This is a confusing and senile film that is littered with ideas but none of which seem to get investigate and explored to a satisfying conclusion. Ideas are just thrown out as if discarded, left for the viewer to wonder what could have been – if only – and then the film continues to clumps along aimlessly. In short this is a film that is not fully realised, it hints at many things, it seems to have a wide scope – good versus evil, creativity, death and volition – but unfortunately the story doesn’t come together to form any cohesive unity and story. It would appear that Gilliam’s flight of imagination has with this film, failed to touch back down to earth. A strong editing hand is what seems to be missing. And this makes for disappointing experience
Was it a good choice for this film to be concluded and released after the untimely death of rising star Heath Ledger, was there a story there that was worthy as something of an epitaph – as this film will invariably be used – to his legacy and potential, should this film have move time spent on post-production? These sorts of questions were always going to be levelled at this film and it is noble of Gilliam to push on through with the film’s production despite the major loss of Ledger. But an epitaph does not make a film and the parts of this film don’t add up to a worthy memorial.
Yes, themes of mortality, imagination, a bleak inevitability and pure love inhabit this film as they do in many Gilliam films but here they are strands that are not tied together and are confusingly deployed thorough out the film to no end. Are we supposed to take sympathy on Dr. Parnassus and his idiotic determination to carve out a life as a poet-storyteller? Or should we take sympathy on ourselves that we fail to appreciate the gifts that Dr. Parnassus has to offer and the general decline in our civilisations ability to appreciate storytelling and the art of imagining? And just where is Gilliam laying the blame for his despondency: a particular demographic, a political-economic cabal, the choices that consenting individuals make or somebody-or-other? It’s a nigh on impenetrable veil that Gilliam casts.
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus starts off promisingly with a strong opening gambit of the general decline of modern western civilisation that is wallowing in drunken stupor and clipped wings of creativity. And as we see Dr. Parnassus sit lonely on his mountain outcrop we can feel his despair at what he sees, but then as the film begins to unfolds we see that Dr. Parnassus, despite his lofty prelapsarian ideals, is himself a fallen man who has recklessly gambled the lives of those dear to him and has dug his own hole.
And a hole is what Gilliam digs for himself he is never able to get a cohesive story together and get out beyond a promising beginning. As a result this film lack focus; too many ideas and not enough segues. The production design is filled with fascination and trinkets of wonder. Alone they are well crafted elements but they can’t distract from the general lack of focus and continuity this film exhibits. One must wonder about what muse was leading Gilliam’s choices in the realisation of this film.
And so finally, what of the choices that one has to make in their life? This idea is signposted at the conclusion of the film but it’s a little late for any investigation; and it’s an idea that lingers with a morbid tint. Perhaps what Gilliam is alluding to is that through the act of making a choice, sticking to it and acting upon it, one can attain a moral high ground of productivity and worthiness. Throughout the film Dr. Parnassus has given over to many a temptation presented to him – be it by a dapper and cigarette chomping devil or the reading of a fortune card – he has seemed to lack any volition of his own, so to see him make a choice at the conclusion of the film and then improve his life in the process of resolutely sticking to the choice concludes the film on a positive note.
And this review so far has said nothing of the role that the late Ledger plays, which seem to be something of a Mephisto type role. But it’s unclear just what this film, characters and director desire to tell, too much seems to fall by the wayside in this bloated meta-narrative. As it is, this film along with life and death remain clear like the water of the Thames. But a lingering thought remains, does this film need repeated viewing for its fruits to ripen
No comments:
Post a Comment