Clocking Back in to Time Bandits

A short while back, after I complained of there being a remake of Time Bandits, my regular circle of friends here in Chicago gathered to watch it.  Needless to say, they enjoyed it very much.
 

But something occurred to me upon this viewing.  I still don’t think there should be a remake... but a sequel!

If you know the film, hear me out.  There are spoilers ahead, so if you haven’t seen Time Bandits, you might want to stop reading now.

At the end of the movie, despite the typical blur of fantasy and reality prevalent in Gilliam flicks, we do know that Kevin has his Polaroid pictures from his adventure.  And one of those depicts the Map.  We also know that it IS possible to read/use the Map even on this small scale.  As well as the fact that Kevin gleans how to read/use it, too.  For it’s precisely his examining of the photo that causes them to find the “Biggest Hole in the Universe” and allows them to attack the Evil Genius.

Right.  We also know that Kevin is rather, shall we say, disgruntled with the Supreme Being for his blasé attitude toward the “unnecessary” killing of so many people just to test out “evil.”  Isn’t that, too, well, evil?  From a certain point of view yes but then again maybe not from a larger-scope view such as a god-like character’s perspective.  Not to mention that Kevin’s parents are now destroyed in a puff by a raw chunk of evil left over from (shall we say) their negligence (Kevin & the Supreme Being included)?

If you ask me, Kevin is ripe for revenge.  It makes sense that the Supreme Being testing “evil” would result in Kevin being infected by it, burning with animosity toward the “uncaring” god-figure.  Also, he’s got the Map.  Thus he has access to all of the time holes in the universe.  (He probably even had the Map enlarged!)  He knows the how and the WHEN of gathering tools to attempt a showdown with the Supreme Being... and maybe even against Randall and his other friends who abandoned him at the last moment.  What exactly his vengeance entails remains to be seen... and we’d of course use Time to our advantage in that Kevin would be 20 years older now...  that’s a long time to plan an elaborate & sweet settling of scores!  Doesn’t it seem like it would make a good story?

And there you have it.

I don’t want a REMAKE of Time Bandits...
I want the sequel! 

Hollywood is Bad Bandit!

I can't believe I "have to" complain about a remake again.  This one's "idea"  leaves me even more embittered.  They’re remaking the fantastic (both in the senses of story content and quality) Terry Gilliam classic

Time Bandits

Really?

This poor man can’t ever catch a break on getting a NEW film made (he always runs into some sort of snag, there's more about that in one of the posts somewhere here) and now they’re going to re-do one of his best?

What’s more, they’re going to make it more “kid-accessible.” Um, suuuure. I had always considered it a kid movie anyway. Do they really think it’s too intense for younger viewers? I had been 10 when it came out. And yes, I saw it in the theater. And yes, I loved it then (and now [yes, I have seen it recently.]) To say it needs to be more kid-friendly is an insult to Gilliam, storytelling and children.

Unlike some other 80’s F/X, I don’t think this movie needs any help. It even holds up today.

Oh, Hollywood. SO many books and plays and original ideas out there and you still insist on destroying the integrity of a classic.

If only the Evil Genius could point a finger at them.

And does ANYONE want THE MAP to be REMADE?

*SIGH*

Incidentally, I’ve learned that Banky, Clara, Buttercup and Josiecat haven’t seen Time Bandits. Clara quote :
Time traveling midgets!?!?? I’m IN.

Correction:  Buttercup has seen it.  I showed it to her when we had our Gilliam kick.

Don't Be So Quix to Judge?

So it turns out that Terry Gilliam is not the only one who is using Cervantes’s famous foibled fighter Don Quixote as a springboard for a feature film. Joel Silver and Warner Bros. are planning an adventure for the knight errant as well. However, they’re taking a “different” approach. They’re making it more sleek and modern-ish. It's being touted as akin to the Pirates of the Caribbean series. It's also been described as along the lines of the recent Sherlock Holmes film.

My gut reaction: Please don’t.

