The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2019)

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2019)

Director: Terry Gilliam 

Cast: Adam Driver, Jonathan Pryce 

If you look at the repertoire of films in director Terry Gilliam’s career, you’ll see that a lot of his films have a Quixote quality to them. Many of his films deal with a man who escapes to fantasy worlds in order to avoid the harshness of the real one. For example, in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989), the aging Baron Munchausen calms a war torn town with his tall tales of fantasy and mayhem same as Quixote’s tall tales. Like Don Quixote, the Baron rides a horse wields a sword and fights fantastical creatures. Like Quixote, the Baron gets old when life grows stagnant and only adventure brings him to life! The Baron and Quixote are always avoiding death…from old age…or simply having death itself (read: the grim reaper) literally chasing you around. They are both in love with the “beautiful ladies”. And that’s not the only Quixote like example in Gilliam’s career, Jonathan Price’s character in Brazil (1985) is also a man who escapes into fantasy. In his fantasies he sees himself (much like Quixote) as an armor wearing sword wielding warrior, fighting giant buildings that emerge from the ground…similar to how Quixote has to fight windmills who are “giants”. 

 So yeah, Quixote has always been very close to Gilliam’s heart. And it makes all the sense in the world, because after all, isn’t Gilliam like Quixote himself? A man avoiding the horrors of boring old reality by escaping into his fantasy films? Fighting the giant windmills of Hollywood and life to make his films? I’ve always appreciated Gilliam’s defense of the great escape, the importance in our lives for storytelling, the beauty of theater, the comedic tragedy that is life. It’s one of the reasons I personally connect with director Terry Gilliam’s films and the overall message of his films. They are against reality and all for high adventure and bewilderment! His films are for the zany, crazy part of life as well, how we shouldn’t take things so damn seriously. His films have a feel of someone who wants to amaze and entertain you with the many possibilities of pure fantasy. Of escapism of the highest caliber. 

 Which is why I appreciate The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2019) and how it got made. I mean, here’s a film that Gilliam at one point attempted to make but failed. It’s such a sad tale, yet such an amazing one at the same time. A documentary was shot of the whole thing called Lost in La Mancha (2002) and it’s just mind-blowing. Here’s my review for it, read it and find out why it’s such an amazing experience to see. But in a nutshell, everything went wrong that first time Gilliam attempted to make this film in Spain back in 2000. The actor who was going to play Don Quixote got a back pain and couldn’t ride his horse, a storm destroyed all the sets, millions were lost and all for nothing because quite literally, Gilliam pulled the plug on the film. He gave up on it. Or did he? Thanks to the folks at Amazon, he finally got the chance to make the film. It’s been 25 years in the making so this film is kind of a miracle! 

Here's a picture of Gilliam, on location with Jean Rochefort; Gilliam's choice for Quixote in the first attempt at making this film. Gilliam's face on this pic says a thing or two about what a grueling experience that first attempt was. 

 Was it worth all the pain? The answer is a resounding yes! It’s Gilliam going back to his roots, to that pure fantasy escape, but told in a closer way to Gilliam’s true inspiration in his career: Cervante’s Don Quixote. Of course, this isn’t the Gilliam of the 80’s who would get 60 million dollars to make The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989), this is Gilliam on a tight budget. I’m sure this film could have been made with more special effects…to bring that fantasy to life, but it’s not.  This is a slightly restrained Gilliam in terms of going nuts with special effects. We do get one fun moment in which ‘Quixote’ fights with three giants which is gloriously good, it reminded me of what Gilliam loved to do in the 80’s, it brought to mind that giant that comes out of the ocean with a pirate ship on his head from Time Bandits (1981). And there’s little things here and there throughout the whole film that will remind you of previous Gilliam films, loved that about it. 

 When directors hit their mature years, they tend to make films that are deeper and more profound and not so focused on pure spectacle, and this is that type of film. It’s not special effects left and right, it’s a more character driven tale about this self-centered film director that reconnects with an actor he made his first film with, the film he made is called The Man Who Killed Do Quixote. The actor believes he is Don Quixote and at times, you believe it. Maybe he is? Who knows. That’s for you to decide. But the film once again hits one Gilliam’s favorite themes, fantasy vs. reality. The fear of death and the wanting to live life with an adventurous spirit or die trying. It’s all told from a very meta perspective in the sense that it is a film about filmmaking, the frustrations and the pleasures of being a creative mind. How making a film is a true struggle. 

