Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Throughout his career, Terry Gilliam has been met with polarized responses; he has been applauded for his distinctly imaginative visual style while being criticized for the lack of cohesive plot structures within his films. He has inspired a legion of cult fans that ritualistically watch Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen while enduring many critical and box office failures. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus will surely continue this trend of divisiveness.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus follows a sideshow revue traveling through London, led by the eponymously named Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer). The members of Doctor Parnassus’ roaming circus include his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), Parnasuss’ dwarf-sized confidant Percy (Verne Troyer), and Anton, a young man that Doctor Parnassus saved from living on the street. The group travels together in a wagon with a backdoor that opens up to become a makeshift stage. They perform in front of pubs, convenience stores, carnivals, and any other place with a potential audience. Dr. Parnassus’ exhibition consists of the Doctor sitting trancelike on the stage while the rest of the performers act as carnival barkers luring patrons up to the front of the show. Most puzzingly of all is an onstage mirror that doubles as a doorway into the Imaginarium, a Dr. Seuss-like world of wonder that resides inside of Parnassus’ own mind.
As the narrative unfolds, the audience finds out that the good doctor is actually a 1000-year-old monk who previously had made a series of bets and deals with the Devil (Tom Waits). These unholy pacts led to Parnassus being cursed with eternal life and the promise that he would turn his daughter over to beelzebub on her 16th birthday. In a last ditch effort to save his daughter’s soul from Old Scratch, Parnassus agrees to a contest with the stipulation that if he can claim five souls in the two days before his daughter’s birthday, she can go free. The traveling troupe decides to dance with the devil one more time after coming by the help of Tony (Heath Ledger), a mysterious, smooth-talking, amnesiac, former charity worker that the group rescued from being hung off a bridge.
Confused? Well,the plot descends even further into a fever dream. Some key points: Anton discovers that Tony left his job because he was accused of harvesting organs from the children of his charity. Tony abuses a child-aged version of Anton at a fundraising auction. Tony lures a middle-aged woman into a sulfuric Hades motel surrounded by the river Styx, all of which exist within the outer limits of the Imaginarium. Russian mobsters chase Tony. Tony’s appearance changes everytime he enters the Imaginarium (Johnny Depp/Jude Law/Colin Farrel). Tony is mooned by a dancing line of violence loving cops. Parnassus’ enters into the dreamworld of his own mind. Valentina waltzes with the devil. Tony is lynched. Tony expects to survive the lynching but Parnasssus does a switcheroo with his lucky flute. Dr. Parnassus searches to the ends of the world to find Valentina. Valentina goes through the door to hell. Parnassus continues to live eternally and do puppet shows with his midget friend. Does any of this make any fucking sense? No. Does Terry Gilliam care? Not a fucking chance. Rather he wants to seduce you with his vibrant and fantastic imagery so that he can weaken your defenses and violently mindfuck you.
I want my 10.50 back, the 2 hours of my life and the brain cells that were killed trying to make sense of this mess.
You have to give Gilliam credit, like him or hate him. He certainly does not give a fuck what the audience, critics or anybody thinks. He has his whacked out vision and he will follow that to the fullest for good or for bad.
I heard that Heath Ledger really died because his brain exploded trying to understand what was going on in the film he was shooting.
I dunno Kevin, I don’t see why this guy is so amazing. I could come up with some pretty fucked up shit myself and not give a fuck, but that doesn’t make it amazing.
This is not my kind of movie. It’s actually a vision of what hell would be like. A world where things don’t make sense at all, and you have no control over what could happen. His imaginarium is just that to me. I got a strong feeling of that when the old geezer (Parnassus) was running around lost in his own imagination. I would immediately think of just throwing myself off a cliff but I fear that wouldn’t end it. It’s like being stuck in a nightmare.
Ironically I am a big fan of Monty Python but that’s because of the acting. I can see Gilliam’s doing in that but it’s a lot more subdued. Plus there is the whole satire about the middle ages which I enjoy.
I dunno about Gilliam. I just don’t enjoy his movies for the most part and I don’t appreciate his cracked out visions. It takes a lot of work to bring a vision to fruition and keep it chained into the realms of logic and plot. You may see that as hampering his vision, but I see it as a skill that takes work, practice and fine tuning. It’s a fine line that has to be walked between artistic creation and reality.
I feel that any other director could make a movie like this. You have your actors that are good, you have your special effects people that are also good. And you need to know how to run your crew. I don’t know a lot about making movies, but I imagine that is the bare minimum required to have a shot at making a decent film. Gilliam doesn’t seem to try any more than that. He just shat something and smeared it all over the silver screen and I’m supposed to like it? The movie started alright then I felt cheated out of what I was expecting – a story that would suck me in and keep me interested in what happens next. Instead I was just had my senses bombarded while I was telling myself in the background that this movie doesn’t follow it’s own rules anymore so it was pointless to think about it. It was chaos, it was noise.
I know he’s one of your favorite directors but I don’t appreciate his style. I like my things to make sense and respond to rules that I may or may not be able to figure out. I feel there is no value to think about the plot of this film, because it’s a mish mash of random thoughts half assedly fused together. At least that what it became by the end.
Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I was stoned out of my fucking mind or on some hallucinogen then I would be overwhelmed by the good looks. Maybe that’s what Gilliam really intended. I wouldn’t be surprised.
He’s not my kind of director, not at all, and I don’t know about giving him any credit for this. I feel anyone else could have done the same thing. To put it another way I feel it lacks intelligence.
I must admit my reaction was more negative because I was expecting something that would be more orthodox. But my criticism still stands.
Next time I’ll pay more attention at the directors when I go to a movie to know what to expect.
Yeah so I kinda of hate him, and I don’t know about the credit part. He’s gonna have to do something better than get away with nonsense to impress me.
I still need to see this. I love Gilliam but he really only has one film that I consider a truly great accomplishment (aside from monty python of course) and that is Brazil, which you may like if you have not seen it. It is also a little overwhelming on the senses but it is not lacking in intelligence or meaning. It’s a 1985ish critique of bureaucracy and a lot of its predictions ring alarmingly true. Also ’12 Monkeys’ is his most cohesive, purely entertaining film. I have not been a fan of any of his more recent work. I’ll try to see this soon and get back to you.
What did you hate more, this or Antichrist?
Ah yeah I liked 12 Monkeys, actually.
I hated Anti Christ less. It was more mellow and the slow motion scenes were entrancing.
Dunno about Brazil. I don’t know what to expect.