Well no, actually, I just saw Edward Scissorhands
for the second time. I watched it for the first time a few days ago, but this time was kinda like the first time... The reason I say first time in the title is because most of what I'm describing
I felt the first time I watched the movie. Besides, you always catch more the second time you watch a movie. And the third. And the fourth. And the fifth. etc...
When I first watched the opening sequence with the credits, I thought Yep, Danny Elfman did this music. Plus it's Tim Burton. I know Danny Elfman did the music. I kept waiting for it to say "Music by Danny Elfman." It seemed to take a very long time for it to say that, but it did say that. Danny Elfman did do the music of Edward Scissorhands. Another thing about the credits is I saw that Anthony Michael Hall was in the movie. At first, I was like "No way!" But his name was in the credits, so he was in the movie. I decided I would look out for him in the movie. It actually took me a long time to recognize him. I recognized him when him, Kim and Kevin (the brother) were sitting around the TV watching Edward on a talk show or something. It was one of those Eureka! moments. When I saw Anythony Michael Hall as Jim I was like "Oh my god! I didn't even recognize him!" Plus he was a bad guy. Kind of a villain, but in the end, he was. Farmer Ted was never a villain. The reason why I didn't recognize him is because I know him from Sixteen Candles, and his voice wasn't even changed in that movie! He seemed to be a little bigger in Edward Scissorhands, too.
Now, I know this is a Tim Burton movie, and I know how Tim Burton's movies are, but if you kind of think about it, (in terms of setting and most of the characters) Edward Scissorhands is kind of on the normal side. Edward himself is the only Burtonesque character in the whole movie! But think about Alice in Wonderland or Nightmare Before Christmas. In terms of design, those worlds are fairly outlandish. Now come back to Edward Scissorhands: the setting is completely normal, right? It's a suburban neighborhood. Perfectly normal. But oh no, there's a small quirky Burton twist: all the houses are solid pastel colors all the way through! And on top of that, the cars are exactly the same way! Pastel colors only! But they're not the same color as the house (oddly enough). Let's keep in mind that this movie takes place in an (almost) perfectly normal suburban neighborhood. The only different thing is the houses and the cars are pastel colors only. And the houses are solid pastel colors only all the way through, no multicolors. It's almost like one of those creepy suburban neighborhoods where everyone does everything right on time, right at exactly the same time. Almost like zombies, except they're disguised as regular people. I was almost convinced of this too, with the short little scene where everyone left in their perfect pastel colored cars at exactly the same time! And it was all perfectly orchestrated too! Watching the movie for the second time, I realized that normal safe drivers wouldn't have pulled out of their driveways with another car (not to mention cars) that close to them. Well, it is a Tim Burton movie after all.
Another thing, Kathy Baker was in that movie! The only reason I know Kathy Baker is because my dad kind of recently introduced me to the Jesse Stone movies. Kathy Baker is in those movies. Except she's kind of older and kind of "wiser" if you will. So seeing her in Edward Scissorhands as the lady that always goes after the guy no matter what was kind of a shock to me. I like her better as Rose (Jesse Stone character).
When I watched this movie for the first time, I didn't really like the neighborhood people. Well, the women actually. What a bunch of busy-body gossipers! But at the barbecue scene, I was fairly convinced that those people really did care about Edward. That sounds a bit too deep, but they treated him like a normal person, and talked to him like a normal person. And I just realized something, those people were not the women! Now, occasionally someone would say to Edward"I know a doctor who might be able to help you," but they really did mean it! Edward was open to the suggestions! He actually wanted to get rid of the scars on his face! I don't know about the scissorhands, but hey that's who he is: Edward Scissorhands.
