I mention all of this because Burton recently directed another movie. Not only that, a sequel to an earlier movie, and arguably one of his most-beloved. I’d never gotten into the Beetlejuice franchise outside of the cartoon I barely remember, but since the trailers for Beetlejuice Beetlejuice were an indication this’d be another winner, I decided to watch the 1988 film. After having now seen both movies…they’re okay. Cute, funny, but okay.
This is sounding anticlimactic, so I’ll mention now that “okay” isn’t inherently bad. Plenty of movies are okay, and that’s fine. Not everything will knock your socks off, and it’s important to adjust your expectations accordingly. Especially when it comes to classics from Tim Burton. We cool?
That’s not to say these movies aren’t worth discussing, as they are. Not only are they well-acted and directed, but the themes of grief, loss and learning to move on are their strongest qualities. I especially appreciate how the second movie isn’t afraid to follow-through on the protagonist from the first movie’s trauma and how that’s impacted her. Remember, Beetlejuice’s dénouement had Lydia Deetz marry a kooky poltergeist to save a recently-deceased couple from an exorcism, only to then have to find a way out. Even though that movie had a happy and fun ending, that’s going to haunt anyone.
This is sounding anticlimactic, so I’ll mention now that “okay” isn’t inherently bad. Plenty of movies are okay, and that’s fine. Not everything will knock your socks off, and it’s important to adjust your expectations accordingly. Especially when it comes to classics from Tim Burton. We cool?
That’s not to say these movies aren’t worth discussing, as they are. Not only are they well-acted and directed, but the themes of grief, loss and learning to move on are their strongest qualities. I especially appreciate how the second movie isn’t afraid to follow-through on the protagonist from the first movie’s trauma and how that’s impacted her. Remember, Beetlejuice’s dénouement had Lydia Deetz marry a kooky poltergeist to save a recently-deceased couple from an exorcism, only to then have to find a way out. Even though that movie had a happy and fun ending, that’s going to haunt anyone.
How fitting, then, that both movies bookend actress Winona Ryder’s career. Ryder was a rising talent in the 80’s and 90’s, working her way up the ladder from being a Burton regular to becoming a big-name. Unfortunately, a shoplifting scandal in the 2000’s made her “toxic” to work with, and it wasn’t until Stranger Things that she bounced back. Starring in yet another Burton film, and a sequel to her breakout role, brings everything full-circle. Doubly-so now that her character’s a mother to Astrid, played by up-and-coming talent Jenna Ortega.
Let’s be clear: both Ryder and Ortega are fantastic. Ryder starting as a gothic teen and turning into a gothic adult makes a perfect foil to Ortega’s subdued and “normal” Astrid in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. I appreciate the parallels between Lydia being estranged from her parents in the first movie and Astrid being estranged from Lydia in the sequel. It’s a dynamic that’s played out from different angles, and it’s why these movies work. As George Lucas said: “It’s like poetry, they rhyme!”
But the real secret is Michael Keaton’s role as Beetlejuice. Specifically, the limited usage of Keaton. Sure, Keaton as the titular troublemaker’s one of the few instances where overacting feels earned and natural, chewing the scenery whenever he’s on-screen, but Burton’s smart enough to know to reign him in. It’s telling that Burton, a director who’s been accused of excess, recognizes this. It’s equally telling that he shows restraint with his effects in the sequel, opting for practical and stop-motion work. Given how ubiquitous CGI has become, particularly bad or unpolished CGI, that’s commendable.
Let’s be clear: both Ryder and Ortega are fantastic. Ryder starting as a gothic teen and turning into a gothic adult makes a perfect foil to Ortega’s subdued and “normal” Astrid in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. I appreciate the parallels between Lydia being estranged from her parents in the first movie and Astrid being estranged from Lydia in the sequel. It’s a dynamic that’s played out from different angles, and it’s why these movies work. As George Lucas said: “It’s like poetry, they rhyme!”
