 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Big Fish - 1/9/04 - PG-13 - 110m
Ewan
McGregor - Young Ed Bloom
Albert Finney - Senior Ed Bloom
Billy Crudup - Will Bloom
Director: Tim Burton
Written by: Daniel Wallace (Novel)
John August (Screenplay)
Studio: Sony Pictures
Official
Website
JEF
This was a very strange film, which just shines with Tim Burton’s
vision.
Storyline: A movie that jumps around with time with lots
of “flashbacks” but is fairly easy to follow along with. We
meet Ed Bloom (Ewan McGregor (the young Ed Bloom), and Albert Finney (the
older Ed)). Ed is a real character, who can tell a story. In the present
day, Ed is in failing health, and we see much of the story through the
eyes of his son Will (Billy Crudup). His son is struggling with the idea
that he feels he barely knows his father after some 30+ years. His son
is very bitter at his father because he views his father’s tall
tales as lies. Will realizes that his time with his father may be very
limited, and he tries to get his father to either admit to his tall tales
as being exaggerated lies, and sort of gives him one last chance to explain
himself.
During this time we the viewer are treated to the retelling of Ed’s
stories told through the eyes of Tim Burton the director.
This was a difficult film for me to rate with our red, green yellow system.
Not so much due to the subject matter of the film, or the acting, or storyline,
but mainly due to my own confusion over how the film was presented. First
off I think it helps to be familiar with Tim Burton’s previous works
(Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Planet of the Apes, Sleepy Hollow,
to name a few). Burton has a definite cinematic style that showcases his
incredible amount of creativity. I think I can best compare him to a modern
artist painter… Although you can look at a painting and make up
your mind weather you like it or not, you may not understand what the
painting is about. Not knowing what the painting is about does not detract
from your enjoyment of the painting, but it can limit your explaining
it to someone else why you like it.
I enjoyed this film in several areas, the “flashback” stories
were entertaining, and due to Burton’s style, it was enjoyable to
watch. There were several overlapping storylines, that I also enjoyed,
like the father son relationships, the father trying to pass along his
knowledge to his son, and the value of marriage, and the son’s struggle
to deal with his own issues of a soon to be father.
My biggest complaint about the film was that I didn’t always get
the stories. I came away from the film with a sense of confusion, and
wondering what was “true” what was not. Then as I tried to
think about it logically I think I stumbled upon the key… I don’t
think you were meant to “figure out” this film using logic.
Like a good children’s story, or myth, sometimes it is best to put
aside a logical mind, and just enjoy the story for what it is. A story
meant to entertain. If you tried to explain superman logically it would
obviously break down, and a guy who can fly around in a blue and red pajamas
seems just plain silly, but you would miss so much of the story if you
ended things there. If you can put aside the fact that maybe he can fly,
the story then becomes entertaining.
It also troubles me that I think Burton wanted us (the viewers) to think
about the film. There were I believe a lot of metaphors going on, and
a deeper level, but when I try to think about those deeper levels they
break apart due to the logic. For example, It seems almost obvious that
the town of “Spectre” was a metaphor for “Heaven”
but then it seems later in the film, that, no, infact it was just supposed
to be a small town in Alabama.
I regret if this review is confusing but perhaps it shows my struggles
with it. In a logical sense the film didn’t make sense to me, and
I can’t overlook that too easily. On the other hand, I liked the
stories, I really liked the message of the film, and I enjoyed being entertained
for the length of the film.
I must add two more comments about the acting… Ewan did a terrific
job (So did Albert Finney). I really believed he WAS the character of
Ed Bloom. I’ve always thought of Ewan as being a bit of a “flat”
actor, but I enjoyed the dimension of this character for him. And speaking
of flat… I did not enjoy the acting of Billy Crudup, his role of
the son, just felt very forced, and I didn’t get the sense that
he cared for his father at all. Granted, much of the film dealt with his
underlying anger at his father, but at the times when he is supposed to
be caring for his father it felt like he may have just been a volunteer
nurse instead of the man’s son.
If you go to see this film, just sit back and enjoy the visuals, and the
stories. Leave your thinking cap at home, and don’t try to explain
the film out, it may detract from your enjoyment.
Jef
Here’s what Lyn thought…
PS> If you have thought about the film, and think you understand it,
please email me and try to explain the “witch”
storyline to me… I didn’t get that at all.