 I loved this movie for many things, among them that shift between fantasy, memory and dream world, then back to reality. That code switching between worlds is excellent and vintage Terry Gilliam territory. So this is basically like Gilliam’s life thesis, encapsulating everything his learned about life and filmmaking and giving it to us. It’s such a pity that the film is actually going through legal issues (the struggle continues!) and it could only be shown one day in a few theaters…I was lucky to see it on the 42^ndStreet Regal Theater in New York. I was kind of hoping he was in the audience…because it’s a one-night event and it was New York. I could have sworn I heard his peculiar Terry Gilliam laugh at one point...I swear he was watching it with the audience. Or was it a fantasy in my mind? I’ll never really know. Final take on Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is that its Gilliam going back to his roots. It has a lot of what made Brazil and Adventures of Baron Munchausen great, but on a smaller budget and more focused on story and performances. Adam Driver and Jonathan Pryce deliver amazing performances and make the film that much more pleasurable. Glad to see Gilliam is still making great films. Through Gilliam, Cervante’s heart and spirit beat fierce and free still!  

Rating: 4 out of 5 

The Zero Theorem (2013)

Title: The Zero Theorem (2013)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Cast: Christoph Waltz, Lucas Hedges, David Thewlis, Matt Damon, Tilda Swinton, Peter Stormare

I hold director Terry Gilliam in very high esteem; he has been one my favorite directors since…forever. He and I have a kinship, we are on the same channel, we see the world in the same way, a world  filled with bureaucracy, big corporations and governments trying to feverishly stomp out what’s left of our humanity, our imaginations, our dreams. It’s this particular world view that is always mirrored in his films. There’s this theory in the world of cinema that says that every director keeps making the same film over and over again until he or she dies, this theory holds true for many directors. They don’t always tell the same exact story, but they do play with the same themes over and over again. For example, Gilliam’s films usually deal with characters that escape the horrors of this world by dreaming of a better one. In Gilliam’s films, the great escape is our minds. One of Gilliam’s first films, Time Bandits (1981), is about a little boy who avoids his dismal family life by escaping to the fantastic worlds he finds in his books, in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988) the Baron helps an entire town escape the horrors of war by entertaining them with his tall tales and in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009) Gilliam showed us how our imaginations are really a mirror of ourselves. How what he shows us in his films, is really a reflection of us, of humanity. And now we’ve got The Zero Theorem (2013), does Gilliam play with his favorite themes once again?

The man, The myth, The Legend, Director Terry Gilliam on the set of The Zero Theorem

 In The Zero Theorem we follow the life of Qohen Leth, a computer programmer, who works for a company called ManCom. The problem with Qohen is that he’s tired of the repetitive work; he hates to go out into the world, face the noise. In this way he reminded me of the man who turns into a cockroach because he doesn’t want to leave his home to go to work in Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. In The Zero Theorem, Qohen believes he can be more productive working from his home, so he wants to meet with management to propose the idea to them. To his surprise, management says “yes” but on one condition, that instead of doing the usual work he does, he must instead attempt to solve “The Zero Theorem”. What exactly is the Zero Theorem and can Qohen solve it?

The original title for Terry Gilliam’s Brazil (1985) was ‘1984 ½’, this unused title referenced both George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece ‘1984’ and Federico Fellini’s  8 1/2 (1963), so from very early on in his career Gilliam had an affinity for Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece and Fellini's surreal film. In Orwell's 1984 the government has sucked the wonder out of life and people simply work to produce, to form part of the whole. In this novel, all individuality has been eradicated from society. All these Orwellian themes can be found in The Zero Theorem; for example, when Qohen talks, he refers to himself as “We” never as “I” which lets us see he is so oppressed by ‘the system’ that he has ceased to stop thinking of himself, he only thinks of the group. The Zero Theorem also echoes Federico Fellini’s 8 ½ because it’s a film whose main character is constantly dreaming in an attempt to escape the hectic demands of his life; Qohen escapes to the virtual world, the only place where he can find peace. So yes, this new film has all the usual Gilliam influences, with the added element that Gilliam now comments on the digital age we live in, in The Zero Theorem his characters don’t just escape to their dream worlds, they escape to virtual dream worlds. 

