'Edward Scissorhands'- Film Review (1-2)
‘Edward Scissorhands’ –Film Review (2)
(1381Words)
“Peg Boggs: [sees the scissor hands] Oh, my. What happened to you?
Edward: I'm not finished.”
Undoubtedly, the film has a lot of angles and approaches around these two prominent themes, and in this regard we can get insight into 21st century, American/British views on these subjects…
Is the film indeed challenging those inaccurate representations….
Or could it be, in fact, supportive of this stigma instead?
As a general viewpoint… the history of media associated with physical or mental disability, harbours a few prominent representations you may be familiar with:
The most dominant in Edward, being the ‘Victimised’ (1), whose sympathised with, and may often be shown to possess ‘goodness’ and ‘sensitivity’ in order to provoke feelings of sentimentality… Or the ‘Antagonistic’ (2). Again, an ‘inhuman’ representation, where the media may deems the disabled alienated from society, and criminalised (and in some way, unrelatable to the ‘normal’ person). An object of fear, similar to how post-colonialism in Western media saw people from other countries as ‘The Other’; exciting, dangerous, exotic and threatening.
On a lesser scale, there’s some inkling of ‘the tragic hero’, whom no matter what they do, will inevitably reach their downfall (though most prevalently shown with mental illness, can be observed in Edward Scissorhands- who never seems able to integrate into society, and appears to be gawked at by the community in morbid curiosity, as opposed to actual empathy)… or the ‘Object of Violence’. Only there as a literary device to emphasis the crueless of non-disabled people. Not considered a character in their own right, or capable in any other regard, beyond their disability.
The Antagonist?
 |
| Figure 1. Dr. Julius No, as depicted by Joseph Wiseman in 1958-1962, is a memorable villain of the James Bond series, and is portrayed in the film with bionic metal hands. He’s thought to have paved the way for the future cybernetic (part human, part robot) antagonist. |
Starting with the second, of the main two…we find that the director, Tim Burton, does challenge this particular representation, since he plays with it (drawing visual links to characters like Cesare, from German expressionist film ‘Dr Caligari’, as seen in figure 1), by juxtaposing it against Edward’s gentle personality. Cesare, for the most part, is seen as the film’s antagonist. His somnambulism, (a sleep disorder), strikes fear in both the eyes of the characters, and audience alike.
Edward, on the other hand, is seen (for the majority of the film) as the tragic anti-hero. Capable of feeling love, but unable (by design) to follow up on it.
By the end, however, we find Edward does in fact fulfil this expectation, when he murders Jim.
The film’s attitude towards this could be showing this inevitability, (by having Burton abide by expected conventions), or in fact critiquing this tendency film-makers and the ‘audience’ have… by showing us how: it’s was because of the mercy of the towns cruelty and stigmatisation… media’s expectations….and the morbid curiosity we have, as an audience, to see ‘that outcome’, that ultimately drove Edward to that tragic end.
However, this twist only serves him to inhabit the ‘Victimised’, or ‘Object of Violence’ role (though the latter is less prominent, since Edward is the protagonist, and can be seen supporting himself through his gardening and hair dressing career… if we ignore the fact he has to rely on his new family to do so).
For it’s full entirety, Edward is seen time and time again as the victim.
The whole purpose of the film, it seems, is to empathise with him,
While in someway this can be good, because it encourages people to re-question existing assumptions, and the negative attitudes towards disability (both mental and physical), it can also enforce stigma. Because in trying to sympathise with people, and eliminate stigma… we’re actually enforcing it. Edward’s social position isn’t equalised, but merely changed to one that remains inferior to that of the ‘normal’ person. He is no longer the ‘antagonist’, but instead the ‘victimised’. Pitied, and overlooked. Still not quite seen ‘complete’ enough to be considered ‘human’.
Edward is seen on multiple occasions to be approached by others who claim they can ‘help him’ in getting rid of his abnormality (most obvious being his ‘hands’).
The very film poster itself claims the story is about an ‘uncommonly gentle man’. Seeming to suggest that prominent attributes like being ‘good’ or ‘gentle’ are in some way needed to justify his ‘disability’ (\or in reality, his differences). That are needed, for ‘him’ as a form of intelligent life, to be considered ‘beautiful’, and ’whole’, like ourselves.
This effect is noticeable to Edward, since he often claims, he’s ‘not complete’, or is in some way not whole enough to rise to the title of ‘human’. He seems to aspire to that goal, but rather than forcefully exclude the assumption he’s can’t, he might even play to that ‘naive’ front in order to survive in a community that despises differences, yet in the same breath, is ready to defend those considered ‘less able’ than themselves. Whether in some way to ‘better’ their own social standing, or because they see this group as inferior.
In some scenarios in actual daily life, it’s been observed (Goffman, 1963) that because of this sense of inferiority people may unintentionally push upon the disabled, they may also assume that any mistake they do make is a consequence of the ‘disability’, even if it’s a consequence of something else. Incidentally people may feel they have to play to the ‘weak’ front, and may even use it to excuse other things that society may also deter. Edward never obviously following up on the audience members advice (during the TV talk show), could be because once he conformed physically to the rest of community, he would be expected to fulfill that role. No longer able to hide behind his disability for other reasons.
