Tim Burton is a director, writer, producer and artist renowned for utilizing striking imagery and imaginative storylines to mold remarkable films. Released in 1988, “Beetlejuice” presented a unique narrative that paved the way for Burton’s future in film. Before directing “Beetlejuice” Burton had only one feature film to his credit, “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure,” a film which already had an established viewer base and was heavily formed from Paul Ruebens’ creative sensibility, considering the character, Pee-Wee Herman, was created by Rueben. “Beetlejuice” offered Burton complete and utter artistic freedom and creative control.
Although unique, I wouldn’t classify “Beetlejuice” as revolutionary, just bad.
“Beetlejuice” follows the premature death of homeowners, Adam and Barbara (Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis), who watch from beyond the grave as their estate becomes inhabited by who they deem an insufferable family and enlist a malignant spirit to drive them out, Betelgeuse, played by Michael Keaton. Along the way Adam and Barbara befriend Lydia (Winona Ryder), the couple’s (Jeffrey Jones and Catherine O’Hara) morbid daughter, which causes them to question their unconventional plan. “Beetlejuice” is a movie dealing with the complexities of death while exploring the potentiality of an afterlife. “Beetlejuice” serves as a reflection on reality and human existence. Despite my grievances with this movie, it’s a well-acted and beautifully directed film, but this doesn’t salvage the abominable plot.
Although “Beetlejuice” is meant to be a depiction of life after death, something typically romanticized as paradise, it–death– is instead represented as a bureaucratic underworld full of gimmicks and little else. If Burton was trying to create something deep and meaningful, he failed miserably.
The best thing about “Beetlejuice” is Betelgeuse’s frequent absence. You can tell Keaton did a good job portraying Betelgeuse considering how much he annoyed me throughout the movie. I tried my hardest to find this movie endearing but it was hard to ignore the blatant sexist comments and actions displayed by Betelgeuse. He’s depicted as a chauvinist pig, who finds it entertaining to objectify every woman who comes on screen. He also tries to marry Lydia, who at the time was fifteen years old.
The movie had no real story; it didn’t make any sense and the outcome of the 92-minute runtime left me entirely dissatisfied. The film’s climax feels rushed because Betelgeuse’s defeat is quick and almost arbitrary, and the resolution, with the two families learning to coexist peacefully, feels like an abrupt shift considering that they used to despise each other. The special effects were laughable, but once you remember the film was made in 1988, and the special effects were primarily makeup and claymation, it becomes more impressive. However, the claymation sandworm made it hard for me to take the movie seriously.
The costumes designed by Aggie Guerard Rodgers were a memorable addition to the film; Betelguese’s black-and-white striped suit and Lydia’s red wedding dress became iconic. The hair and makeup of Betelgeuse perfectly captures his unhinged, otherworldly nature. His wild, unkempt hair makes him appear almost decayed or moldy. The pale, sickly makeup contrasts sharply with the dark circles around his eyes, giving him an eerie, undead appearance. His overall look allows him to stand out as a noteworthy horror movie villain.
“Beetlejuice” sets up a rather interesting dynamic, between the “simple country couple” and the “crazy art bourgeoisie,” but what could have been an interesting thing to explore is instead used to generate surface-level slapstick (without the comedy). The Maitlands, Adam and Barbara, represent traditional, small-town American values–quiet, domestic life and a love for their quaint, country home. In contrast, the Deetz’s, especially Delia, embody the avant-garde, upper-class art world, valuing trendiness, modernism and status. The main conflict is a battle of ownership over the estate, thus causing friction amongst the characters. The film has the potential to explore deeper issues like materialism versus simplicity, authenticity versus pretension and urban versus rural sensibilities. However, while the differences between the Maitlands and the Deetz’s are visually and thematically clear, the film doesn’t deeply explore how these characters evolve in response to one another. Leading back to my issue with the unusually prompt resolution, by the end the two families learn to coexist, which is a conclusion reached abruptly and without explanation.
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” a sequel, is surprisingly better than the original.
Many of the original cast returns after 36 years have passed: Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O’Hara (Delia Deetz) and Micheal Keaton (Betelgeuse) reprise their roles. Alec Baldwin’s (Adam) and Geena Davis’s (Barbara) absence is noticeable.
The film follows the original Deetz family as they travel to Winter River to mourn the loss of Charles Deetz, Lydia’s father (previously played by Jeffrey Jones). Still haunted by Betelgeuse, Lydia’s life is turned upside down when her teenage daughter, Astrid (Jenna Ortega), is tricked into opening a portal to the afterlife.
The movie gives further context into Betelgeuse’s background and strengthens the relationships introduced in the first film.
Despite how much “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has improved from the last film, it is far from perfect. With too many side plots but no central plot, the film deteriorates into a confusing mess. Along with the inclusion of Astrid, Lydia’s daughter, we’re introduced to Jeremy (Arthur Conti), Astrid’s so-called love interest. The inclusion of Monica Bellucci’s “soul sucker” Delores, is lackluster and unnecessary. Betelgeuse’s dull, uninspired desire to get with Lydia is redundant; been there done that, find a new shtick. To me, the whole thing felt like a fan-made rough draft.
The strangest thing about this sequel was how subdued Betelgeuse was portrayed. The first film presented Betelgeuse as a wildly unpredictable and chaotic character. His mannerisms are manic and exaggerated, filled with rapid speech, erratic movements and over-the-top expressions. He’s crude, vulgar, and extremely self-serving. In the sequel, he seems restrained. Though his mischievousness and eccentricity remain intact, his personality and movements are toned down. This abrupt personality shift made the series as a whole feel quite disjointed. I would have rather they found a middle ground between wild and tame. This goes for Lydia as well; her character in the sequel seemed to be depersonalized in comparison to the last film. Her attire was similar, yet her personality was completely different. In the original movie, she was goth, a subculture based in counterculture and individualism. In the second film her profession consisted of hosting a mainstream television program, which doesn’t align with the goth aesthetic or viewpoint.
However, it was entertaining to see Lydia go from a daughter to a mother. Their relationship was an interesting subplot to explore, especially since she goes from hating her stepmother to being hated by her daughter.
Although I found the sequel more entertaining than the original, it was clear to me this film was nothing more than a cash grab. With the inclusion of Jenna Ortega, it felt as if the whole movie was merely capitalizing off of the success of the Netflix TV show “Wednesday,” in which Ortega starred as the lead. They even included a dance sequence as eerily weird as the one in “Wednesday.” Ortega’s character in particular has similar mannerisms and an almost matching personality to her character, Wednesday Addams.
In recent years there’s been an influx of awful horror movies, so I suppose in comparison this film is at least watchable. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to recommend it.
