Terry Gilliam

[captainofbeef]

Discuss this master here.

[captainofbeef]

My favorite Gilliam.
1. Brazil
2. 12 Monkeys
3. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
4. The Fisher King
5. Time Bandits
6. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
7. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
8. Jabberwocky
and way down there
9. The Brothers Grimm

[criterionmaster]

WTF! You didn't like Brother's Grimm?!

[captainofbeef]

Nope, it was too jumbled for me.

[criterionmaster]

I really liked it but find it to be just a good film, not great. I loved his new film Tideland as well.

Here is some news on upcoming Gilliam films.

filmick.blogspot.com/2006/09/gilliams-big-comics-plan.html

[PTAhole]

Terry Gilliam: Will Direct for Food

On the corner of 11th Avenue and 51st Street in New York, a line of people stands waiting to see a taping of "The Daily Show with John Stewart" when from around a corner a panhandler appears. The beggar is a man in his 60s with a ponytail and baggy clothes, carrying a cardboard sign reading "STUDIO-LESS FILM MAKER - FAMILY TO SUPPORT - WILL DIRECT FOR FOOD". The man is Terry Gilliam, Monty Python alum and director of such classics as Time Bandits, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and he is on a mission: to promote his new movie Tideland.

This being the age of the internet, word got out on the web about Gilliam's gonzo stunt the night before and thus a throng of loyal fans were waiting to greet the director and gladly put dollar bills into his plastic cup. "This is more lucrative than making movies!" he declared of the growing wad of cash, followed by his trademark giggle. An out of breath Carmiel Banasky was happy to get a Tideland postcard from the director, who autographed the back listing the film's October 13th release date. "I ran all the way from Central Park just to shake hands with Terry Gilliam," said Banasky, who added "The way I romanticize New York is how it is in 'The Fisher King'."

Another fan named Noah presented Gilliam with a small portrait he drew of the filmmaker and former animator looking like Rambo, a strip of film tied around his head for a bandana, undoubtedly a comment on his maverick reputation. Noah saw the panhandling as a perfectly Gilliam-esque stunt. "It's great, it brings a lot of attention. Everyone's waiting in line so they're kind of a captive audience for him."

When a dozen or so of his followers posed for a picture with their hero, he turned the cardboard sign around to reveal a poster for Tideland, a little girl sitting on and upside-down tree. The striking image perfectly encapsulates the film, and his street-promotion tactics exemplify how difficult it has been making it to American screens. Since premiering at the 2005 Toronto Film Festival, the movie has deeply polarized audiences and critics who find it either revelatory or profoundly unpleasant. Unable to secure a major US distributor, boutique company THINKFilm is now releasing the movie in limited engagements over the next month. Of course, given the disastrous fate that befell his Don Quixote film, documented in the famous post-mortem documentary Lost in La Mancha, it's a minor miracle that Tideland exists at all.

Based on a cult novel by author Mitch Cullen, Tideland tells the story of 9-year-old Jeliza Rose (Jodelle Ferland) living with her two junkie parents, who she routinely prepares heroin injections for. After her mother, a grotesque Jennifer Tilly, dies of a methadone overdose, her musician father Noel (Jeff Bridges) takes Jeliza to the now-abandoned farmhouse where he grew up. When Noel also ODs, Jeliza escapes the bleak reality of her abandonment by exploring the vast surrounding prairies with four detached doll heads who talk to her. Along the way she meets a deranged taxidermist named Dell (Janet McTeer) and her retarded brother Dickens (Brendan Fletcher), who thinks he's a submarine commander.


Earlier in the day, Gilliam sat down in the THINKFilm offices to discuss how the film came to be and how the cardboard sign reading "STUDIO-LESS FILMMAKER", while a joke, is not entirely inaccurate. "There was the book sitting on a pile of things, submissions. I read it and thought 'f**k, this is great, this'll wake up a few people.'" One of the people the book woke up was producer Jeremy Thomas (The Last Emperor), who managed to secure Tideland's modest $12 million dollar budget through several independent companies in Canada, where the film was ultimately shot.

Said Gilliam, "We had a very short prep period, the shortest I've ever had. The joy was I had to make instant decisions. I couldn't double think, which I always do. Things just started falling into place. Dickens, Brendan Fletcher, is the first time I've ever cast somebody without meeting them in the flesh. He sent this tape in that he and his girlfriend had done. 'Jesus this guy's good!' I said 'he's got it', again because of this time thing. I couldn't piss around. I said 'great, move on.' I wish I could force myself to do this more often cause I really like working that way.

