| [BACK]
BIG FISH by Tom McCurrie
Director Tim Burton's BIG FISH proves the dictum: just because it looks like, sounds like and feels like FORREST GUMP, doesn't mean it is FORREST GUMP.
(Warning: Spoilers Ahead!)
Written by John August, and based on the novel by Daniel Wallace, BIG FISH is a tall tale about a teller of tall tales. Edward Bloom (Albert Finney) is the master of this type of story, much to the annoyance of his son Will (Billy Crudup), who wants to find out what his father's life was really like before he passes on. But that isn't going to be easy since Edward insists his life was full of giants, werewolves, witches and really big fish!
Now many of these tall tales are truly fun to watch, courtesy of Burton's eye-popping visuals. One of the best has young Edward (Ewan McGregor) on a secret mission during the Korean War, escaping enemy territory with the help of Singing Siamese Twins! This sequence is as delightfully unpredictable as any sequence in any movie this year.
Better yet, BIG FISH has a very provocative theme: emotional truth trumps factual truth every time. The power of storytelling to express the pain of loneliness, the need for tolerance and the joys of love cannot be overestimated. In effect, BIG FISH is a paean to writers everywhere, and as a writer myself, I can certainly appreciate the pat on the back!
Unfortunately, BIG FISH doesn't quite cut it overall. Looking at the similar FORREST GUMP can show us why. Now FISH is like GUMP in many ways: it takes place mostly in the South, has an extremely episodic, nearly picaresque structure, a top-notch oldies soundtrack, and a never-say-die optimist (Finney as an old man, Ewan McGregor as his younger self) for a protagonist. But FISH falls short of GUMP in the most important way -- emotional punch.
There are many reasons for this. Part of it is the casting. GUMP has the extremely lovable Tom Hanks in the lead, while FISH is saddled with actors that are either too cold (Finney) or too bland (Crudup, McGregor) to elicit the same emotion.
Another problem is that two different actors (McGregor, Finney) play the protagonist at two different times (past, present). This causes the "old" and "young" versions of Bloom to come across like two different characters. Every time we bond with the "young" Bloom in the past, we skip to the present to bond with the "old" one, then have to bail on him to bond with the "young" one again. This constant jumping back and forth keeps us from emotionally identifying with either character.
But the biggest problem with FISH is its episodic structure. Now GUMP has an episodic structure, too, but its vignettes are held together by Hanks' bravura performance. FISH doesn't have that central star turn, so the story tends to separate into self-contained segments, making it appear we're watching a series of movies instead of just one. This gives the story a directionless, meandering quality that keeps us from warming up to the material. The fact that many of these segments occur in different decades only exacerbates the feeling of disconnection.
Of course, the same charges can be leveled at GUMP. So why is that film so emotionally effective? As mentioned before, part of it is due to Hanks' personal charisma, holding the different episodes together. Hanks also plays both the "young" and "old" versions of himself, keeping the past and present from seeming like two different movies.
More importantly, GUMP is not as episodic as it first appears. Hanks seems to wander through American history without any particular purpose. But in fact he has a strong goal that keeps the film on track and gives it a narrative spine: his quest for Jenny's (Robin Wright's) love. Edward Bloom's goal on the other hand is rather wobbly. As a young man he wants to leave small-town life behind and make it big. That's soon dropped as he pursues the love of his life (Alison Lohman). This is similar to Hanks' film, but unlike Gump, Bloom achieves his quest rather quickly, leaving the majority of the film without a clear goal for the protagonist. Is it once again to make it big? We're not sure, since Bloom's forced to be a salesman after having trouble finding work after Korea. He's very successful at it, of course, but that doesn't mean it's what he wants. Then his goal shifts again to personally repairing a small town that's fallen on hard times. Because Bloom's goal meanders so much, the reader's attention soon follows suit.
Finally, there's the predictable climax. Son Will, Mister Factual, does a complete turnaround and learns to make up stories himself. This is one ending you can see coming from several counties away, and a climax this obvious isn't going to have much emotional punch.
Though it has several enchanting moments, BIG FISH isn't quite worth the effort it takes to reel in.
Responses, comments and general two-cents worth can be E-mailed to gillis662000@yahoo.com.
(Note: For all those who missed my past reviews, they're now archived on Hollywoodlitsales.com. Just click the link on the main page and it'll take you to the Inner Sanctum. Love them or Hate them at your leisure!)
A graduate of USC's School of Cinema-Television, Tom McCurrie has worked as a development executive and a story analyst. He is currently a screenwriter living in Los Angeles.
|
