Director Debate No. 5: Terry Gilliam

johnny_ultimate

Week five. The Imaginarium of Terry Gilliam.

Favourite film? Brazil for me. An insanely confident mesh of a 1984-esque dystopian future and Monty Python sensibilities. There's nothing quite like it - biting satire, slapstick comedy and nightmarish surrealism combining into one fantastic film. Closely following, naturally, is the Monty Python stuff itself. The Holy Grail - which credits him as co-writer/director - is one of the most insanely enjoyable comedies ever made, and the highpoint of the Python filmography IMO, above even the timeless Life of Brian.

Worst film? Tideland. Somewhere along the line, Gilliam's playful side got lost in a sea of contrived absurdism and cynicism. Tideland was a particularly weak point in his recent bad streak - a distressingly cynical, cold film. Well made like all his films, but one I found impossible to buy into, it coming across like a far less confident Pan's Labyrinth. Imagination disguising reality is a theme that has been tackled far better than Tideland.

Terry Gilliam's strengths are in his DIY, eccentric direction. Born from his Monty Python experiences, his best films - from Time Bandits to Brazil - are playful, endearingly mental films. A few more of his offbeat, experimental and dare I suggest mainstream films - The Fisher King and Twelve Monkeys - are also very successful indeed, surprisingly full of character and energy when working within the confines of Hollywood. They're all strengthened by his unusual directorial eye.

But after Twelve Monkeys, I've found his output less successful. Fear & Loathing is a surprisingly clear adaptation of one of my favourite novels, but also think it lacks the pumping energy and speed of the book in its second half. Still, as good as an adaptation as we were likely to get though, wonderfully directed. After that, most of his films I've seen are outright bad. Tideland was almost distasteful in its childish (by design) cynicism, and The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus despite its visual lushness was a once again cold and distant film, confusingly told and somewhat exhausting.

I find it hard to accuse Gilliam of being a bad director recently, because his films are full of colour and character in visual design terms at least. But it's storytelling he's struggled with IMO - the bountiful energy of his earlier films lost in his eccentricities in later years. On the plus side, he was the vocal point of the best film about filmmaking in recent years - Lost in La Mancha - arguably proving he's a more interesting character than his recent films have illustrated.

pickarooney

I love most of Gilliam's stuff, even Baon Munchausen and the Grimm Brothers and while Tideland was not his best it was well worth a watch.

My favourite of his films, if you can call it his, by some distance would be The Holy Grail. It's one of those very few films (and life of Brian just about fits in that category, but Jones directed that) that I can watch over and over.

Of his non-comedies, Twelve Monkeys just shades Brazil and The Fisher King. It's been too long since I saw Time Bandits and for some reason I've never got round to seeing Fear and Loathing. At least not while I was in any state to appreciate it

Phony Scott

Best film: for me it's debatable. I haven't seen 'The Fisher King' or 'Twelve Monkeys' since they came out, but my recollection was that they were both brilliant.

Simply on the basis that it is the film of Gilliam's I've seen the most, I'd have to choose 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vagas'. It's a superb adaptation of a film that was supposedly unfilmable, and if you read the book, you can tell why.

Bits that didn't quite make sense to me (at an earlier age) in the book where captured brilliantly on screen. It doesn't go all out with visual metaphors like the book, but this is a great thing because I believe it would alienate some audience members as it is visually intense as it is.

The hyperactivity of some of Johnny Depp's subsequent performances seem to endlessly channel his performance here. Benicio Del Toro is also excellent, in fact, everyone famous on screen is on form. It's a film both hysterically funny, but also very poignant about human failures.

The worst: I'll probably get heckled for this but...'Brazil'. I think it’s very overrated. I've tried about three times in my life to watch this film and always seem to fail to figure out why people love it so much.

I do enjoy how absurd bureaucracy is treated in the film, particularly in the first half. Being overcharged for torture is amusing, but it's a fleeting joke for me.

Mocking totalitarianism is an excellent thing and the first few scenes are excellent because even someone who doesn't quite get it will understand the over the top nature of shadowy authority figures destroying a persons house during Christmas.

