The Director’s Chair – Ed Wood

You know who I am…but you don’t know why I’m here!
I go wherever I want…whenever I want!
And with that out of the way, I’d like to introduce you all to The Director’s Chair!

Last week, we covered Tim Burton’s jump into the fantastical world of Edward Scissorhands, and today we’re moving on to a new film. Which one are we covering?

Let’s find out!

Timothy Walter Burton was born August 25, 1958 in Burbank, CA. He went to CalArts and later even worked for Disney, as a concept artist, art director, and designer. As one would guess, he didn’t exactly fit the Disney mold, and none of his concepts were used. Could you imagine a Tim Burton version of The Fox & the Hound? Soon thereafter, he found his voice and amplified it with work that would transcend stop-motion animation. He was handpicked by Paul Reubens to direct his feature film Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, and allowed him creative input to bring Reuben’s small tv-show world onto the big screen.
Beetlejuice was next, but the true stamp of approval for Burton came with 1989’s Batman. This entry into comic book lore catapulted Burton to superstardom. His list of films afterwards are some of the most unique films ever, with each one feeling distinctly “Burtonesque.” Of course, this would eventually become detrimental, as critics considered it as more of a crutch than a trademark.

For my money, Burton is one of the greats, and even IF he falls back on his “look,” quite a bit, there is almost always something beneath the stop-motion. His movies focus on isolation, fish out of water, familial strife, father/son relationships, and as out of this world as his characters may be, there always seems to be some grounded sentiment towards their plights. But what about as a director? Let’s find out…

Specs:
Runtime – 2 hours, 7 minutes
Release Date – October 7, 1994
Filming Locations – Hollywood, CA
Budget – $18,000,000
Gross US & Canada – $5,887,457
Trivia: The writers, Scott Alexander and Larry Karazewski, met at USC and sought Tim Burton’s support in name only, without knowing that Burton had been a lifelong fan of Ed Wood films. They only had a ten-page treatment and Burton told them he could only do the film if there was a full-length script, causing both writers to finish a 140-page script over a weekend. Burton dropped out of the film he was slated to work on and took this on. If the names Alexander and Karazewski sound familiar, it’s because they also penned: 1990’s Problem Child, 1999’s Man on the Moon (a personal favorite), and the FX Series American Crime Story
Rating: 6/10

When I first decided to tackle Tim Burton as a director, I looked through his catalog to see which films I would want to cover. You’ll see in future editions that I try my best to view something I have not yet seen, and Ed Wood fell into that camp for certain. In fact, I had NO CLUE who it was about, what it was about, or even when it was made. Let me just say that it was a hell of a surprise in a variety of ways. It is, at its core, a film about an awkward man with a dream, and it is covered in an angora sweater.

Make no mistake about it, this film was not made to succeed. In a lot of ways, it is simply a love letter from Burton to the effervescent Ed Wood, who I’m sure Burton felt an affinity towards due to his uncanny and unique nature of film making. Ed Wood is a biopic with some liberties taken, but only to serve a larger narrative. At its core, Burton sticks closely to truths, only deviating for entertainment value. I only know this because after watching, I did a deep dive in Ed Wood’s career to further understand the film. Upon second viewing, I could see the heart Burton was attempting to capture, although I can’t say that he did it fully. We even get a little bit of lucha in there with GEORGE “THE ANIMAL” STEELE!!!!!

The standout here is Martin Landau, who had the task of being a grounded Bela Lugosi in a movie all about being over-the-top. His portrayal of an aging actor self-destructing and coming to terms with the tail end of his career was magical. Just when you think he is but a caricature, he puts on a commanding performance, which is only just a layered nuance with regards to what I am sure the real Lugosi was feeling at the time. These films he was in during the later years of his career were trash, and maybe he knew they were trash, but when the director yelled “ACTION,” Lugosi was the beacon of experience surrounded by the complete buffoonery of Ed Wood and his crew. The dialogue, tone, and performances are a show, which only serve to make Landau’s performance as Lugosi all the more powerful.

Of course, the “star” was Johnny Depp, and he plays Wood as an over-excited and hopeful man more akin to Depp’s version of Willy Wonka than the brooding and quiet characters he would be known for later on. He reminds me of a carnival barker who never turns off the overselling, and I mean that in the best way possible. I suppose in some ways, it’s difficult to truly mark this as good, bad, or great, because on the surface, I thought it was simply “ok,” but there seems to be a reality that this movie was only ever meant to be “ok,” and if that was the desired result, then…it was great? Right?

As mentioned before, the decision to make this a marker of time with dialogue, tone, and even the fact that the entire film is in black and white is done so perfectly. Burton even utilizes excessive angles not unlike the films of the era he is desperately trying to recapture. A film about a filmmaker making the worst movie ever is not without its meta moments, and yet Burton only ever tries to bring some heightened realism to a film that feels like anything but. Like Lugosi, there is a grounded reality that is masked by the Hollywood sheen. The secrets of Ed Wood, the internal struggle of a dying actor, and the haphazard filmmaking of the titular character are all wrapped in black and white, with a look and feel of Burton just as he was creating that very stamp.

This was 1994, and Burton had yet to fall into the trap of wiggly lines and crooked trees. Even Johnny Depp, his partner in crime, was yet to be known for an over-the-top performance such as Alice in Wonderland, or the aforementioned Willy Wonka. Still, there were a lot of signs in this film. I suppose the main difference is that in Ed Wood, all of the hyperbole was very much on purpose and with intention.

I’m gonna have to give it to the “Pull the string” scene where Landau’s Lugosi shows up to work, an aged vet in the industry, surrounded by fans of his older work, and is asked for an autograph by one of the crew. A single mention of Boris Karloff sends Lugosi into a fit, where he goes off of the need for makeup and bullshit, then crosses his arm and demands that they roll the camera for the upcoming scene. We assume we are to get a horrible performance marred by the anger that he just submitted to. Wood is about to cut, but instead Lugosi adds a last-minute “Pull the string!” The music was just loud enough, the performance was powerful, and it really cemented the reality that Lugosi was truly a star surrounded by amateurs.

---

Next week, we introduce our next Director! Here’s some trivia about him/her! Can you guess who it is?!
– Many of his major motion pictures are also scored by him
– Is allergic to horses
– Has directed five films that have been nominated for Best Picture Oscar
Let me know in the comments who you think I’m talking about!

DUECES!