After a bit of backlash following the release of this film's first trailer back in January, I am happy to announce that this film is much better than that trailer. So much so that even the director hated it! Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile is a decently well-made film following the trials and punishment of Ted Bundy back in the 1970s and 1980s from the perspective of Bundy's longtime girlfriend Elizabeth Kloepfer. With some great performances from Zac Efron and Lily Collins and an interesting take on this story, this movie is sure to please any fan of the ever-popular true crime genre. Even though this movie's main issue is balancing its tone with the narrative, I still very much enjoyed learning about this story, especially due to my insightful discussion with director Joe Berlinger earlier this month.
This film follows the life of Elizabeth Kloepfer (Lily Collins), a single mom in 1970s Seattle who falls in love with the murderous Ted Bundy (Zac Efron). As Bundy gets caught and arrested for the kidnapping and murder of several young women, Liz turns her head to the fact that he is guilty. Throughout all of the trials and years of court cases, Liz stands by his side, refusing to believe the things he has done due to her blinding love for him. This true story and the horrible events that led up to it are what make this movie so wildly engaging. All of the court and legal scenes were incredibly well-written and provided so much of this movie's drama that audiences definitely need to stay interested, particularly because of Bundy's knowledge and studying to be a lawyer. The element that tied this interest together so well was the performances from Efron and Collins. These two had excellent chemistry together and were both so fantastically convincing in their roles. Collins was able to bring such a naive and tender side to the persona of Liz while Efron's teenage heartthrob status gave him immense power to flip that on its head. Efron was such a good choice for this film, not only because he looks very similar to Bundy, but because it was fantastic to see him in a different type of role. He was savagely convincing throughout this entire film and his obvious charm helped him for this role immensely.
Berlinger's intent with this film was not at all to romanticize Bundy or to get audiences to feel for his "struggles," but rather to show the mentality of the victims and how easy it is to be manipulated. Since this movie is based on memoirs of their time together written by Kloepfer herself, the majority of the movie is through her perspective. As previously mentioned, Efron was a fantastic choice because to Liz, Ted was an incredible boyfriend and loving man. The most interesting part of this film comes from the fact that it's through her perspective, but it is almost inevitable to get at least a little bit of romanticization due to that. However, for a film that is supposed to be through her perspective to make the audience feel for her as a victim, it did not seem that way the entire time. This movie would go on for 25 to 30 minutes at a time without showing or referencing Liz in any way. This directorial pacing was awkward the entire time; the film could not entirely decide on a tone and it took a while to find its flow after jumping around for far too long. The biggest issue is that there were a few different ways of telling this story that were used which would have been interesting on their own, but they frankly did not blend that well together.
The perspective of this film is what drew me in most, but I feel like it could have benefitted from a clearer tone and style. If this movie would have switched between her naive perspective and his murderous and horrible actions, it would have provided such a nice contrast and could have developed their personas a bit better. Even though as a filmmaker you don't want to be disrespectful to the families of Bundy's victims, I feel like sensible violence could have been added in to bring more depth to his horrible actions. But even without this aspect included, I could still really feel the effects of what Bundy had done, especially in the final conversational scene of the film (which is when I was completely sold on Collins and Efron). Another reason why this movie just felt off was because of Berlinger's experience as a documentary filmmaker. This was his first scripted film and even though he is obviously passionate about the subjects that he brings into the light, it was clear that he has not had much experience with narrative storytelling. It was quite difficult for this film to escape the typical feeling of recreation and novelty rather than telling this story with genuine compassion and heart towards the victims.
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile may have a title as long as the time it took for Bundy's girlfriend to realize who he was, but this film does not fail to entertain. Thankfully, the authenticity of the events and the way they are told are accurate or else the tone might make this story feel too much like something that it's not.
My interview with director Joe Berlinger for Silver Screen Beat:
How do you feel about Netflix pulling the first trailer for the film due to criticism from people who said it was glamorizing Ted Bundy and violence against women in general?
