(no subject)

[starlady]

Just got back from the visitation for the father of one of my sister's middle school classmates. The man in question died last Friday at the age of 50, and the event was in the same room in which we held my mother's service last April. Somehow, by virtue of having already survived the same thing, I have become someone other people ask, "Does this get better?" To which I can only say, "It gets easier."

And we all know about the election result in Massachusetts. So, in other words, totally a Wednesday.

---

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. Dir. Terry Gilliam, 2009.

I've always enjoyed Terry Gilliam's movies--I've seen a good chunk of them, including the documentary about his failure to make a movie of Don Quixote, which in some ways might be metacinematic. Given that this movie had a stellar cast including the late Heath Ledger, I wanted to see it, and I'm glad I did. I don't think, though, that it's Gilliam's finest movie, by a long shot.

Essentially, Dr. Parnassus won a bet with the Devil thousands of years ago for immortality (the Devil cheated). A series of subsequent bets also provided him with a daughter, Valentina, who will be forfeit to Old Nick on her sixteenth birthday. The movie opens with Parnassus, Valentina, the young foundling Anton whom Parnassus raised, and the dwarf Percy, who in many ways is the only sensible member of the troupe, rattling through London. After Valentina, who will be sixteen in two days, saves a young man named Tony from hanging by his neck until dead under London Bridge, things get interesting; Parnassus makes another deal with the Devil--if he can win five souls via the imaginarium before Nick, Valentina will be spared.

China Miéville argued recently in the WSJ (and there's a pairing I never thought I'd see) that CGI is killing science fiction and fantasy movies. I think this movie, however, does a good job of sublimating the CGI to the story; it's used coherently, and while the visions in the imaginarium are extraordinary they're not self-indulgent. Also, I thought Gilliam did a good job of using the imaginarium to explain the fact that Ledger, who was excellent as always, died mid-filming; the fact that Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell play the character as well becomes a plot and character point rather than something to be politely ignored. The performances in general were great, as well, and the costumes and sets are gorgeous.

Gilliam obviously is interested in stories and their value, and is of the school of thought that all stories are fantasy; I could wish, though, that this movie had been a little less salacious regarding Valentina turning sixteen, and that she had had a little more…not agency, precisely, but feminist consciousness, maybe. It's interesting, in light of the importance of stories to Gilliam, that the movie shows everyone to be better off without the imaginarium, even arguably Parnassus himself. I did like the movie's ultimate vindication of free will, particularly in regards to Valentina, though I'm not sure I agree with Tony's eventual fate, and I'm not sure that the movie made it clear enough how it viewed the same that I can decide whether I agreed with it.

The entire Tony plotline is also a satire of First World charitable giving that is perhaps a bit too broad to feel entirely comfortable, and Percy wearing blackface at Tony's instigation doesn't sit well, though I thought Percy was treated well. By contrast, if you believe Gilliam, only white people live in London, which demonstrably isn't true, though people are happy enough to eat sushi and wear Asian clothing. In fact I'd say at least half of Parnassus' clothing has Asian motifs on it, which makes sense in light of the fact that he was originally a monk in a monastery in Asia. But actually this makes no sense at all, because Christopher Plummer is white; my heart sank when, in the first scene at the monastery, we see people approaching it through a torii before climbing up past recognizably Hindu elephants. There's a word for this; it's cultural appropriation, and I can think of several easy ways Gilliam could have avoided it. So, unfortunately, that aspect of the movie leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Comments

[nokiirat.livejournal.com]

hoping to see that movie while it's still in the theaters. the big blue smurf movie is first up though...since i'm guessing the 3D stuff should be best on the big screen.

[starlady38.livejournal.com]

That's the problem with 3D; you can't take it home.

[merin-chan.livejournal.com]

I had the same sort of feeling. I feel I should like it, all the elements are there, but something's wrong. A sour taste, as you say. Actually, though, that kind of makes me want to see it again. Compared to Avatar, Dr. Parnassus has more subtle problems. Sure, there's the sexualization of Valentina, and the rather kitsch orientalism. But the orientalism to me seems overplayed, even parodic, part of the outdated Victorian atmosphere of the Imaginarium. There's a line between nostalgia for and critique of Victorianism here, and I'm not sure if or where Gilliam crosses it. It's a funny film: sometimes wonderfully comical, other times just off, like a past-due yogurt you're not sure you should eat or not. It's a weird reaction. That alone is worth something, to me anyways.

[starlady38.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I could see that about the Victorianism, but I don't think the film makes its own sympathies clear enough for me to even decide whether Gilliam is in sympathy with or critiquing it. And there were funny parts, but I wonder about the laughter--to paraphrase Milan Kundera, was it the devil's laughter, or the angels'? I'm still not sure.

But, yes. I'd agree.