By Roderick Heath
The career of Edward D. Wood Jnr. went thus: he made bad movies, was not rewarded for this, and died young, poor, weird, and obscure. A simple narrative, one obeying seemingly cast-iron rules of talent in art and industry, a ready example of an almost natural law at work—except that we sometimes tend to rebel against such obvious arcs, a temptation that’s especially strong today when movies can cost $200 million and still be less coherent, personal, or fun than the films Wood slapped together on rock-bottom budgets. Wood’s status as a hero of cash-strapped delirium has passed through phases, from roots in the punk era’s camp-hued affection for trashy antitheses to the slick emptiness of much popular culture, through to genuine, if sometimes over-earnest, attempts to embrace him as the essence of the outsider artist and a ramshackle surrealist.
In fact, Wood was a schismatic creature, at once a filmmaker who packed his movies with peccadilloes and private delights, and a hack who tried to winnow his way into Hollywood with his own ineffably clueless takes on material he thought popular. Wood’s lamely attempted to ape his betters, but also was a secret rebel twisting their noses with his characterful statements in favour of acceptance and against nuclear-age blustering reflect a general inability to fit into the conformist world of the 1950s, as if he was a prototypical, half-unwilling beatnik lost in a jungle of coldly commercial professionalism. Yet, it was precisely his inability to recreate the art that pleased him and to express his serious ideas in a serious manner that makes his work so disturbingly thrilling at times, the simultaneous horror and delight in the obviousness of the intention and the depth of failure. Edward D. Wood Jnr. has become the Charlie Brown of cinema icons, locked in an eternal frieze, trying to kick that cultural football and missing.
Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, spun from a screenplay by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, is as much a film about the art and the idea of Wood and what they meant and could mean for other artists and filmmakers, as it is a traditional biopic. For me, it’s a film inseparable from its era, released as it was during the burn-out of Gen X alt-culture of grunge and yapping Tarantino obsessives. Ed Wood views his life through a prism of decades of semi-underground art movements, to celebrate those movements and their clique-happy enthusiasm. Burton feted Wood’s career through a series of ironic contrasts, reproducing his tacky special effects and cardboard motifs with large-budget, detail-driven zest and exacting technical competence, precisely the qualities Wood so badly lacked. Mimicking Wood’s style in the visuals of the film freed Burton somewhat from having to devote too much time to depicting the products of Ed’s work. Burton seemed to latch onto Wood as a personal avatar, another natural outsider, a singular oddball with a strange power for attracting and employing a posse of glorious misfits to whom he could offer a protective wing. Burton also found the same essential pleasure in cinema as a way of exploring the ephemera of things readily dismissed as tacky and corny, and yet which lingered with strange intensity from the shoals of childhood memory and adolescent fixation.
Wood’s story, at least the notable phase of it depicted in the film extending from 1953’s hallucinatory Glen or Glenda? through aterials for a tragicomedy. The film concerns itself mostly with Wood’s friendship with the aging, haggard Béla Lugosi (Martin Landau) and others inhabiting the Hollywood fringe, including TV psychic Criswell (Jeffrey Jones), monster movie hostess Maila “Vampira” Nurmi (Lisa Marie), temporary fiancé and future tunesmith Dolores Fuller (Sarah Jessica Parker), gloriously gay socialite Lyle “Bunny” Breckenridge (Bill Murray), and hulking pro wrestler Tor Johnson (George Steele), provided a gallery of characters to rival the Addams Family for incongruous charm and the Keystone Kops for incompetence in the line of duty. Ed Wood is unusual as a movie narrative in many ways, then, because unlike most films, especially biopics, which lead us towards either a singular triumph or cathartic collapse, it becomes instead a snapshot of people fending off the ravages of time with fellowship, and the only triumph is an illusory one. Wood’s employment of the footage he took of Lugosi in Plan Nine is, here, no longer merely a man using a desperate gimmick for box office appeal, but an instinctive poet’s attempt to stave off mortality’s victory and the inevitable dissolution of the weirdly beautiful world he’s built around himself.