I wasn't a fan of the first trailer, to be honest with you. The people who were responsible for marketing the film prior to its acquisition going into Sundance did a trailer that they thought did the job. I wasn't happy with it, but I'm very happy that I got the opportunity to work with Netflix pretty closely on the most recent trailer, which is great.
I've done several things with Netflix now, including Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru and Conversations with a Killer, the Ted Bundy doc series, and they are amazing about working closely with the filmmaker to make sure the tone and the intention of the movie are nicely captured.
As somebody who has spent 25 years doing a lot of real-life, true crime-related, the last thing this movie is doing, in my opinion, is glamorizing a serial killer, and so some of that criticism was very personally painful to me because I've spent a lot of time doing very meaningful things with my films; wrongful conviction, shining a light on criminal justice reform, advocating for victims. That's a big part of what my film and television work is about.
When people say you're a true crime pioneer, as I've been told because of the Paradise Lost series, I cringe as much as I embrace that description. The pioneer part I like. That's cool. But I have a funny relationship with the true-crime phrase because I think it kind of conjures up that image of wallowing in the misery of others for entertainment purposes.
If you look at my filmography, that's the last thing I'm trying to do.
Was one of your biggest intentions when making this film to make the audience feel sympathy for Liz (Bundy's girlfriend)?
Absolutely. You have to understand the experience of the victim and how you become seduced by this kind of psychopath. People are like "Oh, Bundy had a live-in girlfriend? She must've been an idiot." But no. This is the opposite. This is a person who not only psychologically seduced Elizabeth Kloepfer but also the American media and the legal system.
Could you imagine if at the end of a murder trial, if this was a person of color, that a judge would say to him: "Hey, I'm sentencing you to death because what you did was extremely wicked, shockingly evil, and vile. I wish you would've practiced law in front of me because you would've been a terrific lawyer?" Are you kidding me?
That to me is so demonstrative because he was a white male in the '70s who was given all sorts of breaks because of his demeanor, because of how he looks, because he was a law student, because he was white. He was given all sorts of freedoms.
To me, seeing things through Liz's eyes at all times is an understanding of how a victim becomes seduced by a psychopath. She's lucky. I think he actually liked her and kept her alive. But it's that same power that he had over everybody that I think is a lesson that I want my own daughters to know.
Did you feel any pressure to add anything that wasn't factual to the film for the sake of entertainment purposes?
I wouldn't say pressure. The nature of narrative filmmaking is that you have to compress time; that the unfolding of time is not the same as in real life and you do have to take certain liberties. I'm very proud that this film actually hues very closely to real life, but you do have to think in a three-act structure. You have to make it entertaining for an audience.
Truthfully, the biggest issue I probably struggled with is in Liz's memoir where she talks about having found things that made her think twice, like finding a knife in the glovebox of Ted's car, keeping separate apartments even though they lived together and in his apartment finding the bowl of various keys.
There are isolated events that take place over a seven or eight-month period and it's like if you're living with a cheating, alcoholic, or drug-addicted spouse and they claim to be on the wagon or not be cheating. You have an ability to push that aside over time and it's only when it reaches a critical mass in real life that when you have an experience like this that all the clues come together and you're like, "Oh right. I should've realized this all along."
But in an hour and 45-minute movie, the compression of time is so great that if I, in the first act, had Lily find a knife or a bowl of keys, she would've, I think, looked like an idiot to the audience for not catching on. There were just certain things in the memoir that I just had to leave out because time is different in a narrative film than it is in real life and even as it is in the documentary.
What is it about true crime stories, particularly Bundy's, that you think audiences find so intriguing?
People seem to have an insatiable appetite for crime. One of the reasons why I'm so fascinated with Bundy is that I think Bundy, to me, represents the big bang of our current insatiable appetite for crime. Bundy's Florida murder trial was the first time cameras were allowed in the courtroom and there was this new technology called electronic newsgathering. Just a few months before Bundy's trial, most news stations were still shooting their evening newscasts on 16mm film.
So coinciding with the growing fascination of Bundy was this new satellite technology, new electronic newsgathering, which just kind of pushed its way into the courtroom. I think that had a much greater impact than people realized because, for the first time in our history, serial rape and murder became live entertainment for American television viewers.