"The most terrifying thing was Jodelle because we were in pre-production and I still hadn't found her. I was right at the edge of telling Jeremy Thomas 'I know we've spent a bit of money but we have to pull the plug' 'cause the girls I'd seen up to this point just weren't up to it. Then this tape came in from Vancouver and there was this little creature with these amazing eyes and this incredible energy. I thought 'hello'. Brought her to Toronto and did a little test and said 'you got it'."

Jodelle Ferland's role of Jeliza would be daunting for any actress, since she is in every scene and has to carry the majority of the film by herself, essentially playing within her own headspace and often doing multiple voices. When she's not by herself, Jeliza is forging a playful if unsettling friendship with the twenty-ish Dickens, leading to a scene where the two kiss that has caused many audience members to walk out. "I don't know where they're gonna start leaving, but I know a lot of people will not connect to this film, they refuse to allow themselves to connect to this film, that's the problem. You have to submit!

"Shooting it I knew what we were doing was completely innocent and it had to stay that way. There's even a scene later on where she's in his bedroom. In the book, he's sort of getting on top of her, his hand going up her thigh and I said 'we can't do that'. It's a really fine line we're treading here and if we go over it we're completely f**ked. I know audiences are gonna be squirming because adults come with all their pre-conceptions and fears, but at the end of that scene c'mon folks, nothing happened. But then they'll probably be more terrified. 'If he's done that for openers what's he gonna do next!' (laughter)"

As for what Gilliam's next film will be, things are a bit dubious at the moment. Aside from "the big white elephant in the room", his abandoned film The Man Who Killed Don Quixote which is still set to star Johnny Depp as soon as the rights to the script are out of litigation, he has his sights set on The Defective Detective, a project he's been developing with "Fisher King" scribe Richard LaGravenese for over a decade. The film, at one point to star Nicolas Cage before he left to make Snake Eyes, revolves around a burnt-out NY cop who enters the elaborate fantasy world of a children's book in order to find a missing girl. Featuring many elaborate set-pieces, including a never-ending traffic jam in which people have taken up residence in their cars as well as a battle between good and corporate evil, the film is seen as a risky proposition in need of a major star. However, according to Gilliam a new tactic could get it off the ground yet.

"Shekhar Kapur (director of 'Elizabeth') started a comic book company in India, and Richard Branson of Virgin is putting money into it. Shekhar's trying to get me and John Woo to take any of the scripts that aren't going anywhere and make comic books out of them. Then we'll get Hollywood excited and Hollywood will then want to make a movie out of the comic book. Somebody suggested to me that I do 'Defective Detective' as a comic book or even an animated film, and maybe that's what should happen. It's just sitting there and it's not going anywhere."


Another commercial project that has languished in development hell is Good Omens, based on the popular novel by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. A satiric fantasy in the vein of Douglas Adams, the story of a bookish angel and a wild demon who band together to save the earth from the Anti-Christ does to the Bible what "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" did to science fiction. Gilliam tried to get the film off the ground in 2001 with Robin Williams and a pre-Pirates Johnny Depp, but studios weren't anxious for an apocalyptic comedy in the wake of 9/11. Now the problem is finding another set of bankable stars who can fit the roles and a studio willing to roll the dice on the director's quirky visions.

"It's costly, that's the problem. What worries me now is the atmosphere out there is so frightened and timid and when you're doing expensive films they seem to be wanting very safe expensive films. This is just a wonderful book, and I think our script is good too. I want to do my own things. 'Good Omens' and 'Defective Detective' are wondrous and I can't seem to get them moving. I'm actually trying to find the producer of my dreams who has great power and likes what I do and will help me! I've never stayed with one producer, I'm kind of all over the place with producers, which is a bad thing because I never built up the kind of Brian Grazer-Ron Howard relationship.

"I wish I could do a few more films before I kick the bucket. We'll see. (laughter)"

In the end, Gilliam's New York panhandling career lasted a bit over an hour, in which time over 100 people came by to greet him. The highly approachable director chatted with all of them, even taking time to talk to one girl's boyfriend on a cell phone for 5 minutes. If the film he's made can generate the kind of interest he aroused today through the sheer force of his personality, then Tideland could one day have a devoted fanbase of its own. As the crowd began to scatter and the sun began to set, a passing soccer player pointed out the figure with the cardboard sign to a friend. "Terry Gilliam, good director… if that's really him."

