Tim Burton’s Ed Wood is a strange, funny, sad, and oddly touching film about the man widely considered the worst director in cinema history. It is a biopic that refuses to mock its subject, even when the material demands it. Instead, it treats Ed Wood as a genuine artist who happened to be terrible at his craft. The result is a movie that is far more generous to its subject than the title might suggest.
The film follows Wood from 1952, when he is a struggling writer and director trying to break into Hollywood, to the early 1960s, when his career collapses and he drifts into obscurity. It focuses on his relationship with the aging horror icon Bela Lugosi, his friendship with the psychic Criswell, and his disastrous attempt to remake his own life into a film called Bride of the Atom. Along the way, it touches on his secret transvestism, his doomed romance with Dolores Fuller, and his bizarre attempts to finance his movies.
Trailer, via FT Depot.
The Script and Its Sources
The screenplay was written by Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander, who conceived the idea as a documentary when Alexander was a student at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. They eventually struck a deal with Tim Burton and Denise Di Novi to produce it. Burton was initially attached to direct, but scheduling conflicts with his work on Airheads forced him to step aside. Michael Lehmann was chosen as a replacement, but he too had to vacate the position, leaving Burton to take the helm.
The film was originally in development at Columbia Pictures, which put it into “turnaround” over Burton’s decision to shoot in black-and-white. That setback sent the project to Walt Disney Studios, which produced it through its Touchstone Pictures banner. The film was a financial failure, returning only $13.8 million against an $18 million budget. Critics, however, were far more kind, particularly toward the performances of Johnny Depp and Martin Landau.
Depp and Landau Carry the Weight
Depp plays Wood as a manic, sincere, and deeply delusional figure. He is a man who believes he is destined for greatness, even as everyone around him can see that his talent is fatally flawed. Depp’s performance is energetic and committed, and it is easy to see why he found the role rejuvenating. He studied Jack Haley’s performance as the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz, the acting of Ronald Reagan, and the cadence of Casey Kasem to capture Wood’s blend of charm and incompetence.
Landau’s performance as Lugosi is the centerpiece of the film. Rick Baker created the prosthetic makeup, which consisted of a set of ears, nose, chin, and an appliance covering the actor’s upper lip. Baker used minimal appliances to allow Landau to use his own face to act and express emotion. Landau watched 25 of Lugosi’s films and seven interviews between 1931 and 1956 for research. He did not want to deliver an over-the-top performance: “Lugosi was theatrical, but I never wanted the audience to feel I was an actor chewing the scenery… I felt it had to be Lugosi’s theatricality, not mine.”
“Lugosi was theatrical, but I never wanted the audience to feel I was an actor chewing the scenery… I felt it had to be Lugosi’s theatricality, not mine.”
The chemistry between Depp and Landau is immediate and powerful. Their scenes together are the film’s emotional core, and they make the tragedy of Wood’s failure feel genuine rather than cheap. When Wood persuades Lugosi to take a small role in Glen or Glenda by arguing that having a star will sell tickets, Landau’s Lugosi delivers the line with a weary dignity that sells the whole premise.
The Cast Around Them
The supporting cast is strong across the board. Sarah Jessica Parker plays Dolores Fuller, Wood’s girlfriend, who struggles to accept his transvestism and ultimately breaks up with him. Her performance is restrained and effective, capturing the confusion and pain of a woman who loves a man she cannot fully understand. Patricia Arquette appears briefly as Kathy O’Hara, and Lisa Marie plays Vampira. Jeffrey Jones is excellent as Criswell, the famous psychic who becomes Wood’s mentor and sounding board.
Bill Murray has a small but memorable role as Bunny Breckinridge, a friend of Wood’s who provides comic relief. G.D. Spradlin plays Reverend Lemon, and Vincent D’Onofrio appears as Orson Welles. Mike Starr is Georgie Weiss, the producer who tries to buy Christine Jorgensen’s life story. Brent Hinkley is Conrad Brooks, and Lisa Marie plays Vampira.
The Story of Glen or Glenda
The film’s central narrative arc revolves around Glen or Glenda, which Wood remakes as a story about a transvestite. The irony is that Wood himself was a transvestite, though he kept that secret from almost everyone around him. The movie-within-a-movie is a disaster, shot with a single take per scene, little direction, and stock footage used to fill gaps. It is released to critical and commercial failure, which prevents Wood from securing work at Weiss’s Screen Classics or making a partnership with Warner Bros. executive Feldman.
The failure of Glen or Glenda is a turning point for Wood. He loses his chance at stability and is forced to finance his next film independently. This leads him to meet Loretta King, whom he mistakes for a wealthy heiress and casts as the lead in Bride of the Atom. His decision to cast King instead of Fuller infuriates Dolores, who is relegated to a smaller role. The film’s plot is simple: Wood wants to make a movie, he fails, he tries again, and he fails again. The difference is that the second failure is presented as a noble, tragic defeat rather than a joke.
The Look and the Sound
Burton shoots the film in black-and-white, which gives it a nostalgic, timeless quality. The cinematography is sharp and clean, with a sense of period authenticity. The sets are sparse and functional, and the costumes are period-appropriate without being flashy. The score is moody and atmospheric, with a mix of jazz and pop music that fits the 1950s setting. The film is not visually spectacular, but it is visually coherent, which is more than can be said for many of the movies it depicts.
The editing is brisk, and the pacing is steady. The film runs 127 minutes, which is a reasonable length for a biopic. It does not waste time, and it does not pad its runtime. The scenes are well-composed, and the transitions are smooth. The film is a drama, but it is also a comedy, and the tone shifts fluidly between the two modes without losing coherence.
The Weaknesses
The film is not perfect. Some of the supporting characters are underdeveloped, and their arcs feel rushed. The film’s treatment of transvestism is respectful but somewhat simplistic, and it leans on the audience’s familiarity with Wood’s real-life identity rather than exploring it in depth. The ending is abrupt, and it leaves the audience wanting more closure than it gets.
The film’s biggest flaw is its refusal to be cynical. Wood was a terrible director, and the film acknowledges that fact, but it never fully embraces it. It presents Wood as a visionary who was ahead of his time, when the evidence suggests he was simply incompetent. The film’s generosity towards its subject is admirable, but it also undermines its own credibility. A more honest portrait might have been more compelling.
The Critical Reception
The film received mixed reviews from critics. The performances were universally praised, particularly those of Depp and Landau. The writing was less well-received, with some critics finding the dialogue clunky and the plot predictable. The film’s financial failure was a disappointment for everyone involved, but its critical success ensured that it would be remembered as a cult classic.
The film’s legacy is secure. It has become a touchstone for fans of cult cinema and a reference point for discussions about creative failure. It is a film that rewards multiple viewings, as each watch reveals new details and nuances. It is a film that is both a tribute and a cautionary tale.
The Verdict
Ed Wood is a flawed but fascinating film. It is a loving portrait of a man who was not very good at his job, but who was sincere and passionate about it. It is a film that celebrates the spirit of creation even when it mocks the results. It is a film that is best enjoyed for what it is: a sincere, if slightly misguided, tribute to a man who was born to fail.
The film’s score is 7.1 out of 10.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