By presenting a biography of a director where the resulting work is, implicitly, negligible, Burton offers one of the most beguiling portraits of the artist as young self-deluder ever. Johnny Depp’s Wood is a creature of manic-depressive highs and lows, sometimes gnawed at by self-doubt suppressed with alcohol, but often skating along on the back of enthusiasm, process, and the druglike rush of believing in his own brilliance. Burton captures the latter attitude in a perfect visualisation: stock-footage explosions and patriotic parades are superimposed over Wood’s beaming face as he marvels at his own achievement, blending both the man’s defining traits and his techniques into a seamless, singular image. Ed Wood is the essence of every artist who has remained convinced of their own worth even whilst every force in the universe seems to be contradicting them.
For Burton, Ed Wood was a departure, and it remains a stand-out in his career, not only as his best film to date, but also in how he tackled a true story and transmuted it into both companion piece and negative image to his other works, executed with an uncommon formal rigour, if still stuffed with stylistic coups. Coming after his uneasy rise to the higher ranks of Hollywood through his Batman films, and his still-beloved diptych of black-comedy satires on family and suburbia, Beetlejuice (1987) and Edward Scissorhands (1990), Burton indulged a measure of self-analysis, possibly casting his thoughts back to his own brief partnership with Vincent Price on Edward Scissorhands in regarding Wood’s and Lugosi’s alliance, and extrapolating the image of himself as a man locked in a contradictory posture of eccentric, individualistic creativity finding a niche in a world with opposing priorities and values. Leading man Depp’s interpretation of Wood seems partly channelled through his one-time director John Waters, whose Cry Baby (1990) helped give Depp his first move beyond the teen stardom of “21 Jump Street.” (Waters’ own early efforts were something like Wood’s, though operating from a perspective of self-aware absurdist chic). In spite of the overt artifice Burton indulges, like black-and-white photography and flourishes of generic parody, Ed Wood is also a film with a sense of time and place so vivid you can practically smell the shady bars, two-room apartments, seedy low-rent studios, and bunkerlike offices of fly-by-night producers. This milieu is inseparable from Wood’s own work, with its location filming in deepest San Fernando and the down-market corners of Los Angeles. Ed Wood captures that atmosphere with an intensity that’s at once tactile, seamy, nostalgically affectionate, and occasionally, as in the opening, transformed into an adjunct of Wood’s shoestring-Expressionist worldview. Ed Wood remains a daydream about the underside of ’50s Hollywood.
Ed Wood commences with Criswell warning the audience in the manner of his introduction for Wood’s Revenge of the Dead (1960), from a coffin in the Old Willows Place of Bride of the Monster, about the dread experience the audience is about to experience, before the opening credits explore the environs of Wood’s iconography via an extended piece of brilliant model-work, resolving on a soaring vision of Los Angeles transformed into a Gothic wonderland. Wood is found fretting over the lack of press turning up for the premiere of a play he’s putting on. The glimpses we see of the play offer the Wood sensibility already fully formed: a giddy mix of the naively poetic and the woodenly terrible. Wood’s fearsome optimism proves resilient even in the face of a bad review served up by Victor Crowley’s copy boy, though his fiancé Dolores mournfully takes to heart its jabs at her (“Do I really have a face like a horse?”). Ed’s fairy godmother Bunny cynically dismisses the whole thing with his knowledge of the forces that really run Hollywood: sex, power, and money.
Ed, whose day job is carting around props at Universal Studios, is a man constantly trying to understand the business he’s involved in, marvelling at the forces can produce camels for a bit of backlot flimflam, and yet its resources of magic remain ever out of reach, even as he finds possibility and excitement in detritus like the reels of stock footage an older employee digs out and then files away. Wood’s adoration for and grasp on the potential in the marginalia of this world extends to his spotting of Lugosi, whom he happens upon as the aging, haggard star is checking out coffins at an undertaker’s for the next exhausting tour of a production of Dracula, hanging onto the last vestige of his fame and means of making a living. Ed makes friends with Lugosi simply by offering him a ride in his car, saving the once wealthy star from having to catch the bus.