A lot of folks are referring to The Zero Theorem as the last chapter in Gilliam’s ‘satirical dystopian trilogy’ a trio of films consisting of The Zero Theorem, 12 Monkeys (1995) and Brazil (1985). The reason being that these films all share the same idea of man trying to survive in a crazy, out of control future where a totalitarian government has brought humanity to a horrible, lifeless end. For example, the main character in Brazil was Sam Lowry, an office dweller who works in a small cubicle, crunching numbers, not at all that different from Qohen, who feverishly works on his computer, without a second to blink. There’s a moment in which Qohen (brilliantly played by Christoph Waltz) is trying to solve the Zero Theorem and as he is almost there, he’s face lights up in ecstasy, like he was high on some drug, not all that different from when we plug into a video game and solve it. I’m sure Gilliam was commenting on this as well, we work hours in an office only to come home and unwind in front of a television screen, trying to solve a meaningless puzzle, called a video game. Every time we pass to the next level, we get this little rush, this feeling of achievement which amounts to nothing? This reminds me of how the film constantly reminds us that 100% = 0.

The Zero Theorem also explores the idea of religion and the existence of God; yes my friends, on this film Gilliam ponders the big questions. Why are we here? What does it all mean? Is God real? You see, throughout the film Qohen is always waiting for a phone call, a mysterious phone call that will give him an answer to a question that even Qohen doesn’t fully understand, yet he’s waiting for it. Kind of like those people waiting for God to talk to them, they spend their entire lives waiting to hear that voice. In the film, it is understood that Qohen is suffering from some type of insanity because of this illusion he lives under, not unlike your typical Jesus Freak, always expecting for God to talk to them, always waiting for God to solve their lives, to tell them what to do, to answer the big questions for them. Even though the film alludes to Qohen being insane, I wouldn’t say he is. He’s simply living a lie, slowly uncovering the truth, learning that he’s been taken for a fool. The truth is ‘the call’ is a delusion. No one is going to call you. You gotta take the reins of your life. It is sad to see Qohen under such mental stress over these matters, which is probably what the filmmakers want us to notice, the unnecessary mental struggle that religion puts you through. But still, those big questions remain unanswered. Who will answer them? Will they ever get answered?  

There’s so much more to The Zero Theorem than what I’ve mentioned here, it’s the kind of film that begs to be seen more than once. I for one need to give it a re-watch, I love it when a film does that to me. It compels me to watch it again, almost immediately. Last time this happened to me was with David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001). So yeah, this movie is like a puzzle, it’s a brainy film. It’s made for those of us who like to get all existential and philosophical, all others will probably end up scratching their heads, asking themselves what the hell this movie is about. Is it Gilliam’s best film? Not if you ask this Terry Gilliam fan, but I don’t blame Gilliam himself. The man is working with micro budgets when compared to the gazillion dollar movies he used to make during the 80’s and 90’s. Sadly, this is an ailment that many an auteur suffers from.  Big studios won’t give directors such as Gilliam the big bucks to make the big movies they could be making because artful films are risky, and studios hate to lose money on a film. So this is why we’re getting this ‘low budget’ version of Terry Gilliam, which as it turns out, is still amazing. Because it’s not the money behind the movie, it’s the imagination and creativity behind the camera that brings a film to life. And to be honest, films like this mean a whole lot more to me then the latest, brainless Hollywood blockbuster. Terry Gilliam remains the soul of true dreamers, fantasists and artists out there, a director who makes films against all odds, my hats down to you sir. You’ve won yet another battle and have given us another soul searching film.

Rating: 4 out of 5    

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Title: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Cast: Johnny Depp, Benicio del Toro, , Tobey Maguire, Christina Ricci, Gary Busey, Ellen Barkin, Cameron Diaz, Flea

Review:

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in one of these movies that you either “get” and love, or you don’t get and hate. I fall under the category of those who love it to death. I don’t know what it is that attracts me towards Hunter S. Thompson’s own brand of ‘Gonzo Journalism’ I think there’s something that feels so very genuine about his writing style, it just feels like he was streaming his thoughts straight onto his typewriter. The main idea behind Thompson’s ‘Gonzo Journalism’ was to experience things first hand, to immerse himself and experience whatever it was he had to write about and then write about it. He didn’t just research and write. He lived, he experienced, and he dove head first into the world he was writing about. With ‘Gonzo Journalism’ you almost feel as if Hunter was walking around with his typewriter, typing things down as they happened. For example, he lived with the motorcycle gang known as ‘The Hells Angels’ for a year. He later wrote the book based on his experiences called Hell’s Angels: The Strange and Terrible Saga of The Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.