Then I thought about it a bit more. Before I get to my re-evaluation, let me rant just a wee bit. I have not, and will not, see the new Sherlock Holmes movie. Why? Because I’m a purist at heart. And I’m sorry, but that is NOT Sherlock Holmes. I’m not saying it should be banned or anything. Just that I can’t abide it myself. Part of my disenchantment is the title. In my opinion, you can’t go calling it Sherlock Holmes when it doesn’t fit with the original concept. Holmes is not an action hero. I’d have less of a problem with it if they’d titled it Sherlock, or Holmes. I say less because the truth is even though that would ‘settle' the matter for me, I just don’t like the idea of Holmes with weaponry, clever quips that belong in “flicks” and such action-oriented sequences. In other words, I don’t cotton to a James Bond-esque Sherlock.

Okay, so, as you might guess, I’m hoping that the new Don Quixote movie is not simply titled Don Quixote when it's nothing like the original. And then the more I thought about it, the more I warmed the idea of revamping this tale. Unlike Holmes, Quixote lends itself to this kind of treatment. I can totally see some dude with ramshackle but nifty armor loaded with pop out knives. I already have a mental image of his army of transforming windmills. It would be stupid… but the kind of stupid that works. And my title suggestion? Quixotic. Or, better yet, if it turns out to be “full on” techno-saavy knight errantry… then I say Psychotic Quixotic.

Let’s hope it’s fun.

Gilliam's Arc - A Flood of Films Flowing into Fantasy

I have now seen all of Terry Gilliam’s films.

Last Friday night, Buttercup and I watched Jabberwocky.
I rather liked it. It’s not the best movie, but it’s not bad either.

How does it fare in terms of a Gilliam flick?

Well, given that it’s his first movie (Monty Python films not included) it serves as a missing link, even though it comes first. How so? Well, Jabberwocky is very straightforward. Sure, it veers a little here and there, but it’s nothing like the double-backflipping and turning reality inside out as per Gilliam’s later movies. What this shows, then, is a definite arc of his work. From single-streamed story to various streams of consciousness flowing in and out of each other. A progression (or degeneration, however one chooses to look at it) of storytelling technique, getting less and less linear as he goes along.

At this rate, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote will be a series of semi-related images.
I jest. But it is interesting that as projects came, he beefs up the surreal quality each time.

And for the record, Jabberwocky pretty much follows the Lewis Carroll poem. It’s not a direct adaptation, not by a longshot. But it does tell roughly that same story. In fact, it's quite Monty Python-like. From the humor to the look of it. And having the always great Michael Palin as the guy who falls into being the hero bolsters that feeling. Thus, it stands to reason that as time went on in his films, Gilliam steered farther away from the Pythonic influence. I'd also like to say that Deborah Fallender did a great job as the princess. She played it rather like a medieval Marcia Brady.

And how did the famed monster look? It’s the second best brought to the screen (of 3.) Burton’s takes the Unbirthday Cake, to be sure. But Gilliam’s is impressive for 1977, certainly. And it’s much better (in terms of design and action) than the one in the 1985 made-for-TV Alice in Wonderland.

I’ve also come to realize that I’d been looking at the works Gilliam had written. There is, of course, also The Fisher King, Twelve Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm. I've seen each of those, too. And on the whole, I liked them as well. But each of them is a linear tale... although the fantastic hand of Gilliam is definitely present in each!

Trying to Grok Gilliam

Trying to Grok Gilliam

One (or more) of the following are true:

Terry Gilliam is a weird, strange and twisted man.
I am not clever enough to understand his films.
Terry Gilliam purposely designs stories to confuse us to no end.
I am a glutton for punishment when it comes to bizarre storytelling.
Terry Gilliam needs to make more films.
I need to stop watching his films.
Terry Gilliam should stop telling stories.
I can’t wait for more of his tales.

I’m not sure… perhaps all of them are true, none of them are true or vice-versa - which is to say it’s rather like a Terry Gilliam movie.

What brought this on? Last night Bart, Buttercup and I watched The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Well, Buttercup and I did. Bart zonked out at a slower bit of the film and never recovered. Let me make it clear that both Buttercup and I liked the movie. We’re just not sure we did. By which I mean we didn’t really understand it. Or if we did, we’re not sure we actually have. But it had been one hell of a great ride!

Looking at IMDb, I have not seen just one of his movies. That film is Jabberwocky. In talking about his work, I am not counting the Monty Python films (which I’ve seen and I “got”) as those can be regarded as a different category. My two favorites are Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

I’ve made a post about Baron Munchausen before. In a nutshell, I adore that it’s designed to be impossible to discern when and where reality and fantasy begin or end. Time Bandits I have not seen for quite some…er…time. I have very fond memories of it and know I’ve seen it more than once. As I recall, it’s the most linear of his stories. But yes, it does (or so I think) have some bends and turning of tables characteristic of Gilliam.