Tideland opens for an exclusive engagement October 13th at the IFC Center in New York City, then October 20th in Los Angeles and Chicago. For more release dates visit THINKFilmcompany.com, and to visit the film's official site go here.

Source: ComingSoon.Net

[criterionmaster]

He is hilarious, man! I can't wait for the theatrical release of Tideland.

[ie]

I enjoyed Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but besides that, no comment on the director. Yet.


Just saw a need to post an image. I think this is someone's current avatar. I forget who.



And a widescreen photo for the one other person here who is not well versed in Gilliam's work.

[ie]

In two months time, I've seen Brazil and 12 Monkeys. Guess I can comment on the director now...

This was carried over from the seen any good movies lately? thread, wherein I gave 12 Monkeys a 5/10.

Here are my thoughts on the movie:

Basically, I didn't like it.

It still had some clever tricks, and it didn't completely fuck up on the time travel end of things, so I gave it some points, but I just did not like the movie. I did buy it on DVD for $4 a while ago, but I'm kind of tempted to return the DVD (long story short: the local pawn shop is kickass), or sell it even at a loss, or just give it away.


Need I present any further proof than the Hamster Factor and Other Tales of Twelve Monkeys? Pretentious as hell title, and a documentary that consists entirely (well, I'm 45 minutes in, but goddamn is it hard to watch) of self-serving bullshit.

I find "the Hamster Factor" to be loathsome. Okay, so the set up is Gilliam is going to shoot a scene that should take less than five minutes to record completely, and it ends up taking him all day because he wants some little insignificant thing to happen perfectly. In this case, a hamster running in a cage you won't even see unless someone points it out to you. It could have been shot separately, took an entire day of shooting, while poor Bruce Willis is sitting in a chair, naked, drawing his own blood. But no.

First, you do not need to spend all day doing something like that. Second, there's a thing called split-screen that amazingly allows you to record two different things and then put side A and side B together, wow. Third, to glorify that is just... I can't even think of a word to end that sentence.

Sure, I haven't seen all of Terry Gilliam's movies, and I liked Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but I have a bit of a theory behind that and the whole thing:

Basically, I don't like how he makes pessimistic, Orwellian movies where everything has gone to hell. Just doesn't do it for me. But when he makes more enjoyable movies, I can get behind his work.


edit: Forgot my favorite part of the documentary.



Sure, they meant it in earnest, and they honestly just wanted to make a unique time machine, but just the way they say it. "Let's build a massive time machine!!!!11" "lol, k"

[agentknight]

LOL! I agree with Andruini. Your argument doesn't begin to explain why you didn't like it.

[captainofbeef]

Same opinion here.

[PTAhole]

You know how I said I was about to puke this morning? Well, I've puked fifty times today.

[ie]

I already explained myself, and if you didn't like how I explained myself, didn't fully understand it, or just didn't care for my thoughts, fucking tough luck, huh?

[criterionmaster]

Okay, well instead of saying you puked and otherwise, why not write your opinions. If you think he didn't go in-depth enough on his thoughts, then discuss it to get the thoughts to come out. I personally think the film is very good as the plot isn't told in a way that is "for" the audience, it doesn't try to help you understand what is going on, and nothing is really explained. I like that the film is ahead of us, and that it leaves you with something to think about at the end. The performances are more than solid, with one of Willis' best ever. I personally like that kind of story, to an extent. It would be too much in some cases, but here I like that it is a future gone to hell, so to speak. I like how it all connects, and pieces fit together, but don't quite go together perfectly. Which to me isn't plot holes, but things that were meant that way for us to fill in and stuff. And the ending is amazing, most memorable part of the film for me.

Oh Christ, wrote that last line and then remember Brad Pitt!!!11!!!!2 He gives his best performance ever probably, well deserving of the academy nom, but his part is just fucking outstanding, and so dirty, fast, crazy it just works so perfectly. And is quite funny actually, something I look forward to in Gilliam films, his comedy.

[ie]

Yes. Basically, if you're going to antagonize me and try and treat me like fucking garbage because my opinion of a movie you had no part in creating differs from your high and mighty this is the way it is and any differing views are wrong opinion, then you're just going to have to fuck off in a fucking shithole. However, if you're willing to be more civil, then I might be willing to further explain my opinions.