Hunter S. Thompson and the real Dr. Gonzo Oscar Zeta Acosta

He used his ‘Gonzo Journalism’ style for writing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream. The main purpose of his explorations was to do a “gross, physical salute to the fantastical possibilities of life in this country”; and for that, he aimed his guns at Las Vegas, the epicenter of greed, lust and decadence in America. The result was a novel that captured the madness of what American was like post 60’s early 70’s during the Nixon era, during the Vietnam War, when all anybody ever wanted was for said war to be over. As a result of the madness the country was living in during those days, many turned to drugs to forget, to wipe their minds clean of the craziness that was going on in their country. Thompson’s novel perfectly captures this sub culture that surfaced during that time and explores what it was like to live during those chaotic days.

The film presents us with two very unique individuals: Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo. These two characters are the alternate personas of Hunter S. Thompson and his real life partner  in crime and attorney Oscar Zeta Acosta respectively. Together they take a trip towards Las Vegas so that Raoul Duke can write an article for Sports Illustrated Magazine on the Mint 400 motorcycle race. But in reality, Raoul and Dr. Gonzo couldn’t care less about the Mint 400. What Raoul and Dr. Gonzo are really after is finding “the heart of the American Dream”; that and experimenting with every single type of mind altering drug known to man. Will they every find The American Dream? Will they survive their drug filled journey alive?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was not an easy project to get made. Let’s face it; this isn’t the kind of project that Hollywood studios are jumping to make. It’s not a commercial film at all, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. The film is an observation of an era; it attempted (successfully) to capture an era that was filled with revolt and general dissatisfaction with the way things were being done in America. On top of that, the films protagonists are drugged out of their minds through out the whole thing. Many filmmakers where at one point attached to direct this one, amongst them Martin Scorcese and Oliver Stone. For whatever reason they never got to direct the film. I have to be honest, I would have loved to see Oliver Stone’s version of Fear and Loathing, but ultimately, the film fell on the hands of Terry Gilliam, in many ways the perfect director to get this film made. Aside from the fact that many of Gilliam’s films have always had a subversive angle to them (Brazil (1984) is a great example of this) he also has that kinetic kind of crazy style of filmmaking. Hyperkinetic in nature, Gilliam’s camera movements and storytelling style have always felt to me like they come from a hyperactive child, always looking for something interesting, always walking away from boredom. This is a style of filmmaking that gels perfectly with Hunter S. Thompson equally scattershot, stream of consciousness style of writing. So Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (the film) is the perfect marriage of two like minded individuals; Hunter S. Thompson and Terry Gilliam.

Gilliam directs Depp

But with the wrong kind of actors, this film could have fallen apart. This project needed actors that would go all the way, that wouldn’t be afraid to get down and dirty; actors that would willingly explore the darker side of the human experience. Johnny Depp has always been a champion of Hunter S. Thompson’s work and actually still is to this very day, yet another Hunter S. Thompson film has been produced by him called The Rum Diary (2011), it’s playing in theaters as I type this. How gung-ho was Depp about getting Fear and Loathing made? Well, he lived with Thompson for four months, learning his movements and mannerisms, learning how the man thought and talked. A friendship blossomed from this experience between actor and writer that lasted long after the film was made. So much so, that it was Depp who fulfilled Thompson’s last wishes of having his ashes fired out of a cannon after his death! So Depp’s dedication towards this film (and getting Hunter S. Thompson’s name out there to the world) was always there from the beginning and it shines through in his performance. Del Toro wasn’t always a fan of Thompson’s work, but he’d heard of it. Still, his dedication on this performance is obvious. I’m a huge fan of Benicio’s. Aside from the fact that he is Puerto Rican (as am I) the guy is simply put, an awesome actor. Ever seen him in 21 Grams (2003)? Wow, you need to. And if you ever have a chance of seeing him in Fear and Loathing, well, you’re going to see one his most honest and bravest performances ever.

One of the best things about this film is its comedy, I mean, if you are a fan of that sarcastic, acid style of comedy, this one is a keeper. One scene has Dr. Gonzo about to pour some cocaine on top of a suit case, and suddenly a gust of wind knocks the salt shaker from his hand and the cocaine blows into the wind and he says “Did you see what God just did to us man?” with this Mexican sort of accent and Raoul answers him: “That wasn’t God! That was you! You’re a fucking narcotics agent! I knew it!” That type of comedy knocks me over! Speaking of lines from this movie, they are highly quotable! My favorite one is: “You took too much man, you took too much!” And everybody on this movie is freaking wired, I mean, everybody does their best to act all crazy and funny, even people with a short cameo will make you laugh. It seems it was a requirement in order to be on this movie.