Brazil is a film that my mind won’t seem to let me remember. Sure, I recall bits and pieces of it. But when I watched again there were large chunks I didn’t think I’d seen before. Not in the sense of not remembering them, but in that my brain decided to black them out due to them being disturbing or unnerving somehow. I can’t tell you which parts, since they’ve blacked out again.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas I saw once and that seemed to be enough. It didn’t sit right with me, nor did it sit wrong with me. We’ll leave it at that.

His movie Tideland is, well, odd. Very odd. To the point of I don’t get it at all. I might even be sickened by it, I’m not entirely sure. None of it “blackened” in my head, though. But all the while I felt as if I’d been missing something. Like Gilliam is completely off his rocker or I’d not been savvy enough to comprehend it.

And The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is just like that… only without the (possibly) disgusted bit. It’s a little like Munchausen in that fantasy and reality blend to the point of numbing the mind. But unlike Munchausen it didn’t make me stand up and applaud that aspect. But by no means did I not enjoy it. It’s visually stunning. And the backstory of how it came to be made (or almost didn’t) is fascinating. It’s Heath Ledger’s last film - he died during production. Gilliam reportedly had a nervous breakdown after having also had ridiculously horrendous bad luck during his first attempt at a movie called The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (see the documentary-like film called Lost in La Mancha.) But a solution presented itself. Since Parnassus deals with fantasy, Gilliam decided that going through his magic mirror ‘changes’ Ledger’s character each time… and actors Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped up so that the film could be completed.


I suppose I need to see Jabberwocky.

At the very best Gilliam’s films get one talking and thinking, that’s for sure.

So thank you, Mr. Terry Gilliam, for being one hell of a delicious creative convolution! May you always continue to bring us wild and wicked whimsy. And best of luck in upcoming productions. I’m looking forward to The Man Who Killed Don Quixote.

Gilliam's Arc - A Flood of Films Flowing into Fantasy

As said in "Gilliam's Arc" post: I’ve also come to realize that I’d been looking at the works Gilliam had written. There is, of course, also The Fisher King, Twelve Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm. I've seen each of those, too. And on the whole, I liked them as well. But each of them is a linear tale... although the fantastic hand of Gilliam is definitely present in each!

Stuff that COULD Be Jolly from Holly(wood)

I’m afraid it’s time for another Hollywood post.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to start complaining.
There’s just been a stockpile and I want to unload it.

I’ve talked quite a bit already about the forthcoming Where the Wild Things Are adaptation. Another trailer has come out. You might recall that Sendak told Jonze to make what the book meant to him, not what's directly on the pages. It seems as if Jonze is doing just that… for this film looks rather slow moving and oddly gentle. I don’t mean those derogatorily. I always thought the book had a relaxed pace and comfort as well. I’m still happily intrigued. You can see for yourself.




Terry Gilliam’s much-anticipated and semi-ill fated The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has found a distributor. So we can look forward to another wacky and wonderful romp through Gilliam’s delightfully twisted mind. If you’re not already aware, the late Heath Ledger had been filming when he passed. Gilliam handled the blow by realizing that he can re-cast the role. Sounds awful… but it’s actually rather cool. Since the story already deals with a high degree of magic, it had been written in that the character “changes” each time he goes through a magic mirror. (Or something to this effect.) Bravo for carrying on and for the fun notion, Mr. Gilliam! Can’t wait for this one:



I’m not sure that we need one, but I’m not against it either - Little Red Riding Hood. Darker. Yes, it’s been done before as a Gothic horror type, with The Company of Wolves. But I’m game for another spin on a werewolf legend with a little girl in red. (The origins of the fairy tale sometimes include a lycanthrope character.) David Leslie Johnson is penning this new take. And Leonardo DiCaprio is producing. The results should be interesting.

The next “new spin” is an idea that I had, too. No, I’m not disappointed that someone else nabbed it. Quite glad. For I’d like to see how it turns out and I had no real gumption to do it. I envisioned a cartoon series, but a feature film might work just as well. A futuristic Robin Hood, anyone? Oh come now, it COULD be good. Jason Hall taking a stab at the script.

