Friday, December 18, 2009

Tim Burton: Creator and Destroyer of Worlds

In the summer of 1985 I was eleven years old, and I desperately wanted to see Pee Wee's Big Adventure. I couldn't really tell why -- maybe it was the "nerd" craze that hit mid-decade, or my love of stupid humor, but Pee Wee was just the kind of wisecracking dork that I could relate to. And the film looked totally nuts. People payed adults to make this kind of thing?


What I would eventually find out was that this was my first exposure to Tim Burton, an artist I would grow to love, and then eventually loathe as the years marched on. To think it all started nearly 25 years ago when I saw those first commercials on the old Zenith at 7530 Cedar Street.


It turns out that Pee Wee's Big Adventure was everything it looked to be in the previews -- an irreverent film about an overgrown man-child, filled with juvenile humor. It still feels like a movie that was directed by a little kid. But underneath, it also was sincere and never sold out its main character for anything cheap or mean-spirited. And in this day of endless pop-culture references and vintage soundtracks, digital animation, it's easy to loose sight of just how original the retro atmosphere was at the time, at least in a major release.


1988's Beetlejuice also had its moments, but was marked by a more tedious plot with some annoying sequences and characters. Like many of my generation, I grew up watching it on cable and eventually came to like some parts. Michael Keaton was very funny. And one thing was undeniable -- no one else could pull off anything close to this director's style. It had the touch of the best creative 1980s music videos; so what if the story wasn't THAT great...


Before long, Tim Burton was being touted as one of the most promising directors to come out of the 1980s. Few disagreed. It was against this backdrop that we all first saw the trailers for what looked like a dream come true -- his directon of a new Batman film. Like many other kids, I had always "sort of" liked the old TV show, but for all of the garish theatrics, it was just too corny and chintzy to really deliver the goods.


For those who saw the first glimpses of what Burton had done with Gotham City (only a few million of us) it was hypnotic. It was immediately apparent that he had somehow managed to take his signature style and infuse it with a jet-engine powered Batmobile, legendary actors, and all of the other trappings of Hollywood blockbusters. Here was what had always been the promise of Batman but no one had ever delivered. It didn't even look like a real film; huge sets appeared as if they had been lifted out of old cartoon panels and reality had been totally suspended.


No matter what anyone says, Batman delivered. Was it perfect? Hardly. Was it overlong and mired in some lame performances? Can't deny it. But what Burton got right was spectacular -- such as the utterly brilliant and original opening credits sequence, filled with soaring Danny Elfman music while a swiftly tracking camera follows a labyrinthine series of shadowy tunnels that eventually reveal themselves to be the contours of a gigantic Batman symbol.


Other brilliant bits were interspersed throughout, from the inventively choreographed fight sequences to a marvelous scene where the Joker reveals himself to his traitorous kingpin boss. So while Batman was not everything perhaps that everyone had desired, Burton had proven himself up to the challenge. It still remains a remarkable achievement in fantasy filmmaking, for its singularity of vision and as one of the final entries from the miniature and optical special effects era.


As it turned out, Batman was released the summer after my Freshman year, which found me switching schools and entering a huge public institution where daily fights were the norm, and jocks ruled every hallway. It was a change. I learned to keep my mouth shut and blend into the background having seen what they did to anyone who incurred their wrath. It was soon after that my friend informed me of this goofy-sounding movie Tim Burton was shooting called "Edward Scissorhands." He kind of snickered as he told me about it, also having been a Batman fan. The name alone seemed kind of cheesy. And Johnny Depp -- the pretty-boy from 21 Jump Street -- he was going to play the lead? It wasn't sounding good.


But all that changed the moment I saw the first trailer in the movie theater. I was bowled over by the art direction, and it was immediately apparent that this film was going to have a great sense of humor, while at the same time it came across as some kind of bizarre 1950s fairy tale. Soon, I wouldn't stop talking about the fact that Edward Scissorhands was going to be the best movie of the year. I ripped out the full-page ads from "Premiere" magazine and taped them inside my locker. And of course, on the opening day, I went to the first show after school with some friends , on December 7, 1990.


