BIGLENS PLUS THE NEW SOUND OF MUSICALS ART OF THE ONE LINER AND MORE
THE KENT FILM MAGAZINE | VOLUME 4, ISSUE 2 | WINTER 2007
TIM BURTON
EDITORIAL
“Articles are not necessarily the opinions of the Editors...” the disclaimer reads below. But it certainly is the opinion of this Editor that diverse thoughts on film be given a voice. This issue especially, presents some strong opinions. The musical as a decent modern genre, Tim Burton as a god, and maybe you liked 300? You see, that’s what puts the fun into running a magazine like BIGLENS: you might make people laugh, nod their heads in knowing agreement, or grow red with fury and turn up at our meeting with pitchforks and torches. It’s not the reaction that matters, it’s the fact there is one. And if you feel reading any article that it might catapult you into that pitchfork wielding mob, then please do turn your aggression into creativity and write a reply. You’ll feel better for it, you might get published, and best of all we at BIGLENS will live to see another issue. I hope many of you have taken advantage of what’s been on offer from KENT FILM in 2007. If you’ve been to screenings, utilised the DVD library, or came with us to the London Film Festival you’ll have justified our existence. And if you’re involved with filmmaking or writing for this magazine, then congratulations: You’re helping us achieve our aim to encourage film related creative output on campus. We thank you also for your support at our quizzes, and at our very successful KENT FILM social at Orange Street Music Club, a great venue for our short film screenings. All that is left is to ask you to look forward to another twelve weeks of filmic fun from KENT FILM when we return, and, whether you celebrate anything at all this time of year, have a smashing winter break. Paul Ockelford
SMALLPRINT Edited by Nia Childs and Paul Ockelford Designed by Euan Monaghan If you have a passion for film and would like to contribute to BIGLENS, please email pto5 or come along to one of our weekly meetings which are held in the Shirley Barlow room in Eliot on Mondays at seven. BIGLENS is produced with the support of Kent Film, a society of the University of Kent Students Union. | All information is provided in good faith. | Articles are not necessarily the opinions of the editors of BIGLENS, of the Kent Film Society or of Kent Union. | Everything that is already copyrighted, is theirs. | Everything not, is the intellectual property of the individual writer, so no thieving.
Check out the Kent Film society hub at www.kentfilm.net for society news, BIGLENS movie reviews and all that good stuff.
THE ART OF THE ONE LINER - DAMIAN WRIGLEY
HOW MANY MOVIES have been made? I’m talking about in the whole history of the movie business, even those pesky ‘made for TV’ ones – the sort of thing with a smaller budget than a student and the quality of Edwardian plumbing. The number must lie well into the tens of, if not hundreds of thousands. Taking all those movies, how many lines are there? Millions upon millions. How many words? Billions, probably trillions. That’s a lot. So then, what is it that makes some of these lines break out from within the confines of the make believe world of cinema and have people replicating them throughout the land? It isn’t as if some of these lines represent the best the English language has to offer now is it? “I’ll be back” is far from profound. You’ve said it, don’t lie – but, why? It is a simple statement, but because it was uttered by a mass murdering cyborg with a curious accent, it has become cool. So cool in fact, that according to a recent survey from the good people at myfilms.com, it is the most used line
from a movie in the civilised world. However, despite the fact that some 4000 people voted in the survey, and came up with a fairly good top ten, they miss out the greatest one liner of them all, but more on that later. It is also worthy of a mention that there will be no inclusion of any comedy films in this article. Yes, you may think that ignoring comedy films in a one liner article is about as intelligent as holidaying in Iraq, but as you read the rest of the piece, the reason why they have been left out will be clearer then the picture on an HD television. But, if you really want
DIE HARD 4.0 | 20TH CENTURY FOX
_ _ _ / _ _ _ _’_ / _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _
to quote comedy films, go check out Anchor Man. Back to business then, and just what is it that makes a good movie one liner? Just what is it that makes them special? To answer that, we are going to have to expand the parameters just a little bit. Last year in the entire EU, the best selling car was… the Vauxhall Astra. Now this, by no means, makes it the best car in the EU – believe me it isn’t, by a Grand Canyon sized margin. But neither is it a bad car, the important point here is that because there are so many of the damned things, it isn’t
special. It does not stand out; it is not a head-turning car. In the same way that most lines are nothing special, you don’t want the ‘Astra’ line, far from it – you want the Ferrari line, that once in a while “my Gods look at that!” moment. The line also has to be cool, and cool is one of those words that is hard to define. Conveniently, cars can once again help illustrate the point – the Mini is without a doubt the coolest car on the roads today, but it is not the best, quickest, most luxurious or most expensive. Yet it has some form of charm, a special aura exudes from that car like it has its own Lynx effect, you want to park next to it in the car park, and if you’re at a party and someone steps out of one, you want to talk them, it is an incredible piece of kit. In the same way that, “Luke, I am your father”, has some charm about it – in fact it may just be the greatest movie shock ever – not even Nostradamus saw that one coming. This is perhaps why it has lived on, appearing in films such as Toy Story 2 and Austin Powers, just simply because everyone is going to get the joke. Yet should this be the ultimate example of how to write a one liner? Erm, no, not really. It may have been said by one of the main characters, at a pivotal point in the movie, but it isn’t cheesy, funny and it’s not the catchphrase you’ve been looking for. The best one liner of recent times comes from one the best movies of recent times. It’s Die Hard 4.0 and “I was out of bullets”, which is honestly just brilliant, not quite as epic as “yippee-kiyay” – but it hits the nail on the head nearly perfecting the art of one liners – it must be good, individual and honest. It makes the characters seem more human, and then we can parody them all we want, peppering the car journey home with, “you know when they said…”. So then, why do some lines make it into the popular culture? Simple really: because they’re cool. Why? No idea. It is impossible to define cool. Impossible. It doesn’t mean popular, and it certainly doesn’t mean rich – Bill Gates is far from being a cool man. Why do we say them? So that we can feel cooler, be that little bit closer to our screen icons, pretend that, for one brief second, you are that character, at that moment. Brilliant. Bearing that in mind, and as promised, the best one liner ever? Well, it’s obvious really – “the names Bond, James Bond”.
BIOGRAPHICAL PICTURES - NICOLA MARCHANT
THE BIOPIC IS a bit of an obscure genre. Unlike a romance, an action, a horror – where you know whether you’re going to need tissues or an item to hide behind, a biopic is just a film... about someone. A biography, in motion picture. Think Ali, Frida, A Beautiful Mind, Ed Wood. The general ground rules are these; that it must be an actual person, and involve actual events. It is just that, unlike a documentary, they are dramatising these events. They are not films ‘based on a true story’, as they work to directly re-tell the story with as much truth to it as possible, as opposed to just using a cute little historical tale as a blueprint. There is often controversy over a biopic’s veracity – they have been known to alter events to suit a filmmaker’s own idea of a storyline. But if a good filmmaker is going to make a good biopic – chances are it’s going to be at least mostly close to the truth. I’ve picked up on some general rules – to make a biopic, your subject usually has to be dead first. Very rarely is it that the biopic’s subject will actually play themselves – there are just a handful of examples here; Muhammad Ali in The Greatest, Howard Stern in Private Parts, Jackie Robinson in The Robinson Story. The subject, then, is usually dead, or at least very, very old. This way, there is less risk of pissing off the real person who you are portraying. Most biopics seem to focus on someone historical, important, or somewhat loved by a lot of people. The prostitute turned serial killer in 2003’s Monster didn’t fit these criteria and caused quite a stir – because it was a biopic that defied tradition. It helped to shatter the convention, along with pieces like Blow, based on a notorious cocaine