We are now within six months of the much anticipated release of 2010’s “Alice in Wonderland”, a film made by Tim Burton, starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. The images are all out there for all who are interested to check out, and – from first glances at least – it looks like more of the same from Tim Burton, the man who brought us “Sleepy Hollow”, “Edward Scissorhands”, and “Ed Wood”. And, as the months go by, I’m beginning to think that that’s not really as much of a good thing as people, these days, believe it to be. And, as the third instalment of my column series looking at the Hollywood directors of the twenty first century, I’ve decided to conduct a short, quick study of Tim Burton’s career.
After a few, interesting short films and an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Burton was handed his big screen debut with “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” (1985, 3/5). It’s probably not a great idea to begin a study of Burton’s world with comments on his debut feature, because it is probably the furthest removed from the glossy, dark fantasy planet that Burton frequents, but there’s also no denying that it could be one of his five best films. Starring Paul Reubens as Pee-Wee Herman, Burton re-made Vittorio de Sica’s the Bicycle Thieves as an idiot comedy, with a lead character who is prepared to do just about anything to get his hands on his lost bike. Silly, convoluted, and completely crazy, “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” doesn’t really have anything to say about the world, and defies conventional film critique, but it’s a very funny film, and one of the few of Burton’s that I’d be willing to re-watch
Burton followed up Pee-Wee with a string of five good films, all of which are now considered as either cult or mainstream classics. The first of which is “Beetle Juice!” (1988, 4/5), an often surreal ghost story about a family who dies, only to find themselves back in their old house, spooking the new family that has moved in. Often wildly funny and always entertaining, “Beetle Juice!” is one of Burton’s very best, and certainly the best visualisation of the fantasy world that he’s never more than a few steps away from. After this wildly successful tale, he was handed a multi-million pound franchise in “Batman” (1989, 3/5). This Michael Keaton starring superhero flick is often thought to be the best Bat outing, which is obviously ludicrous, but as far as campy hero films go, “Batman” is only surpassed by its superior sequel, “Batman Returns” (1992, 4/5).
As a wedge between the two Bat films, Burton made perhaps his most popular film to date, “Edward Scissorhands” (1990, 3/5), and this is where my opinions will probably get more unpopular, in that I’m beginning to think Scissorhands is more than a little bit overrated. Sure, it has some great aspects, like Johnny Depp, the score, and the look, but there are more than a few detracting ones that almost cancel these out. The themes are all too obvious, and aren’t really explored to the impactful level that they should be, whilst the supporting cast ranges from the disappointing (Alan Arkin) to the outright poor (Winona Ryder). It’s an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours, but “Edward Scissorhands” is undeserving of its status as a cult classic. Burton would make one great film, though, it would just take him another four years to do it.
“Ed Wood” (1994, 5/5) is the story of Hollywood’s worst director, the titular Ed Wood. It stars, yet again, Johnny Depp, and is a darkly hilarious tale of despair, downright bad luck, and relentless enthusiasm. With its madcap humour and its perfect performances (Martin Landau won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his Bela Lagusi, whilst Bill Murray, Patricia Arquette, and even Sarah Jessica Parker are great too), “Ed Wood” manages to convey the beauty of making films, and the enthusiasm required within the creative process. Although I’m not the biggest Burton fan, you’ve got to hand it to him here, because he went on with this project despite the growing anxiety of the studio, and – despite its financial bombing – it’s now regarded as his most adult film. It’s certainly my favourite.
Tim Burton's masterpiece, "Ed Wood".
It’s only logical that after “Ed Wood” things would go downhill, but Burton has been on a slippery slope ever since. After the disappointing “Mars Attacks!” (1996, 3/5) came “Sleepy Hollow” (1999, 3/5), both of which attempted to re-capture the madcap humour of the early films of Burton’s career, and both of which fall short. “Sleepy Hollow” is also important for being the first real misstep when it comes to Burton’s so-called ‘world’. Attempting to re-create the gothic, dark, stylistic look from “Beetle Juice!” and “Batman” is all well and good, but Hollow is just too convoluted in is visuals, and as a result it feels cluttered and uninspiring. It’s a film that I enjoy, but more for Johnny Depp, Michael Gambon, and Christopher Walken than for Tim Burton. It’s still miles better than “Planet of the Apes” (2001, 1/5), though.
“Big Fish” (2002, 4/5) was a momentary positive blip in a downward spiral, perfectly casting Albert Finney and Ewan McGregor as the old and young Ed Bloom, but normal service resumed thereafter. “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” (2005, 1/5) is the most disappointing of Burton’s films to date, and is far too reliant on visuals, stretching too much to re-create the world that Burton is famous for. It is too pompous in its look, and although the Mel Stuart original is Americanized and changed the title of the book, there’s no denying that it’s a far superior film, and arguably closer to Roald Dahl’s vision. Burton stretches too much for weird, and as a result what he gets feels too manufactured, and too trying. “Corpse Bride” (2005, 3/5) was a step in the right direction, but “Sweeney Todd” (2007, 2/5) was a step backwards again.
The problem with Todd is much the same as the problems with Charlie, Apes, and Hollow, only much less deep seeded as it is with the first two of those three examples. Stretching to be gothic and different all but overshadows the impact of other aspects of the film. Sondheim’s music is pleasant enough, and the performances of Burton mainstays Depp and Carter are perfect for the characters of Todd and Lovett. I don’t know what dragged this pinnacle of mediocrity into the running for the awards in 2007. One can only hope that it was Johnny Depp, who was much deserving of his Best Actor – Musical or Comedy win at the golden globes. Less can be said for Burton, whose turgid and obvious direction makes you question the sanity of the Globes voting committee.
And that brings us right up to date, just before the release of Burton’s envisioning of Lewis Carol’s Alice tales. And, as you can probably tell, I’m not all that excited. Had it been Terry Gilliam in the director’s chair, a man who has disappeared down the rabbit hole on more than a few occasions, I would be psyched. But, with Burton firmly in place, I fear that this will yet again be another passage into what the DVD box for “Edward Scissorhands” calls ‘the imagination of Tim Burton’. Maybe, fifteen years ago, that would be a good thing, but now it’s nothing but a promise of manufactured difference. It’s too much of a leap to declare Burton as one of the modern masters of film, and certainly too much of a stretch to call the half-baked, dark, gothic fantasy world a strong enough link to call Burton an auteur. His ideas are too simple, if they’re even present at all, and at times his films are devoid of both intellectual discussion and entertainment value. He is a director living off his reputation, and soon enough – hopefully – the world will realize that he’s only made one very good film since 1994, and a string of average to terrible ones. Over the last fifteen years, he’s managed to tread on the legacy of Roald Dahl and Charlton Heston, and I fear that he’s about to do the same thing to Lewis Carol.
But I could be wrong, and “Alice in Wonderland” could be fantastic, a true return to form for Burton, and the first real passage into his ‘world’ since “Beetle Juice!”, which is now over twenty years old. But, looking at his current form, I doubt it. It could be the film that secures Burton’s place in the halls of mediocrity, and the one that wakes people up, and has them wondering why they thought Tim Burton was a modern master in the first place.
PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS COLUMN SERIES;
- Episode II: Christopher Nolan's Career Crossroads
- Epidoe I: A Look at the Career of Sam Mendes
,