Edward Scissorhands immediately became one of my favorite films of all time. It was not just about loneliness, but about the corruption of innocence, telling an absolutely charming and heartfelt love story. It was also was a hilarious satire of suburban life, bloodsucking neighbors, all presented like a 1950s Douglas Sirk melodrama. Quite simply, I was utterly captivated and moved by the entire experience, due in no small part to many of the similarities the film had with my own life.


My friends also enjoyed it, although it wasn't too long before some of them started ribbing me about my affection for what they considered a somewhat effeminate movie. When a local DJ made fun of Edward's voice, I wouldn't here any of it and got pretty annoyed. The following spring, I counted the days until the Laserdisc was issued and was quite disappointed when Fox released it only in a non-letterboxed, rather lackluster pressing. Still, it was watched many, many times.

As 1992 approached, I saw the first posters for the next Tim Burton film: Batman Returns. they were beyond cool: a huge snow-swept bat symbol was its only graphic, much like the opening credits to the first film, with the tagline "The Bat, The Cat, The Penguin". It was too good to be true. It was if the poster had been covered with the very snow from the ending of Edward Scissorhands -- perhaps symbolizing a much more personal, undiluted take on these characters. As such, my expectations for Batman Returns became boundless. The overall production design was very dark and gothic, almost monochromatic with a blueish tint. Even in those days, I could tell that they were paying homage to old German films, particularly The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. And Michelle Pfeiffer looked unbelievable in her latex cat suit. By the time I saw the previews I could barely contain myself. Yes, there were some goofy things like Danny Devito riding around on a big rubber duck, but I had faith in Tim Burton's artistic vision.


Opening day arrived. The Warner Brothers logo appeared on screen, beneath a flurry of snowflakes. We all cheered. This was it! But from the first sequence, it was apparent things were not going to be quite what I expected.


To begin with, the opening scene immediately struck the wrong chord. It sarcastically portrayed a sadistic act of infanticide, culminating in a preposterous biblical analogy of a baby basket floating down an elaborate sewage system to be found not by the princess of Egypt, but a group of quacking penguins. Congo drums could be heard on the soundtrack. It was utterly grating -- and that was just the first five minutes.

The sets and costumes were overdone. Christopher Walken looked ridiculous in his Don King hair extensions, and Danny DeVito was simply odious and irritating. Instead of enhancing the film, the comedy seemed to undercut the action and draw attention to the cleverness at every turn. The entire affair chugged into an utterly depressing third act, featuring a baby kidnapping, a brutal electrocution, one seriously deranged Catwoman and culminating with the inane and gruesome death of The Penguin.


This was such a jarring experience that I tried to "learn to love" Batman Returns for its strengths and ignore the weaknesses. There is no doubt that the arrival of the Batmobile at the beginning of the film is first-rate, with some fabulous stunts and action. Selena Kyle's transition into the Catwoman is carried off extremely well, with a magnificent theme by Danny Elfman. Unfortunately, excepting these brief moments the film is an agonizing, pompous, and misguided effort.


From there, it has been very sad to watch this once promising director sink deeper into desperation with each passing film. With the exception of Ed Wood, which was a pretty straightforward comedy, Tim Burton's work of the past fifteen years has ranged from overrated to absolute dreck. Yet watching his downward spiral has been morbidly fascinating; this man has come to direct some of the worst films I have ever sat through.


In the winter of 1996 I returned to my hometown of Portland, Oregon from college. One of the first things I did was head out with some friends, get some drinks, and see Mars Attacks! Although it featured some funny gags, overall it was a slog to get through, filled with needless cameos and some incredibly sadistic aliens and condescending caricatures. Worse still, it was a conventionally shot film with almost none of the fun or wonderment of Burton's first work; I found myself confused to see how low-brow and pedestrian his sensibilities had become. Was it the pitcher of Bud Light I just drank?


Sleepy Hollow was to be the big return to form. But instead of the glorious suspension of disbelief I had felt in his earlier work, the cutesy, patronizing tone of the film seemed to be telling the audience: "I know you know I'm clever". Another thing that really surprised me was that Tim Burton cast the atrocious lead from the film Starship Troopers in one of the roles. Not only was he a terrible actor, but his buffed-up physique and mannerisms were the epitome of the Anthony Michael Hall character from Edward Scissorhands. This was the type of actor who would have been made a total fool of in Pee Wee's Big Adventure.


