Film: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (Gilliam)

[malakaix]

I really enjoyed it, tom waits performance was excellent.

 

[MistaJeff]

I didn't like Jude Law in this movie at all. Johnny Depp did an excellent job playing Heath Ledger playing Tony. I thought it was pretty average. I didn't hate it but I didn't really love anything about it.

 

[ArcsAngles]

there's a reason why the character Tony changes and others don't

 

[vegan]

An absolute disaster of a film.

it's that time of the month again, right?


is it something you actually wrote?!!

or did you forget to put it in quotes and to present it as an example of how devoid of content and arguments some comments can be? (and flawed to, as ArcsAngles hinted)

 

[TheDeceased]

Okay.

What's the (bullshit) reason (that Gilliam invented after his lead actor died) for Tony and that guy at the beginning changing, but none of the other characters?

It is a terrible film. It's unfortunate because I love Gilliam, but he really fucked up on this one...

Vegan, your post is far more ''devoid of content and argument''. Like so many people on bluelight you come across an opinion that you don't like and make childish comments. Because, my opinion (and the opinion of most film critics) is apparently invalid. The only reason that I could possibly dislike this ass fest of a film is because I am menstruating out of my penis. Grow up.

Answer me this: what do the (be specific) seemingly random hallucinations/ fantasies have to do with the narrative?

A man walking on big stilts up near the clouds, giant stiletto shoes and big green lily pads. These ideas aren't imaginative. They're just random, crappy ideas that do nothing to further the plot and mean nothing. Which would be okay, I guess, if they were particularly incredible ideas. If they stood alone, outside of the film. They don't. Not only are they uninspired (point out a fantasy element in the film that was original/ interesting), the CGI was terrible. It looked like shit, didn't it? Was anyone actually at all interested when the Johnny Depp Tony (who didn't act at all like Ledger) was dancing around on lily pads, surrounded by big shoes? That scene made me want to vomit.

 

[L2R]

funny, i share those exact complaints with tim burton films, but i remember really enjoying this the one time i saw it.

 

[vegan]

your post is far more ''devoid of content and argument''

bad faith is quite annoying

the point of my post was not to give arguments but to show my surprise at the lack of substance of your criticism of the film

you come across an opinion that you don't like and make childish comments

i don't care if people don't have the same opinions as me

yours was not explained in the least
that's what made me reply
"it's bad because... because i say so"

What's the (bullshit) reason (that Gilliam invented after his lead actor died) for Tony and that guy at the beginning changing, but none of the other characters?

- you know why. is it too much to ask to excuse him for his main actor dying?

- he used this to show that tony was double/triple-faced
the other side of the mirror revealed what he wasn't showing about himself, as it exaggerated the aspects of the other characters that they were not hidding

- he had no real reason to do it for other characters except to give people a headache trying to follow who was who

- it's a movie. remember?
it's a terry gilliam movie, remember?

how is monty python's humour often called? absurd

absurd, as in for instance "let's try random things coming out of nowhere and who cares if TheDeceased is frustrated because he cannot find the logic that is not there"

Answer me this: what do the (be specific) seemingly random hallucinations/ fantasies have to do with the narrative?

i'd try to answer if i considered that this question was slightly relevant to the quality of the film

to me, it isn't

you could as well have asked about global warming

These ideas aren't imaginative

when are you getting in production?
we can't wait for the big deeds behind the big mouth

 

[TheDeceased]

I don't know why there's so many sarcastic dickheads on this forum.

Pointing out the pointlessness of someone else's post is ironic, especially when your original post consisted of the + symbol being repeated endlessly.

Oh, but your post was positive. It reflected the popular opinion.

(Hypocrite.)

you know why. is it too much to ask to excuse him for his main actor dying?

He should have shut down the film. When Ledger first died Gilliam said in a press release that he was going to CG the rest of Tony's character with existing footage of Ledger as a 'homage' and he received a serious backlash for the idea, so he recast the role. He was incapable of stopping production due to La Mancha and all of his other cursed films, so he finished it anyway, coming up with an extremely flimsy excuse as to why the main character changes repeatedly throughout the film. When the first guy went through and changed it was an incredibly obvious set up. He falls in the puddle and says "My beautiful face!" or something when he sees that he's changed. So when we see Tony change it makes sense. Pretty fucking flimsy.

he had no real reason to do it for other characters except to give people a headache trying to follow who was who

It doesn't make any sense (at all) that Tony and the man at the beginning are 'double/triple/quadruple faced' whereas everyone else that goes through the mirror is 'single faced'. I guess that's the reason it should have been consistent... ?

