The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Roger Ebert, though he feels more generously towards it than I, sums up my reaction to the movie in his January 6 review:
My problem with Gilliam’s films is that they lack a discernible storyline. I don’t require A-B-C, Act 1-2-3, but I do rather appreciate having some notion of a film’s own rules. Gilliam indeed practices “Something Wonderful Right Away,” and you get the notion that if an idea pops into his head, he feels free to write it into his script under the Cole Porter Rule (“Anything Goes”). Knowing my history with Gilliam, who I always want to like more than I do, I attended the Cannes screening of “Doctor Parnassus” to be baffled, which I was, and then the Chicago press screening, where I had an idea what was coming and tried to reopen my mind. Gilliam is, you understand, a nice man, and has never committed the sin of failing to amaze.
Now what I see are a group of experienced actors gamely trying to keep their heads while all about are losing theirs. Can it be easy to play one-third of a guide to one-third of an arbitrary world? You just have to plunge in.
A handful of the images stick — the Jude Law Tony’s giant stilts; the dancing-bobbies sequence — and the acting is good. But in the service of what? When there isn’t a plot, there aren’t any stakes, and without any structure to hold it together, the emotion dissipates. Add to that a grim-seeming attitude on the part of the rest of the company to pretend that the three-different-Tonys set-up is actually the desired arrangement, and you have the filmed equivalent of hysterical laughter that the faintest breeze will shove into sobbing. I understand wanting to carry on in spite of Ledger’s death, wanting to avoid another public packing-in of the tents after the Don Quixote project. But despite the best efforts of Law, Johnny Depp, and Colin Farrell, Ledger is all you can see.
Ledger is good here. A few of his line readings seem, actually, like an homage to Depp, that silent-film “watch me thinking” thing Depp sometimes does; perhaps that’s why the Depp Tony has an elegant sadness in the performance, a formality, a resignation. Or perhaps it’s because the Depp Tony is the first to appear, making Ledger’s absence official. Ledger himself looks fine, and his distinctive baritone cuts through the helium of the set design and the frantic capering going on around him. But then he’s gone, and Colin Farrell is left to face the devil alone.
Sarah 32, Death Race 26; 9 of 24 categories completed
Tags: Colin Farrell Heath Ledger Johnny Depp Jude Law movies Oscars 2010 Death Race Roger Ebert Terry Gilliam
The Terry Gilliam film I saw before this was Tideland, which had a fairly strong storyline involving, among other things, taxidermy and dead hippies, so I was PERFECTLY HAPPY to watch Imaginarium wander amongst only slightly connected weirdness with NO flies crawling on anyone’s eyeballs.
I also thought Tom Waits was fantastic as the Devil, and Lily Cole really charming. I was actually most disappointed in Christopher Plummer, who seems satisfied to produce a fairly standard-issue flailing old drunk.
You (and Roger) perfectly articulated my problems with Gilliam’s films. I want to like them–they’re so beautiful to look at–but about a quarter of the way in, I’m saying, “Umm, what are we doing here?”
The first Gilliam film I saw was “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen,” which was absolutely lovely to the eyes. I was 18, and seeing it with a friend who I thought was much more avant-garde than myself, so I thought I must have missed something with regard to the plot. So at the risk of embarrassing myself, I asked her later, “What was that movie actually *about*?” Her answer: “Well, it was… and the Baron… then Uma Thurman… yeah, I don’t know.”
I liked “Dr. Parnassus”. Wasn’t impressed by it, but the bits with Ledger were fairly good. One wonders what kind of movie it would be had he not died about 1/4 of the way through filming.
The non-Tony parts did have some sort of logical coherence. See, the devil and Parnassus seemed to enjoy the game of one upping each other more than the actual outcome, which is why at the end of the movie, when the devil was able to claim the Dr.’s daughter, he didn’t want to. It would put an end to the game he so enjoyed playing with his “enemy” (and yes, part of the reason this part worked well was because Tom Waits was really in good form here).
It’s the whole Tony storyline that muddled everything. Much as I hate to say it, Gilliam should have just recast the part with one of the three actors, and reshot the scenes that Ledger had already filmed. It wouldn’t be the first time a director had to do that for a “tragically expired before their time” situation.
