Elkins Frankenweenie

http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201293/reg_1024.Frankenweenie.mh.100312.jpg

Tim Burton’s 2012 animated feature Frankenweenie may not be his best film yet, but it most definitely screams “Tim Burton!” And by that, I mean it includes everything that makes Tim Burton who he is: outsiders, archetypes, gothic themes, etc. It is also fitting that the 1984 version of Frankenweenie was one of Burton’s first films – the 2012 version is like a more perfect version of the 1984 film.

The 1984 version, being about thirty minutes long or so, obviously has a shorter, more basic story than the 2012 version. In the 1984 version, the only storyline is bringing Sparky back to life, the townspeople chasing him, and Sparky’s acceptance by the townsfolk. The 2012 version includes that storyline (which it drags out) and also includes the storyline of the science fair, where many of Victor’s classmates steal Victor’s idea of bringing the dead back to life, resulting in a catastrophe of many different monsters plaguing New Holland. All in all, I liked the original Frankenweenie more than the 2012 version. The 2012 version, I felt was unnecessarily long and included pointless things (such as the different monsters coming to life). Not that the different monsters idea was not creative, I just do not think it was really needed for the movie to be enjoyable.

However, one thing I think the 2012 version has over the 1984 version is stop-motion. I did not dislike the live-action of the original – it was very well done. I just think more artistic things can be done with stop-motion. Characters can be exaggerated to levels that would be difficult for live actors to pull off (Edgar is a prime example of this), and, in general, the look of the different characters is in no-way impeded by an actor’s set characteristics – the filmmakers more or less can literally do anything they want to make the characters look just right. Also with stop-motion, Burton can exercise his signature drawing habits (really skinny people, creepy faces) as seen with Victor and the girl that looks like Staring Girl from Oyster Boy. Ultimately, live actors do not allow an audience to get as in-depth into a movie as with stop-motion – there are too many faces one might recognize. With stop-motion, the only thing one might recognize in regards to the actors is the voices.

There are multiple scenes taken out of the 1984 version that are almost identical with the 2012 version. These scenes, such as the scene in which Sparky is brought back to life and the whole windmill sequence, get a sort of upgrade. They take longer, are better described, and are over all just “shinier” than in the 1984 version.

I did not hate the 2012 version of Frankenweenie, but nor did I think it was Burton’s best. I enjoyed its artwork, and felt that it had many creative elements to it, but I do not think its creativity justifies its length. It did succeed over the 1984 version in some aspects, but, overall, I think the 1984 version told the same story better in a more concise way.

Elkins Sweeney Todd

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.275858.1314344162!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-sweeney-todd1-jpg.jpg

            Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a musical that I can only describe as a “bloody delight.” It’s songs are filled with gruesome content and are largely revenge-driven. It is about an outsider (Burton’s favorite thing) who, in a quest for revenge, turns into a monster that kills people in a barber shop left and right.

            With that being said, the cannibalism in the movie is really quite revolting and elicits a response akin to “gross” from me. Cannibalism is a metaphor for the city of London, where one essentially just becomes a piece of meat and loses all individuality to those that give them work. It is a very “man-eat-man” kind of world, and the use of cannibalism makes that phrase quite literal. Sweeney Todd, in a way, turns this notion of “the commoner working for the aristocrat” on its head by literally serving the aristocrats to the commoner. One might argue that this is all Mrs. Lovett’s fault (and one could argue that she’s just trying to survive in a world that does not like her awful meatpies), but, at the end of the day, it is hard not to see Todd as a monster. I do not even think it elicits a “the aristocrats got what they deserved” response; the audience is just horrified at what Todd has become.

I think Burton overcomes moral revulsion, murder, and cannibalism by using the character Toby. After losing the con-artist Pirelli, the audience feels a twinge of sympathy for him, as he has nowhere else to go. Todd and Mrs, Lovett take him in (which is nice of them) and he grows close to Mrs. Lovett, but incredibly suspicious of Todd (as he should). Toby is the only one in the “family” that has a notion of morality, and this becomes really important once he finds out what going into the meatpies. After Todd murders Mrs. Lovett, Toby delivers the justice that has been a long time coming by slitting Todd’s throat with a razor (which is ironic because that is the same way in which Todd killed all of his victims).

            With Sweeney Todd, Burton delivers a musical rife with violence and cannibalistic metaphors.

Elkins Big Fish

http://reelclub.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bf1.jpg

The character Edward Bloom in Big Fish is, I think, the type of person that most people aspire to be. He is good at everything (star baseball player, star football player, etc.) and he works hard with a smile on his face. His personality is also very likable, and the sheer imagination that he uses to make his stories come to life is hardly a con for him.

