Have you seen Terry Gilliam's latest film, "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus?" No? Maybe you should have. The art direction in that film was brilliant.
It's about a Tibetan monk (Christopher Plummer) who centuries ago made a deal with the devil where he agreed to give the devil his first born in exchange for immortality. Close to our time he finally has a daughter and discovers he loves the kid so much that he can't bear to give her away, so he and his daughter hide from the devil in a traveling stage show.
At least, I think that's the plot. Maybe I misunderstood it. Plot isn't one of Gilliam's strong points.
I wonder why Gilliam hasn't done "Alice in Wonderland"? It has a popular ready-made plot, and it's loose enough to allow lots of invention. Maybe even Alice is too restrictive for him. Maybe the muse is only kind to him when he makes films by the seat of his pants, taking advantage of whatever enthusiasm grabs him at the moment.
I like the theatricality of the film. Whatever its ostensible plot, the film is really about the nature of theater, and the people who keep it alive. You don't choose theater, it chooses you. You come under its spell and you find that no other vocation works for you.
Most theater people are poor. It's not really a good living for most of them. A lot of them aren't really all that talented. They simply find that they can't bear to do anything else.
After Rome fell Europe went for a thousand years without theater. There were travelling religious shows, and that was it. Theater as we know it was only resurrected just before Shakespeare's time.
I can only imagine what life was like for the traveling players. Drafty, crowded, wagons (above) full of costumes and props, and the necessities of life; it couldn't have been much fun. They probably had to supplement their income with prostitution, fortune telling, and the sale of fake medicine and amulets. I imagine that they had to sleep in shifts using their costumes for mattresses. They probably ended up getting flogged in some places.
Even so they persisted. Theater people stimulated imagination wherever they went, and helped to give Europe its unique cultural identity. The modern world is partly a present handed to us by nameless people who lived short, impractical lives in wagons. I think Gilliam just wanted to acknowledge the gift.
I wish Terry could be won over to good dialogue. The dialogue in his films isn't bad, it's just not as memorable as it could be. The great art direction would be used to better purpose if it were the backdrop for memorable rhetoric like the kind in this scene (above) from "Ed Wood."
What other films has Gilliam done?
ReplyDeleteI think the reason why Gilliam hasn't done Alice is that the books are basically unfilmable. Anyone who's seen most of the attempts at filming them can appreciate this.
ReplyDeleteLittle-known facts about projects which Gilliam hasn't done:
Gilliam was offered, by Disney, a go at a live action The Hunchback of Notre Dame AFTER they'd already done an animated version. He turned it down.
Gilliam was J.K. Rowling's first choice for directing the Harry Potter films, but the studio vetoed it.
Gilliam has been shopping around A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court for at least 20 years, but nobody will touch it because, apparently, his version includes all of the original Mark Twain sarcasm which most Hollywood versions have notoriously left out.
And, of course, there's The Defective Detective.
my favorite scene in ed wood!
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how important theatre and storytelling were in times gone past compared to today. Perhaps it's the advent of cinema that has largely replaced everything but nonsensical stuff like "Cats" or "Rent". Maybe the technological achievements in our day have weakened humanities imagination so greatly that everything must be handed to them on a virtual silver platter.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame really and I'm as guilty as the next. There's a storytelling event tonight in our town tonight and I couldn't seem to muster the enthusiasm to attend. Many actors I have known preferred the stage and all that a live performance entails but there was no way to make a living at it so they pursued a film career.
Gilliam's films are a little weak in the dialogue department but then they're not really written as a series of one liners like so many films of the last few decades.
Pseudo: Yeah, I know what you mean. Even Cyril Richard had trouble with the Alice story. I think disney did the best version.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that Rowling wanted to give the story to Gilliam. That's amazing! Well, Chris Columbus did a great job with it.
Martin: It's my favorite, too. There were a number of good dialogue scenes in that film.
plot isn't one of Gilliam's strong points
ReplyDeleteSpoken like someone who has never seen Time Bandits -- you have seen Time Bandits, haven't you?