Visually speaking the film takes advantage of filming in Las Vegas, and all the lights and the fakeness that comes with it. Most of the film takes place inside of hotel bars, casinos, hotel rooms, out on the streets of Las Vegas and in the dessert. There’s some beautiful cinematography on this one. I would rate this film amongst Gilliam’s best, no doubts. This film is the closest you’ll ever feel to using drugs, without using them. Other films have done this extremely well for example Gaspar Noe’s Enter the Void (2009) is one of the finest examples of this (and a total visual trip of a film) but that one is very dramatic and serious, Fear and Loathing explores the same themes, but with a biting sense of humor. Final words on this one? The film explores the insanity, the desperation, the madness that comes from drug abuse. It does not glamorize drug use one bit; it tells it like it is. And on top of all that, the film analyzes why America chose to indulge in so much drug abuse during the 60’s and 70’s. Why does a nation have to resort to ignoring themselves through drug abuse? What was going on in the world at the time and how can that be avoided? Can it be avoided or are we headed towards a new similar drug era of our own? Will this generation ever know revolt? Today’s generation reminds me of a David Bowie song called ‘Sons of the Silent Age’, while the 60’s and 70’s were filled with rebellion and revolt, today’s generation seems contempt to just sit back and let the chips fall where they may. Fear and Loathing in The Modern World in deed.

Rating: 5 out of 5       

  

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

Title: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Cast: Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Collin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Andrew Garfield, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer

Review:

When we watch a movie, most of the time we filter, interpret, and syphon it through the experiences we have lived through during the course of our own lives. We don't ever just "watch" a movie, we see it through our own lives. We give whatever meaning we want to the characters and situations we are watching, usually those meanings or interpretations are a mirror of ourselves. This is one of the main themes that Terry Gilliam's new film, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus plays with. Our imaginations represent us. They are like a calling card to who we are inside. Heavy stuff, considering Gilliam usually gives a very light tone to most of his films. But its obvious that Terry Gilliam is a man who is not happy with the way things are being run in the world, he has always, through most of his body of work retained an anti-system mentality towards things. This hate towards "the system" can be seen through the frustration of his characters with the way things are established. In Brazil, the main character cant deal with the fact that his life is so redundant and boring, so he escapes to another world where he is a hero. In 12 Monkeys, the government is using Bruce Willis to investigate our past, but really, they don't know what the hell they are doing, or even if they are doing it right. In Gilliam's films, this hate for the way things are, this hatred for the reality of things is being fought not with swords or guns, but with our imaginations.

Started out kind of heavy there with my review. But this was the latest Terry Gilliam film, and I am a huge Gilliam fan. So just keep in mind, this review comes from someone who loves and admires Gilliam's films a great deal. I have always admired how Gilliam escapes to these fantastical wonderful worlds. In many ways, Gilliam escapes from reality through his films, but at the same time, since we are talking about art here, Gilliam addresses certain issues, he needs to express. Like any good director, Gilliam criticizes and satirizes society through his movies. And in my opinion, society and the way things are deserve it. Screw it, what can I say? I agree with the guy. Things are fucked up. Gilliam is saying through his films that things are so messed up, so depressing that we need to escape to another imaginary world to be alright. Isn't that what films are all about? The "great escape"? And what better way to escape, then with this new Terry Gilliam film? What can I say about The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus? Well, that its a Gilliam film through and through. This isn't Gilliam restrained by corporate douche bags like in The Brothers Grimm, nope this is Gilliam once again cutting loose, still trying to amaze and wow us, and still commenting on the world we live in. With a touch of insanity and zaniness for good measure.

The film is about a traveling theater group. These guys go around town doing their little show, presenting "The Great Dr. Parnassus". They offer you great and wondrous things but only if you walk through the mirror to see it. Thing is, Dr. Parnassus is going around collecting souls, once they enter his mirror, they re-emerge happy and full of life. With new energies to face the darkness of the world. You know, the same way movies do. Anyways, Dr. Parnassus played by Christopher Plummer is an aging man, who just so happens to be immortal. He sold his daughter to the devil for said immortality. The deal being that when she turned 16 she would immediately become The Devils property. Of course, now that his daughter Valentina is 16, Dr. Parnassus wants nothing to do with that deal and is looking for away to break with it. Oh by the way, the devil is played with exquisiteness by the one and only Tom Waits. So anyhow, Parnassus is on the run. He goes around doing his little show, living in poverty with his daughter and theater group. In comes Heath Ledgers character, Tony. A man trying to forget who he once was and escaping his reality as well. He joins the theater group and helps them run the circus. Will the devil get his due? Will Parnassus escape the clutches of the devil and retain his daughter? And will Tony ever remember who he once was?