            Throughout the movie, Bloom meets many people that are much less like him. These people (such as the giant, the circus owner, and the people of Spectre) are kind of the darker characters of the film.  Of course, compared to Edward, anyone might seem dark. But these characters are the ones that are either rejected by society or reject society themselves. Lots of times, they are just misunderstood characters, and that is why they like Edward so much – he takes the time to understand and get to know them.  I want to talk about two scenes that illustrate this special communication between Edward and these outsiders: the scene in which Edward leaves the town with the giant and the scene in which Edward throws the stick for the werewolf.

In the first scene I chose, the town is terrified of the so-called man-eating giant that lives in a cave. They have no idea what to do with him until Edward volunteers to deal with him. Edward goes and offers, humorously, to sacrifice himself. Once Edward and the giant talk with each other, they both realize that the giant (whose name is Carl) is as human as can be and just needs a “bigger city.” Edward gains a better understanding of the misunderstood giant because he genuinely gets to know him (when most would not go near him).

In the second scene I chose, Edward throws a stick for a seemingly dangerous werewolf (who is, in fact, the circus owner). This situation is a little different from the scene with the giant as Edward gets to know the circus owner from working for him for three years. Edward at first meets the werewolf when it jumps on him and viciously attacks him. However, after a brief confrontation, Edward throws a stick and realizes that the werewolf wants to play an innocent game of fetch.

I think everyone wants to be Edward. He’s kind, smart, and extremely talented. The father-son relationship in Big Fish is obviously what drew Burton to direct this film, but I cannot help wondering if the allure of exploring how a person such as Edward works had an even stronger pull.

Elkins Sleepy Hollow

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/sleepy-hollow-765071l.png

First off, let me just say that I enjoyed Burton’s rendition of the “Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” I feel that Washington Irving’s story really intrigued Burton, but was not enough for him. He wanted more and decided that he would, in a sense, “finish” it. So, while I enjoy Irving’s story for what it is, I feel that Burton’s version of Sleepy Hollow gives a more definite version of the story that raises no questions.

            Burton, I think, did more than simply create a horror story using Irving’s ideas and character names. I think that he not only created a more definitive version of the story for himself (as I have already said), but he also gave his audience a chance to live in a world where a headless Hessian goes around chopping peoples’ heads off. Burton is making use of Irving’s story to transport the audience to a more different world. Most movies do this kind of transportation, but, with Sleepy Hollow, it is more of an immersion. The audience has a real fear of the horseman and wants to follow Ichabod Crane in his quest to uncover the horseman’s secret (at least I did).

            Burton’s changes to Irving’s original story, I think, are like casualties in order to make Sleepy Hollow a horror story (instead of just a mystery). Crane is a detective from New York instead of a schoolteacher well ingrained in the culture of Sleepy Hollow and there is no question that the horseman exists in Burton’s film (whereas, in the story, it is probably Brom Van Brunt running Crane out of town). I liked these changes – it makes the characters feel fuller. Crane has a back- story and a real personality incomparable to the almost 2-D Crane in the Irving story, and the audience understands why all of the townspeople are terrified – the headless horseman is not merely just a scary story.

            Burton did well in both making Irving’s original story more “finished” and in turning the story into a horror movie. Changing some elements of Irving’s story, while brutal, were necessary. All-in-all, it seems that Washington Irving was writing a horror story all along.

Elkins Planet of the Apes

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPFcrO_ErnR3MbZ6tNbGQPiMQRNA1lWP4nRz-KQLn_UKkYAJA8ullViqgKIYq0XEqSYUIUo8EUshb8CXMJBHntkvmp4Alj5JgmD22IDof2Jp_CUcQRvCxbYTgUwc6cyFIsPlzNH0q4DsI/s400/Apes+New+3.jpg

One duality I found very interesting in Planet of the Apes was that of science vs. primitivism. Both the 1968 version and Burton’s version deal with this duality, although Burton’s version is a little more fleshed-out. In the 1968 version, Taylor’s story of crashing on the planet in a spaceship (speaking of which, there’s another link – the main characters of each film are horrible at landing their respective space-ships) is dismissed as heresy against the ape religion. In Burton’s movie, the technology that Davidson possesses makes the apes fearful.

Two scenes that illustrate how the science vs. primitivism conflict helps to develop character through conflict: the scene where Davidson retrieves his supplies from his crashed space-ship and the scene where General Thade breaks the red decoration and finds the gun. The scene where Davidson retrieves his supplies from his crashed space-ship is important because it further expands the gap between the humans and the apes. When Davidson fires his gun, one of the apes says, in a hushed voice, “Sorcery.” Sorcery and magic in general are usually just terms for sciences we do not yet understand, and thus we dismiss them as being associated with “the Other,” which sort of gives it a negative connotation. The apes hold strongly to their religious beliefs, and, as this scene illustrates, are hesitant to deal in matters that question their religion.

