Skip to main content

doctor parnassus, i presume

The visuals in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus are a return to form for Terry Gilliam. The establishing shots of unusual landscapes, particularly the deserts and mountains, but most especially the monastery, were magnificent on the level of Darnkness' tower from Time Bandits. The contrast and saturation, vertical pans to expose and enforce the cheated perspective, the details layered so thickly they nearly transcend to synaesthesia and produce their own scent, and overall the glory that can be found in false shabbiness -- these are all in abundance. I am so happy to have seen such a feast of loveliness. 

The performances are great, all around. Christopher Plummer is fabulous as the doctor, which surprised me -- considering the hullaballoo around Heath Ledger's unfortunate death during production, and his prominence on the cover and marketing materials, I had assumed that he'd be the titular character. 

It's the story which has left me cold, in its ambiguity and unclear wandering. It would give too much away, but I suspect that the movie's villain is not Mr. Nick, but another character. Or perhaps the traveling Imaginarium's audience is the main villain. Gilliam shows each crowd as being purely concerned with its own fulfillment, pursuing things crassly and selfishly. I will end up watching it again at some point, just to try and figure it out a bit more.

And to soak up those visuals again. Just lovely. But I'd have to agree with this review: 

"Trying to puzzle out the theology here is like reading a Dr. Bronner’s soap bottle."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tony diTerlizzi and classic D&D monsters

The sixth entry of his series on drawings of classic D&D monsters is up. He's one of my favorite fantasy artists. His work tends toward the charming and cozy, rather than others' focus on machismo or melodrama.
Post a Comment
Read more

sad fate

“Our legendary personalities are evergreen ‘brands’ with the benefit of worldwide recognition,” reads a message on the Richman agency’s website. Guardian UK Article *vomits* Where is the line drawn between “public figure” and “celebrity”? How can a dead person have an agent, particulary where there are no specific works concerned other than a sense of character? It’s one thing to insist that Duck Soup is a work that should be protected (which any more simply means controlled by whomever has the most buX0rs), but shouldn’t personalities and such pass into the public domain as well? ( boingboing : Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al )
Post a Comment
Read more

on sheeps and androids

The movie Blade Runner is very dear to my heart. It is a treatise on the nature of existence expanding on, and perhaps exceeding the reach of the Phillip K. Dick work which inspired it, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Perhaps I have missed out on some greater subtlety of PKD's work, but the point of DADoES pursues the definition of fake, while Blade Runner instead focuses on what is real. Where the replicants in the novel are sociopathic monsters who emulate emotions solely to gain traction against humans who may hunt them, the humans there rely on machines to dictate their own emotions for them. They dial for "energetic determination" or "six-hour self-accusatory depression." As much as the replicants are machines incapable of real emotion, humans are similarly reliant on a machine to simulate emotion for them. In contrast, the movie's central them is spelled out for us in Deckard's apartment, when Rachel is playing the piano. She professe...
Post a Comment
Read more