Sleepy Hollow would establish what would become the defining elements of Tim Burton's middle career; jaw-dropping production design, a fabulous ensemble cast, all in the service of an uninspired and cliched Hollywood screenplay directed by man hiding behind the cloak of digital eye candy.


Things took a big turn for the worse with the movie that decisively made me a Tim Burton hater: Planet of the Apes. It's difficult to know where to begin in describing this moronic ego trip, but how about the fact that the film obliterates the entire science fiction premise of both Pierre Boulle's book and Rod Serling's original screenplay? If this was to be a more sophisticated, adult reinterpretation of an iconic film from Burton's youth, it is a miserable failure on all counts. Once again -- beyond the pathetic screenplay and "reinterpretation" was Burton's choice to feature the worst actors Hollywood has in their stables. Mark Wahlberg is the poster-boy of the asshole jock from my high school; he is the Anthony Michael Hall character from Edward Scissorhands. I've been around enough of these guys to know all of the signs, and in film after film Wahlberg has shown that he has none of the range or humanity to act with even a modicum of sincerity.


The insipid Big Fish, pointless Corpse Bride, abysmal Willy Wonka, overwrought Sweeney Todd...I have suffered through them all. But now I have just seen the trailer for Alice in Wonderland online and this is the final straw. Tim Burton is actually destroying one of the films I grew up with, an iconic 1950s Disney classic. From what I can tell, he has taken the gorgeous, lush, and charming world of Wonderland and turned into a nightmarish creepshow of disturbing CG monstrosities. And for all of Burton's Anglophilia, this grotesquery runs counter to the spirit of Lewis Carrol's original work; artistic desperation is often marked by a retreat into vulgarity and outrageous caricature. Comics do it all the time and so do filmmakers.

It would appear that the once inspired mind that created the world of Pee Wee and Batman, and the magnificent Edward Scissorhands, has turned into the slavish prostitute of Robert Iger and his minions at Buena Vista. Disney should be ashamed for profaning yet another one of Walt's productions, but for Tim Burton to do this as an artist is unforgivable. Instead of a creator of new myths he has become a destroyer of old, something that even the most vile of studio executives cannot accomplish without a willing executioner.

At the very least, Tim Burton has squandered his immense talents on subpar projects, films that from their very conception have been built on little more than the most superficial aspects of his artisitic abilities. This approach has seen dwindling returns, and as of 2009 it seems the only route left is to craft over-top-top visuals and in the process overwhelm and pillage other people's creative work. I do not think this is the only way forward for a director with such gifts. Similar to the case of Geroge Lucas, it would seem I am now more of a defender of this man's art then the man himself; no one will ever be able to take away some of Tim Burton's greatest moments, like Peg Boggs driving her canary yellow Dodge Duster past the edge of the Cul-De-Sac, into a fantasy world that only could not have been created by anyone else.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Piercing the Veil


Christopher Nolan spent a great deal of Batman Begins grounding the character of Bruce Wayne in the real world, and doing away with the hyper-stylized visuals that have traditionally been a staple of the comic book adaptations. While it may have seemed a bit much at the time, The Dark Knight reaps huge dividends from this brilliant decision and shatters the conventions of its genre.

What we this summer is a work that fulfills the Nolan brothers promise that I first saw in Memento; the Batman character is used to propel a powerful film about arch-criminals and brutal urban justice. 

The theme of The Dark Knight draws its inspiration straight from American headlines -- that of dwindling faith in our political leaders and the decay of our institutions. The Joker, as re-imagined in this work is a thoroughbred anarchist who feeds on this frailty and largely wins every encounter he engages in throughout; he is one of the most believable extrapolations on a criminal psychopath I've seen. His plans truly are brilliant.... Hollywood does not deserve this good of writing! Christian Bale thankfully has toned down his Bat-persona a bit and actually performs quite well, as do the rest of the cast. Gary Oldman has much more to do this time around and Aaron Eckhart was a good choice for Dent. 

But of course what really makes this film so amazing is the marriage of excellent writing with stunning visuals and thrilling action that give a new dimension to the entire concept of crime-fighting. I think they are the most inventive urban warfare sequences ever portrayed in a film and truly visionary. In a post 9/11 world these spectacular scenarios seem increasingly likely and the symbolism of the film's poster is more than a bit suggestive.