Answer me this: what do the (be specific) seemingly random hallucinations/ fantasies have to do with the narrative?

i'd try to answer if i considered that this question was slightly relevant to the quality of the film

to me, it isn't

you could as well have asked about global warming

So they are completely unrelated to the film. A middle aged woman sees big shoes. A boy sees a land of chocolates and toys. What an incredible imagination! Ahem. None of the scenes behind the mirror were interesting or well thought out. An old woman in a land of shoes? A little boy surrounded by chocolate and toys? Badly conceived cliches.

None of the characters were well developed. Parnassus/ Tony/ Parnassus' daughter/ the annoying little guy that works for Parnassus... I didn't care about any of them.

The film didn't have any heart.

(It should have.)

when are you getting in production?
we can't wait for the big deeds behind the big mouth

My novel is being published early 2011, my first short story is being published next month. I am directing my first (proper) short sometime in 2011. I am writing another (feature length) script for a film-maker friend of mine that may go into production some time in 2011 also...

Oh, you were being sarcastic... sorry...

I guess the implication is that in order to dislike THIS film (remember you dislike many other films) I need to be a better film-maker than Gilliam. Otherwise, again, my opinion is invalid.

<removed ad hom>

 

[TheDeceased]

funny, i share those exact complaints with tim burton films, but i remember really enjoying this the one time i saw it

Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam are stylish directors. They are seemingly incapable of making something dramatic that doesn't rely on visual splendour. They both used to be favorites of mine. Then I realized if you take away Gilliams skewed camera angles and is fish eye lenses and Burton's surreal/ gothic elements, what do you have?

I still like them both (although Alice in Wonderland as an abortion) but I no longer consider them to be great directors. Their films don't move me. They are cute and they look nice on the screen, but they are (for the most part) seriously lacking in heart/ character development/ drama.

Like Tarantino.

I put Gilliam, Burton and Tarantino into the same group.

 

[Jamshyd]

Who cares about motifs? Implicity? Symbolism? Types? No! The (erroneously) perceived lack of "Conti-fucking-nuity" is obviously a far more pressing matter!

 

[TheDeceased]

Didn't parrot anything.

Continuity wasn't my only gripe.

Nobody has tried to explain the symbolism of the film.

Please do.

I apologize for being offensive, but I didn't start it.

Peace,

tD

 

[Jamshyd]

The film is far from perfect, and in retrospect I suppose I'd rate it a 4/5.

And admittedly, I am not familiar in the least with Giliam's work aside from this singular film, since I rarely ever watch films to begin with.

My opinion is that it has literary merit as-is, without comparing to others (although I certainly thought, as far as psychedelia is concerned, that it does a far better job at portraying the experience than, say, A Scanner Darkly).

I found the film itself very simplistic in its presentation, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Like Vegan suggested, one needs to have some appreciation for absurdity - if that's not your cup of tea, then I can tell you before you'd watched it that you were going to hate it. Chances are you're not into much of Japanese cinema, either.

The film doesn't play around a lot before telling you very explicitly that it is going to be absolutely ridiculous (see where they decide set up shop, how silly Mercury looks, how the doctor is propped up on a sliding stool...etc). The rest of it seems to be an exploration of archetypes in a way not unlike Robertson Davis' jungian themes in the Deptford Trilogy (classics of Canadian lit.), and does a pretty good job at it.

I did not think the eye-candy was meant to impress in the first place, or prove that Giliam has a "deep imagination" (one of the points you criticize). I thought its lack of effort toward creativity was the point! See, the idea as I perceived it is to implicitly construct a patchwork of types whose pattern emerges gradually after several repetitions. I don't have a wealth of films to compare it to but that style does remind me of The Beaver Trilogy or any of Mamoru Oshii's films (particularly Urusei Yatsura II).

