Is Why Birds Sing Worth Watching? Honest Movie Review & Audience Verdict (2007)

The Narrative Arc & Core Premise

Debuting in 2007, Why Birds Sing represents a sophisticated intersection of artistic ambition and genre-defining elements within the Modern Cinema category. The primary thematic concern of the film is an investigation into Inspired by musician and eco-philosopher David Rothenberg's book of the same title, this documentary explores the intriguing, charming, complex and often conflicting theories on why birds sing like they do and why humans are so attracted to the sound. As the story unfolds, we are introduced to a world where the traditional boundaries of Modern Cinema are tested.

The screenplay takes its time to establish the stakes, ensuring that every character motivation is grounded in a psychological reality. The synopsis only hints at the depth: "Inspired by musician and eco-philosopher David Rothenberg's book of the same title, this documentary explores the intriguing, charming, complex and often conflicting theories on why birds sing like they do and why humans are so attracted to the sound. The film features contributions from musicians including Laurie Anderson, Jarvis Cocker and Beth Orton; enlightening and often startling analysis from some of the world's most eminent birdsong scientists; a literary guide to birdsong in poetry; a bizarre birdsong-themed art 'happening'; the creation of a new musical composition from the Afro-Celt Sound System, entirely made up of manipulated birdsongs; and a strange musical duet at New York's Bronx Aviary, featuring humans and birds."

Artistic Execution & Performance Study

A film's resonance is often dictated by the strength of its execution, both in front of and behind the camera. The presence of Jarvis Cocker provides a necessary level of professionalism to the production, even when the underlying script struggles to maintain a consistent tone. It is a testament to their skill that they remain the most engaging element of the film.

The direction by Archie Powell is marked by a steady and professional hand. From a production standpoint, the film meets the high standards of modern industrial filmmaking. The sets are well-crafted, and the visual effects are integrated with a level of polish that ensures the viewer matches the director's intended level of immersion. While perhaps not groundbreaking, the execution is flawless. The pacing, over its 80 minute runtime, allows the audience to fully inhabit the space the director has created, making the eventual resolution feel deeply earned.

Critical Assessment: Why You Should Watch

Is Why Birds Sing truly worth your investment of time and attention? In an era of disposable content, this film makes a strong case for its existence. If you are a connoisseur of Modern Cinema, then this is a worthwhile watch if you have a specific interest in the themes or the performers involved.

The film's ability to perfectly execute its genre requirements is why it has earned its 0/10 score. It speaks to a global audience while maintaining a distinct and unique voice, a balance that is notoriously difficult to achieve in the modern marketplace.

Philosophical Subtext & Directorial Vision

At a deeper level, Why Birds Sing explores the dichotomy of truth and perception. The 2007 audience is increasingly sophisticated, and Archie Powell respects this by refusing to provide easy answers to the story's complex questions.

The philosophical underpinnings of the second and third acts suggest a narrative that is interested in more than just entertainment. It is an exploration of what it means to be human in an increasingly complex world.

Final Editorial Recommendation

Ultimately, Why Birds Sing is an interesting experiment that, while flawed, offers enough moments of creative spark to be worth a casual glance for the curious. Whether you are drawn to it by the star power of Jarvis Cocker or the critical acclaim surrounding its release, Why Birds Sing is a film that demands to be seen on the largest screen possible.