I think that was a precipitating event to where we are today because you can draw a line from the coverage of Bundy's trial to his execution to just a few years later with the O.J. Simpson trial, which now you have the 24-hour news cycle and this need to feed that monster with stories every day and that trial became this huge turning point to where we are today where we seem to have this insatiable appetite for crime.
On the positive side, though, I think there's been a lot of amazing work. We've seen non-fiction storytelling have an immediate and dramatic effect on these cases, and I think part of the appetite too - people want to know who the next miscarriage of justice is going to be.
Zac Efron's performance as Bundy seemed even more attractive and charismatic than Ted Bundy seemed to be in real life.
I disagree. What we're talking about is the hold that Bundy had over people was very clear. Women were going down to the Florida trial convinced that he was innocent. Or, if he's not innocent, he's still sexy and there's something about him that makes them want to be in the same room as him. He had that power over people.
Do you worry that your film's portrayal of Bundy, and the fact that there is a celebrity playing his role, could inspire anybody to violence because they're looking for fame and looking to be remembered in connection with somebody famous?
It's hard to know where people derive and therefore you can't censor yourself. Where do people derive their inspiration from? John Hinckely Jr. attempted to kill the president because he was trying to impress Jodie Foster. Should Jodie Foster remove herself from public life? Should any actress remove themselves from public life?
All of these debates, whether it's glamorization or inspiration, are very healthy and good to debate. If this movie was like a gorefest, an irresponsible gorefest, then yeah, maybe. But my movie is an intelligent movie that has some real thought behind it.
If somebody is inspired to be Ted Bundy off of this movie, then I would argue that a different person would be inspired to do something evil off of any kind of movie, so where do you draw the line? I'm not worried. This movie was very responsibly made.
My Rating: ★★★½
My interview with director Joe Berlinger for Silver Screen Beat:
How do you feel about Netflix pulling the first trailer for the film due to criticism from people who said it was glamorizing Ted Bundy and violence against women in general?
I wasn't a fan of the first trailer, to be honest with you. The people who were responsible for marketing the film prior to its acquisition going into Sundance did a trailer that they thought did the job. I wasn't happy with it, but I'm very happy that I got the opportunity to work with Netflix pretty closely on the most recent trailer, which is great.
I've done several things with Netflix now, including Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru and Conversations with a Killer, the Ted Bundy doc series, and they are amazing about working closely with the filmmaker to make sure the tone and the intention of the movie are nicely captured.
As somebody who has spent 25 years doing a lot of real-life, true crime-related, the last thing this movie is doing, in my opinion, is glamorizing a serial killer, and so some of that criticism was very personally painful to me because I've spent a lot of time doing very meaningful things with my films; wrongful conviction, shining a light on criminal justice reform, advocating for victims. That's a big part of what my film and television work is about.
When people say you're a true crime pioneer, as I've been told because of the Paradise Lost series, I cringe as much as I embrace that description. The pioneer part I like. That's cool. But I have a funny relationship with the true-crime phrase because I think it kind of conjures up that image of wallowing in the misery of others for entertainment purposes.
If you look at my filmography, that's the last thing I'm trying to do.
Was one of your biggest intentions when making this film to make the audience feel sympathy for Liz (Bundy's girlfriend)?
Absolutely. You have to understand the experience of the victim and how you become seduced by this kind of psychopath. People are like "Oh, Bundy had a live-in girlfriend? She must've been an idiot." But no. This is the opposite. This is a person who not only psychologically seduced Elizabeth Kloepfer but also the American media and the legal system.
Could you imagine if at the end of a murder trial, if this was a person of color, that a judge would say to him: "Hey, I'm sentencing you to death because what you did was extremely wicked, shockingly evil, and vile. I wish you would've practiced law in front of me because you would've been a terrific lawyer?" Are you kidding me?
That to me is so demonstrative because he was a white male in the '70s who was given all sorts of breaks because of his demeanor, because of how he looks, because he was a law student, because he was white. He was given all sorts of freedoms.