If you're interested in character typology but don't feel particularly psychoanalytical (I wouldn't blame you, I'm not a fan either), then I recommend checking out the writings of Joseph Campbell. I have a feeling you wouldn't be surprised to find that one of his major works is titled The Hero with A Thousand Faces .

p.s. I share your lack of appreciation for Burton and I have actually refused to watch Alice in Wonderland.

 

[TheDeceased]

I have no issue with absurdity. You should read some of my stories. I just feel that it needs to be absurd for a reason. You say that the point was a lack of creativity... Well, I don't think that's very inspired. You say the scenes weren't supposed to look impressive... Then overall I'm left wondering what the talent is in making the film. Although Monty Python (and Munchausen - which is, comparitively, a wonderful film) are absurd, they also have other things going for them.

A lot of people didn't like "Palindromes". The lead actor changes seven times during the course of the film. There is absolutely no reason for the change in the context of the narrative. Doesn't bother me at all, because Solondz pulled it off.

The fact that Tony changed actors isn't what bothered me. If it was done well, I would have liked the film. IMO it wasn't done well. Johnny Depp acted like Johnny Depp. Jude Law acted like Jude Law. They weren't emotionally (or, in terms of mannerisms) remotely similar to Ledger's portrayal of Tony. I'm guessing that Gilliam decided to not have them impersonate Ledger (Depp would be more than capable of doing so, see his portrayal of Hunter S. Thompson) due to the fact that he just died. ie. It would cheapen Ledger's last performance to illustrate how easily another actor could fill his shoes. I would also guess that it wasn't Gilliam who made this decision (as he wanted to CG Ledger's dead face in for the role), but rather the producers, based on public backlash.

Archetypes weren't explored in Parnassus for me. Nothing was explored. As you said the film suffers from an extremely (linear,) simplistic structure. It's almost episodic. There is very little time (when you take away all the absurd shit and the CG fantasies) for character exploration.

Can you elaborate? You didn't explain the symbolism . I get that the mirror and fantasy segments are symbolic to the psychedelic experience, etc - but that's obvious... and aside from that I didn't detect any layers of meaning, so as far as I'm concerned, A Scanner Darkly is a better film in every imaginable way.

 

[vegan]

Pointing out the pointlessness of someone else's post is ironic, especially when your original post consisted of the + symbol being repeated endlessly

!!!?

apparently you have no idea what we were talking about

or you wouldn't say this post was pointless

you should have paid more attention to the words "shulgin's scale"

He should have shut down the film

if you give up easily, good luck with your career

as for gilliam, he had had enough problems before to choose to see it through this time

coming up with an extremely flimsy excuse

propose your own version for us to read

we were many to be happy enough with his flimsy excuse, especially seeing the conditions that forced him to make up one
maybe this excuse only works on open brains

He falls in the puddle and says "My [...] face!"

what would you say if you saw in your reflexion that your face has changed?

the spectators needed an hint from the movie to understand that it was the same character

It doesn't make any sense (at all) that Tony and the man at the beginning are 'double/triple/quadruple faced' whereas everyone else that goes through the mirror is 'single faced'. I guess that's the reason it should have been consistent... ?

the mirror exaggerates points of their personalities

the old woman doesn't hide being obsessed by expensive clothing
so that's what she sees

tony hides being after money, fame, etc.
but it's how he is so that's what the mirror shows

So they are completely unrelated to the film

no, your question was unrelated to the quality of the film

A middle aged woman sees big shoes. A boy sees a land of chocolates and toys. What an incredible imagination!

what's wrong with you?

a guy crossed the sreet
man, that happens all the time!
how unoriginal
why do they have to put that in a movie?

if you follow that logic, there's pretty much no movie that you can like
or do you have a selective way a judging them?