The film doesn't escape getting a bit preachy, and the writing has a tendency to get almost a bit too clever.  I am not a big fan of villains giving explanations for their motives, and Nolan can't gets a bit too specific with both the Joker and Dent. His writing is very forceful and self-consciously "cinematic"; Nolan, much like Ridley Scott, is a detached director who portrays emotion with calculated precision. It's thrilling, but rarely delves into the genuinely dark side of human nature which can be embarrassing or even humiliating. So in the end this is still a hyper-stylized, caricature-driven film; Heat isn't going to get knocked off its perch anytime soon. Just the same, with Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Heath Ledger giving such stellar performances, Nolan succeeds in overcoming his Hollywood transgressions.

The Dark Knight is cause for celebration on many levels, but perhaps most importantly it has finally freed an entire realm of entertainment from hacks like David Goyer and the creative wasteland of 90s neo-noir. This is the kind of film that makes you realize your unrequited love for a genre that has been ceaselessly abused.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Film of the Year: 2007 (...1966)


Fahrenheit 451 is simple, effective, and a tour-de-force of "La Nouvelle Vague." This exceptionally creative -- even briliant piece of dystopian filmaking shows François Truffaut using all of the devices of the French New Wave to effectively tell a science fiction fable, and the results are unique to say the least. With Nicholas Roeg and Bernard Herrman on board, this is my favorite of his films and a pinnacle for the genre "Cinéma Fantastique."

Ray Bradbury's story proceeds from a deceptively simple premise: What would life be like with the total absence of the written word? The book takes a philosophical/ analytical approach to this question, whereas Truffaut adapts it to a more melodramatic and visual meditation on a banal, almost pleasant, totalitarian state -- the kind most would feel comfortable in. Very few American directors would have approached the material this way; on the surface, this world is not so much terrifying as it is dull and boring.

This can be no more apparent than in the realms of life where books do not apparently play an immediate role, but upon closer examination inform so many or our decisions and the quality of our interactions. Truffaut's film shines in these moments, particularly in the relationship between Montague and his wife. If I have one gripe, it is that Truffaut is a little too condescending, and does not get into the very ugly, frighteningly depressing issues he brings up; I do not know how much Montague's wife is a villain, but more of a pitiful, helpless, even sympathetic character. Also, Bradbury's ending has always seemed a little too simplistic for me.

Yet the power of the message of Fahrenheit 451 cannot be underestimated. Despite the ubiquity of the title, its cautionary message has not been heeded by many.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The Call of Cthulhu


Gore Verbiski's manic, shallow riff on Pirate lore really catches up with him in this third installment of a near billion-dollar series. In all my years I have never encountered a more convoluted plot in a film, nor more unbelievable character development. Taken together, this 8-hour trilogy is fatally flawed in its vain attempts to create a postmodern adventure story; throwing in new "rules" and shifting already anemic allegiances every five minutes fails to make nonsensical material intellectual.

The Pirates of the Caribbean films have ransacked an entire genre -- hell, an entire century -- of its most cherished and magnificent visuals. "The Maelstrom" is one of Edgar Allen Poe's great stories, as are countless others (Dumas, Stevenson, Lovecraft, Melville) that are shilled in the name of this Bruckheimer Splenda fest. This was already painfully evident in the first two films, but I found myself enjoying Dead Man's Chest despite it all; Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman were quite simply pulled off too well for me to disregard.

Alas, Pirates III hypes up all of the worst elements of the series and it's where the chickens really come home to roost. The pretentious attempt to bring in political and colonial history? Check. The convoluted, grating creation of all things "pirate" and their world? Much worse this time around. Groan-inducing romance, senseless action scenes, goofy cameos and Keira Knightly as a leading lady? Oh baby, you don't know the half of it. The list goes on and on, but suffice to say that this story has run its course headlong into a cement wall.