Speaking of Heath Ledger, I thought that he was going to be in the film a lot less, but apparently, he had filmed a lot! He of course, did a great job of portraying the two faced main character, Tony. The liar who enters the theater groups life, by playing an amnesiac. I always admired Ledger for wanting to back up Terry Gilliam as a director. Its quite obvious Ledger connected wit Terry Gilliam's artistic genius and decided to participate in this film. Same reason I respect Johnny Depp for doing the same, for being on Gilliam's films as if saying "this guy is great! Come see his films!" Johnny Depp's participation on this film is brief, but much appreciated in my book. Same goes for Jude Law, who has one of the coolest scenes in the movie, where he is going up these extremely long ladders that reached all the way to the clouds. Collin Farell did the best of the three. Farell actually acted as if he was Heath Ledger. Of the three invited actors who were chosen to fill in the gaps that Ledgers unfortunate departure inflicted upon this film, Farell was the one who embodied Ledger the best. Right down to his mannerisms and facial gestures. Lily Cole as Valentina -Dr. Parnassus's daughter- was a great casting choice on Gilliam's part. She has a strange kind of beauty. Like Christina Ricci, but even more otherworldly. Its an odd kind of beauty, but fits quite perfectly in a movie like this one. Cole looks like she would fit quite well in any fantasy film that would feature fairies or elves. She sure wasn't hard to look at thats for sure.

Speaking about the films themes I can say that it addresses many. I for one really thought that Gilliam was talking a lot about being Terry Gilliam. An aging director, and old fantasist whom nobody cares about anymore. Gilliam sees himself as the aging Parnassus, trying to bring his creaky old theater and stories to the people for their enjoyment. He wants audiences to transport themselves into his mirror worlds. His films. I of course am not one of those who doesn't care for Gilliam's films, I love them and welcome each one like a gift from the fantasy movie gods. I have always given Terry Gilliam props for being such an escape artist. He really loves to dive deep into that world we call "imagination", often bringing back the biggest and fattest imaginary fish in the pond. On this film, every time we go into Dr. Parnassus's magic mirror, every trip is different. You see, the world you find inside the mirror will reflect your own imagination, the things you like, the things you fear. I thought it was a wonderful allegory for how films mirror society, and how we should see ourselves in them. The film tries to shows us how we can see what we need to change about ourselves and the world we live in through films. How films both entertain and enlighten us. I think it was a great idea for Gilliam to work with Charles McKeown on this films script. McKeown has been actively working on fantasy films for some years now. He was responsible for writing The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Brazil, both two of Gilliam's best films. Knowing that the writer of Baron Munchausen wrote this film makes perfect sense because The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus has many things in common with Munchausen. But more on that later. This paring of two great fantasist in one film, rejoining forces once again was a match made in heaven.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a film that speaks about the whole process of making a film. Yes my friends, this is yet another film about making films. And it comes as no surprise that Gilliam should want to address this subject matter. After all, he has been making complex and artistic films through out his whole life. Why shouldn't he make a film that summarizes everything he has learned through out the course of his directorial career? So in essence, Parnassus, is Gilliam. He wants to entertain us with his magic theater show. But what happens? People just aren't that interested anymore. They want something hip, something new, something edgy. And Gilliam even addresses this as well. The keeping up with the technology and the audiences ever changing interests. What should we sacrifice for our art, and for the pleasing of the audience? Tony, the "liar" looked to me like he was the young producer trying to present Gilliam to a new generation of audiences. Trying to update Gilliam's style and true nature.

In this film, Gilliam takes a stab at using computer generated images once again, same as he did in The Brothers Grimm. Gilliam has always been an "old school" filmmaker. He prefers to use mate paintings and miniatures to conjure up his fantasy worlds. Its been interesting to see Gilliam accept and use the tools of modern filmmaking on his films. Gilliam, very reluctantly has begun using CGI on his films. My own personal take on things is, I prefer the old Gilliam, with his miniatures and his paintings. But such is the modern world of films, computers have taken over. Gilliam has realized this and has decided to adapt. In The Brothers Grimm (the only Terry Gilliam film I can honestly say I dont love) the CGI was a complete disaster in my book. It brought the movie down because it wasn't beautiful. It wasn't even good. The CGI imagery in that particular Gilliam flick didn't work for me. Dr. Parnassus is Gilliams second attempt at using this new tool to tell his tale. I have to say that I see a great improvement. We get to see Gilliam's giant brooding castles, reminiscent of those we saw on Time Bandits. But in some of the imaginary worlds, the computer animation isn't all that great. Its on and off, I wouldn't say the effects were perfect. They were pretty to look at, but sometimes not all that realistic. They go more into the cartoonish side of things. More like something Gilliam might have cooked up during his animation days with the Monty Python group, but hey, its not bad for the kind of film were in, where we are going deep into the imagination, where anything can happen.