None of the characters were well developed. Parnassus/ Tony/ Parnassus' daughter/ the annoying little guy that works for Parnassus... I didn't care about any of them.

you didn't
others did

you think they were not developped
others think they were
did you miss a part?
did they see the director's cut?
or are you blind to gilliam's way of presenting his characters?

the little guy. the midget of the young boy?
cause the later acted very well

My novel is being published early 2011, my first short story is being published next month. I am directing my first (proper) short sometime in 2011. I am writing another (feature length) script for a film-maker friend of mine that may go into production some time in 2011 also...

so if i count right, that's... not yet
well, call us back when it's done

when i had to ask for accreditations for festivals, they made a point of precising before you sent the request that the possibility of accreditation would only be considered according to already published material, not what you promised them

(if that was a sligthly disguised attempt to impress us and change your status to that of pundit of this field, sorry. have had texts and photos published since 16 years old (like them or not, 17 years in the hand is worth two "very soon" in the bush)

Oh, you were being sarcastic... sorry...

yes, but about the quality of what you may produce compared to that of gilliam

not about the fact that you'll get something produced or not
i don't know about that and that was not my point

please stop looking for what you wish were in my posts instead of seeing what is really there

I guess the implication is that in order to dislike THIS film (remember you dislike many other films) I need to be a better film-maker than Gilliam. Otherwise, again, my opinion is invalid.

not in order to dislike it, but in order to spit on it
yes, you should be able to back your claims with concrete ideas showing that gilliam had indeed been guilty of bad film-making and that you would have done better (in the same period of time, according to the budget and other restrictions...)

hen I realized if you take away Gilliams skewed camera angles and is fish eye lenses and Burton's surreal/ gothic elements, what do you have?

when you look at a painting, do you just see colours or does the painting tell you a story through its colours?

it seems that you dissociate different aspects of a movie that are actually interlaced

Nobody has tried to explain the symbolism of the film.

you haven't told me about global warming yet

things are added post after post in a thread
don't expect everything to be said at once

(you at least have the symbolism of tony's different faces)

I apologize for being offensive, but I didn't start it.

you are being offensive (ad hom removed)
we are just arguing (trying to keep up with your tone a little bit too, without being impolite)

and with the diffamatory post void of explanation that you wrote, yes, you started it

I just feel that it needs to be absurd for a reason

if it's absurd for a reason, it's not absurd anymore


i'm going on holiday
don't forget to keep busy hating

 

[TheDeceased]

As I said, you started it with the "it's that time of the month again" comment. Until that moment, nobody had gotten personal. I have no intention responding to your post at length.

Enjoy your holiday.

I've blocked you. (I can no longer see your comments.)

 

[Jamshyd]

I have no issue with absurdity. You should read some of my stories. I just feel that it needs to be absurd for a reason. You say that the point was a lack of creativity... Well, I don't think that's very inspired. You say the scenes weren't supposed to look impressive... Then overall I'm left wondering what the talent is in making the film. Although Monty Python (and Munchausen - which is, comparitively, a wonderful film) are absurd, they also have other things going for them.

The talent is primarily literary - as in poetic, in my opinion. However, judging from everything you say, it seems to me that you are more concerned with cinematography than you are with literary merit, which is fine (this time I'm not making a jab - there is nothing wrong with focusing on one aspect when engaging in (hopefully) constructive criticism). If that is the case... well I actually still don't see what's so wrong with the film, as the acting is much better than most things I've seen recently.

A lot of people didn't like "Palindromes". The lead actor changes seven times during the course of the film. There is absolutely no reason for the change in the context of the narrative. Doesn't bother me at all, because Solondz pulled it off.

I (and it seems everyone else here but you) do not see the big deal in the change. You seem to see a dissonance between the characters, but we don't. In fact, I only noticed the change until somewhat later because to me they all look and act very similar (to the point where I mix up their names - and I'm talking in general).

The fact that Tony changed actors isn't what bothered me. If it was done well, I would have liked the film. IMO it wasn't done well. Johnny Depp acted like Johnny Depp. Jude Law acted like Jude Law. They weren't emotionally (or, in terms of mannerisms) remotely similar to Ledger's portrayal of Tony. I'm guessing that Gilliam decided to not have them impersonate Ledger (Depp would be more than capable of doing so, see his portrayal of Hunter S. Thompson) due to the fact that he just died. ie. It would cheapen Ledger's last performance to illustrate how easily another actor could fill his shoes. I would also guess that it wasn't Gilliam who made this decision (as he wanted to CG Ledger's dead face in for the role), but rather the producers, based on public backlash.

See, I have no idea what all this means. But I'll take your word for it, I guess...?

Archetypes weren't explored in Parnassus for me.

