No one wants Gilliam to succeed more than I do. He likes the kind of nesting that I do: stories within stories, performances within performances. He truly believes in other words, or shadows of this one. And he is exclusively a visual thinker. No, that's not quite right because he's missing on the thinking side let's say he has a cinematic imagination.
The problem is that he's a flake. He understands little of storytelling, and essentially none of the subtler points of the performing arts. So in the worst case get pages from children's' books that might be clever if we fill in around the little words. In the best case (Fear and Loathing, Parts of 12 Monkeys, fewer parts of Brazil), we get something that matters, even in the small. There's a connection that slides under humor, that skirts around polished philosophies, something that needs no explanation at all, just discipline in receiving the light.
So I always go into one of his projects with trepidation. Its a love that has structural obstacles, that when it works is lovely and natural and right. And when not, you're tempted to blame yourself.
This does have the overall idea: showmen specializing in magical stories encounter "real" magic based on a pre-existing and known story, which becomes known in a sort of retroactive projection through the writings of these same brothers. That bit is sweet. And Heath Ledger is really pretty interesting in how he chooses to amuse. As with Johnny Depp, a clever actor can fill in the spaces that Gilliam doesn't care about. Its a small amusement which would add to a good movie, but which cannot save a bad one.
Gilliam's choices in the small are nice though. Flaming crucifixes, mirror shards that see, bugs and holes, a contempt for the French style of storytelling.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
The problem is that he's a flake. He understands little of storytelling, and essentially none of the subtler points of the performing arts. So in the worst case get pages from children's' books that might be clever if we fill in around the little words. In the best case (Fear and Loathing, Parts of 12 Monkeys, fewer parts of Brazil), we get something that matters, even in the small. There's a connection that slides under humor, that skirts around polished philosophies, something that needs no explanation at all, just discipline in receiving the light.
So I always go into one of his projects with trepidation. Its a love that has structural obstacles, that when it works is lovely and natural and right. And when not, you're tempted to blame yourself.
This does have the overall idea: showmen specializing in magical stories encounter "real" magic based on a pre-existing and known story, which becomes known in a sort of retroactive projection through the writings of these same brothers. That bit is sweet. And Heath Ledger is really pretty interesting in how he chooses to amuse. As with Johnny Depp, a clever actor can fill in the spaces that Gilliam doesn't care about. Its a small amusement which would add to a good movie, but which cannot save a bad one.
Gilliam's choices in the small are nice though. Flaming crucifixes, mirror shards that see, bugs and holes, a contempt for the French style of storytelling.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.