Hey, look! And old fantasist, a little girl and a theater group! Is it Imaginarium? Nope, its The Adventures of Baron Munchausen!

The only criticism I have for the film, and its not really that big of a deal is that the film is very similar in plot and situations to Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Here are the similarities:

- The film centers around the theater group, the actors and what happens behind stage - This is something we see in many of Gilliam's films. The hassle and the franticness of the world behind the stage. It is featured most prominently in Baron Munchausen.

- The film is centered around a little girl as the main character - Again, something Gilliam loves to do. We saw it Tideland, Baron Munchausen and now in Dr. Parnassus.

- The little girl is always pushing the old man not to give up the fight - In Baron Munchausen, the little girl is always pushing Munchausen not to fall asleep, not to give up, to continue the fight, the journey till the very end. Same happens here with Dr. Parnassus and his daughter Valentine.

- The old fantasist tells a tale, and the audience is pulled into it with him

- An evil character dressed in black follows the main character around. In Munchausen it was death, in Parnassus it was Tom Waits as TheDevil.

Those Terry Gilliam fans out there will notice the similarities with that film. But, same as Tideland, this new Terry Gilliam film has a darker side to it. Theres not so much comedy to the film, its bleaker. Darker. Again, the film mirrors its artist, so Terry Gilliam is a dark soul, who doesn't want to let go of that childlike wonderment he gets from fantasy and the use of his imagination. But I miss that time when Gilliam would put a lot of humor into his fantasy tales. But I guess we all change, we seldom stay the same. We evolve, and more often then not, when we grow and learn about the way things really are, we become just a little darker and sadder inside. The world can be a dark place, with dark experiences, but it can also hold great beauty. it all depends on how you look at things.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The ultimate fantasist himself, Terry Gilliam taking a break in between scenes

Lost in La Mancha (2002)

Title: Lost in La Mancha (2002)

Director: Keith Fulton, Louis Pepe

Cast: Johnny Depp, Terry Gilliam, Jean Rochefort

Review:

Terry Gilliam's one of my favorite directors, but its no secret that when he decides to make a movie its always an uphill battle. Take for example, Brazil (1985) a film that had a heck of a time getting out to the public because the studio had little faith in it, apparently they thought it was too weird and figured that audiences would have a hard time "getting it". To their surprise, Brazil went on to become a critical hit, winning numerous awards all across and earning a couple of academy award nominations as well. Then we have Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988), a film that was a fave with critics but a box office disappointment because the studio that financed it was going through a shift in management and so the film wasn't really exposed to the public; this would be a fiasco that Gilliam would never really recover from. After Munchausen its gotten harder and harder for Gilliam to make a picture, studios aren't keen on giving directors with a couple of fiascos under his belt millions of dollars. But Gilliam is as resilient as a cockroach and he keeps coming back with film after film. Some have enjoyed box office success (12 Monkeys, The Fisher King) and others have not (The Brothers Grimm, Tideland). Yet the uneven nature of the box office returns of his films have never stopped Gilliam, he's always bounced back. The giant windmills of Hollywood wont keep this Quixotian director down. Recently he directed the excellent Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, which in itself was plagued by unfortunate tragedy as well; the untimely death of Heath Ledger. Still, he managed to finish the film. There's Gilliam for you, nothing stops him from getting his film made! But there was this one time when a film actually kicked Terry Gilliams ass and sent him home to mama. Lost in La Mancha is the amazing documentary that captured the whole tragedy.

Everything looks fine and dandy at this meeting dont it?

But let's start this story off at the beginning: The Man Who Killed Quixote had always been a dream project of Gilliams. When you think about it, this film and subject matter are perfect for Gilliam; it's the story of an old man trying to escape the ugly realities of this world by escaping to his fantasy worlds; worlds where he can fight evil and win. If you've seen any of Gilliams films then you know that these are familiar themes for Gilliam. For example we have The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Brazil, and most recently, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, all playing with the same ideas. Man vs. reality, man vs. burocracy,  fantasy vs. reality. But getting The Man Who Killed Quixote off the ground proved to be a daunting task. First of all, getting Hollywood to finance the film was imposible; after the Baron Munchausen debacle no big Hollywood studio wanted to take the risk. So Gilliam did what any sensible director would do when he is desperate for funding: he went overseas for it! So Gilliam decides to make The Man Who Killed Quixote by shooting it in Spain with European funding. Was this new independent project as hard to make as his previous films?