Well unlike subtle differences between characters, the fact that the film is about archetypes is not the least bit subjective. The archetypes explored in Parnassus are largely based on Tarot trumps, of which one is literally presented as such (the Hanged Man). Others include the Magus, the Priestess, the Devil (obviously), the Tower, Death, and the Star.

On a less esoteric level, archetypes include the Dark Forest, the gamble between Truth and Lies (very Zoroastrian, if you ask me), and others which I'd remember if my film-memory were better (I basically start forgetting any film I watch the moment the credits roll, sometimes earlier).

Nothing was explored. As you said the film suffers from an extremely (linear,) simplistic structure. It's almost episodic. There is very little time (when you take away all the absurd shit and the CG fantasies) for character exploration.

Two things:

a. The film IS episodic. That's the beauty of it for me. Archetypes are best presented in a semi-repetitive, episodic manner IMO.

b. I think you have what I said backwards: it is not that Archetypes were used to explore the characters, but rather the characters were used to explore archetypes. As such, character depth becomes less relevant.

Can you elaborate? You didn't explain the symbolism . I get that the mirror and fantasy segments are symbolic to the psychedelic experience, etc - but that's obvious... and aside from that I didn't detect any layers of meaning, so as far as I'm concerned, A Scanner Darkly is a better film in every imaginable way.

I don't think the film was actually intended to be psychedelic (although it certainly is). The fact that it surpasses a lot of others that WERE in fact trying to be so means that Gilliam did a good job. As for symbolism, I hope the above elaboration was sufficient.

 

[TheDeceased]

I don't hold cinematography above content. I just see the film as having basically no content, so the cinematography must be extraordinary to make it a decent film and visually (it is a visual-oriented film) it was disappointing.

I haven't encountered anyone in real life (not online) who has liked the film at all. I was genuinely surprised to find so many fans on bluelight. I thought everyone hated Parnassus. I guess maybe it has more appeal to the psychedelic community? I don't know.

You don't have to "take my word" for it: the theory regarding the actors changing and why the replacement Tony's didn't look or act like him. As I said I was guessing. It's just a suspicion. There are (what I think are) fairly logical reasons behind it, however, which I've stated.

If exploring archetypes was what Gilliam was trying to do, I guess I don't find it very interesting or clever. The dark forest is an archetype, so there is a dark forest in the film. The devil is an archetype, the priestess, etc. I guess I don't see what he did with them. Maybe I'm a fool (also an archetype if I'm not mistaken, so nominate me for an oscar for this post... ), but there are these archetypes in many films, aren't there. You said the characters were used to explore archetypes. This is what I'd like you, if you feel so inclined, to elaborate on.

How were the archetypes explored? (I don't think they were.)

Re: psychedelia, Gilliam (like John Lennon) refuses to admit the psychedelic undertones of his films. When interviewed about Fear and Loathing he made damn sure that he said that he has never taken drugs and that he was making the film for friends of his, ex-hippies from the sixties, and that they confirmed that what he was doing (his portrayal of psychedelia) was accurate. This, of course, is absurd - to everyone except those who desperately want to believe it (see conservative Beatles fans).

I'm surprised that you would deny the psychedelic undertones of Parnassus - or any of Gilliams films/ animations, but then you said you're not very familiar with his work...

He is definitely a tripper.

 

[vegan]

I've blocked you. (I can no longer see your comments.)

in other words :

"i give up.
i come here to have people bow to my opinions and i can't stand when someone doesn't argree and i find no way to have the last word.

and since i need an excuse not to answer to your posts, i'll put you on ignore so that i can pretend that i didn't see your arguments."

in the situation where one poster is annoying, the ignore option is already pretty sad because it means
"i could ignore your posts myself but my brain is too weak for that so i'll have the software do it for me"
using the ignore option id like claiming high that you have no will of your own

but in this case, it's pathetic

there are no insults, bad faith or whatever in my posts
you're just upset that i have things to reply to your points and you're too proud to admit that you're not willing (able?) to answer. so you'll pretend that my posts are worth being put on ignore

keep it this way
you'll never progress
never put yourself into question

why are you posting on a message board in the first place?
if you don't want to exchange ideas with others, just open your own narcissistic web page

(i post this because knowing that it was just an excuse not to answer, i'm not sure at all that you actually put me on ignore
or someone could quote this too)