I agree with this completely, except that it was exactly what I really enjoyed about the movie. I wouldn’t want to watch movies like it very often, as I suspect it would grow quite tiresome, but every once in a while I like a break from… um, plot, I guess. I got nervous towards the beginning with the whole “stories keep the world going” thing, like “OH NO, is this one of THOSE movies that pats itself on the back about the Importance of Art?” and was quite delighted to find the thread totally dropped and never returned to. Kind of like cotton candy: I wouldn’t want it very often but I find it delightful when I do.
@Julie – I didn’t know Gilliam did the English version of that (makes me want to see it); I watched the original German one for a class on Nazi cinema and I can tell you the total lack of sense-making in that instance wasn’t Gilliam’s fault alone (though it may have been what attracted him to the project). He flies on a canon ball. And turns to wave at the camera. And that’s not even getting to the time he goes to the moon and finds all these moon-people who are only heads on like plants or something and has a kind of relationship with one of them (because even moon-ladies find him irresistible) but she dies because moon-days are shorter than Earth days, or their lifespans are really short, or something. It… hasn’t been that long but you’ll forgive me if the details are unclear, because that movie kind of defines “…wat.”
The first Gilliam film I saw, if you want to call it that, was The Crimson Permanent Assurance, the short film that plays before The Meaning of Life. The thing is 16 minutes long. One, it was edited down to 16 minutes when it was supposed to be five; two, it’s still way too long at 16 minutes; three, it suffers from being, well, a Terry Gilliam film: it looks fantastic, but you’re left going, “What the hell am I watching?” It works in the context of a Python film because absurdity is what you expect, but Gilliam’s style really does not do it for me beyond two-minute animations.
I’ve still seen a couple of his films because I’ve seen numerous questionable things the other Pythons have done since splitting up (one word: Yellowbeard) and don’t want to leave him out, but it’s more because I like him than because I like his work. And because he has a tendency to use Michael Palin in his movies. Mmm, Michael Palin.
I’m fairly neutral on Gilliam–I recall enjoying the stretches of “Munchausen” I’ve seen on TV, but I’m sure I’d have been frustrated if I’d paid for a theatrical showing. I’m just here to note that this is a beautiful, evocative piece of writing: “…the filmed equivalent of hysterical laughter that the faintest breeze will shove into sobbing.” Nicely done.
I find the best way to watch Gilliam’s movies is as crazy showcases for great actors. I love 12 Monkeys because of Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis, and I actually really liked The Brothers Grimm (unlike most people) because of Ledger and Damon. Add some cool trappings (postapocalyptic paranoia, fairytale forests) and I’m willing to sit through the movies for individual moments rather than seeing them as whole stories. Still, I heard some weird things about Imaginarium, and doubt I’ll be seeing it.
I happen to be a huge fan of Gilliam – I even love Baron Munchausen (btw, he didn’t do the German film – his is separate) – but I was disappointed in this movie. I wasn’t crazy about his previous film with Ledger, The Brothers Grimm, either, but at least you could blame that one on the interference of Harvey Weinstein (not just the cutting, but casting Lena Headey, whom I find unappealing, instead of Samantha Morton, who would have been perfect). You can’t really blame this on studio interference – this really seems like Gilliam is spinning his wheels. I did like Tom Waits and Lily Cole, and of the three actors replacing Ledger, I actually thought Jude Law came off best.
I decided against seeing this one after reading that horrendous Vanity Fair article that was supposed to be about Heath Ledger’s final projects but was actually a forum for Gilliam to bitch about how no one will fund his movies and that Michelle Williams ruined Ledger’s life and the perfect little boys club he and Gilliam had. Not the best way to go about promoting your movie, sir.
I actually thought Colin Farrell came off the best of the three replacements, he had the heaviest material to work with of the three and I think he handled it quite well.
I do enjoy the Gilliam movies I’ve seen (Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) but only if I can pause it periodically to do other things. There’s always way too much weirdness for one sitting. I freakin’ hate The Crimson Permanent Assurance. Meaning of Life is fairly weak for a Python film to beging with but with that holding down it’s damn near unwatchable. I always skip it when I watch it on DVD.
I have a colleague who turned up at the same showing I went to. Afterward, she said that the film made her sad because it reminded her that Ledger couldn’t make any more films. I said it made me happy because it reminded me that Waits could.