The simple answer is yes. Yes it was harder. Much harder! This documentary chronicles the whole process of this movies downfall. And I say downfall cause the movie hit so many mishaps and problems along the way that it never got finished. It was simply abandoned by everyone, even by its director who simply couldn't handle making a movie under those conditions. Its frustrating to see a director like Gilliam saying "I don't want to make a film like this", "Im getting very nervous, very nervous!" I have to hand it to the guys who made this documentary, they really captured something we movie buffs hardly ever get to watch. The birth and death of a failed project. We get to see from day one when Gilliam arrives to Spain, speaking with the producers, visiting the sets that were built, doing his storyboards, we literally get to see Gilliam in his element, coming up with ideas, giving suggestions, excited and giddy to make his dream movie. And for a while, it appears that all is well, he managed to gather a little more then 31 million dollars to make his movie. I thought it was a real treat to see Gilliam in this whole process. There are moments when you can see Gilliams smile, his eyes shinning. The whole pre-production process actually has a light hearted happy tone to it. But soon, darkness descended upon this project.

Number one, actors had not really rehearsed certain scenes they were supposed to, as a result, we see Gilliam getting pissed and screaming "Fuck!" and "I want to know if were going to be fucked before hand!" with real anger in his voice. We see the assistant director getting heat for not having things running smoothly as they should be. Spanish actor Jean Rochefort who had the all too important role of Don Quixote getting back problems when his horse riding scenes came along. And that was one of the main problems with the production, its main star got sick. I couldn't really blame him cause the guy was something like 70 years old and he was spending hours upon hours on a horse waiting to shoot his scenes. He held it like a champ for sometime till it was clearly visible that the guy was in excruciating pain, so away he went to his doctors, the main star of the film gone, and that's when the movie really begins to fall apart. The main actor never returns to the film! To make things worse, calamity really struck this jinxed project and a huge storm began to erupt during the filming of some scenes in the desert. Sets and props and equipment were totally lost in the floods created by the storm! So sad to see all that film equipment being destroyed by the floods.

The look on their faces says it all

It was tragedy upon tragedy on this movie. And its all here documented for us to see. I mean painful and sad as this whole thing was, I think there's something positive in the whole thing. It's a document for all those aspiring filmmakers out there that shows exactly how NOT to make a movie. It was really a disaster, there was no communication, no true preparation, things weren't thought off before hand. I mean it was just an awful experience! Any aspiring filmmaker or director will look at this and learn a lot about what should not happen during a production. I'm sure they show this film in film schools all across the country, and they should. It's a great film to learn from. Kind of tough to watch everyones sad faces, everyone is sort of in this desperation mode. By the end of the documentary its crazy to see Gilliam saying "How do we pull the plug on this thing?"

I hate the fact that The Man Who Killed Quixote never saw the light of day. I mean from certain screen tests that we get to see on the documentary, it seemed to me like The Man Who Killed Quixote could've been another diamond in Gilliam's resume. The actor Jean Rochefort, the man who would be Quixote was perfect for the role, he looked the part to perfection and his Spanish accent made things all the better. Too bad he didnt have the stamina to go through with it all the way to the end. Johnny Depp is a champ. He arrived, with the best intentions, completely commited to making this film. He always looks at Gilliam as if saying "Im here till you pull the plug man, just tell me what to do!" Johnny Depp actually shot some of his scenes and you can see in the few scenes that got shot that this was going to be a good role for him as well. He was playing a man from the present who gets to time travel to Quixote's time and Quixote takes him as his Sancho Panza, his sidekick. Anyhows, what little we get to see of the would be film, looked awesome.

Depp fights with a fish in one scene

 But we have to remember, good old Terry Gilliam never gives up. He never surrenders. Gilliam has his mind really set on making this film at some point in his life. And it looks like he finally is. Last I heard, Robert Duval was attached to playing Don Quixote, with Johnny Depp still on board to play the Sancho Panza character.  In the mean time we get this documentary to hold us off. Excellent viewing material for movie buffs, future filmmakers and Gilliam fans in general.

Rating: 5 out of 5