The huge problem with the later scenes (and most Gilliam’s career) is that the jokes are squarely aimed at the intelligentsia; there’s simply no room for ‘dumbing down’ as that would be “conforming to studio” as Gilliam might say, but this attitude always haunts his films making most of them, especially this one, alienating to the average popcorn muncher.

As a satire on satire, I’m always am left wanting. The people in ‘Nineteen Eighty Four’ feel very real to me; I’m left deeply upset and horrified by the end of the story, but because of the over the top nature of ‘Brazil,’ everyone is a caricature of Orwell’s story and by the end, ‘love conquers all’ or downbeat ending, I personally couldn’t care less what happens to them. I haven't seen Tideland

mike65

I've have Brazil on tape for a few years and one day I shall watch it!.

My favourite Gilliam would have to be Time Bandits on balance, the lead boy isn't a very good actor but then I suppose you could say he has a natural "gaucheness" and he is surrounded by a brilliant cast of adults who are having a hoot. The visuals are frankly a bit of a miracle for the 5 million dollar budget, packed with that trademark Gilliam detail and "odd bits" to create depth and drama. Jabberwocky is probably his least known film at this point, its not that funny but it certainly re-creates the hideous living conditions of medieval life with abandon, you can practially smell the slime. I've not seen anything bar Lost in La Mancha since 12 Monkeys which means I'm with the majority.

He appears to have some sort of curse hanging over him, what with Universal sitting on Brazil, Baron Munchausen production troubles/distribution, La Mancha getting washed away/budget issues and Heath Ledgers death during The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and its US distribution problems. Actually its not a curse, its that Gilliam isn't industry compatible.

Looking at his list of projects either scraped or in the planning suggests he'll never lack ambition but alas he'll probably lack a sympathetic producer.

krudler

12 Monkeys ftw, amazing movie

Sad Professor

I might be alone in this, but I actually loved Tideland. I found a very old post of mine about it here. Haven't watched it since it came out though. Wanted to get it on DVD but held off because they screwed up the aspect ratio. I'm not sure if they ever fixed it.

As for Gilliam himself, he is a true genius, but he's burned an awful lot of bridges over the years. He may have won the battle over Brazil but he lost war, and every studio since has treated him with kid gloves. Even putting Brazil aside, watching documentary footage of him it's easy to see why studios are reluctant to give him money.

Phony Scott

Sad Professor wrote: »

Wanted to get it on DVD but held off because they screwed up the aspect ratio. I'm not sure if they ever fixed it.

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=10846

The UK dvd is the director's preferred aspect ratio of 2.25:1, though that falls short of the original cinema projection of 2.35:1.

And, according to the man himself:

"What I recommend for all the owners of the North American Tideland DVD is to get a roll of wide black tape... sorry, before you do that, go out and buy a dozen more copies of the DVDs and pass them out to your friends, then... pause the disc at the Capri Films logo when it flares out into a blue sky. What you see is the correct proportion. Then, unrolling the tape, mask off the black areas on the screen above and below. If you want to leave a little bit more space top and bottom of the logo you will end up with the UK proportion. Then you should just sit back and enjoy. All the information left to right is there. There was no panning and scanning. Just stupidity."

ztoical

Sad Professor wrote: »

I might be alone in this, but I actually loved Tideland. .

Your not alone as I really loved Tideland as well. I really enjoyed the book and felt it was a very strong adpation of it.

Sad Professor

I'll have to look into it again, but I'm pretty sure DVD Compare's information is incorrect. Gilliam did originally say the UK release of Tideland was correct but he was misinformed. Despite what the box said, the UK release was not 2.25:1. It was actually closer to 2:1 or something like that. They opened up some of the picture, but they also cropped the sides in the process which was not what Gilliam intended. The last I heard only the German version has the correct aspect ratio, but it's possible that the other regions have been reissued since then.