Ed’s tale is as much about trying to subsist and thrive within the precepts of the grand narrative of American and Hollywood success, whilst also, almost accidentally, trying to resist the pulverising conformity those 1950s narratives could assert, as it about making bad movies. Late in the film, Ed and future wife Kathy (Patricia Arquette) reminisce over their childhood love of the figures of wonderment broadcast to them through the highways of pop culture, from pulp radio serials to Orson Welles’ Mercury Theatre, evoking the way such enchantments change lives even in the boondocks. Ed’s attempts to get into that game himself retain this innocent quality. Ed’s troupe become something akin to a family, accumulating members, some gleeful, some resistant, but all glad to find a temporary shelter and the shreds of dignity Ed’s drive gives them. Lugosi entrances Ed with a nostalgic, pseudo-intellectual paean to delights of the classic Gothic horror film, complete with Freudian jive about the felicities of Dracula as spur to scoring with the ladies in a humorous tilt that seems aimed as much at the psycho-sexual desolation of most contemporary genre film as at the ’50s giant monster craze Lugosi derides, as well as the spectacle of two horror nuts trying to lend their obsessions a veneer of profundity. (No, I wouldn’t know anything about that.) Mostly, it establishes Ed and Lugosi as men fundamentally out of step with their technocratic and fashionable time, one in which Lugosi is grievously humiliated on a live TV comedy show where the host’s improv mockery overwhelms Lugosi. The sequence suggests the real way Lugosi had been reduced to a comic foil in Abbot and Costello and Bowery Boys movies. Ed can’t even get Dolores to dredge up Lugosi’s name in making her guess who he just met (“You met — Basil Rathbone!”).
But Ed, in finding himself a star who needs money, gains through Lugosi a ticket into the great world of movie directing, even if it’s only a film about sex changes, hastily redrawn from a Christine Jorgensen biopic after the rights get too expensive for producer George “I make crap” Weiss (Mike Starr). Ed, after catching the article about Weiss’ efforts in Variety, makes an initial pitch to Weiss, trying to compel him with his own secret kink, his love of cross-dressing (“You a fruit?” “Oh no, I’m all man. I even fought in WW2”), draws the beefy, volcanic Weiss in to listen eagerly to tales about making parachute landings in the war whilst wearing a bra and panties. Ed’s desire to be a success is constantly stymied by, and also inseparable from, his desire to present himself unmasked to the world, and to explore himself and his obsessions through his work, lacking the essential inner censor who can corral such impulses into professional limits. Late in the film, he convinces Baptist Church stalwarts Reynolds (Clive Rosengren) and Reverend Lemon (G.D. Spradlin) to give him the money to make Plan Nine from Outer Space, or Grave Robbers from Outer Space as it’s initially called, promising to make them enough cash to bankroll their own pet project, a series on the 12 apostles, only for the uptight religious financiers to take umbrage at Ed’s habit of putting on the angora sweater and blonde wig to relax on set.
One of comic highlight here is the striptease Ed does for the for Bride of the Atom wrap party, with Criswell slipping cash into his garter and concluding with Ed unveiling his face to display his beaming, dentureless face in a moment of pure camp-grotesque cool. Fittingly, it’s both the moment of Ed’s personal liberation and the final straw for Dolores, who announces she’s leaving him to write songs for Elvis Presley. Ed’s personal identification with Orson Welles (Vincent D’Onofrio and Maurice LaMarche) as the symbol of youthful, all-encompassing genius presents the hope of the artist-rebel as transcendent titan, as opposed to Wood, doomed to be the image of the artist-rebel as ant. The climactic (fictional, but readily imaginable) encounter of Welles and Wood spells out the similarities in their career troubles and dreams in sarcastic, and yet oddly accurate terms. For artists, Ed Wood constantly suggests, the only hope for such contrary personalities is to try to reconceive the world through the personal prisms of creativity, making no distinction between good and bad artists. Wood’s attempts to do so culminate when he uses his draft screenplay to reveal his predilection to Dolores, his doting partner rising in realisation from the chair in their kitchen to open the door upon Ed in full drag, like a sweet-tempered Frankenstein’s Monster.
Whilst art is liberating in Ed Wood, it is also enslaving. Lugosi finally, happily embraces association with a single role to the extent of having himself buried in Dracula’s cape, a fate many actors would recoil from precisely because it’s the last chance to force reality to obey their own will. Lugosi, in readily adopting his Dracula guise, is photographed taking his fixes in shadows, as if he’s become one of his own expressionist grotesques, and is finally found lolling in a pool of despair and self-pity; composer Howard Shore uses strains of Swan Lake, the theme of crepuscular romanticism from Tod Browning’s film, to lend undertones of tragedy to Lugosi’s attempts to hold onto his final alternate identity. The generally jokey movie quotes segue into outright horror, in the glimpse of Lugosi tied up in rehab, screaming at detox horrors, a vision transmuted through a B-movie nightmare. In counterpoint to Ed’s awkward emergence as the man he really is comes a transformation of Dolores herself, one which Parker exposits in a key of cleverly stylised archness in moving through stages of twentieth century American femininity, souring slowly from the ever-chipper, supportive wife-to-be, to a domestic terrorist who knocks Ed with a frypan brandished in Amazonian ferocity, as well as a wisecracking professional who leaves Ed in a mixed fury of personal and professional frustration. Ed offers movie stardom to Tor Johnson, who believes he’s “not good-looking enough” to be one: “I believe you’re quite handsome,” Ed assures him. He gives the girl just off the bus, Loretta King (Juliet Landau), a chance to become a star, too, even if it’s only because he mistakes her for a rich kid who can invest in his movie, and the act of trying to capitalise on this results in the start of the breakdown of his relationship with Dolores.
The secret codes of show business remain, however, constantly undecipherable to the wonderstruck Ed, even as Criswell tries to clue him in: “People believe my folderol because I wear a black tuxedo.” The spectacular failure Glen or Glenda? leaves Weiss threatening to kill Wood if he ever sees him again, and Universal Studio exec Feldman (Stanley Desantis) thinks it’s a practical joke foisted on him by William Wellman, before declaring to Ed that it’s the worst movie he’s ever seen. “Well, my next one’ll be better!” our hero replies without missing a beat, only to meet dial tone. Still, Ed tries to make the movie he thought up on the spur of the moment when talking with Feldman, Bride of the Atom, both for his own sake and for Lugosi’s, as the actor becomes increasingly distraught over his lack of money and doubtful future. This time, Ed attempts to raise funds independently, cueing a series of excruciatingly funny attempts to fool rich people into giving him money. Ed reaches an abyss of humiliation after a chance encounter with Vampira leaves him begging on his knees, looking like the biggest schmuck in history. Vampira herself describes the same downward arc as the others, only quicker, for when the moment of success is exhausted, she’s reduced to travelling on the bus in full arch-brow, décolletage-flashing Goth garb on the way to a job for Ed, unaware of how she provides a barren stretch of L.A. with a sketch of surrealist delight. “You should feel lucky,” Kathy admonishes her when she’s mournful about sinking to appearing in one of Ed’s film,: “Eddie’s the only fella in town who doesn’t cast judgement on people.” “That’s right,” Ed adds, “If I did, I wouldn’t have any friends.’