When I look back at it, I'm not sure if I like the movie, Edward Scissorhands,
but I know I definitely like Edward. And Kim. And Peg. And her husband and Kevin. And sometimes the policeman. Really, I just like those few characters. I could care less about the movie. If I actually did like the movie, it's because of the characters. I like the story, I do. Speaking of story, this entire movie is a story movie! Let me explain: what I call a story movie is when the entire movie is a story being told to you (the audience) by a character. Sometimes that character is part of the story, sometimes that character isn't part of the story, sometimes you don't really know. Some story movies are intertwined with the storyteller's present life. Those are the best story movies. A good example of one of those types of movies is Fried Green Tomatoes
. Follow the link for imdb info. Fried Green Tomatoes
is one of those movies and/or books where the title doesn't quite make sense with the actual movie/book. But whatever, what else are you gonna call it!? I can't think of anything else... Anyway, Edward Scissorhands
is a story movie. And one thing you always have to remember when you 're making a story movie is along with the story being told, you have to "catch up" with the storyteller's present life, too. It also serves as a little reminder that (usually) the movie itself is a story being told. Now, the story itself doesn't have to be totally intertwined with the storyteller's life like in Fried Green Tomatoes,
it just needs a little catch up. A good example of this is in the movie The Princess Bride.
Follow the link for imdb info. Not only was the story stopped every once and while for the grandson to ask a question or to say something, but there was narration too! Almost all the way through! And not only from the grandfather who was the narrator, but also from the grandson adding in his own comments! At least, as far as I remember. And the only time there was any narration in Edward Scissorhands
was at the very beginning and there wasn't any story involved! It was just showing what the neighborhood looked like all the way up to the mansion where Edward was (or is). There was no other narration whatsoever other than the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I like that part of the movie. But the fact that it's the only narration in the entire movie is kinda unacceptable... On top of that, I thought the kid in the bed was a boy until the very end when it zoomed in to show the little girl's
long flowing hair. That's how long they strayed from the storyteller's setting! Seriously, the least you could do was add a little narration through the story! I know the perfect spot. When Peg was showing Edward the pictures of her family, and she got to Kim, her daughter, and she said "Isn't she beautiful?" The grandmother could have stepped in and said, "'Yes, she is' he wanted to say, but he didn't because he was too focused on the small warm feeling in the pit of his stomach while looking at her portrait." Or at least something like that. That's just one example of some little extra narration. And I know what you're thinking: "But there may be nothing else to say!" Mark my words, there's always something more to say. Have you ever read a book that got so popular that it got made into a movie? Since you love the book, you're gonna go see the movie. But, as usual, the book was better. There's so many reasons why the book was better, and you're so angry with why they didn't include this one part or why they screwed up an important part or why (in the case of Percy Jackson) they completely trashed the original story and made a new one! You're so angry with why they did this and why they ruined a good book. But like it or not, one of the reasons why you hate the movie and love the book is because in the book there's so much more extra
narration: "It reminded me of blah blah blah." "I loved the way it felt..." "She didn't know this at the time, but..." There's so many possibilities! Just use your imagination! That's what it's for! There's always something more to say. All right, if you still don't believe me, think of it this way: you're watching a movie that was based on a book, but you haven't read the book. So, you're sitting there watching the movie and you enjoy it, you like it. Since you like the movie, you eventually read the book and realize "there's so many things they left out!" But you still favor the movie... kinda. Why....? Because it's human nature to like what you know first,
what you know originally. But that's not my point, the point is the book-turned-movie was believable, right? Because it was so good. And before you read the book, you liked the movie, right...? That's because (if the book-turned-movie wasn't a story movie or
if it had no narrator) they left out a lot of the extra narration. Believe me, there is always something more to say.
Another thing. Yes, another thing: I wasn't satisfied with the ending! When I saw it, I was like, "What!? WHAT!?! No happy ending!? Seriously? No happy ending!?!" I was very unsatisfied. What, she couldn't go back up there with him after she convinced everyone else he was dead? I highly doubt that. For crying out loud, they could have run away together! They could have gone to a normal neighborhood where no one would try to hurt them. *cough ahem Jim Part of what could have made the ending a little bit more satisfactory (for me, at least) is if they could have done more with Edward's and Kim's relationship. Does she love him? Show it! Does he love her? Show it, For crying out! At least show it before you go back to suburbia, Kim. Just a little...? Please...?