And lastly, the sort-of complaint, but not exactly. Way back in this post, I simply said that I’m shaking my head severely at what’s to come. This project (among many others) had been included in that disdain. I may still hold disdain for it, I’m not sure. ViewMaster: The Movie. Yes, the childhood toy. Roll the eyes back… here’s what happened. Apparently Brad Caleb Kane (Fringe) had an idea to pitch for a movie. On his own. Nothing to do with any company backed toys, just an idea that caught someone’s eye. The connection to ViewMaster had been made after the fact. Knowing that a movie of it had been discussed, Kane’s story supposedly fits in perfectly. I guess we’ll have to see what comes into focus, eh?

Old Saying, New Twist IV.iii

Descartes Variation #3

cogito ergo vos es.
("I think therefore you is.")

This one comes from the Terry Gilliam movie The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It's spoken by the King of the Moon, who is under the delusion that he created all things...nay, is STILL creating all things. (And yes, I know it should be "you are" but hey, it's a quote and I already told you the King is crazy. [Loony, even.])

Old Saying, New Twist I
Old Saying, New Twist II
Old Saying, New Twist III
Old Saying, New Twist IV
Old Saying, New Twist IV.ii

Barren Munchausen??

Well, I’ve finally finished The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen which I began here. And what’s most surprising? That the wild escapades are nowhere near as outlandish as they have been made out to be over the years. Oh sure, the Colossus of Rhodes comes to life, a horse gallops to drink and cannot quench its thirst because its entire half a body is gone and the Baron can take out a bear while fighting with several other men… but nothing as wacky and utterly fantastical as other tales have made him out to be!

Then again, I had been reading the “first incarnation” of the Baron by Raspe. Certainly there has been quite a lot of time to embellish and add upon the stories over the decades. And thankfully, storytellers have. But I’d been (excuse me) surprised by certain things not being originally part of the scenes. Such as the now iconic plight of the Baron riding a cannonball. It’s not just in Terry Gilliam’s movie, but can be seen in the old German motion picture as well. Where did it come from? Obviously one of the embellishers in the tradition of the Baron’s mode of relating his adventures. But as for who added it or what version it first appeared in… well, the internet is way too thick with information on the Gilliam movie and such to wade through. (I’ve tried.) And I’ve too much on my plate to trek to the library. So, I will just have to be content knowing that there are many people who contributed to the creation of a narrative giant.

It is thusly difficult to say how much of Terry Gilliam’s wonderful epic came from his own imagination or other sources of the Baron. Oh sure…there are similarities of elements - Raspe has plenty of hot air balloons, Vulcan’s pit, a giant fish and impossible feats…but none of it is to the degree or magnitude of the film. And I don’t mean that it can just be chalked up to making it more sensational for the movie. In general, despite the incorporated elements, there is little to do with the first written Baron. For instance, I had been looking forward to knowing more about Munchausen’s servants: Adolphus, Berthold, Gustavus and Albrecht. They do not exist. I have not been able to discern whether or not Terry Gilliam and Charles McKeown created them or not. Perhaps the servants were merely for the “gather the old friends” device to thread the adventures together. Either way, they are marvelous and ingenious. I honestly believe the additions (including the troupe of actors staging his adventures) to be nothing short of brilliant. Bravo!

I watched the featurette/documentary on the DVD, hoping for some explanation as to the Baron's adventures…and all I learned had been that Gilliam began his fascination with the Dore drawings for the Raspe stories. Okay, I also found out that the Moon sequence had been intended to be more like Rapse's. Much more like it. But due to the constraints and misfortune during the production, it had to be revamped entirely. As for the rest of it, I’d imagine he and McKeown ransacked other adventures as well. But where and what and how much? It seems for now I shall not know.

Although it might seem so in this post, the Baron's surprising adventures are not so startling. They are just a bit exaggerated. I can only delight in the fact that many have pulled a Baron Munchausen and the truth of their lie is fantastically incontrovertible.

Long live the Baron!

The Baron Conundrum
Recounting the Baron's Tales, Finally (or Again.)

Recounting the Baron's Tales, Finally (or Again.)

So I’ve begun reading something I probably should have read long ago.
The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
It’s the “accepted as most complete” version by Rudolph Erich Raspe.