dealer, and The People vs. Larry Flynt, a publisher of hardcore pornography. No matter how sketchy the definition of a biopic may seem (Microsoft’s dictionary does not even recognise it as a real word), the fact remains – they are everywhere. Last month’s Total Film featured a front cover of Brad Pitt as outlaw Jesse James, followed by Sight and Sound doing the same for its December issue. Our own Gulbenkian Cinema booklet boasted a picture of Kate Blanchett, equipped to reign in her Elizabeth gear. I flick inside and, out of some 19 Films this month, five are biopics. And, seeing as the ‘biopic’ isn’t a particularly well known genre; this counts for a lot. Elizabeth: The Golden Age, of course; La Vie en Rose, about French singer Édith Piaf, Joy Division’s Ian Curtis is the subject of Control, Ridley Scott‘s portrait of Frank Lucas, in American Gangster, and the polish artist Nikifor Krynicki in My Nikifor. The Counterfeiters could have made it a juicy six – if the focus happened to be
on just one person. And this is just in our little independent Canterbury cinema. Within this sub genre, there are even more sub or mini genres. There is the historical biopic – Jesse James, Elizabeth. And, one that seems to becoming ever more popular; the rock/pop biopic. In the past, we’ve had What’s Love Got To Do With It about Tina Turner, Oliver Stone’s The Doors: Jim Morrison, and more recently, of course, Walk the Line. Our own English filmmakers have made the less well known Stoned around Brian Jones, and Backbeat – highlighting The Beatles pre-fame. Before Control, there was 24 Hour Party People: an account of Tony Wilson, a pioneer in the Mancunian music scene of the ‘70s – ‘90s. Along with Control, 2007 saw the release of Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten, and Bob Dylan piece I’m Not There. Gus Van Sant’s Last Days is often mistaken for a biopic on Nirvana’s Kurt Cobain – just
ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE | UNIVERSAL
missing the mark because it is more of a reminiscence of the legendary musician, as opposed to a direct dedication. Musicians seem to be a point of interest for biopic makers, then. All this made me wonder – what is the appeal? I came up with two answers. If you make a film about a figure that a lot people have heard of, then, put simply, they will want to see it. They will want to know if the chosen actor can suitably portray the legacy, how much truth will be in the film, what the life of this figure was like: the works. It’s another huge scheme for money. But, then if an auteur makes a biopic, without the main intention of money what’s their appeal? It may be that they genuinely want to educate us. I know next to nothing about the American outlaw Jesse James - but when I take two hours out to watch Brad Pitt in his role, I’ll become a fountain of knowledge on the seedy thuggery of the 19th century.
You could say that making these pieces also gives a filmmaker a chance to make a glorified dedication to their hero. Like a sort of two hour long, motional shrine. I mean, Tarantino does it - Kill Bill is fundamentally a shrine to Bruce Lee, his Game of Death jumpsuit and his swished up kung fu action. Jackie Brown pays homage to the ‘70s Femme-Shaft, Foxy Brown, and Pulp Fiction’s Mia Wallace is the Danish actress, Anna Karina. In his most recent collaborations (he teams up with Rodriguez for both of them) he is showing the world just how much he loved the actors at the ‘Grindhouses’. In Godard’s Breathless, Michel was a French caricature of Classic Hollywood’s Humphrey Bogart. Kevin Smith pays homage to pop culture and the films that he worships – usually consisting of Comic books and Star Wars. Apparently there are over 60 film references in Dogma alone. So the biopic is a somewhat ambiguous sub genre, if not a fully fledged genre of its own. The basic outline is that, right now, in film world – they seem to be emerging everywhere. I have faith that after reading this article you will begin to notice this. Rediscover, even, that old films are in fact motion biographies of a much loved figure – (or a serial killer/pornography propagator, as was discussed). Only after researching this did I realise that films like My Left Foot, Evita, Boogie Nights and The Aviator had succumbed to the charm of the biopic. Evidently, this could be pure ignorance on my part. But, the fact remains - it is hard to underestimate the snowballing power of biographical film. In fact, I have now found out – apparently even Citizen Kane is one.