Modesto: Time Bandits did indeed have a coherent (well almost coherent) story. That film and Parnassus are my favorite Gilliams.
ReplyDeleteI seem to have somehow missed out on ever seeing Parnassus -- it is going into the queue now to be watched before too long... Is it good for kids do you think? Just last night I watched Time Bandits with my daughter, first time for her, uncountably many times for me -- one of my very favorite movies. ...Other Gilliams? I str liking Twelve Monkeys a lot when it came out, but have never rewatched it and don't really remember it too well... Brazil I think is probably my favorite, and the one I have rewatched the most times. Here is a great article about the genesis of Time Bandits.
ReplyDeleteModesto: Thanks for the link. So THAT'S how Time Bandits came about!
ReplyDeletethanks this looks interesting
ReplyDeletei was once in the theatre and i loved it, i miss it dearly, the comraderie, the intense focus, the words, the chance to be someone else, all fantastic! modern theatre is so hooky, so cheesey, i cant bear it, i prefer the more independant groups off broadway.
ReplyDeleteI recently saw Gilliam's "Adventures of Baron Munchausen" from 1989 for the first time. In some ways, it seems like Gilliam remade it when he decided to make "Parnassus": both of them are tributes to the theatre and to actors. I must say that I found Parnassus the more fully realized film, though Munchausen has its moments. Do you think Gilliam's background as a cartoonist (he, Preston Sturges, and Frank Tashlin are the three most well-known cartoonists to move into directing live action) influences his choices of art direction, Eddie?
ReplyDeleteStephen: A cartoon influence on their work? I don't doubt it.
ReplyDeleteWas Sturges a cartoonist!!??? I had no idea. Man, it seems like half the people in the entertainment business were cartoonists at one time!
I loved this movie. I started watching "Inception" one night and got so upset by that movie's terrible editing and dialog that I turned that garbage off halfway through and watched this instead. Which was a smart move.
ReplyDeleteI actually like loose plots for the most part. If the acting and visuals are good I don't really care so much about story. Gilliam is kind of like Fellini this way. Both can write the kind of screenplays that meander around a bit but still give you the impression that something important is happening and they leave it up to you to construct the story a bit yourself after the credits roll.
Which I think is sometimes tougher than a really tight plot... it's easy to descend into David Lynch style incoherence if you don't walk the fine line.
I really liked "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" too. It's probably one of the most direct adaptations of a book I've seen which has more to do with Hunter S. Thompson's writing than anything else, but I felt he captured the book's cartoony mania.
It's funny you mention Alice in Wonderland, Gilliam's first film was "Jabberwocky" (it was pretty awful) but from there all of his films have had some reference to Alice ever since.
ReplyDeleteSome movies aren't as obvious, like Fear & Loathing features the song "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane, or in Dr. Parnassus the characters go through a mirror to enter the Imaginarium. Then you have Tideland which is like a dark twisted retelling of the Alice story, or at least I remember a "going down the rabbit hole" sequence.
About Preston Sturges: He was a cartoonist for only a short time, during his stint in the army. Nonetheless, I've always felt that his films feel like cartoons from the 1920s with crowds of people running around and lots of eccentrics. (Picture somebody like Herriman or McManus).
ReplyDeleteHere's a good synopsis of Sturges which points out how theatre was the central influence on his career:
http://www.film4.com/features/article/preston-sturges-masterclass
And if you have time, here's a nice article on Sturges. It reveals the interesting fact that at the height of his success, he was the third-highest paid man in America!
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/05/sturges-201005?currentPage=1
Fellini was a cartoonist too. you can see the influence in "Armarcord" a movie he designed to use cartoon exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteOk, now I've got to see this movie.
ReplyDeleteI remember that movie! It was so artistic and beautiful to look at, like looking at a painting. I need to watch it again.
ReplyDeleteThe story was pretty interesting too. There were parts that confused me but I loved the idea of visiting a magical wonderland and the ladies being so happy they would give away their necklaces and purses.
Gilliam's a very unique director. I'm interested in his new project "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote".