Careful comparison of the screenplay and film reveals how Tim Burton's fairy tale about a tortured young artist evolved into an allegory for America's dark, hateful heart
Alternative reading: it is an allegory of film-making, or maybe maleness. Tim Burton, the outsider, sees and observes things that have grown naturally such as hedges or hair, cuts them down (“the cutting room”) into a meta shape (a horse, a hair-do). This ability gives him acclaim and access, proximity to, maybe even intimacy with women, but he is not an ideal lover, with hands that can only cut, reduce. They can shape but cannot create live.
As the article says, art comes with many readings and art's readings change over time including from the artist's original intent. Everything you just described is absolutely accurate and well-stated. But Burton made other decisions that complicate this rather direct reading, and those complications generate more complicated interpretations. All that said, I generally dislike reading a piece of art based on what I know about the artist rather than what is on the page, screen, canvas, etc. The latter creates an immutable thing and leaves the audience, culture, and changing times out of the conversation.
I agree with leaving out what one knows about the artist, but could not resist. It could just as well be argued (don’t worry, I am not in a trolling frame of mind) that one should also ignore what one knows about society then… Either way, I very much enjoyed your take on the film
I must confess I have never seen the entire movie. But your analysis and comments, as always, are really quite interesting and insightful. As is your writing style. This piece reminds of the old saw about Chekhov and his gun and that if something is on stage/screen, it should be there for a reason and with purpose.
Though I haven't seen the movie, I am inclined to agree with you that someone as experienced Burton is unlilely to have made a random casting decision. Whether he intended this particular meaning I guess only he would know. But that doesn't invalidate your thesis. It's like Jodie Foster discussing the "big idea" but as arrived at by the audience instead of by the actor.
He may not have intended to infuse the movie with this kind of allegory but then I'm sure Oliver Stone didn't intend Wall Street to become the anthem of a whole generation of young capitalists. Or David Mamet and his Glengarry Glenross with Alec Baldwin's performance as Blake to become the poster child of crypto bros and other hustle culture aficonados. Haha. It's what makes art so fantastic and filmmaking so much fun. Like building with Lego without instructions...you may think you are building the Millenium Falcon but only end up building the death star...hahaha or something like that.
I think these examples you provide are excellent - WALL STREET and GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS. I even jotted them down in my notebook as a juxtaposition perhaps worth of an essay themselves. How audiences define a film or any piece of art work is itself such an interesting idea because it can very often not have anything to do with the intentions of the filmmaker. The times somehow warp intention and new meaning is found. But that all said, with EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, I think Chekhov's gun quite economically makes my point.
Very well summarized. I rewatched this as an adult a few years ago and got the same impression from the film. It started from the very beginning with a curious (but mild-mannered and seemingly kind) white woman trespassing onto a property and kidnapping someone from the house. And all other events occurring afterward reeked of the same unfortunate stories we hear over and over. We see these vehicles of the “freak” being mistreated in children’s shows where they use everything but real people to illustrate prejudice.
“Be kind to people who are different” is not a simple directive for a bigoted society that views a black man as a vehicle for their creative liberation while also being a threat.
I abhor both WALL STREET and GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS as emotional experiences because they're so wrapped up in what I hate about what our civilization has become. I'm confused why anyone would celebrate anything about them other than their craft. But such is life, as I like to say. You're not wrong to be disturbed by them.
Alternative reading: it is an allegory of film-making, or maybe maleness. Tim Burton, the outsider, sees and observes things that have grown naturally such as hedges or hair, cuts them down (“the cutting room”) into a meta shape (a horse, a hair-do). This ability gives him acclaim and access, proximity to, maybe even intimacy with women, but he is not an ideal lover, with hands that can only cut, reduce. They can shape but cannot create live.
As the article says, art comes with many readings and art's readings change over time including from the artist's original intent. Everything you just described is absolutely accurate and well-stated. But Burton made other decisions that complicate this rather direct reading, and those complications generate more complicated interpretations. All that said, I generally dislike reading a piece of art based on what I know about the artist rather than what is on the page, screen, canvas, etc. The latter creates an immutable thing and leaves the audience, culture, and changing times out of the conversation.
I agree with leaving out what one knows about the artist, but could not resist. It could just as well be argued (don’t worry, I am not in a trolling frame of mind) that one should also ignore what one knows about society then… Either way, I very much enjoyed your take on the film
I must confess I have never seen the entire movie. But your analysis and comments, as always, are really quite interesting and insightful. As is your writing style. This piece reminds of the old saw about Chekhov and his gun and that if something is on stage/screen, it should be there for a reason and with purpose.
Though I haven't seen the movie, I am inclined to agree with you that someone as experienced Burton is unlilely to have made a random casting decision. Whether he intended this particular meaning I guess only he would know. But that doesn't invalidate your thesis. It's like Jodie Foster discussing the "big idea" but as arrived at by the audience instead of by the actor.
He may not have intended to infuse the movie with this kind of allegory but then I'm sure Oliver Stone didn't intend Wall Street to become the anthem of a whole generation of young capitalists. Or David Mamet and his Glengarry Glenross with Alec Baldwin's performance as Blake to become the poster child of crypto bros and other hustle culture aficonados. Haha. It's what makes art so fantastic and filmmaking so much fun. Like building with Lego without instructions...you may think you are building the Millenium Falcon but only end up building the death star...hahaha or something like that.
I think these examples you provide are excellent - WALL STREET and GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS. I even jotted them down in my notebook as a juxtaposition perhaps worth of an essay themselves. How audiences define a film or any piece of art work is itself such an interesting idea because it can very often not have anything to do with the intentions of the filmmaker. The times somehow warp intention and new meaning is found. But that all said, with EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, I think Chekhov's gun quite economically makes my point.
Very well summarized. I rewatched this as an adult a few years ago and got the same impression from the film. It started from the very beginning with a curious (but mild-mannered and seemingly kind) white woman trespassing onto a property and kidnapping someone from the house. And all other events occurring afterward reeked of the same unfortunate stories we hear over and over. We see these vehicles of the “freak” being mistreated in children’s shows where they use everything but real people to illustrate prejudice.
“Be kind to people who are different” is not a simple directive for a bigoted society that views a black man as a vehicle for their creative liberation while also being a threat.
I abhor both WALL STREET and GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS as emotional experiences because they're so wrapped up in what I hate about what our civilization has become. I'm confused why anyone would celebrate anything about them other than their craft. But such is life, as I like to say. You're not wrong to be disturbed by them.