I'll respond to Dan, since he treated me with a degree of respect that andruini, Agent Knight, BeeD and ptahole did not think for one second to even attempt, because even if he may disagree with my viewpoints, he was at least willing to hear me out. What did you other guys do? Register that my opinions were not the same as yours, and decide that my opinions were invalid because of this.


Actually, no, I'm on too much of a ranting mode to be able to explain my thoughts well.

[captainofbeef]

I'm currently doing something for YOU in another thread, so I didn't really want to get into a big description of why I disagreed with you. Don't tell me that I don't treat you with respect, what is disrespectful about "same opinion here?" Considering I wasn't referring to the puke statement but to Agent's statement that you really didn't get to the bottom of why you don't like the film.

I totally agree with Dan on the subject. 12 Monkeys is a very well made film. Excellent plot, good performances, great direction etc etc. I just get the feeling that you don't like Gilliam as a director and thats fine with me. But, I would like to know why and I don't feel you explained it in your post. You don't have to explain, but I would like it if you did sometime.

[PTAhole]

Both you and Dan are taking this way too fucking seriously. I say I puked, and, you know what, I could care less that you didn't like 12 Monkeys. I say that to people all the time, and they understand that I'm kidding around. I do disagree with you completely, but I do this all the time. Don't take it so seriously.
DAN! I guarantee that if I come to your house tommorrow, and I say I didn't like Wassup Rockers, you'll say something like "You know nothing" or "I'm gonna puke." I found out that ie didn't like 12 Monkeys on Sunday when I was at Dan's house. Dan said, "ie gave 12 Monkeys a 5/10. I think I'm gonna puke." Shut up, both you and I say shit like this all the time. Stop acting so superior.

[ie]

I don't think that I'm superior or inferior because of my thoughts on 12 Monkeys. To some degree, it's even a shame that I didn't like it that much, partly because I spent money on it and partly because it is a well received movie.

Oh, and it might also help if you somehow denote that you're joking, because otherwise I just read it straight.


As for thoughts on the movie:

• Atmosphere - I can understand that Gilliam and friends were trying to go for a very futuristic, dystrophic setting. However, that whole image was shattered for me the instant I saw this guy. My interpretation of the setting suddenly inverted, it was now very comical and silly; in other words, it was all down hill from there, in my eyes. The scientists, especially, did not help - even before Blueberry Hill.
  
  
• Plot - The basic plot is not too bad. Not that it's terribly original, but it works, even if occasionally things happen at a predictable pace. (a) Cole travels back in time, so naturally he's going to get arrested because he's saying some crazy shit about the future. (b) He's going to get out, but not before causing a plot event in 1990 that affects 1996. (c) Cole travels back to 1996, and naturally, he's going to find himself on the run from the law. He just had to be flashy.
  
  
• Time Travel, activating time travel - The time traveling concept felt more vague to me than La Jetée. I can understand that La Jetée's system of time travel might not please everyone, so they'd rather go with something more traditional: the massive time machine. But that's just the problem, no matter how awesome the MASSIVE TIME MACHINE looks, it's still so very conventional. How many different types of time machines have we seen over the years?
  
  
• Time Travel, used in the movie - Now, I've thought about time travel perhaps more than I should, and while I don't have any first-hand experience on the matter , I can comment on the basic theory and structure. Time travel is purely traveling between time; not place. How Cole ends up being transported to different locations and then how he suddenly vanishes without a trace is somewhat strange. But, I wasn't overly upset by the concept, per se, because the plot needs to get done, things need to happen, explosions need to occur .
  
  
• Time Travel, ending - The ending was surprisingly clear.
  
  
  SPOILER: Click to show
  Cole realizes that the Army of the 12 Monkeys wasn't actually behind the whole virus plot, which was your standard-fare plot twist. He doesn't realize this when he phones home. But, by the time he is able to figure out who was spreading the virus, Dr. Peters!, the "present" already sent an agent (one of the scienists) to stop the virus from spreading, and since the scientists weren't focused on the Army of the 12 Monkeys, they were conveniently able to figure out who caused the virus outbreak. I want to refer to this interaction between the scientist from the "present" and Dr. Peters as (A), so I can use it in the paragraph below.
  
  Older Cole is not "saved" in 1996. I want to refer to this concept as (B), because I want to use some logic to explain how I interpreted the ending.
  
  (A) and (B), therefore (C). (C) is where the future is saved, and it's a happy ending for most everyone involved. (A) helps in this regard because it shows that the scientist was able to stop Dr. Peters. (B) helps in this regard because it shows that Older Cole was no longer needed in the eyes of the scientists, or the future. He was free to live on as a child.
  