EDIT: This site has a pretty good summary of the different DVD releases and what's wrong with them. The UK release is 2.10:1 and is just as heavily cropped at the sides as the US release. The German and Italian releases have the correct theatrical aspect ratio. It seems Gilliam has given up on the 2.25:1 version.

mikhail

Phony Scott wrote: »

...The worst: I'll probably get heckled for this but...'Brazil'...

Nah. Disagreed with, sure, but heckled? Never!

The huge problem with the later scenes (and most Gilliam’s career) is that the jokes are squarely aimed at the intelligentsia; there’s simply no room for ‘dumbing down’ as that would be “conforming to studio” as Gilliam might say, but this attitude always haunts his films making most of them, especially this one, alienating to the average popcorn muncher.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Can you give a couple of examples?

As a satire on satire, I’m always am left wanting. The people in ‘Nineteen Eighty Four’ feel very real to me; I’m left deeply upset and horrified by the end of the story, but because of the over the top nature of ‘Brazil,’ everyone is a caricature of Orwell’s story and by the end, ‘love conquers all’ or downbeat ending, I personally couldn’t care less what happens to them.

I find the opposite. 1984 has only one character who is even remotely fleshed out: the miserable victim that is Winston Smith. Brazil isn't entirely innocent of that either, but not nearly to the same extent.

Skerries

i have always been amazed at how he got some of the films he made made
they are just loopy in their extravagance but in some cases all the better for it
my favourites would have to be in order
12 Monkeys
Brazil
The Holy Grail
Time Bandits
and to be honest there is not much in it between them
Brazil was visually stunning and the anti Hollywood ending making it stand out, the same with 12 Monkeys
Baron Munchausen again shows his flair for the fanciful and was a commercial flop but did introduce Uma Thurman to the world
i didn't care much for The Fisher King or F&L in LV and i haven't seen Tideland

delbertgrady

He has somehow defied the odds, the critics and the box office to sustain a career of unique individuality. Yes, the quality control may be erratic at best, but when he hits the mark, he's a master. My favourites are The Fisher King, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (nobody seems to have mentioned that yet, good, bad or indifferent), Time Bandits and 12 Monkeys. I only read earlier today that he was one of several directors considered for the first Harry Potter film. Insane!
Oh, and I met him at the third Tom Waits concert in the Phoenix Park a few years ago and he was an absolute gent, so he can do no wrong in my book.

Magic Eight Ball

12 Monkeys continually blows me away, even after half a dozen viewings.

Magic Eight Ball

If they were ever to remake 'The Wizard of Oz' (and lets face it, they probably will) I think Gilliam would be perfect!

Sad Professor

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

If they were ever to remake 'The Wizard of Oz' (and lets face it, they probably will) I think Gilliam would be perfect!

He considered Tideland to be his own twisted take on The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland. I don't think he'd have much to add in an official remake. Not that they would ever give such a mainstream project to Gilliam.

12 Monkeys is fantastic alright. Probably one of the most perfectly conceived time travel films ever made. There's a great scene near the end of the film when Willis wakes up in the cinema and comes storming out to see Stowe walking across the lobby. The dawning realisation in that moment about what's going to happen is spine-tingling. It's also a great reference to Vertigo.

johnny_ultimate

delbertgrady wrote: »

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (nobody seems to have mentioned that yet, good, bad or indifferent)[/SIZE]

Mentioned it briefly in the first post, but wasn't a fan personally. It all felt a bit slapdash - arguably down to its slapdash and tragic production. I liked the ideas in it, and had some inventive visuals and effects, but the pacing and tone were all over the place IMO.

Actually, I've always thought Gilliam has had a very distinct way of pacing his films, largely down to the manic energy that defines many of them. Considering his films can range from outright farce to nightmarish sequences, it's not all that surprising that the tone and flow of his films can be fairly all over the place!

I must watch Tideland again, haven't seen it since it first came out on DVD. I'd been looking forward to it for a looonnnggg time. I was travelling when I first heard of it, I think I missed the Irish cinema release in the process. When I finally got to see it, it just left me very cold indeed - perhaps trying too hard to shock on occasion. Curious to revisit based on the comments here, but first time I watched it I wasn't enthused at all.