To me, seeing things through Liz's eyes at all times is an understanding of how a victim becomes seduced by a psychopath. She's lucky. I think he actually liked her and kept her alive. But it's that same power that he had over everybody that I think is a lesson that I want my own daughters to know.
Did you feel any pressure to add anything that wasn't factual to the film for the sake of entertainment purposes?
I wouldn't say pressure. The nature of narrative filmmaking is that you have to compress time; that the unfolding of time is not the same as in real life and you do have to take certain liberties. I'm very proud that this film actually hues very closely to real life, but you do have to think in a three-act structure. You have to make it entertaining for an audience.
Truthfully, the biggest issue I probably struggled with is in Liz's memoir where she talks about having found things that made her think twice, like finding a knife in the glovebox of Ted's car, keeping separate apartments even though they lived together and in his apartment finding the bowl of various keys.
There are isolated events that take place over a seven or eight-month period and it's like if you're living with a cheating, alcoholic, or drug-addicted spouse and they claim to be on the wagon or not be cheating. You have an ability to push that aside over time and it's only when it reaches a critical mass in real life that when you have an experience like this that all the clues come together and you're like, "Oh right. I should've realized this all along."
But in an hour and 45-minute movie, the compression of time is so great that if I, in the first act, had Lily find a knife or a bowl of keys, she would've, I think, looked like an idiot to the audience for not catching on. There were just certain things in the memoir that I just had to leave out because time is different in a narrative film than it is in real life and even as it is in the documentary.
What is it about true crime stories, particularly Bundy's, that you think audiences find so intriguing?
People seem to have an insatiable appetite for crime. One of the reasons why I'm so fascinated with Bundy is that I think Bundy, to me, represents the big bang of our current insatiable appetite for crime. Bundy's Florida murder trial was the first time cameras were allowed in the courtroom and there was this new technology called electronic newsgathering. Just a few months before Bundy's trial, most news stations were still shooting their evening newscasts on 16mm film.
So coinciding with the growing fascination of Bundy was this new satellite technology, new electronic newsgathering, which just kind of pushed its way into the courtroom. I think that had a much greater impact than people realized because, for the first time in our history, serial rape and murder became live entertainment for American television viewers.
I think that was a precipitating event to where we are today because you can draw a line from the coverage of Bundy's trial to his execution to just a few years later with the O.J. Simpson trial, which now you have the 24-hour news cycle and this need to feed that monster with stories every day and that trial became this huge turning point to where we are today where we seem to have this insatiable appetite for crime.
On the positive side, though, I think there's been a lot of amazing work. We've seen non-fiction storytelling have an immediate and dramatic effect on these cases, and I think part of the appetite too - people want to know who the next miscarriage of justice is going to be.
Zac Efron's performance as Bundy seemed even more attractive and charismatic than Ted Bundy seemed to be in real life.
I disagree. What we're talking about is the hold that Bundy had over people was very clear. Women were going down to the Florida trial convinced that he was innocent. Or, if he's not innocent, he's still sexy and there's something about him that makes them want to be in the same room as him. He had that power over people.
Do you worry that your film's portrayal of Bundy, and the fact that there is a celebrity playing his role, could inspire anybody to violence because they're looking for fame and looking to be remembered in connection with somebody famous?
It's hard to know where people derive and therefore you can't censor yourself. Where do people derive their inspiration from? John Hinckely Jr. attempted to kill the president because he was trying to impress Jodie Foster. Should Jodie Foster remove herself from public life? Should any actress remove themselves from public life?
All of these debates, whether it's glamorization or inspiration, are very healthy and good to debate. If this movie was like a gorefest, an irresponsible gorefest, then yeah, maybe. But my movie is an intelligent movie that has some real thought behind it.
If somebody is inspired to be Ted Bundy off of this movie, then I would argue that a different person would be inspired to do something evil off of any kind of movie, so where do you draw the line? I'm not worried. This movie was very responsibly made.
My Rating: ★★★½
No comments:
Post a Comment