AFI Fest: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Directed by Terry Gilliam. Starring Christopher Plummer, Heath Ledger, Andrew Garfield, Verne Troyer, Lily Cole, Tom Waits, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell.
Gala Screening
Terry Gilliam’s film, widely known as Heath Ledger’s last, gets the red carpet treatment tonight at AFI Fest. If you’re a fan of the director and in Los Angeles, I recommend you check it out. It’s “sold out” but if you show up to Grauman’s Chinese an hour or so early and get in the rush line (along Orange across Hollywood Boulevard from the theater), they’ll likely find room for you in the 2000+ seat theater. 15 – 20 minutes before showtime, they’ll start escorting small groups from the head of the line into the Chinese and, Bob’s your uncle, you’ve got Gilliam all for the low low price of FREE.
What are you going to see? Well, to say it’s Gilliam’s best film in over a decade isn’t saying much since he’s only made two films since 1998’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and both films – The Brothers Grimm and Tideland – are pretty widely reviled, but facts are facts and this is the most enjoyable Gilliam outing in ages. I don’t want to oversell it because narratively it’s a bit of a mess (as is often the case with Gilliam unchained), but it’s also a work of pure, joyous imagination. For me, the imagination just barely trumps the problems I had with the story.
Plus I have to say, the story is almost there. It involves an anachronistic band of traveling entertainers led by the mysterious Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), possibly a charlatan or possibly a man with the power to shape his audience’s imaginations. He also claims to have won a bet with the devil (Tom Waits) centuries earlier wherein he was granted eternal life. Later, upon meeting the love of his life, he made a new bargain: trading eternal life for youth. The devil agreed with the additional condition that if Parnassus ever had a daughter, he’d turn her over on her 16th birthday. Of course, a daughter was born (Lily Cole) and as the film begins, Valentina (Lily Cole) is just days away from coming of age. Luckily for Parnassus, the devil can never resist another bet and he agrees to a new contest: Whoever can lay claim to five souls first wins everything.
The twisted stuff of dark fairytales, the story is more convoluted than it sounds and I haven’t even explained how Heath Ledger fits into it all or why his character is sometimes played by Johnny Depp, Jude Law or Colin Farrell. The truth is, I was unable to hold on to the narrative threads the whole way through and I sort of gave up and submitted myself to Gilliam’s fanciful, abundant and wholly wonderful imagination. If you can just let go as the film kind of shambles along like a tattered dream – messy, disordered and sometimes melancholy – it’ll show you things that are completely unexpected and delightful. There are even moments that capture the whimsical purity of the animations he did for Monty Python – something he hasn’t done in even his best work since maybe Time Bandits. Personally, I fell for it, though of course your results (and patience) might vary.
It’s difficult to say if the story problems stem from Ledger dying before the filming was complete, or if they’re simply a lack of narrative discipline on Gilliam’s behalf, but I’m not sure it matters. It’s a shame though because I think with just a little bit of shaping, the whole thing could’ve really come together and been brilliant. As it is, if you’re a fan of the director at all, you owe it to yourself to see this film. I can’t say you’ll completely go for it as I ultimately did, but you might. On the other hand, if you find Gilliam’s shtick to be irritating anyway, it probably won’t take you long to tune out of this one.
Love it or hate the film, the production design is top notch and the cast is having a lot of fun. Tom Waits is great as the devil and so is Verne Troyer as Parnassus’ skeptical sidekick Percy. Ledger is a bit odd as the stranger with a checkered past, but I’m not sure if there’s a flaw in his performance or if it’s just distracting knowing it’s his last. The conceit of using three other actors in the role at certain times actually would’ve worked great even if it wasn’t done out of necessity. I should also mention Andrew Garfield (Boy A) who does a great job kind of keeping the whole thing grounded as one of Parnassus’ performers who is in love with Valentina.
Finally, the kind of sad character of Parnassus at times feels a bit like a reflection of Gilliam himself. They live in a modern world that seems to have outlived the stories they want to tell, but it’s the only thing they know how to do and they keep going, occasionally making a deal with the devil, but mainly just continuing. I take a certain comfort in that. I’d just love to see another Gilliam film that isn’t beset by production or studio problems. There is still plenty of magic left in the man.
Filed under: Film Festivals, Reviews
Tags: AFI Fest, Andrew Garfield, Christopher Plummer, Colin Farrell, Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Lily Cole, Terry Gilliam, Tom Waits, Verne Troyer
That’s probably a smart way to experience Gilliam, just turning your judgmental plot-analytical left brain off and letting his creativity wash over you.