Barring the Fisher King, I do think his films can be rather cold and emotionally removed. That isn't a problem in a lot of cases, as many of his characters are extreme parodies or caricatures. It's why I'd always consider him an impressive technical master more than anything though - when toying around with structure, visuals or ideas, he exhibits a boundless energy which I think is what makes him such a fascinating director even on his off days.

losthorizon

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Week five. The Imaginarium of Terry Gilliam.



I find it hard to accuse Gilliam of being a bad director recently, because his films are full of colour and character in visual design terms at least. But it's storytelling he's struggled with IMO - the bountiful energy of his earlier films lost in his eccentricities in later years.

I think youve hit the nail on the head here. In recent years you will always leave a cinema disappointed after seeing a Gilliam Film and wondering "what if?" The uniqueness is still there but its not married to story structure. Brazil is my fav.

PS Foreign directors and old time directors as well please:)

johnny_ultimate

losthorizon wrote: »

PS Foreign directors and old time directors as well please:)

Working on it, don't worry Only problem with ye olde school directors is that there aren't many that would divide discussion the same way contemporary ones would since we don't tend to remember the bad ones. But there's a few that might be worth discussing, if people are enjoying the concept! I'm not sure how much reaction we'd get to a Godard related one, but that's the kind I'd love to see personally. Threads seem to be getting a good reaction and debate going though, and more in-depth discussion is something I welcome

mike65

Goddard One Do Don't

mikhail

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Working on it, don't worry Only problem with ye olde school directors is that there aren't many that would divide discussion the same way contemporary ones would since we don't tend to remember the bad ones. But there's a few that might be worth discussing, if people are enjoying the concept! I'm not sure how much reaction we'd get to a Godard related one, but that's the kind I'd love to see personally. Threads seem to be getting a good reaction and debate going though, and more in-depth discussion is something I welcome

Is is worth having a suggestions thread for these?

Skerries

Gilliam was actually tied to direct Watchmen at one stage but said it was too complicated to get to screen
i would have liked to seen his interpretation of it
http://www.watchmenactionfigures.net/082409-watchmen-movie-terry-gilliam.php

Manchegan

I remain convinced that, like Casablanca, no matter how haphazard their production, Munchausen and Parnassus will eventually be seen for the cinematic gems they are.

Gilliam has no equal in American cinema for daredevil risk taking cinema. Cribbing about characterization is missing the point, given the ever decreasing circles of the remake industry.

That said, Tideland was soulless and outmatched by Coraline on every count. And boy did Brothers Grimm suck, but then Lena Headey will do that to a film.

duckworth

I've only seen the following and would rank as follows:

1. Monty Python and The Holy Grail
2. Brazil
3. Time Bandits
4. Baron Munchausen

I've had the severe misfortune to have seen The Fisher King too - that sentimental nonsense must be his low point.

Terry Gilliam is an interesting filmmaker without having made anything great (aside from Monty Python). Brazil is a very ambitious film, and is very good - a great mix of Philip K. Dick and George Orwell with some great humour.

You have to admire anybody who goes out on limb to create their own vision - but the results are only B+ at their best in my book. In this respect I'd consider him similar to Tim Burton.

Here's hoping he still has a masterpiece in him - maybe the Don Quixote film will be great.

Skerries

is he going to attempt Don Quixote again?

Phony Scott

mikhail wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Can you give a couple of examples?

I can't give you an immediate answer on this. I have to duck the question like a bullet!

All I can leave you with is that sometimes in comedy; intelligent humour only serves a niche market and is doomed to be a cult film at best.

It's another film I haven't seen in a long time, but I will get back on this, though I think the answer is broad and maybe worth a thread in itself.

Manchegan wrote: »

Munchausen and Parnassus will eventually be seen for the cinematic gems they are.

I'm not sure why, but Munchausen drags in the middle; maybe becuase there is less action and more adventure, the theme is unbalanced?

Parnassus I really enjoyed. It harks back to Munchausen, but is very restrained in comparision, not only from Gilliam, but the actors as well.