But the real secret is Michael Keaton’s role as Beetlejuice. Specifically, the limited usage of Keaton. Sure, Keaton as the titular troublemaker’s one of the few instances where overacting feels earned and natural, chewing the scenery whenever he’s on-screen, but Burton’s smart enough to know to reign him in. It’s telling that Burton, a director who’s been accused of excess, recognizes this. It’s equally telling that he shows restraint with his effects in the sequel, opting for practical and stop-motion work. Given how ubiquitous CGI has become, particularly bad or unpolished CGI, that’s commendable.
Another aspect these movies have going for them is their score. Danny Elfman, for all the scandals he’s been embroiled in, is incredibly-talented, having composed for shows and movies that are often more iconic than what they’re meant for. He’s as prolific as he is memorable, but it’s his collaborations with Burton that’ve produced his best work. And the Beetlejuice franchise remains a prime example, with a motif that marries carnival vibes with haunted house vibes perfectly. If all else, Elfman’s theme for these movies works wonders.
My issue, then, is that these movies have the inverse problem of one-another. For Beetlejuice, it’s simple, but major: this is a well-written movie about coping with tragedy, but the Burton-y elements, particularly the ghostly stuff, aren’t fully-actualized. I’m not sure if it’s because it was an early project, hence lacking the budget and resources, but those elements feel undercooked. We only get about 30 minutes of ghostly and afterlife material, so this is mostly a straightforward drama about a ghostly couple shooing away a family and failing. It’s disappointing.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, however, takes full-advantage of its premise, even diving into the ghostly afterlife early, but it does so at the expense of its narrative. It’s not a badly-written movie, but it’s a messy one. It feels, to paraphrase someone in a Discord server I’m part of, like 3 or 4 scripts mashed together. It coalesces at the end, but the subplots often detract from the main story. It’s as if Burton realized the mistake of the first movie, only to overcorrect it here.
My issue, then, is that these movies have the inverse problem of one-another. For Beetlejuice, it’s simple, but major: this is a well-written movie about coping with tragedy, but the Burton-y elements, particularly the ghostly stuff, aren’t fully-actualized. I’m not sure if it’s because it was an early project, hence lacking the budget and resources, but those elements feel undercooked. We only get about 30 minutes of ghostly and afterlife material, so this is mostly a straightforward drama about a ghostly couple shooing away a family and failing. It’s disappointing.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, however, takes full-advantage of its premise, even diving into the ghostly afterlife early, but it does so at the expense of its narrative. It’s not a badly-written movie, but it’s a messy one. It feels, to paraphrase someone in a Discord server I’m part of, like 3 or 4 scripts mashed together. It coalesces at the end, but the subplots often detract from the main story. It’s as if Burton realized the mistake of the first movie, only to overcorrect it here.
It feels like I’m being overly-harsh, but only because this highlights Burton’s strengths and flaws. He knows how to suck you in, but often at the cost of elements that’d elevate his movies. I wish that, if a third entry gets made, these strengths could be carried over into a great film. Keep the weirdness of the second movie, but don’t sacrifice the scripting of the first. That’s not that big an ask.
Either way, I implore you to check these movies out. We often bemoan Hollywood for being sterile, not taking risks on bizarre premises that utilize the medium of film properly, but the Beetlejuice movies show that spark still exists. All it takes is the right talent and audience engagement. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice even utilizes effects work that’s been abandoned in this day and age. That alone should pique people’s curiosity, even if it’s a legacy sequel. It piqued mine!
Now then, about the sequel’s bonkers ending…what’s up with that?
Either way, I implore you to check these movies out. We often bemoan Hollywood for being sterile, not taking risks on bizarre premises that utilize the medium of film properly, but the Beetlejuice movies show that spark still exists. All it takes is the right talent and audience engagement. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice even utilizes effects work that’s been abandoned in this day and age. That alone should pique people’s curiosity, even if it’s a legacy sequel. It piqued mine!
Now then, about the sequel’s bonkers ending…what’s up with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment