Review of Ed Wood (1994) by Bitter E — 31 Jul 2011

Tim Burton's Ed Wood does a lot right: solid tone, engaging atmosphere, likeable characters, perfect tongue-in-cheek jokes, and a great take-away moral. Unfortunately its one fatal flaw is development--it doesn't have any.

Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) starts from a relative nothing and somehow manages to end with less than nothing. Throughout the movie we see him struggle to put together what will become known as the worst films in history and it's all incredibly entertaining as we watch him bumble and compromise from one situation to the next. His ambition to become aa great director like Orson Welles is at odds with his lack of talent and overall incompetence. Yet somehow Burton not only makes us sympathize with him and his rag-tag assortment of morons, quacks, has-beens, and a horse (Sarah Jessica Parker) but to realize that their values are more commendable than the rest of the film making world.

However, this is the film at the best and it knows it. That's why we never really get away from watching Wood and his team awkwardly muck their way from one scene of hilarious stupidity to the next. At first it's amusing, but like watching a cat in the drier it gets old eventually and you want something with a bit of variety, like a cat in a drier with a firecracker thrown in(WARNING: I do not condone or endorse putting cats in driers. Entertaining: yes, moral: no).Now--to play the patronizing card--most films/plays/novels/music have three acts, which here are conveniantly divided for us between Wood's first three films. The first act introduces everything, the second develops the characters and the conflict, and the third resolves the conflict and the characters generall grow as a result. The problem arises when, after following the above mentioned formula with the first act, Burton decided to follow it again for the second. In terms of the main plot, nothing substantial happens from the time Wood finishes Glen or Glenda to Bride of the Monster. I think Wood--whose main struggle is learning not to conform to the desires of the producers and actors--actually becomes more submissive during the second act. At least with Glen or Glenda we see him fighting to make the film more artistic than exploitive; the whole second act is just a rehash of the first. What this amounts to is boredom, enough to take me out of the film before the redemptive third act where Wood suddenly decides to grow a backbone. It's a shocking moment, admitably, because their really hasn't been much build up to it throughout and I don't know how I feel about the implausible Orson Welles scene. I loved this film at first but it begins to wear on you and by the time it starts picking up again you're gone sticking cats in driers.

In my mind the movie spends too much time on the Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau) subplot. As good as it is, it's not really rich enough to carry the film especially when the main character isn't doing anything nearly as substantial. We see Wood visit Lugosi's house after a drug over-dose twice and it feels excessive, like we're spending time doing this again instead of watching something more interesting about Wood's transvestite problem (which everyone in the movie is shockingly cool about, even the Baptist producers, barring an initial set-back). Additionally, as much as I love Bill Murray, his character pops up and disappears at random. They hint that he wants a sex change; I'll have to take their word for it since nothing ever really comes of it kinda like my reviews.

I do feel a little bit out of touch with this movie though becuase it's like a massive in-joke I'm not a part of. I've never seen a Wood film (only clips) and I sense the whole tone was constructed to reference and lightly spoof Wood's work. The acting is also inconsistent (except Landau)-- sometimes obviously bad while at other times clearly going for an informed performance. I took the bad acting as another sly reference to Wood but then it kept disappearing and reappearing so I can't really tell. Ever been to a McDonald's and seen two misfit, teenage girls laughing hysterically at some obscure in-joke like ordering chicken nuggets or some crap? It's like that.

This isn't a bad film, though, despite all the horrible things I've said. There are plenty of memorable moments. My personal favorite occurs when Parker's character is insulted as having a "horse face" by a reviewer--it's good to know she'd be just as unattractive then as she is now. Still, go rent this movie. I know lots of people who loved it, I'm not exactly one of those people, but I respect everything it does. I'd recommend seeing the actual Wood movies first, though. There's an ironic statement I'd never thought I'd make.