I will end this review by stating how completely disappointed anyone must be who enjoyed the performances of Johnny Depp, Bill Nighy, and Stellan Skarsgard in the previous films. None of their characters drive the 8-ring circus of action, and Davy jones is just paraded about as another has-been CGI effect. This is the shallowest of Hollywood and Disney pap. And no, the FX aren't appreciably any better than in #2; even with 2000 composite shots and the largest set in history Pirates III is a bore.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

John Carpenter's Lost Empire


You’ve seen Escape From New York. You’ve enjoyed Christine. Maybe you even caught a little Starman on late-night cable and gave it few minutes. Well, if you think you’re up for it, allow me to introduce the John Carpenter motherlode -- Halloween III: Season of the Witch.

No, he didn’t direct it, but he did produce it and write the score. So it seems like kind of a shadow of a J.C. film, and in some ways it is the purest distillation of his technique put to celluloid. It is a glimpse of a movie producing empire that never was, and we’re all the poorer for it. I hardly know where to begin when discussing this unprecedented sequel, but let’s start with what it is not.

Most incredibly, it has nothing to do with Michael Myers or the plot of the first two films. Nothing whatsoever. At this point in his career Carpenter was riding high enough that he fancied himself a producer who could create an entire Halloween franchise – one a year, kind of a Rod Serling series each with its own distinct plot and characters. But if the idea with any sequel is to give the audience more of what they loved, only with bigger explosions and more nudity – this film is the ultimate “screw you” in history.

Second, there is not a witch to be seen in the film, although it could be surmised that the action of the film does still transpire in the forementioned season. But you’d better just forget about seeing that character from the poster in the film, she ain’t there. What we’re treated to is something much more novel: the story of an evil toy manufacturer who has a diabolical plan that would make Heinrich Himmler do cartwheels on his grand piano.

After an awesomely low-tech, pre-Macintosh computer-generated opening title sequence, the action is under way. An old man, carrying a toy mask, runs through the streets of a “Northern California” town frightened for his life. Chasing after him are a bunch of men in gray three piece suits, slicked-back hair, driving Oldsmobiles. They kind of look like a security force from the Christian Coalition – probably intentional. And yes, they wind up killing him.

What ensues is essentially a remake of nothing else than the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Oh yes, it’s all there. An apathetic, consumer-driven public which has become the pawn of evil Rasputins. The main character – a doctor (Tom Atkins) who suspects a societal menace that no one else can see. With a wardrobe filled with “Member’s Only” jackets and lumberjack shirts he takes to the road to uncover the secrets of the SILVER SHAMROCK toy company.

Now, helping this all along is a soundtrack that sounds strikingly familiar to Ennio Morricone’s work for The Thing. But the amazing thing is that Morricone wrote the best John Carpenter score that John Carpenter never wrote, and then John Carpenter proceeds to rip off that very same score. Throw in a few synthesizer tricks from Escape From New York, and you get the idea. But I digress.

Okay, so we get to Santa Mira (Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- ahem) where the company town is run by a shadowy figure named Conal Cochran. Luckily, this is where the film really gets cooking. Dan O’Herlihy is simply the best white-haired Irish villain in a wool suit driving a vintage Cadillac that you’ll ever see. His company, Silver Shamrock, is responsible for the hottest Halloween masks in America. His plan? To kill every child in America with these masks. His motivation? Pagan human sacrifice.

This insane plot lays fertile ground to one of the most sinister gas-chamber murders you’re likely to see in a “fun” mainstream film, alongside an utterly bizarre sermon on the Celtic origins of October 31st. The climax resists categorization; think the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark in a dairy factory.

Now here’s the thing with Halloween III though – it looks fantastic. Dean Cundey had just shot no less than three films in a row for Carpenter and he had the style DOWN. It’s hard not to fall in love with the immaculate Panavision framing, the masterful use of rack-focusing, and Cundey’s understated but stark lighting which should be textbook material for any cameraman.

John Carpenter, limited though his palette may be, also wrote some of the most hypnotic movie scores of his era. Halloween III certainly isn’t going to win any points for originality, but when you marry Cundey’s cinematography with Carpenter/Howarth’s low-tech synthesizer soundtrack, it’s magnetic. These two factors, along with Carpenter’s no-frills storytelling, make for no-BS film viewing at its finest. Director Tommy Lee Wallace competently worked within these parameters. Now if only he could write scripts and direct actors, Halloween III might have more of a following.