Ed Wood is first and foremost a comedy, and indeed it is, to me at least, one of the most truly, consistently funny films ever made. Alexander and Karaszewski’s dialogue is absurdly quotable—back in the late ’90s when I was often trying to shoot no-budget, hand-crafted movies with family and friends, every new shot was presaged by our own ritual quote, “Let’s shoot this fucker!”—and the film is littered with tiny bits of comic business that provide endless pleasure. Much of the humour resembles those little sketches in the margins in MAD Magazine, captured in throwaway flourishes of wit, far too many of them are worth mentioning but impossible to cram in here. The inherent absurdism of Wood’s labours, from running from police because he lacks a filming permit to breaking into a studio warehouse to steal a giant octopus prop, inhabits the realm of farce.
Burton leavens it all with his most precise comedic rhythm and staging. There’s strange magic in Ed setting his impish helpmates and actors Paul Marco (Max Casella) and Conrad Brooks (Brent Hinkley) to find props and dig up body doubles for the deceased Lugosi, scurrying into action like lost members of the Three Stooges; in Ed and Lugosi watching Vampira on the TV presenting White Zombie (1932), with Ed irked by her sarcasm whilst Lugosi marvels over her jugs, attempting to hypnotise her through the TV screen; in Bunny submitting to a baptism for the sake of getting financing for Plan Nine, Baptist beatitude and nelly enthusiasm finding a bizarrely beautiful accord; and in stealing the octopus for Bride of the Atom, a moment in which Tor takes on the persona of Lobo to wrench away the lock on the warehouse door. The film’s set-piece comedy sequence, one of the funniest scenes in anything, revolves around the disastrous trip Ed and his troupe make to attend a premiere of the retitled Bride of the Monster, only to find the crowd going berserk, an event that sees them mugged by lecherous adolescents, lost in a maelstrom of popcorn (“I gotta save ‘em!”), and chased down the street by rioting movie fans, after the hearse they arrived in is found being stripped down by street hoods. For a moment, all the boundaries between persona and person, movie and reality, dream and discontent dissolve in a frenzy of anarchic delight.
For Burton, Ed Wood’s formal rigour, as well as the concision of its humane yet raucous spirit, remains unsurpassed. The lucid, often bald and unflattering, and yet also often textured, swooning beauty of the Stefan Czapsky’s photography is one of the film’s great qualities. Burton and Czapsky find actual expressionism lurking behind Wood’s half-assed attempt to find it in his jerry-built sets and location shoots. They transform the interior of Lugosi’s shell-like prefab house into a Gothic castle littered with remnants of former greatness and Lugosi’s past—the beauty, mystery, and threat of the exotic imprisoned in suburbia. Burton actually extends the dualistic contrast of Wood and Welles by constantly using Wellesian technique to depict Wood’s world, with soaring camera surveys of models that seems liberated from physical limits, passing through glass, in and out of water, with the sort of joie de vivre Wood himself seemed to be chasing haplessly; deep-focus, multiplaned shots and deadpan, medium-long shots, sometimes engaging in dramatic spoof or comedic contrast, and just as often leaving his characters stranded in their hapless pathos. Such dazzling cinema is often the very opposite of what Wood was infamous for, and yet his own flourishes of oddly inspired low-rent hype, like the lightning strike that announces his own name at the start of Plan Nine from Outer Space, are faithfully reproduced. One of my favourite shots in the film comes when Lugosi gives an impromptu recital of his famed “Home? I have no home” speech from Bride of the Monster, with Burton’s camera shifting to frame Lugosi, a façade that provides him with a suitably sepulchral proscenium arch. Equally terrific is Shore’s scoring, one part satire on the tinny stock music slapped onto Wood’s films, one part celebration of retro weirdness, complete with theremin whistling eerily over driving beatnik bongos.