Tim Burton may be challenging one stigma, but in a way he could be enforcing another.
The likes of which is something his character is forced to ‘live up to’.
Though you could argue he’s actually showing this unintentionally (conforming to conventions) ... or critiquing the process as a whole, it’s also possible he’s only critiquing one element of stigmatization: the expectation of Edward to be violent, and ‘antagonistic’.
As a result, Edward, like many other disabled characters, maybe be purely victimised. May still be represented in an unrealistic light, by remaining in some way inferior to ‘normal’ people
The challenge is trying to equalize everyone without being ignorant or insensitive to any differences.
Ironically, the very community itself shows a mix of non-conforming behaviours that at times are far from the ‘respectable’ or ‘acceptable’, within the interior of the houses: Joyce attempting to flirt with the dishwasher repairman, despite being married herself, etc.
This becomes a kind of conformity in its own right. Something that we can almost expect to find in those places during this time and place.
Consequently, Edward also, in some ways, has to fulfil that expectation, in order to ‘conform’ to what his role is, according to both 1- the town community, and 2- the audiences varying attitudes in real-life. As soon as this steps beyond the interior you find outside these places, unusual behaviour is looked down upon, and it seems there was no way Edward could exist in that environment, without adopting a pre-conceived role.
In this day and age, and particularly in this ‘art working culture’, it’s easy to assume that the rest of the population or social groups would be as open as some of us are. However, in actual reality we’re still in early days in terms of discrimination. Not just in disability, (mental or physical), but also in terms of gender, sexual orientation, nationality etc.
In some ways, this film, could be showing that though we’ve reached this point (in 21st century culture), we’re still at a delicate stage, despite all the time we’ve had to do so- as evident in the coexisting generations within the film.
The question is, where should we go now, from this point onwards?
References
Illustrations
Fig.1 Smith, K. Alexander (2011), Dr. No, [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/09/10-best-fictional-cyborgs.html [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
Fig.2 Martin, Tim (2015), Cesare the Somnambulist and Edward Scissorhands. The Influence is striking, [Photograph]. Available at: http://centerforcreativemedia.com/index.php/german-expressionism/ [Accessed Date: 09/11/2016]
Fig.3 Edward Scissorhands, (1990), [Film Still] Available at: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G1DG6f_6nZ8/maxresdefault.jpg [Accessed Date: 09/11/2016]
Fig.4 Edward Scissorhands, (1990), [Film Still] Available at: https://mindreels.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/edward-scissorhands.png [Accessed Date: 09/11/2016]
Book
Goffman, Erving (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, England: Penguin Books.
Websites
Barnes, Colin (1992), Disabling Imagery and The Media, [Online]. Available at: http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/Barnes-disabling-imagery.pdf [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
Brown, Kayla (\), Dis-course: Disability Representation and the Media, Part One, [Online]. Available at: http://www.washington.edu/doit/dis-course-disability-representation-and-media-part-one [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
Wood, Lucy (2006), Media Representation of Disabled People, [Online]. Available at: http://www.disabilityplanet.co.uk/critical-analysis.html [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
Edward, on the other hand, is seen (for the majority of the film) as the tragic anti-hero. Capable of feeling love, but unable (by design) to follow up on it.
 |
| Fig. 2 Cesare and Edward Comparison. Cut from the same cloth? |
By the end, however, we find Edward does in fact fulfil this expectation, when he murders Jim.
The film’s attitude towards this could be showing this inevitability, (by having Burton abide by expected conventions), or in fact critiquing this tendency film-makers and the ‘audience’ have… by showing us how: it’s was because of the mercy of the towns cruelty and stigmatisation… media’s expectations….and the morbid curiosity we have, as an audience, to see ‘that outcome’, that ultimately drove Edward to that tragic end.
 |
| Fig. 3 Edward after killing Jim. |
The Victimised?
However, this twist only serves him to inhabit the ‘Victimised’, or ‘Object of Violence’ role (though the latter is less prominent, since Edward is the protagonist, and can be seen supporting himself through his gardening and hair dressing career… if we ignore the fact he has to rely on his new family to do so).
For it’s full entirety, Edward is seen time and time again as the victim.
The whole purpose of the film, it seems, is to empathise with him,
While in someway this can be good, because it encourages people to re-question existing assumptions, and the negative attitudes towards disability (both mental and physical), it can also enforce stigma. Because in trying to sympathise with people, and eliminate stigma… we’re actually enforcing it. Edward’s social position isn’t equalised, but merely changed to one that remains inferior to that of the ‘normal’ person. He is no longer the ‘antagonist’, but instead the ‘victimised’. Pitied, and overlooked. Still not quite seen ‘complete’ enough to be considered ‘human’.
Edward is seen on multiple occasions to be approached by others who claim they can ‘help him’ in getting rid of his abnormality (most obvious being his ‘hands’).
Audience Member #2: Have you ever thought of having corrective surgery or prosthetics? I know a doctor that might be able to help you.