Unfortunately, “Season of the Witch” died a painful box-office death and marked the beginning of the end for John Carpenter’s most fertile years as a creative filmmaker. Still, I’d rather watch one of his worst endeavors than 99% of everything else that’s out there.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Just because it's Criterion doesn't mean it's good.

Art films. There are great ones, and there are lame ones, just like anything else. And whomever puts them on DVD has absolutely no claim to their artistric integrity.

Yet 95% of the time that Criterion Collection releases an old film, the reviewers give it four stars. It's always a "masterpiece" of some sort or other -- it's a Criterion. This mass-hypnosis has to stop. The "Collection" has MANY dud rounds in their chamber, and you would be better off buying $5.99 DVDs in many cases.

I guarantee you that if Robert Altman's Popeye were released in a Criterion 2-DVD set for $40 it would get 3.5, maybe 4 stars by most DVD reviewers. They would call it unique in the annals of American filmaking, its scatterbrained genius lost for nearly a generation. Now I like Popeye, but the film is a goddamn mess. It's worth a bit more than $5.99 but if that's what Amazon wants to sell it for, I won't argue.

Here is a small sampling of Criterion films that I feel are overrated:
  • Kagemusha
  • Alexander Nevsky
  • The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
  • Mon Oncle
  • Playtime
  • Bad Timing
  • The River
  • Good Morning
  • Equinox
  • Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
  • The Blob
  • Sanjuro
  • Koko: A Talking Gorilla
  • Man Bites Dog
  • Solaris
  • Le Circle Rouge
  • Armageddon
  • Shoot The Piano Player
  • Ran

Don't get me wrong -- many of these are worthwhile films and should be available in one form or other. Some folks like Jacques Tati, some folks like Sejuin Sezuki. Mine is a purely subjective list. Let's put it this way: The Criterion Collection is like an exclusive country club where the sunday brunch is almost always better than at the local IHOP.

My bone to pick is with the so-called "critics" out there. Just because it is a Criterion doesn't mean it should be treated differently from any other film. Realistically, they have to release all the Kurosawa stuff they can, yet it is indicative of the times we are living in when simply any of his works is given the "masterpiece theater" treatment.

Even a cursory look at their Web site is fraught with irritation. A documentary on John Cassavettes's film Faces called "Making Faces". An essay on actor Tetsuya Nakadai titled "The Eighth Samurai" -- as if the entire Japanese world revolves around the overrated Seven Samurai. Raymond Bernard's "astonishing masterpieces" of French cinema; "Terrence Malick has created some of the most visually arresting movies of the twentieth century", his Days of Heaven a "glorious period tragedy"...in short, there is never a missed opportunity to make an obvious reference or to inflate their product. Does anyone else find Joseph Cotten's performance in The Third Man something less than "brilliant"? To me, it's pretty straightforward and uneventful, even dull. It could only come from an American company pulling out all of the stops to make sure everyone knows just how cultured they are.

Despite it all, I am thankful for the Criterion Collection. They've been making money off of me for two decades. For every Kagemusha there is a brilliant Throne of Blood. Criterion should get a medal for preserving films such as: Night and the City, Alphaville, Jigoku, The Killer, Olympia, Double Suicide, My Man Godfrey, Red Beard, Gimme Shelter, Branded to Kill, F for Fake, Brief Encounter and many hundreds more.

But I refuse to wear my church suit to every meal. I like my "days" filled with Thunder, not Heaven.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

How to Buy DVDs: Part 1

  • Check the DVD home page on Amazon.com and see what big sales are running. They rotate frequently and soon the titles go back to their normal rates. Excellent, double-disc sets from last month go for as little as $10.00.
  • Powells.com: They ship DVDs for free and there is no tax or minimum order. Best of all, they offer a larger discount on Criterion Collection discs than Amazon, usually about 20% compared with Amazon’s 10%. However, Amazon does give larger discounts for laggards like Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris -- but why would you want to buy Solaris.
  • Be very careful with half.com. Make sure the seller has perfect or almost perfect feedback and lists exactly what the condition of the DVD is. This is one of the worst areas of online auction abuse. “Like New” condition can often mean a scratched, smudged disc in a worn case.

Subscribe to my blog and I'll fill you in on some more great tips. It's easy!