Many biopics tend to reduce their subjects, and that’s true to a certain extent here. Ed’s sideline as an equally terrible screenwriter for hire is left out, and Lugosi, who had an entire politically tinged history in Hungary, is a touch less than the commanding figure he was, but then considering the film’s theme of how show business turns everyone for better or worse into the image they create for themselves, it’s understandable. Suffice to say Landau’s performance deserved every one of his copious plaudits, and the rest of the cast is impeccable. For Depp, though the film gained him little real reward at the time, it remains one of his best, most cleverly pitched performances, one that proved he could move into adult roles and introduced him as that most contradictory of figures, a star character actor. The film’s powerful undercurrents of melancholia, even tragedy, as it encompasses Lugosi’s sad final months and the start of Wood’s alcoholism, does not overwhelm the comedy, and in some ways even enhances it. Landau’s professed ambition to make Lugosi both funny and sad describes the film as a whole, as both emotions here well out of the same fundamental details—the try-hard aping of mass commercial culture, the struggle to retain a sense of personal beauty in the face of impersonal forces, the ravages of age and the hopeless delusion of youth. It’s a note that becomes especially keen in the closing moments when Kathy and Ed leave an imaginary triumphal premiere for Plan Nine to get married in Las Vegas. Ed’s real story was doomed to run out of gas somewhere out there in the California desert he and Kathy are last seen heading off into, but his legacy remains. The roll call of the characters’ fates listed in the prologue rams home the ephemeral nature of their labours, even though time has proven kinder to so many of them than they might have expected. The true cheat of Ed Wood’s life was his death barely months before his rediscovery commenced.
How Ed Wood made the Top 100:
Jaimie Grijalba No. 7
Roderick Heath No. 11
Maurizio Roca No. 33
Sachin Gandhi No. 38
J. D. LaFrance No. 54








Wow this is an extensive and thorough examination of this great comedy, one that missed my cut of 60 but would make my top 100. It is my favorite Burton film and it’s also probably Depp’s best performance. I also think that foremost this film is a comedy…..but one that does not necessarily demean the subject. Somehow there is still a respect (as I see it) for Wood that comes through. I feel like through the laughter there is a pathos for the person. I do think that part of the charm and lasting impression of the film is the fine use of B&W. I think it gives the film far more class than there would have been in color. Maybe that’s just me.
For Burton, Ed Wood’s formal rigour, as well as the concision of its humane yet raucous spirit, remains unsurpassed. The lucid, often bald and unflattering, and yet also often textured, swooning beauty of the Stefan Czapsky’s photography is one of the film’s great qualities. Burton and Czapsky find actual expressionism lurking behind Wood’s half-assed attempt to find it in his jerry-built sets and location shoots. They transform the interior of Lugosi’s shell-like prefab house into a Gothic castle littered with remnants of former greatness and Lugosi’s past—the beauty, mystery, and threat of the exotic imprisoned in suburbia.
One of a number of passages that dazzle the reader and bring the most acute scholarly assessment for this revered film that many feel sits at the pinnacle of Burton’s achivement. Landau gives an unforgettable performance and Depp has probably never been better. Wood himself was a trash film icon, and while this film elipses the whole of his own body of work, it’s one of the most entertaining biographical films of all time. And yeah I completely agree that the strong current of melancholia doesn’t intrude on the comedic reliability. At close to 4,000 words Roderick Heath has really taken the proverbial bull by the horns here!
Upon my initial viewing of this film, my most enthusiastic reaction, of course, was to Martin Landau’s performance. At that time I considered Ed Wood to be only passably entertaining. Recently, however, I saw part of the film on TV and had a more positive reaction to it — realizing that oftentimes the viewer, and that can include myself, confuses the subject matter with the film itself. This review convinces me I should see the film again in its entirety. Thanks!
I probably should have voted for this. As far as film biographies go it’s one of the best ever. And there is no doubt it’s pure comedy. Landau holds the stage. Depp is charismatic. The whole picture is inspired, and deserves this kind of vigorous review.
