Hey monkey shines, if you can find a copy of Burton's first film, The Island of Doctor Agor, then you'll be my forever hero....I'd love to see it myself.

But personally, I cldn't watch Big Fish again...

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
But personally, I cldn't watch Big Fish again...

I couldn't either. I found that movie to be quite a bore. I know that Monkey will disagree, with him being a Burton fanboy and all, but geez what a snooze of a movie.

I didn't mind Big Fish. It wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen, but there were a few cool moments in it.

It was definitely no Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, but it was nice to see a Tim Burton movie with sunlight in it. It had been a while.

To be honest, I think that Pee-wee's Big Adventure is a terrific movie. Maybe because I was such a huge fan of the show, but I think it is ridiculously funny. Phil Hartman did a great job writing that thing.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
I found that movie to be quite a bore. I know that Monkey will disagree, with him being a Burton fanboy and all, but geez what a snooze of a movie.

I liked "Big Fish" for the storytelling. The way this man told the story of his life with exaggerations here & there, was a great idea. However, the story was similar to "Secondhand Lions", which struck me as strange because the idea is so original. I gotta say, Alison Lohman did look like a young Jessica Lange in 'Big Fish", though. Crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
To be honest, I think that Pee-wee's Big Adventure is a terrific movie.

Dude, I do too. That's why I said
It was definitely no Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I didn't mind Big Fish. It wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen, but there were a few cool moments in it.

You know, I though that "Big Fish" was the least Burtonesque of his films. For all that, I loved the film. I'm not one to get teary eyed (FKA and I have been through this) but that film definitely did it for me.

I think the film is made for and about middle aged men. There is a stage in life when you are a father and a son still. Just as you are coming to grips with your father's legacy, you begin to think/worry about the legacy you are leaving your children, and, especially, your son.

You begin to see the magic stripped away from your own father's story, and begin to see him as a human being with all of his own weaknesses, frailties and insecurities. At the same time, there is a small boy who still sees you as powerful, magical and superhuman. The poignancy comes from the understanding that one day, if you're lucky enough to still be alive, he will see you stripped bare, pale and naked in the harsh light of day.


That was "Big Fish," for me.

Tim Burton attests in Big Fish that he is a necromancer of cinematic imagery. Yet he never transcends archetypal caricatures, superficial ideas, or formulaic structure. His manipulation of the characters, and his chronology illustrates that he has little faith in the audience, unlike, David Lynch. With Big Fish, Burton nears the stature of Lynch; his blemishes are visible, and prevent him from achieving that stature.

I agree with some of your criticism.

I disagree that his use of caricature and his formal (as opposed to formulaic) structure and pacing represents a failure of transendance. I believe that the fantasy segment of the film is intentionally arch, and means to show the artifice. I think we are meant to see the seams and the "strings" that are being pulled. This serves to mythologize the father's story, while at the same time, distancing us from it. I believe he is drawing our skepticism.

That makes it all the more poignant, when we see the characters of the man's story absent all of the magic inbued by the telling. Neither father nor son are served by seeing the father, or the characters of his story "as they really are." Again, I think this parallels the moment in our development when we lose our innocence, and see our parents are full, three dimensional human beings. It is a necessity, but it is also a tragedy.

I also think that this is a metaphor for film making. I believe Burton is commenting on the value of artifice and fantasy, in film. I believe he is warning us to be suspicious of the mundane, when we can have the fantastical. He is asking us to accept the beautiful over the true.

In this, I think Burton is the opposite of Lynch. If Blue Velvet or Eraserhead are the pillars of Lynch's vision (as I believe they are), then he is telling us to be deeply suspicious of the beautiful, because the truth buried beneath is much darker, scarier and more dangerous.

If anyone else agrees Mars Attacks was a GREAT movie. I'm with you.

martian leader