The point of this movie...

[deleted]

Well, the thing is it is one thing to do a film about say, Steven Spielberg, since you could just show all the great films he has done. But to show the worst director, you have to really love films, like Tim Burton does. Burton's films are always great to look at, but not masterpieces. Mostly they are about outsiders, like Ed Wood and his troupe were.

It's the antithesis of holloywood success, and a 'success' driven society. Time after time (not to say ALL instances) the viewer/consumer/follower is fed with success stories that display a very common theme. 1. Work hard. 2. Sell your wares. 3. Either thrive or dive.

Often times, the narrative coming from Hollywood, and even regular media these days... promotes success withing the order said above.

This movies is interesting. IMHO, simply because: 1. Here's a guy who worked hind and tit, to follow his dream. Did whatever it took, to muster a product. 2. Sold his product, any way he could... as a up and coming auteur, and as a smut street peddler. 3. Did everything that should garner success, and still failed.

8/10 the media/movie/public image of success is simply working hard and selling your work. Under that logic... Ed was IMMENSELY successful. But in reality, one can work hard chasing their dream and still fail. As you said, it can be lack of talent. It can also be a plethora of reasons.

Case in point... this movie is anti-popular narrative. It displays everything required to follow the romanticized 'American Dream'. In the film, Ed followed the fantastic guidelines for such a goal, to a Tee. Yet, he still ultimately did not succeed in what he wished to accomplish. I see it as separate of Ed Wood's life, as Ed wood had many more problems then the movie suggested... Still, as a Hollywood narrative... it is still an anti-Hollywood-narrative, which is uncommon, IMHO... especially when dealing with historic fiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SidPwuG78

Confound your lousy toll.. TROLL!

"Secondly, being the 'worst' at something shouldn't be praised. It sets a bad example for people who desperately want the world's attention."

Yeah, but this film reminds us that this phenomenon occurred long before people claimed that it was occurring. People say, "These days untalented people become famous and blah blah blah." Meh. Such was always the case.
I'm getting near the end of this film and laughing at the poor "acting" that his "talent" is displaying. I've directed short films in the past. Most of a director's job is just knowing intrinsically who is talented at acting. Ed failed utterly at this task.
Also, the guy who stated that this film also makes the case that "the American dream" is a myth for many people is completely correct. Many times the recipe for success goes beyond hard work and good salesmanship.

SPOILERS

Above all else, I think it is Ed's optimism that trumps everything else in this movie.

To follow your passion, follow your vision, and believe in it - even when the rest of the world says it sucks - that's what's inspiring and charming about the film.

Ed wears woman clothes. It's weird to everyone else. Nobody else understands it. But it doesn't have to make sense to everyone else - it makes sense to Ed. That, I suppose, is more or less the "point" - at least to me......even if it doesn't make sense to you, it might mean something different to someone else. It might come from somewhere really genuine and honest, even if the work gets belittled and demeaned.

Even Bela Lugosi. Everyone else says he's washed up or thinks he's dead. Ed still sees him for what he "used" to be. Ed's not only optimistic, but even a little naive. Sure, Ed uses Bela's name to try and sell his movies (it's all part of the film industry game - Ed has to fight to get his movies made), but he was also a genuine friend to Bela.

The end is so good. It's pouring down rain, but that doesn't affect Ed. He's still as happy as can be and wants to get married right then and there. It's a really sweet film.

The movie could be total hogwash of how the real Ed Wood was, but that's how I see the movie portrayal.

This was written a while ago, but I don't really understand the question.

What is the "point" of any movie? It has to have a thesis for the audience regarding how they should conduct themselves?

This movie gives an interesting story not only about Ed Wood but the characters such as Bela Lugosi who surround his life. That's where it's extremely successful, I think. It's a completely unique story about the "worst director of all time" who dresses in women's clothing while he directs, teams up with morphine-addicted Bela Lugosi, finds random chiropractors and wrestlers to cast in parts, hangs around transvestites and fake magicians from television, and generally makes these guerrilla, low-budget films. It's a character-driven film and the acting is phenomenal. It's not just that Ed Wood is shown as optimistic, but he's really fleshed out as a human being: he's inspired, compassionate, weird, and resilient despite all that he goes through. He's a cross-dressing director/producer/writer/actor, in the 1950s. Either of those alone would be extremely rare, and the first is not even tolerated. How he even gets these movies made is a miracle.

If you "don't get it" that's not a bad thing. People who "get it" might have an interest in, or study, filmmaking, might be weird and appreciate weirdness, might appreciate bad movies, or might have learned to start appreciating bad movies from this film. Ultimately it provides insight and it's extremely well made. Ed Wood's story would have been some secret among a few thousand people on horror movie forums if it weren't for this script. And then Bela being the first celebrity admitted to rehab? These are huge things.

Going back to movies with "points": pick any movie at the box office wherever/whenever this comment is read, and offer the point of the film? The point of Pacific Rim is that we should be courageous when facing evil? That's so absurd. Films are a window into a world, and having some thesis behind a film with the intention of educating an audience makes a film infinitely worse -- unless it is a documentary (Ed Wood is a biopic).

What is the "point" of Walk the Line, Raging Bull, or Goodfellas? They're all about people who failed very similarly to Ed Wood. It doesn't mean that the characters are comparable to the X-Factor. We want to know what is behind people who fail and their stories, because failure is an inescapable part of life. It's the fake movies that suck. Captain America who just "fights bad guys" and wins, then people leave the theatre with nothing and wait for the next one.

"Plan 9 From Outer Space" is extraordinary. It is regularly screened and loved to this day. I think Ed Wood would gladly taking being remembered fondly by many.

"America isn't ready for a gay, mexican chicken sandwich" - Poultrygeist

[deleted]