It’s an entertaining but problematic movie for me. Burton faces an almost insurmountable challenge in having to make trained actors funny imitating performers who were unintentionally and sometimes effortlessly funny, and I recall the montage of recreated scenes from Plan 9 being sadly dull. The overall mock-epic tone helps it get by, though. When I first saw it, I thought Burton dishonest for not showing Wood’s squalid end, however uncomedic that would have been, but I was thinking of the movie as a biopic rather than a comedy. On Burton’s terms, however, the work rather than the life matters — the canonical work, that is. As a comedy about the making of the three key films, Ed Wood is perfectly fine.
And as usual I’m seeing only typos. Oh that this too too sullied word processor would melt…
I agree thoroughly, Jon, that the comedic tilt of the film doesn’t demean the subject – in fact I think it enhances it, and dignifies the characters and their labours more than a more self-serious approach might have. I love these characters and they fascinate me all the more for their Dickensian liveliness and pathos.
Roderick, Ed Wood the man was impossible to classify, and maybe ultimately that’s the film’s point, but I think you came as close as anyone has when you wrote: “Ed Wood is the essence of every artist who has remained convinced of their own worth even whilst every force in the universe seems to be contradicting them.” Just one of the lovely turns of phrase and insightful observations about this film. I’m partially in agreement with Jon about this being a favorite Burton movie and Depp’s best performance–I say partially because for me it’s a toss-up between this and “Edward Scissorhands.” When this film was released, Depp was the most promising young American actor around. “Edward Scissorhands,” “Benny & Joon,” “Ed Wood,” “Dead Man,” “Donnie Brasco”–that’s an impressive list of memorable performances. Unfortunately, ever since “Pirates of the Caribbean” he seems to have frittered away that promise of a great film acting career. But at least we have “Ed Wood” and a handful of other films to remember what an inspired actor Depp once was. Landau got a lot of attention–and an Oscar–for this film and deserved it, but I thought Bill Murray, who often gets overlooked when he’s a supporting actor and not the star, was also a standout.
R.D., same situation with me. It’s between this and SCISSORHANDS, though SWEENEY TODD would comprise the Big Three.
Agreed, SCISSORHANDS is a great film also and right up there with Burton’s very best. Ah, back when Burton and Depp collabos were anticipated. I also agree with you about Murray. He steals practically every scene he’s in. Sometimes I just like to watch his reaction to the other actors around him in a given scene.
A great piece on one of the best comedies of all time, the best Tim Burton film, and one filled with a great array of performances from all the actors in the cast. This is a marvelous film, one of wonders and passion, anyone with a hint of love for cinema must love the film, and it also inspires a lot in the terms of following your vision and scope (no matter how wrong or terrible that project is), it is a film that inspires wannabe-filmmakers like myself, and this article captures the passion that comes into play in this “biopic” of one of the most interesting couple of figures in the history of horror cinema: Ed Wood and Bela Lugosi.
As you notice, I’m the one who put it at the top spot, and it is because I love this film enormously, one of a kind, a film of visual mastery and dialogue-driven funny laugh out loud moments. It’s a masterpiece and good lord, can’t wait to watch it again one more time.
One of the things I love about Burton’s film is how it is an atmospheric, black and white love letter to cinema and does it by celebrating the life of the infamously touted “worst filmmaker of all-time.” If you think about it, Burton Ed Wood as the ultimate cinephile, mouthing the dialogue to movies as he watches them — totally enraptured in the experience. There’s a great interview Gavin Smith did with Burton when the film came out and in it he pointed out that Wood is the “patron saint of movie junkies, raptly mouthing his own films’ dialogue Rocky Horror-style, his own number one fan.” I thought that observation was right on the money.
I also get the feeling that switching from big budget superhero movies like BATMAN to something smaller and more intimate like ED WOOD was very freeing creatively for Burton. There wasn’t much at stake and no where near the amount of pressure and you can kinda feel it in the looseness of the film. Too bad its commercial failure had Burton scurrying back to the confines of big budget spectacle movies. He really needs to get back to this kind of film again.
