An image for Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has appeared online; actually, only half of the image, as the other half will apparently be conjoined on the film’s official site this weekend. A source close to the film purportedly told Quick Stop that the massive influx of web traffic caused its site to crash earlier today. I experienced this firsthand, though several friends on both coasts and outside America did not. The image, as is, is worth a look after the jump.
I remember the first images I came across early on for Gilliam’s The Brothers Grimm, and they gave me a flop-type vibe. In contrast, this image and the set design, the detail, gives me an optimistic feeling. Might it be clicking after all? I particularly like the “Eye of Providence” at the top of the stage’s marquee, and the cardboard topiary is at once creepy, ethereal and believably makeshift. The mannequin-like display here, the druid-like illustrations, it’s all antique haunted house vibes via a nomadic-sage-stage. Gilliam’s vision feels cohesive in the construction. It’s just half a pic, though, obviously. Just my gut speaking. Hi gut. Your gut’s thoughts?
Whatever its are, this film’s marketing strategy seems to have taken out a different page compared to The Dark Knight; increasing its exposure online and keeping it consistent with the flood it received shortly after lead star Heath Ledger’s untimely passing. It’s an indie affair, so I don’t find it tasteless, just curious. Will this film be good? Can it be?
View the image after the jump…
February 7th, 2008 at 7:11 am
This image doesn’t really do anything for me. Still interested in the flick though.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:36 am
As the comments curmudgeon, I have to say I grew up loving Terry Gilliam (the repercussions of Time Bandits are still being felt, and Brazil was like a sneak preview of today’s reality), but I have been very disappointed in pretty much everything since Fear and Loathing(I think the source material and performers get alot of credit here). Kind of like Quentin Tarantino, he seems to have gotten himself in this position where instead of just making a movie, he thinks he has to make a “Terry Gilliam” movie and they come across very self conscious and contrived to me. Tideland was especially awful in my opinion. Hope this one is better.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:52 am
I like The Brothers Grimm a lot. I liked it in theaters and I still watch it on DVD all the time. Sure the ending is kind of a hot mess but it’s a funny and cool looking movie.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:20 am
As big a flop as Brothers Grimm was, the set design was one of the best things about it. So I’m not sure what gave you the “flop” feeling from the pictures.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am
And Robert, as a devout Gilliam fan I gotta say Tideland is the most unfiltered, untarnished thing Gilliam has ever produced. Next to Brazil and Fear and Loathing it is his masterpiece. If you wanna hear some of my thoughts on the themes and ideas presented in Tideland, shoot me an email at Millo012@hotmail.com
February 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The themes and ideas weren’t the problem, so much, it was how they were conveyed. It was just too predictable and cliche’ IMO in its execution. A little ham fisted. I thought the girl’s performance was supremely unnatural (and very annoying to me). It was like a 60 year old man’s idea of what a precocious little girl should be like. I can’t help it, the whole thing grated on my nerves. And I really wanted to like it.
The instant Terry came on screen before the movie (on DVD) to explain it to me, I knew there was trouble. I thought, “oh no.” If the director has to come on before the film and tell you what he’s trying to do, that’s not a good sign. I wouldn’t mind hearing your thoughts though. I can never be sure if I like F&L in LV because I love HST, or because it really is that good. I did really like 12 Monkeys.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I agree that his introduction to the film was a mistake.
I thought Joedelle’s performance was magical. And Gilliam himself says in the making of that a lot of it is her. He said something to the effect of “instead of having a 60 year old man tell her how to act like a little girl, I let her take a lot of control and do what came natural”
I remember when I was younger and I’d play make believe and some of the kids would get very into it, get very dramatic. So I don’t think her performance is that far off from how a child might act in such a situation.
And with fear and laothing, im thinking/hoping you like it that much because it is that good. I was introduced to hunter’s work through the movie. so not knowing much about him i saw the movie with pretty unbiased eyes. then later getting to know hunter’s ideas and how really important of an icon he was, the movie became more to me than just two guys going crazy on drugs.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Thx Webb.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am
You reminded me of my exact thoughts after I saw Tideland about the girl’s performance. I remeber thinking that she was playing what she thought a 60 year old man’s idea of a little girl was. LOL If that makes sense. It was a little girl acting like what she thought 60 year old men think litle girls are supposed to act like. It just didn’t ring true to me. She was too child-actory fo rmy taste. And I thought they telegraphed Jeff Bridges’ death way too many times.
As for HST I had read all of his books well before F&L came out. My only beef was that they left out the single most important part of the book. Where they actually find the “American Dream,” and it’s a burned out hotel in North Vegas. I certainly couldn’t imagine it being any better made by someone else though. I just can’t understand why they left that out when the rest was spot on.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Still love Terry though and hope to one day see him complete Don Quixote.