  
  
• Acting, general - I don't normally pay much attention to acting. It helps make movies better, yes, but I don't rely on it as much as say plot to carry a movie, so I don't tend to think of it as much. But really, I only have thoughts on Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt).
  
  
• Acting, Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) - Yes, Pitt acted like a mental patient very convincingly here, and I also understand that 12 Monkeys came first. However, I still like his performance and character in Fight Club more.
  
  
• Jeffrey Goines and Tyler Durden - Hopefully I've worded this properly, because otherwise I'm in for a bit of trouble. Anyways, in 12 Monkeys, when Goines speaks his mind about thinking for your self and anti-materialism, for some reason it just doesn't feel like he's saying that to truly get his point across; to be sincere. It felt to me more like he was just trying to say shocking things to get attention. Sure, that may have been the point, but I thought he conveyed these ideals better in Fight Club, and thus why I liked Pitt's performance in Fight Club more than in 12 Monkeys.
  
  (Here is a website that I used to help with some of the facts involved, even if I didn't read the theories/interpretations as much as maybe I should have. Oh well.)

In the end, I did not think 12 Monkeys was a terrible movie.

If I thought it was, I would not have given it a 5/10.

I just found it to be surprisingly average, which disappointed me.

[kiddo]

I personaly think Gilliam is somewhat overrated myself. Nearly always, he creates this wonderful, crazy world and fills it with so many interesting elements. But after an hour or so into his films, it often explodes into the totally absurd and over-the-top wierd... Or it just becomes too fucking much of all the good things.

I'm a bit didvided between the two "camps" when it comes to 12 Monkeys; I like the film to one extent, in that it creates quite an unique atmosphere in the first minutes, and works fairly well for some time. But in the end of the movie, I've lost the track, it all becomes to blurred, and, eventually, the film loses it's magic.

The acting is good, The music is great (I just love it), and the end sequence, on the airport, in slow-mo, is wonderful - and quite close to magic. As a whole, as I've said, or at least tried to say, it's both too long and too unintelligible. The same is for Gillams other piece of sci-fi; Brazil.

[agentknight]

???????? LOL!

Congratulation, you just posted nearly 1000 words without actually saying a thing.

[criterionmaster]

Release Date: Feb. 27th 2007

Further Details:
Thinkfilm has provided some details for the release of Terry Gilliam's Tideland on 27th February 2007. This R rated film stars Jeff Bridges, Jodelle Ferland, Brendan Fletcher, Jennifer Tilly and Janet McTeer, and is based on the best-selling book by Mitch Cullen. This release will be presented as a two-disc collectors edition with the first disc containing: an introduction by Terry Gilliam, a feature length commentary by Tony Grisoni and Terry Gilliam, the theatrical trailer and a trailer gallery. On disc two there will be: a making-of featurette, a documentary short by Vincenzo Natali (with an optional commentary by Terry Gilliam and Vincenzo Natali) and an interview with Terry Gilliam.

[captainofbeef]

New list:
1. Brazil-10
2. 12 Monkeys-10
3. Monty Python and the Holy Grail-10
4. The Fisher King-10
5. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas-9
6. Time Bandits-9
7. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen-9
8. Jabberwocky-7
9. The Brothers Grimm-5
10. Tideland-4

Still among my favorite directors for the first six films on the list, but the last couple have really had me second guessing him...

[sacrilegend]

YES! Tideland is one of my new favourites.

[captainofbeef]

^Tideland was awful...

[sacrilegend]

I loved it.

[sacrilegend]

Hey, I didn't know Terry Gilliam directed The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, I loved it. It was great.

[criterionmaster]

captainofbeef said:

^Tideland was awful...

tideland was so much fun. what exactly didn't you like about, again? the angles and shots in that film were amazing, and its look was awesome. not to mention i loved the story and how weird it was.

[captainofbeef]

^I hated the angled shots, the story was very odd and off-putting, the acting was atrocious (for the most part), and the best character (Jeff Bridges) was taken out of the film too early. I will go find my review if you want to hear more.

[sacrilegend]

I'd like to know more, yup. How was the acting atrocious? I found it perfectly suited to the inds of characters they were meant to portray.

[captainofbeef]

^The little girl was too whiny, her accent was clearly forced as well. And the retarded boy was generic in every sense of the word.