The very film poster itself claims the story is about an ‘uncommonly gentle man’. Seeming to suggest that prominent attributes like being ‘good’ or ‘gentle’ are in some way needed to justify his ‘disability’ (\or in reality, his differences). That are needed, for ‘him’ as a form of intelligent life, to be considered ‘beautiful’, and ’whole’, like ourselves.
This effect is noticeable to Edward, since he often claims, he’s ‘not complete’, or is in some way not whole enough to rise to the title of ‘human’. He seems to aspire to that goal, but rather than forcefully exclude the assumption he’s can’t, he might even play to that ‘naive’ front in order to survive in a community that despises differences, yet in the same breath, is ready to defend those considered ‘less able’ than themselves. Whether in some way to ‘better’ their own social standing, or because they see this group as inferior.
In some scenarios in actual daily life, it’s been observed (Goffman, 1963) that because of this sense of inferiority people may unintentionally push upon the disabled, they may also assume that any mistake they do make is a consequence of the ‘disability’, even if it’s a consequence of something else. Incidentally people may feel they have to play to the ‘weak’ front, and may even use it to excuse other things that society may also deter. Edward never obviously following up on the audience members advice (during the TV talk show), could be because once he conformed physically to the rest of community, he would be expected to fulfill that role. No longer able to hide behind his disability for other reasons.
 |
| Fig, 4 ' Hold me', 'I Can't'. |
The likes of which is something his character is forced to ‘live up to’.
Though you could argue he’s actually showing this unintentionally (conforming to conventions) ... or critiquing the process as a whole, it’s also possible he’s only critiquing one element of stigmatization: the expectation of Edward to be violent, and ‘antagonistic’.
As a result, Edward, like many other disabled characters, maybe be purely victimised. May still be represented in an unrealistic light, by remaining in some way inferior to ‘normal’ people
The challenge is trying to equalize everyone without being ignorant or insensitive to any differences.
Ironically, the very community itself shows a mix of non-conforming behaviours that at times are far from the ‘respectable’ or ‘acceptable’, within the interior of the houses: Joyce attempting to flirt with the dishwasher repairman, despite being married herself, etc.
This becomes a kind of conformity in its own right. Something that we can almost expect to find in those places during this time and place.
Consequently, Edward also, in some ways, has to fulfil that expectation, in order to ‘conform’ to what his role is, according to both 1- the town community, and 2- the audiences varying attitudes in real-life. As soon as this steps beyond the interior you find outside these places, unusual behaviour is looked down upon, and it seems there was no way Edward could exist in that environment, without adopting a pre-conceived role.
In this day and age, and particularly in this ‘art working culture’, it’s easy to assume that the rest of the population or social groups would be as open as some of us are. However, in actual reality we’re still in early days in terms of discrimination. Not just in disability, (mental or physical), but also in terms of gender, sexual orientation, nationality etc.
In some ways, this film, could be showing that though we’ve reached this point (in 21st century culture), we’re still at a delicate stage, despite all the time we’ve had to do so- as evident in the coexisting generations within the film.
The question is, where should we go now, from this point onwards?
References
Illustrations
Fig.1 Smith, K. Alexander (2011), Dr. No, [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/09/10-best-fictional-cyborgs.html [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
Fig.2 Martin, Tim (2015), Cesare the Somnambulist and Edward Scissorhands. The Influence is striking, [Photograph]. Available at: http://centerforcreativemedia.com/index.php/german-expressionism/ [Accessed Date: 09/11/2016]
Fig.3 Edward Scissorhands, (1990), [Film Still] Available at: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G1DG6f_6nZ8/maxresdefault.jpg [Accessed Date: 09/11/2016]
Fig.4 Edward Scissorhands, (1990), [Film Still] Available at: https://mindreels.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/edward-scissorhands.png [Accessed Date: 09/11/2016]
Book
Goffman, Erving (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, England: Penguin Books.
Websites
Barnes, Colin (1992), Disabling Imagery and The Media, [Online]. Available at: http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/Barnes-disabling-imagery.pdf [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
Brown, Kayla (\), Dis-course: Disability Representation and the Media, Part One, [Online]. Available at: http://www.washington.edu/doit/dis-course-disability-representation-and-media-part-one [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
Wood, Lucy (2006), Media Representation of Disabled People, [Online]. Available at: http://www.disabilityplanet.co.uk/critical-analysis.html [Accessed Date: 10/11/2016]
I know that you've had some advice re. project management and the investment you give your reviews - and it's good advice, if one of the things you need to get better at is 'a balanced diet' when it comes to managing your time. That said, the ambition of 'this review' is to be applauded (though it's more than a review in any traditional sense), and the sincerity and originality of your enquiry is obvious. Your challenge now - to 'write less without saying less'... I would give yourself a word count and make part of honing your craft into keeping within its bounds without compromising on content.
ReplyDeleteHi Rachael,
ReplyDeleteYes, what Phil said ;)
I think that this review was already well underway, so that's why it is still so comprehensive :)
As we discussed earlier in the week, I suggest that you focus on just one theme from the film, have a read and find three supporting quotes, and build a brief discussion around these. It is clear that you are capable of in-depth analysis...save this energy for the essay proper!