I could have sworn I voted for this, but perhaps I thought Nightmare Before Christmas was representative enough for Burton. Ed Wood is indeed a comic tour de force, but one that makes me wince at the indignities great and small foisted upon the characters. It does have the best opening credits ever committed to film, in my opinion, with great music throughout, as Rod points out.
A great examination of this film, Rod – I saw it a few years ago and was slightly surprised to see it listed as a comedy, but, reading your review, I’m realising just how much of it I had forgotten. I prefer ‘Edward Scissorhands’ but must agree this is also one of Burton’s finest. A pity that Depp hasn’t done as many of those “star character actor” roles in recent years, but let us hope he will go back to some edgier roles in the future… maybe once he moves out of the leading man age group?
While I personally like Depp more in Dead Man and Public Enemies, this would be his shining moment with Burton (one where the shine has completely dimmed to dullness ever since). Burton whitewashes or plain ignores Wood’s actual sad life, but hits a home run when focusing on friendships and the capacity to carry a dream/ambition to it’s logical end (regardless of talent).
For me, Ed Wood also successfully accomplishes what The Artist failed at by actually conveying it’s time period perfectly and the actual film industry/scene in question. The 50′s B movie sub-culture is made a very essential and prominent part of the picture, and not grafted on inconsequentially.
Terrific piece, for sure, on the best movie Burton and Depp have ever made, together or apart.
Rod – I add my congratulations to the many above on a fine, exhaustive apprecition of ED WOOD. It didn’t occur to me to put this one a comedy ballot, but in reading your piece, I recall just how funny it actually is. I’ve always found the camaderie depitcted among Wood and his odd, familial group of has-been and misfits to be particularly endearing.
Hi guys. Sorry for delays in replies to comments – I’ve been a mite preoccupied of late.
I’m intrigued, but not surprised, by the great love for Edward Scissorhands described by Jon, R. D., and Judy, and the fairly wide spread for the best of Burton – my own predilections lean towards Sleepy Hollow and Batman Returns as favoured runners-up, not to degrade Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, or Sweeney Todd, and of course I’ve already annoyed Sam mightily with my liking of Dark Shadows. One thing I think that is worth remembering is that Burton did not write the film himself – Alexander and Karaszewski did, well before he came on board, so if we’re blaming anyone for “whitewashing” Wood’s life it should be them, for they had their own reasons for ending the story where they did, wise or not. Frankly, I’m glad it ends where it does. Most bio-pics go to pot along with their subjects when they follow them down, and if Wood would have wanted his life remembered at all, it would surely have been for this period – he really was of the opinion, as expressed at the end, that Plan Nine was his own strange masterpiece, and his slide came precisely from his increasing inability to make the films that this one celebrates; in a way, his life did end around this time. I sense a touch of self-congratulation however for the filmmakers in the bit where Movie-Ed says of his attempt to revive Bela, “No – he would’ve loved it. Bela’s return from the grave!”
As for whether Depp’s been failing his talent of late, I’m neither going to agree nor firmly disagree. Even given the context, I actually think Captain Jack Sparrow is actually an apogee of the “star character actor” thing: CJS exists purely in a maelstrom of his own eccentricity, refusing most of the usual crutches for heroic and empathetic figures in genre films, instead trying to sustain the whole comic-grotesque thing, and thus straddling the two zones. That said, of course, enough already. But indeed, Depp’s run of roles and performances during the ‘90s, up to Pirates of the Caribbean, many of which R. D. mentions, is I think one of the most impressive and under-regarded by a modern actor. Even since finding the mega-stardom he always seemed to both deserve and avoid with POTC, he’s given us John Dillinger and Sweeney Todd, very different kinds of psycho. His slightly shell-shocked attempt to do a toned-down recreation of his Fear and Loathing persona for The Rum Diary was both interesting and a failure.
Oh and Marilyn, whilst I suppose The Nightmare Before Christmas might be regarded as a Burton product, it was actually directed by Henry Selick.