THE PERSIAN VERSION CLÉMENT PICHOT DE CHAMPFLEURY
HAS NOT LEONIDAS suffered enough? Then leave him alone! Nowadays, everybody stands for a cause: Angelina Jolie protects African children, Bono sings every year in order to support the victims of AIDS and George Clooney now defends the environment. This in mind I felt like I had to back up a humble cause, to be in tune with my time. And, as it seems all the great causes are already defended by one of the people mentioned above, I decided to find a cause that no one would be shouting about. It is only when I watched 300 that I decided that it was about time someone defended Greek mythology – horrifically harassed by modern popular culture and Hollywood.
300 | WARNER BROTHERS
“IT REQUIRES A CERTAIN COURAGE TO SPOIL TWO EMINENT CULTURES IN THE SAME PICTURE” I was shocked when I saw how Frank Miller (author of the graphic novel) and Zack Snyder (director of the film) pictured Sparta, one of the greatest Greek civilizations which dominated Greece for quite a while. It is not fair to make them wear such ridiculous red underpants, and make them shout “AOUH!” every two minutes, which made me believe that King Leonidas’ army was actually going to the gay pride parade. The three hundred Spartans remain heroes in Greek culture and they deserve a better outfit than those ridiculous leather pants. Those who inspired Byron’s most tragic poems, Chateaubriand’s most passionate writings should be treated with
respect. And as I mentioned the gay pride and the ridiculous outfit, I feel like I also have to mention Xerxes’ costume, worthy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Not only have these artists abused Greek mythology, they also twist Persian history, and, even if I consider Snyder a mediocre director, I cannot deny that it requires a certain courage to spoil two eminent cultures in the same picture. Moreover, 300’s précis, which is supposed to be based on a true story, is in fact biased. Indeed, Xerxes invaded Greece, but the three hundred had the back up of Athenian fighters during the whole battle. And when I say the Athenian, I do not talk about the five hundred cowards who flee when they find out that they have been betrayed, I talk about a thousand soldiers, who fought until the end. Now, we all know that the ‘based on a true story’ concept is controversial, but Miller/Snyder do not seem to care at all about the Battle of Thermopylae, they are instead rather interested in producing a gory spectacle, where Greek people kill all kinds of monsters while listening to heavy metal. I think Snyder should have the honesty to say “I am doing a masskilling picture for teenagers because I want the money” instead of pretending to make a film ‘based on a true story’ and supposed to be a historical film. Besides, the main issue with American producers trying to make so-called ‘historical’ films is that in the end, they release an American film. All in all, 300 is not about the Spartan culture and how they lived, it only deals with body-builders fighting against villains. The mythology is in fact an excuse to come up with another blockbuster full of special effects, and it really seems to me that Miller and Snyder have ignored the core of Spartan culture, because it would not be as lucrative as a good fight. Leonidas’ lines sound more American than inspired by the Greek myth; when he says for instance that he won’t kneel because after killing Xerxes’ soldiers he has “a nasty cramp”, I really thought that it was not a Spartan king who was speaking but a kind of third-rate American hero who would refuse to kneel in front of the usual bad guy (a terrorist or a communist, it depends on the mood of the director). 300 is overloaded with clichés, which gave me a tedious impression of deja-vu. The ideas of the two friends fighting side by side, or the dying soldier telling his king that it has been a pleasure to die by his side reminded me of The Lord of the Rings or any other standard war film. What is the point then of adopting an original point of view like the mythology, if the film in itself is full of cheesy clichés? Not only does it give a biased impression of the Greek culture, but it also bores the audience. All in all, I think that it is about time American studios stop making fun of mythologies, because even if they do not do it on purpose, it is quite annoying. Given that they were not able to make decent remakes of British films like The Italian Job, they should not have the right to give their interpretation of the antiquity. Now, I know that the cause I try to defend will never be as popular as the ones defended by Angelina Jolie or George Clooney, but if you could consider that 300 is not a worthy telling of the myth, it would make me really happy.
THE NEW SOUND OF MUSICALS - TOM BROWN
I’VE NEVER LIKED musicals. In fact, you’ll often hear me claiming: “Musicals are the lowest common form of cinema!” and usually I’m right. There’s something terribly jarring about characters spontaneously bursting into song and displaying emotions less subtle than Brecht himself. There are, of course, a few less cringe-worthy exceptions, The Lion King being the best of them. Recently, however, the musical film has undergone a minirebirth, and boy (or girl), what an improvement! The two films at the forefront of this are a brilliant little Irish film called Once, and the magical Heima by Icelandic band Sigur Rós. These films couldn’t be further from the traditional musical form and style, and are all the better for it. Firstly, we have Once. I haven’t read a single piece about this film without some awful pun about the title, so I have promised myself not to do the same. Once is a story about an Irish busker, played by non-actor Glen Hansard (lead singer of the awesome band: The Frames) who meets a Czech immigrant and street seller, played by Marketa Irglova. They fall for each other but have difficulties expressing their feelings; it is only through music that they can do so. Okay, so it sounds pretty similar to a standard musical plot, but the difference is all in the delivery. Each and every song that is sung is done so for a reason contained within the narrative. They sing a song because they’re in a piano shop and Girl 10
LEFT: ONCE | FOX SEARCHLIGHT, RIGHT: HEIMA | KLIKK FILM/EMI RECORDS.
wants to hear one of Guy’s songs (neither characters have names), or because they’re recording a demo in a studio. None of this sudden outburst of emotion whilst standing on a cliff edge nonsense. This woven naturalistic and organic process of music makes it feel more real and more tangible than the traditional musical, and it’s hugely refreshing to watch. Plus there’s none of that stupid dancing. Arguably one of the most influential factors on this was the budget. Even if director Jim Carney wanted to make the songs in the film big set-pieces (and I don’t believe for a second that he did), they simply did not have the budget. Once was filmed for less than £100,000 (and without permits) which has, all in all, resulted in a hugely humble and endearing film. Perhaps it’s easiest to envisage Once as an 80 minute music video, though I feel that would be doing it a disservice; Hansard himself describes it as a “visual album”, which is probably more fitting. Heima is an entirely different musical, but equally as innovative and just generally brilliant. For those of you unfamiliar with Icelandic band Sigur Rós, for shame: they are one of the greatest and most important bands on the planet [he’s right you know – Art Ed.]. The film follows the band on their free homecoming tour around Iceland, playing the most remote and beautiful locations across an exceptional country. And it’s utterly breathtaking. Their music undeniably embodies Iceland, and, somehow, Iceland seems to embody the music in return. Jonsi, the singer (we’re on first name terms), has one of the most incredible and mesmerising voices you’ll ever hear, though of course this is not the main reason that this is different from traditional musicals. There’s no plot (it’s more of a documentary-musical) and there’s only one character: Iceland. ‘Heima’ means ‘at home’, and for a couple of hours, we feel like we’re privileged enough to have
been invited to live in the band’s country. So what is it that’s finally made people want a new breed of musical? Certainly, both have proved immensely successful critically: Once won Best International Feature at the prestigious UK Raindance Festival, and just look at the number of 5 star reviews on the Heima DVD case. In terms of popularity with the public, the latter of the films is beginning to build up steam and publicity, spreading most successfully by word of mouth. Once, too, has proved an absolute success, its highpoint being a victory in the Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival. Maybe (fingers crossed) society is finally getting fed up with extravagant and over-blown musicals. I somehow suspect, however, that this may not be the case: did we really need High School Musical 2? Or even 1 for that matter. But then again, that is America, and they always were a bit behind the rest of us Europeans... Because this new trend of musicals seems like real life, it makes them feel all the more emotionally powerful: Glen’s voice (we really are on first time terms: I’ve met and had a chat with him!) is exceptionally powerful because his songs are real. Likewise, the climax of Heima, a performance of Untitled 8 in front of a huge crowd in Reykjavík, is the most intensely euphoric piece of sound you are likely to hear. One thing that both films have in common is the relatively small amounts of money put into them. Perhaps that’s the answer, then? Is it a good idea to limit spending on musicals (and indeed any genre of film) to try and get a more honest film? I’m not sure, but if it means more films like Once and Heima, then I’m all for it. We shall live in a utopia where audiences are no longer alienated by extravagance! Okay, so I’m getting a bit carried away, but the point remains. If this new trend of redefining musicals continues, we can finally be rid of the traditional design Once and for all. Oh, bollocks.