I’m very curious to see this. Visually, his aesthetic is always cluttered, but cluttered with intricate fashionings from his imagination. Always a treat to discover if you’re willing to dig through the story rubble.
Interesting take on Ledger’s performance. Were any of the incarnations of that character stand outs (a la Cate Blanchett in I’m Not There)?
the characters weren’t so widely different as to stand out like Blanchett did. Different actors simply represented how other characters perceived Ledger’s character in different circumstances….if that makes sense.
I’m an unregenerate Munchausen fan, so I’d welcome a return to that form.
Same co-screenwriter as Munchausen and Brazil.
I think Gilliam’s imagination here is even more unhinged, and I mean that in a good way.
I want to see it a second time to see if the plot threads hold together a bit better.
Also, Lily Cole is lovely.
Does Grauman’s Chinese do take out?
I’m all for losing myself in Gilliam’s imaginarium. Thanks for the review Craig, I particularly loved the final paragraph.
My reaction to this film, Craig, is pretty much identical to yours. That you were able to write such a descriptive review after one viewing of this film says a lot, as I, too, had a little trouble at times in getting the story straight. I must say, however, that the screenplay provided characters that came through with great clarity and authenticity.
Although the film was all over the place, as you implied, at several moments I found myself seeming to understand what the co-writers were trying to say. I think this is a film that speaks both of and to our times, though I’d probably have to see it again (or hear others’ thoughts about it) to get into such a discussion in more detail.
Of the actors, I think Jude Law was less strong, especially when compared with Depp. I think they did a very good job of realizing the characterizations provided to them. Regarding Ledger, I regard his work here to be an interesting and excellent followup to his Joker. In some scenes he was mesmerizing and quite strong. (At one point I saw a bit of the Joker slip through.) All in all, Ledger created yet another fascinating character, and I mourn that there will be no others from him.
Overall, a wonderful experience.
I’m delighted you fell for this movie Pierre. I admit it’s not perfect, but it’s been getting kind of a bum rap from critics and that’s too bad. There’s too much that’s great here to dismiss it.
I think the three fellows who filled in for Ledger had a very difficult job. They were given three fragments really and they had to try to make them fully realized. Law seemed to have the most screen time so maybe that’s why his weaknesses showed through more.
Also, I should add if I haven’t already, for me the movie actually got better the second time through. The plot threads held together much more.
I’m glad the plot threads held together for your second viewing, Craig. I guess many critics, like the public, like to be spoon-fed.
I suppose one could say Law had a more difficult time of it because he had more lines. By the same token, though, more lines = more for an actor to study and use for his characterization. Maybe Law didn’t have time to study the role adequately before filming it. That could be. In my own experience, though, it’s easier to “hide” behind lines. To me, it was Depp who should’ve had the most difficult time because he had to create his characterization with so few lines. But yet, I felt Depp nailed the character perfectly. Because of the presumed nature of the screenplay as rewritten upon Ledger’s death, none of the replacement actors had to fashion his characterization after that of Ledger (as De Niro did of Brando to some extent in Godfather II). But I do have to say that of the three — Depp, Law and Farrell — I happen to think Depp to be the best actor of the three.
Interesting thoughts.
My thinking was that none of them really had much time to create their characters and their scenes were filmed quickly. More of the story fell on Law’s shoulders and he wasn’t quite up to it under the circumstances.
Farrell can be really good in the right things… particularly things with a little humor like In Bruges, but he can be really bad in others. Even as one who enjoyed Crazy Heart, would you agree he was the weak link?
I guess I’d agree Farrell was a weak link in Crazy Heart, but not in the way one might suppose. I may have mentioned this before somewhere, but I thought Farrell’s characterization was strong enough — it’s just that I thought it didn’t well serve the screenplay and, therefore, the film.
My feeling is that one “quick fix” would’ve been a hair/makeup solution that didn’t emphasize the relatively long, narrow shape of his face. I thought his character needed to have a more obvious physical, mass appeal. As it stood, his character was too tightly wound up. To complement the choice of such basic personality quality, this would need to be offset by something more accessible, something with more clearly general appeal.
At least that’s the way I read it.
I should add that it’s not like Farrell killed the movie and if you’re into it by the time he shows up, he’s not a problem at all.
Yes, I’m glad you added that.