One last thing before I say goodbye. I have this book called A Field Guide to Monsters
. Click the link for Amazon info. It's by Dave Elliott, C.J. Henderson and R. Allen Leider. It's a really cool book. It's kinda funny. What they say isn't always accurate in terms of the characters and their personalities, but whatever, it's entertaining. I like it. I read it all before and I remember the entry on Edward Scissorhands. I'm going to copy all the information about Edward Scissorhands. If you ever want to read it for yourself, it's on page 119 on the version I linked to. There's another version somewhere, so I don't know if they'd have the same page numbers. Anyway, here's the info:
- Height: 5 feet 10 inches
- Weight: 155 poinds
- Family: artificial man
- Origin: Suburbia, USA
- Habitat: Ice carving competitions
- Intelligence: 2 and a half brains (out of 5)
- first appearance: Edward Scissorhands (1990)
- Relatives: Frankenstein's monster, Robert Smith
- Endorsements: Sheffield Steel Scissors
- Description: Mishmash of leather and scars
A junior Frankenstein monster created by an inventor who never got around to finishing his creation before he died, Edward Scissorhands has the soul of an artist. He lives alone in his creator's castle at the top of a mountain overlooking suburbia, pining for his cheerleader sweetheart, Kim. The bush sculptures he carves with his scissorhands provide a temporary reprieve from his loneliness. During the winter, he makes ice sculptures that pour down snow on the houses below. That's how we know he's still up there―when it snows.
- behavior: Shy and reclusive, will shear anything on sight. Knows how to cut hair in the latest styles, loves sculpting animals out of shrubs and tress.
- Lethality: Only by accident.
- Weakness: Cheerleaders and their jealous boyfriends.
- Powers: Multiple blades on the end of each arm instead of hands, and he definitely knows how to use them.
See what I mean about about the "not entirely accurate" thing. His weakness isn't necessarily cheerleaders. Yes, Kim's a cheerleader, but they don't make a big deal of it in the movie, therefore it's irrelevant. If Kim being a cheerleader was that important, we would have known. If Edward really did have a weakness, it would be holding hands. Now that's
a weakness. I like the "only by accident" lethality. That's funny.
Well, hope you enjoyed this journal (if you actually took the time to read it)! I know I enjoyed it.
I totally forgot to mention this: think about the absurdity of the entire situation for Edward. You see a very pale guy with scars all over his face and scissors for hands. Naturally, you might be scared. But Tim Burton created a world where people see this guy with scissors for hands as a normal person. Yet they acknowledge that there is
something wrong with him i.e. the scars, the scissors, but that makes those people all the more likable. Because they don't judge a book by its cover. But the real reason why I like Edward so much, why I may even like him more than any other character I "know" is because he's very lethal, he's very lovable once you get to know him, and he'd protect you with his lethality.
But he's still so sweet. *sigh* Not to mention he's an artist. Who doesn't love an artist?
Another thing: you know what the saddest part of the entire movie was? It was one of those flashback scenes with Edward and the inventor. The inventor got Edward some regular (fake) hands as an early Christmas present. Edward was admiring the hands and the inventor was happy that he liked the hands but then, all of a sudden, the inventor's smile disappeared. He fell down onto the ground. I interpreted it as the inventor had a heart attack. After all, he was pretty old. But either way, as Edward said, "He didn't wake up." Now here's the sad part: Edward just tried to touch his creator's face, but he ended up scratching him. I don't do it justice describing it like this. You have to see the scene itself. Here's a video: [link]
Go and watch it. Sorry it's not good quality. It was the best I could find with just that scene. Okay, hopefully I'll be done now.