11
PLEASE SIR, MAY I HAVE SOME GORE? TOM GIFFIN
12
WHETHER YOU LIKE it or not, torture porn is the face of modern horror. Japanese horror films and remakes of them took the spotlight for a few years but the mantle has moved on and it seems that Saw and Hostel are the new friendly faces of mainstream horror. The graphic, brutal and often drawn-outs deaths of the good looking, unsympathetic characters has caught media attention and created a big backlash against the style of film. You may think that I dislike ‘torture porn’ films and you’d be wrong. I enjoy watching them almost (but not quite) as much as I enjoy watching slasher films. You may think this would make me biased in this matter and you may be right. To understand the newfound wave of torture porn films, you must head back to the seventies, that crazy decade. Towards the end of this decade, men with strange names like Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper were gathering money and friends in order to make the most disturbing things ever put onto film. In Wes Craven’s case you get hired by a collection of drive-in owners to make a film to fill the second slot in a double showing designed to scare teenagers. At this stage, Halloween had yet to open the floodgates for proper slasher films. The two resulting films from these directors, more than any others, have become legendary in their own right, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Last House on the Left. The similarities between modern day box office breaking torture porn films and these golden oldies are striking. Violent, depressing, grainy and gritty, the stories detailing the death and humiliation/torture of unsympathetic yet undeserving teenagers has survived over thirty years. Whether thugs burning and humiliating girls (Last House on the Left), a masked lunatic chasing a screaming girl through the undergrowth (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or a girl being suspended and cut so a woman (entertainingly
named Mrs. Bathory) can bathe in her blood (Hostel 2). It is a type of horror which instead of aiming to scare, aims to shock. Certainly on the surface, with better effects and a slicker production, many argue that these types of film are more shocking than films of a similar tone from previous decades. However. Who when they watched Saw felt a little less scared when it was revealed that Jigsaw was preaching a moral appreciation of life and that he was only a man with cancer? Who when they watched Hostel 2, although liking the sub-plot of the businessmen, felt that too much was revealed about the workings of the infamous Hostel itself? These questions highlight why I feel that modern day ‘torture porn’ will never quite reach the terror of slasher films. Because the directors of these new torture porn films are the fanboys of the seventies and eighties slashers, they are determined to cut away the curtain to show us what really happens when a lunatic hurts people. This determination to explain everything removes some of the terror and I will try to explain why. One night, a young Michael Myers picks up a knife and stabs his sister. Why? What drove him to it? Does it matter? It makes him even more terrifying because there’s no reason, no logic to it. He just did it. In the remake of Halloween, Rob Zombie spends a large portion of the film showing Michael when he was younger and putting up with a hugely dysfunctional family. This leads onto animal killings before he finally kills his sister. This information was not needed; why do directors think it necessary to explain every detail? Suddenly instead of being an irrational, ‘evil’ being, he simply becomes a victim of an abusive family, which drives him to vent his aggression. In my books that lowers his stature as a scary figure. The main problem that I see with modern torture porn films is that they find the terror through gore and special effects. Part of the terror for me in watching horror films is the sense of madness and the feeling that logic and rationality don’t exist. Texas Chainsaw is the perfect example: why does the family make chairs from human bones and eat people? The terror that is felt is because there could be no boundaries, no limit as to what they could do. It would be mad to tie a girl up and cut her finger to invigorate a corpse-like grandfather but they do, it would be mad to try to kill her like cattle but they try. At what point would that family stop and wonder if it went too far? Maybe they would never reach that point, and THAT is scary. Truth be told, as much as I love films like Saw, they cannot and do not scare me as much as slasher films. They may shock me but they don’t scare me. I feel that some films from the olden days manage to both shock and scare. There are some attempts to return to vintage horror with films like Rob Zombie’s Devil’s Rejects being an homage which brought back the nastiness found in a lot of films from the seventies and eighties. I find that slasher films manage to scare and shock me more than torture porn films and I hope I went some way to expressing the method in my madness.
