy be? Granted the real Stroud wasn't as mild-mannered as Burt Lancaster in the film, although he wasn't the jolliest fellow either, all right, there are some inaccuracies but aren't they all diluted in the richness of a life totally dedicated to birds and living creatures? Isn't it worth enjoying the film for the inspirational lesson of self-made-rehabilitation and conquered dignity? There's so much to appreciate in the story that I fail to see what kind of improvement a 100% accurate movie would have done. And to conclude that parenthesis, I've read the man's biography and the changes are not crucial to the story. The main plot points of his life, so to speak, are all there.And what is remarkable is the slow pacing and the way that slowness conveys most of the excitement. It's the story of a man who's got only time, and at a time where time has become such a luxury, Robert Stroud is almost a wealthy man, because all his intelligence needs is a trigger, a compass to his actions. One of the greatest lines of the film describes the hellish nature of solitary confinement from the certitude of everything that will happen. Since he excitement of life comes from its unpredictability, a man in solitary is a living dead. Stroud's first admirable act will be to get rid of that miserable condition and find something to make his life enjoyable. In a certain way, he reminded me of Andy Dufresne and his passion for rocks, and I guess Dufresne had the stuff to become as respectable a geologist than Stroud a cytologist.Yet unlike Dufresne, Stroud had the time, but not the pressure. So it all started with a little sparrow found from a fallen nest during a stormy night, a bird promised to a certain death if someone didn't feed him. At that time, Stroud had no redeeming qualities, too many Oedipal ties with his mother (Thelma Ritter), misanthropist, constantly questioning the authority of the warden (Karl Malden) and signing his own death warrant by stabbing a guard to death. It's only thanks to the dedication of his mother that he's finally condemned for life sentence. Anyway, the guy is obviously a maniac but even the coldest heart can't just let a poor living creature to her death. Does it contradict his nature as a killer? I guess in a sense, he felt empathy toward the bird as if he was incarnating his own solitude and entrapment, helping the bird would break his routine and save a life, give his life a tiny purpose even for a few days.So, he takes him, stamps on a few insects and give him some parts, the bird grows, then learns to fly, and with the same patience and perseverance, Stroud in a fatherly wisdom encourages the bird to fly, and that's his epiphany. He knows what he's been born for. The rest is history, from one bird, he adopts many other sparrows, canaries, allowing many other inmates to have theirs, including his neighbor Feto (Telly Salavals), he also learns a lesson of courtesy of politeness from the same guard who's been watching him for years without getting one kind word, especially when he's been helping him for building cages and nests. His character evolves and so is his expertise, and his knowledge of the avian world, the movie almost takes a documentary style of directing as we can follow a bird getting from the eggshell and observe the whole process of making the medicine that could finally cure the septicemia that stroke his birds raising. The most surprising thing is that he never gets any money or recognition for his efforts and it's only when he's forced to live his birds and stop his medicine trade that he uses his mother and a supporter for his cause to give him publicity, and allow the legend to be born.The film gets more and more dramatic and while it sometimes serves the narrative, I, for once, appreciate the exchange between Stroud and Shoemaker about the difference of conception of what the judicial system on the true meaning of rehabilitation, and although a bit preachy, the part are well-written and hit a sensitive chord. But I don't understand why they feel the need to insert that battle of Alcatraz that adds nothing whatsoever to the plot, and distracts us from the core of the film. It had the same frustrating effect than watching the final part of "Cast Away" after the mesmerizing middle act where Tom Hanks conquered Nature. Stroud, like Chuck Nolan, was a fascinating character enough not to need any supplementary excuse for thrills.If the "Birdman of Alcatraz" stuck with birds, it would've been perfect, the film is still a remarkable inspiration for everyone to transcend adversity and to sometimes find the true path for their lives, when they think they're in dead-end.
classicsoncall
I would have bet some poetic license was taken with this depiction of Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz, and a host of other reviewers state that case pretty well. What I kept wondering as the film progressed was how he came to be known by his nickname since all of his bird study took place at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. I guess it doesn't matter much as Alcatraz sounds a lot catchier than Leavenworth.Well Burt Lancaster was given a large one man job here and he pulled it off pretty well. His presence dominates most of the picture and even when he's not on screen you can feel it. It seems to me that Lancaster had to have a certain kind of patience to film a host of scenes that required all manner of birds to behave in just the right way. A 'making of' film about this movie would probably be as interesting as the picture itself.Oddly, there were two different scenes that didn't involve birds that captured my interest the most. The first was when guard Bull Ransom (Neville Brand) challenged Stroud for not treating him like a human being, not even talking to him. In a strange way the dynamic of the picture turned the usual treatment of prisoners of the era on it's head. Then, towards the end of the film, Stroud basically uses the same tactic to let Warden Shoemaker (Karl Malden) know that his approach to inmates robs them of their individuality by treating them all the same way. I thought that was a clever observation for director Frankenheimer to make.So as a stand alone movie, this one rates pretty highly with me. In fact, when I finished watching, I immediately checked the awards competition for 1962 to see what edged this story out for the major Academy nominations. Not that I saw it as a contender for Best Picture, but between Lancaster, Savalas, and Ritter, I thought one of them might have pulled it off for their respective category. I guess it's fair enough that each was nominated; they all did an outstanding job. Savalas in particular had that crazed menace thing going for him making you wonder if he was going to flip out at any minute.Best quote of the movie and strangely apropos for it's subject matter occurs when Stroud goes on a drunken binge in his cell and releases all the birds to show his displeasure - "Fly my avian friends. I give you the illusion of freedom."
ramonhleigh
When I first saw this film I thought that Lancaster had done a very good job. Unfortunately, I then read up on the man the movie had practically immortalized and realized I'd been had. Again. I lost a lot of respect for Lancaster after that. Apparently the only way a story can turn out the way Hollywood wants is to simply manufacture it. Of all the historical films that I've seen whose events I am familiar with, the only one that I can honestly say was accurate was The Longest Day. As for the other reviewers who somehow find deep meaning in what, for all intents and purposes, seems to be some sort of religious or propagandistic morality play, well, I didn't discern any deep thinking floating around the cell block.