The scene where General Thade breaks the red decoration and finds the gun also helps to illustrate the apes’ fearfulness of technology. Thade, a character that already hates humans, is introduced to the invention of the gun by his father, who says that the gun is “the symbol of destruction” or something like that (I don’t remember exactly what was said). The apes are a civilization that uses swords and spears to fight (a very medieval thing) and don’t use modern weaponry (or, at least, none that I saw). His dying father’s condemnation of guns further deepens Thade’s hatred of those who use them  - the humans (although, I’m not sure how the apes grew to use the modern weaponry as seen in the end  - to be honest, I thought the ending was just kind of dumb).

Burton uses Planet of the Apes to again deliver a message he’s well familiar with: the misconceptions that most hold for one another. Although,  I think Burton did a weaker job of addressing that message with this film than his previous films (but that’s just me).

Elkins Mars Attacks!

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/30400000/Mars-Attacks-mars-attacks-30461376-720-384.jpg

Two scenes that I felt perfectly illustrate how Burton satirizes government and the military in Mars Attacks!: the scene where Professor Kessler is adamant about how the aliens are “more technologically advanced, so therefore peaceful” in the beginning of the movie in the Oval Office, and the scene where Jack Black’s character cannot shoot his gun and then grabs the American flag and shouts, “I surrender!” In Independence Day, the scientist of the movie solves the problem of the alien force-field, allowing the army to destroy the aliens. In Mars Attacks!, the scientist of the movie is consistently wrong and plays a part in the government’s humorous blundering. In Independence Day, the soldier carrying the American flag would be the one who fights until he/she has nothing left.  That soldier in Mars Attacks!, like I said, yells, “I SURRENDER!”

Another comparison of both films is how the American President is respected. In Independence Day, he is well-respected and commands authority. In Mars Attacks!, he may as well be a Las Vegas hustler.

In Mars Attacks!, I think Burton is trying to tell the audience that social institutions are not immune to criticism. Just because people collectively think of a high office or an esteemed institution as “sacred” does not mean that those things are untouchable. Everyone thinks of the President of the United States as being a seat of untouchable power (which, it in some ways is, but that is beside the point). Burton, in his dark humor, laughs at this and makes the president both have a sort-of nervous breakdown and kills him in one of the strangest, funniest ways that I have seen in film. I think that this message of nothing being sacred is really one of the only serious things about the movie.

I do not, however, think that films such as Blade Runner and Rise of the Planet of Apes take themselves too seriously – I have seen both and thoroughly enjoyed them. They have important messages that I would not listen to unless they were put into a movie format (but maybe that is just me).

Burton, in Mars Attacks!, really only makes one thing clear to me: nothing is beyond criticism. And that is the way it should be.

Elkins Ed Wood

http://www.thefilmyap.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ed-wood-inside31.jpg

Let me start off by just saying that I thoroughly enjoyed Buton’s Ed Wood. I thought it was well-done and really brought me in like a sort-of drug. With that said, I absolutely hated watching what I could of Plan 9 from Outer Space. I understand that it is supposed to be terrible and that it is supposedly the “best B-movie of all time,” but I could only get through about thirty minutes before I had to start asking myself, “What am I doing?” Taking the risk of sounding arrogant, but I truly think (in this rare case) that I could do a better job. But that is not the point of this blog. I want to talk about three elements of Burton’s Ed Wood that pay homage to what Wood was doing in his films.

In his films, Wood was following his own vision, delving into what he loved, and using what he could to complete his films. In Ed Wood, Burton showed how desperate Wood was to “make it big.” He got the frugal amounts of money from wherever he could and tried to live his dream however he could. All he wanted to do was live out his vision (even though one would have a difficult time arguing that his vision was 20/20) and he did just that. I am reminded of the scene where Wood meets the great Orson Welles (incomparable in success) who tells him to just do what he loves, and not to let anyone else get in the way of that.

I do like how Burton included the filming of some of the scenes of Wood’s actual movies (such as the graveyard scenes from Plan 9 from Outer Space). It seemed to me that the scenes from Burton’s movie looked a lot faker than those in Wood’s actual movie – sort of like Burton saying, “You know, guys, it could have been worse.” I think Burton did this for no other reason than that the movie would not be Ed Wood’s life if there were no scenes of him actually filming his masterpieces. And when I say masterpieces, I am talking from Wood’s perspective.