I talked in this post about how much I enjoyed Terry Gilliam’s movie about the wacky escapades of the famed prestigeous “liar.” Why I never bothered to seek out the most complete and well-known compilation of the stories is beyond me. It's not like me, in fact. Perhaps out of sight out of mind? Or maybe too many other pursuits?

Well, I’m reading it now. It’s quite as I expected it to be in content. Fortunately the Baron is the narrator, so Gilliam factored correctly for his film. It’s much more satisfying to have Munchausen recount his own adventures. They have a “matter-of-fact” quality, despite the outlandish occurrences. Plus, his snide commentary can be just as amusing as the ventures.

One drawback exists, which upon examination, I must add, conversely could be construed as a boon in the writing rather than a hindrance to the literature which I am admonishing for the very same style of construction. Didn’t quite follow that sentence? You were meant to have trouble with it. You see, Munchausen often reads like a pretentious textbook lecture. Take, for example, how Munchausen begins:

Some years before my beard announced approaching manhood, or, in other words, when I was neither man nor boy, but between both, I expressed in repeated conversations a strong desire of seeing the world, from which I was discouraged by my parents, though my father had been no inconsiderable traveller himself, as will appear before I have reached the end of my singular, and, I may add, interesting adventures.

Works well, though, especially since it's generally supposed to be a prestigious, verbose man telling you his tales around a table or something of the sort. But - it’s not a conducive match to morning blahs and noisy trains. (You might recall that most of my reading is done in transit.) Quite fun, nevertheless. It just may take me longer to read, as it seems I must maintain a mindset to do so.
I already see one place where Gilliam rearranged. One of the Baron’s ideas is intact, but he wound up changing the medium, of sorts. In Gilliam’s he escapes from the Moon using a lock of the Queen (of the Moon)’s hair woven into rope. In the written tale, he uses straw that he happens to find. And rather than visiting the Moon, he merely makes his way there to retrieve a hatchet he accidentally threw up to far, i.e. to the Moon.

It will be interesting to see the re-packaging of what I already know of the story. I just hope the retooling doesn’t shed a bad light on a movie I hold dear. But then, if it does, perhaps I can find the right filter. For Raspe is not the sole creator of the tales of the Baron. And we all know the Baron can’t be trusted as having told the same story twice without embellishment.



And didn't they do a wonderful job of making up John Neville to look like the Gustave Dore drawing above?

Viva the Baron!

Barren Munchausen??

The Baron Conundrum

Another wonderful movie that challenges perceptions of reality is Terry Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. His film is based on a collection of stories (both oral and in print by various storytellers) which themselves were derived from the outlandish tales told by 18th century Karl Friedrich Hieronymus [Freiherr von Münchhausen] who shall we say embellished the events of his life serving as a page to Anthony Ulrich II [Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg] and later in the Russian military. Besides the outrageous escapades of the Baron from the stories (such as sailing to the moon, consorting with Vulcan and riding cannonballs) Terry Gilliam’s film has some oddity of its own.

I’ve watched it quite a number of times and each time I had been determined to unravel its mystery. I’ve since resigned it to being a well-crafted and purposeful enigma. What is the dilemma that arises? It’s impossible to figure out where reality begins and ends in the movie. From the onset, one would imagine it to begin in an established reality. And it probably does – but which is it? The real world or the mind of the Baron? The fantasy of the Baron (who proclaims that he never lies) weaves in and out of alleged real events in the movie. But then, the Baron is relating his exploits to an audience from on stage, correcting the story from the way a troupe of actors had been performing his adventures. To make it even more complicated, flashbacks and past stories intermingle into the present. Also, some of the actors have dual roles (one in the supposed real world and one in the Baron’s stories) which also adds to the confusion. Sure, it’s easy to say that he just included people he met into his tale. But other factors ensue that challenge the nature of the reality of the film. "Real" becomes malleable.

If you have not seen it, give it a whirl. By the time you get to the end, you won’t know if you’re at the end of another story or the beginning of a new one or if it had all been a story or where you or the Baron stand. I admire the film for being simultaneously enchanting and infuriating. See if you can figure it out. I certainly cannot. And at this point, I never want to…

Recounting the Baron's Tales, Finally (or Again.)
Barren Munchausen??