13
TIM BURTON - NIA CHILDS
WHEN TRYING TO start this article, I made a promise to myself‘this will not be a gush fest, this will NOT be a gush fest’. But then I realised I had to be honest with myself. Not only am I writing about one of the most popular directors of our time, but I am also writing about somebody who has shaped the way I feel and think about film, and whose films I use as a yard stick with which to compare every other film I have ever seen. So, the promise I made to myself has already gone out of the window with the first paragraph - but to be frank, I really don’t care. I have never been one to etch the name of my latest love interest on my hand, but in writing this article, I feel that I am metaphorically doing so. So please read on and discover what I think makes Tim Burton so damn great… The one thing that I have always found fascinating about Burton is that he is a grown man who has the mind of a small child. I don’t just mean in his beautiful fairy tales, but also in his horrible nightmares. I remember seeing The Nightmare Before Christmas when I was about 11, and it absolutely terrified me, yet at the same time I adored it and watched it over and over again. In one scene there can be wonderful potions and magical lands where it always feels like Christmas. Yet in another scene there are children being given severed heads as presents, and let’s not forget the fact that the protagonist is a skeleton. Yet somehow Burton seems to get the balance perfect, and now ten years on, I can watch the same film and still enjoy it, and not just in a nostalgic way. The same can be said for Sleepy Hollow. Whilst the film is fairly light hearted, and talks of fairy-tale things like witches and witchcraft, I always find it in the ‘horror’ section of my local video store, and it gives me the shivers every time. But perhaps the most admirable thing that I find about Burton is the genuine subtlety in all his movies that put across a serious message without being one of those ‘this is a serious movie’ films. Take, for example, Edward Scissorhands, quite possibly the best movie of all time (ok so I don’t expect you to agree with that but I love it). We see this creature, who on the outside seems scary and threatening, but who has the most beautiful heart and is so naïve to the world that we know. We see this sickening image of suburbia with its crass colours and its perfect families 14
and nosy neighbours, and this world seems to destroy this beautiful innocent creature that we all thought was so ugly… is this not a comment about the perils of living in an image obsessed society? And whilst we’re analysing, does this creature with his insane hair not remind you of somebody? (I’ll give you a hint… this article is about him). Yet the bright colours and beautiful images of ice sculptures and snow are enough to ensure that even a small child can gain the same amount of pleasure from the film, without having to understand the more complex issues. The same thing goes for Corpse Bride. Have you noticed that every dead person in the film is colourful and happy, yet every living person is
“AND WHILST WE’RE ANALYSING, DOES THIS CREATURE WITH HIS INSANE HAIR REMIND YOU OF SOMEBODY?” miserable and dull, and death seems the best option? Dark, isn’t it? Do you think a 12 year old child has noticed the same thing? Nope. So I suppose the most fascinating thing about Burton is that he has an amazing ability to disguise almost terrifying concepts with beautiful images that make us less scared. Thank God he’s not the Prime Minister eh? I just think that anybody who can make so many beautiful films that appeal to such a wide audience is truly deserving of some sort of Nobel Prize. Now I can’t offer this, so to you Tim Burton, I give you my gush fest.
15