![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tim Burton
Tim Burton is an auteur. He doesn't do anonymous studio hack-work. All his films announce themselves as his. Even when he takes on a very commercial, kiddy-friendly project like Willy Wonka the outcome is unmistakeably Burtonesque- even if- as happens in this instance- it's also quite atrocious.
Auteurism is no guarantee of quality- only of characterfulness. Even Ingmar Bergman made stinkers- in fact quite a lot of them. Burton's record is very mixed. Edward Scissorhands is a little too emo for me and Beetlejuice too busy and hyperactive. I'm not fond of superheroes, so don't expect me to be much of a fan of the Batman movies. Mars Attacks- which the critics were lukewarm about- amuses me greatly.
Burton's talent is for telling small, strange, piquant stories- he's an Edward Gorey of the big screen- and very big budgets do him no favours; his ideas get swamped by the scenery. Sleepy Hollow, good as it is, would have been even better if it had been cheaper and shorter. His masterpieces are small films: Ed Wood and the Corpse Bride- both of them as close to perfection as a film can be. I saw The Corpse Bride for the first time last night. What a charmer! Who'd have thought decomposition could be so funny, or the reunion of a little boy with his grandfather's corpse so moving?
Next up is the new Alice in Wonderland. This is a sacred text for me and I'm nervous. Putting Burton and Carroll together might seem like a marriage made in heaven - but the same could have been said about Burton and Dahl- and look what a mismatch that turned out to be. Yoke Burton to a writer with an imagination as strong and quirky as his own and he fights for dominance. I've seen the trailer. It looks amazing, but the story- something about the Red Queen taking over Wonderland- sounds really, really stupid. We'll see. One thing's certain; even if it's a very bad film it will be bad in a way only one man could possibly have achieved.
Auteurism is no guarantee of quality- only of characterfulness. Even Ingmar Bergman made stinkers- in fact quite a lot of them. Burton's record is very mixed. Edward Scissorhands is a little too emo for me and Beetlejuice too busy and hyperactive. I'm not fond of superheroes, so don't expect me to be much of a fan of the Batman movies. Mars Attacks- which the critics were lukewarm about- amuses me greatly.
Burton's talent is for telling small, strange, piquant stories- he's an Edward Gorey of the big screen- and very big budgets do him no favours; his ideas get swamped by the scenery. Sleepy Hollow, good as it is, would have been even better if it had been cheaper and shorter. His masterpieces are small films: Ed Wood and the Corpse Bride- both of them as close to perfection as a film can be. I saw The Corpse Bride for the first time last night. What a charmer! Who'd have thought decomposition could be so funny, or the reunion of a little boy with his grandfather's corpse so moving?
Next up is the new Alice in Wonderland. This is a sacred text for me and I'm nervous. Putting Burton and Carroll together might seem like a marriage made in heaven - but the same could have been said about Burton and Dahl- and look what a mismatch that turned out to be. Yoke Burton to a writer with an imagination as strong and quirky as his own and he fights for dominance. I've seen the trailer. It looks amazing, but the story- something about the Red Queen taking over Wonderland- sounds really, really stupid. We'll see. One thing's certain; even if it's a very bad film it will be bad in a way only one man could possibly have achieved.
no subject
ha ha ha! I am totally going to repost this on my fb as quote of the day!
no subject
no subject
I agree about Burton. Oh god, I hated Sweeney Todd! I think his Alice will be dullsville, with lots of clever bits and shouting and nonsense and nothing to really enjoy. Here's hoping I'm proved wrong!
no subject
I haven't seen Sweeney Todd. I'll catch it on TV sometime. Burton interests me, because, for all his faults and misfires, he remains one of the most distinctive film artists we have.
no subject
I thought its supporting cast were very good, particularly Alan Rickman as Judge Turpin and Timothy Spall as his oily Beadle; Ed Sanders is a perfect Toby; and Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are just not in the same league as Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury, who originated the roles on Broadway. (Or Angela Lansbury and George Hearn, whom you can see in a 1982 stage recording. I went on about this issue at some length here.) I'd be curious to know hear what you think!
no subject
I have a bit of a blank spot for musical theatre. I adore My Fair Lady and that's about it.
But I am curious about Sweeney. I've often thought that this was one show I ought to know something about.
no subject
Lucky! That's the cast recording I grew up on.
But I am curious about Sweeney. I've often thought that this was one show I ought to know something about.
I recommend acquiring the original cast recording and watching the filmed stage production first; Burton cut a lot of the music.
no subject
I haven't yet seen Ed Wood, but The Corpse Bride was lovely.
This is a sacred text for me and I'm nervous.
I've been dubious since Comic-Con, where Burton declared in re prior versions of Alice in Wonderland that "It was always a girl wandering around from one crazy character to another, and I never really felt any real emotional connection," at which I decided he had completely missed the point. Also if you want a film about Alice's complicated emotional relationship with Wonderland, what you want is Dennis Potter's Dreamchild (1985); it's not yet on DVD (at least in this country) and it has a weak B-plot, but the stuff with Alice Liddell and Carroll and her aging hallucinations of mad tea parties and sobbing turtles is perfect. And I have always liked the Mad Hatter, but he's never looked like Johnny Depp to me.
no subject
Ah well, he's an artist I respect.
I've seen Dreamchild- but it was a long time ago. My favourite version of Wonderland is the one Jonathan Miller made for the BBC- with John Gielgud and Michael Redgrave and Peter Sellers and Peter Cook and Alan Bennett- and all sorts of wonderful people. It has a very potent atmosphere of summery, high Victorian strangeness- and a soundtrack by Ravi Shankar.
no subject
Okay; I'll watch that.
no subject
I'm not sure that I can respect someone who can take a text and _miss_the_whole_point so comprehensively. Even Vehovan's "Starship Troopers" was closer to the original intent.
no subject
They shouldn't have let him loose on Roald Dahl, but I can see why it might have seemed like a good idea at the time. Here are two guys with quirky, dark imaginations- they're bound to get on. Only they didn't. Charlie must be one of the dullest, most lifeless movies for children ever made. And allowing Depp to turn in a performance based on Michael Jackson was a terrible misjudgement- because it introduced a subtext of paedo creepiness that was entirely inappropriate.
Ah well, the Gene Wilder version is still available.
no subject
In Wilder's version, Charlie is offered temptation and turns it down. Even though he could have made his family's fortune by stealing, and even after Wonka has treated him horribly, he still turns around and gives back the sweet that he's purloined. He was tempted, but he pulls through. And Wonka recognises that, and gives him the keys to the Kingdom.
I actually think that's a stronger ending that Dahl's original. And far, far stronger than Burton's "My Daddy never loved me!".
no subject
It's hard to know where to start critiquing Burton's movie. Almost everything about it is wrong.