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.)

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??

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??

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!

Worth the Pryce

Just a little shout out about excellent actor Jonathan Pryce. He's currently playing the role of Captain Hook in Peter Pan the Show, which is the touring production of the new adaptation that began in London as Peter Pan at Kensington Gardens. (You might recall Bart and I went to London to see the historical stage show.) While I would not have thought of Mr. Pryce right off the bat to play Barrie's fearsome pirate lord with a claw, he's certainly got the talent and the power to do it. Especially given the presentation of Hook in this production.

Jonathan Pryce is always great in films and plays in two I especially like: The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.* He's in lots more worth seeing as well. And I am currently enjoying his singing. Yes, really. He played Guido in a concert performance of Nine, and you can bet that Bart has it. (I rather like "Guido's Song.")

So HOORAY for Mr. Pryce as the infamous Captain Hook, break a leg, sir!

Two side notes:

#1 My niece and nephew went to see Peter Pan the Show in San Francisco, where the touring of the U.S. began. The general consensus is that they liked it. However, I found it rather satisfying that they, too, were annoyed at the visible puppeteers (for Nana and other creatures.) Nice to know kids do have discriminating tastes. For as I mentioned in my review, although there is a time and place for the operators to be seen without ruining the 'magic' on stage (such as Chicago's Redmoon Theatre Company), it just seems to kill the mood in a showing of Peter Pan.

#2 I'd gone to Peter and Wendy to search for a fun description of Peter's first nemesis... and discovered an interesting bit of trivia instead. I'll let you in on it tomorrow.

* Yes, he also plays Governor Weatherby Swann in other PotC films. But let's face it, the first one is so far the best.

Not Too Bad...

Ever had the experience where you think you’ve seen a movie and then you watch it again only to realize that you in fact did not see the film? Obviously I have.

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad recently released on Blu-Ray. Bart decided he wanted it, so we loaded up the Blu-Ray player. Eventually it became clear that I had been mixing this one up with The Golden Voyage of Sinbad and Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger. Understandable. I hope.

What a treat, then, to see more of legendary Ray Harryhausen’s incredible “dynamation.” I rather enjoyed the story, too. Oh, it’s not anything terribly compelx or unexpected for a Sinbad adventure. But I did like the way certain elements tied together. In other words, they utilized what they had established rather than just fill it with crazy creatures and fantastical situations. Nice foreshadowing, good build up of wonderment and anitcipation. One part did bother me. When Sinbad finally takes the helm to navigate a perilous storm and screeching creatures by steering to safety through a narrow passage of rocks, the film fades out just as the action would occur. I felt entirely cheated. If not by missing the scene then at least the triumphant musical score that would have accompanied it. One thing also worth mentioning: The genie. I suppose I shall have to go against my initial words, as the genie is rather unexpected. I won’t spoil it for those who have not seen it. Otherwise, a fairly tight tale, full of mistrust, daring, clanging swords, magic and mystical mayhem.

As is my penchant, I now have the gumption to pursue the origins of the Sinbad story. Bart told me he’s part of 1001 Arabian Nights. And I’ve made a quick look at Wikipedia. It seems his story is actually "set," unlike the malleable Robin Hood or Baron Munchausen. One of these days, when I’ve got less to do, I’ll have to delve into the marvelous adventures of the famed sailor.

I believe a musical is in the works, as is another motion picture.

Maybe I’ll be prompted by those to sail into the legend...

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

The Air Head

C.J. Redwine, author of the upcoming Shadowing Fate (and who also interviewed me), related a doozy of an anecdote from her trials as a member of the wait staff at her daily grind on her blog The Last Word. A comment to that post referred to a scene from my own retail tribulations. I’ll share that story with you now. (And be sure to read C.J.'s post if you have not already.)

As an Assistant Manager of a party store, I’d seen and heard my share of “stupid.” But hey, we all ask dumb questions or play the fool occasionally. But sometimes… you have to wonder how certain people have the wherewithal to dress themselves in the morning.

Before I actually begin, I should mention that it seems 50% of the population does not know balloons will only last 12 to 20 hours. People come in on Thursday to pick up (not schedule a pick up, mind you, but to take home right then and there) balloons for a party on Sunday. In fairness, I can see how the confusion might happen. A mylar balloon (the foil kind) does last a week or so. And with Hi-Float, a balloon can last as much as three days. (Hi-Float is a gel placed inside the balloon which dries and clogs the pores so that the helium cannot escape so easily.) Perhaps, not knowing of this treatment, one could erroneously believe balloons normally last longer. Okay, now 50% of those people (that’s 25% for us non math majors) do not know you need helium for a balloon to rise. And then… there is this woman. At least she could read and knew about helium. Sort of…

When customers buy a package of balloons, naturally they are asked if they need them to be blown up. Sally (the boss’s sister and also an employee) inquired. Occupied otherwise, I listened in…

Woman: Oh…no. I’ll do it.
Sally: Do you have a helium tank?
Woman: What?
Sally: A helium tank to blow them up. Or don’t you need them to float?
Woman: I will do it. I’ll blown them up.
Sally: You don’t need them to float?
Woman: What? Of course.
Sally: Then you’ll have a helium tank?
Woman: No. I’ll just blow them up. (She gestured as to blowing it up with her mouth.)
Sally: (blinking) Uh, no. You need a helium tank. I can direct you to a place that…
Woman: (pointing to the package) But it says ‘Helium Balloons.’ These are helium balloons. They float.
Sally: No. That means they are helium-quality balloons. They’re designed to hold helium. Most balloons are too thin.
Woman: (perplexed) But… they’re helium balloons.
Sally: But you still need to fill them with -
Woman: (pointing as if Sally didn’t get it) These are helium balloons!
Sally: But, you see….

I couldn’t let this proceed any further. So I got up, grabbed a balloon and placed it on a nozzle. The result? A plump dewdrop of laytex fell over in my hand. The Woman looked on as if I’d pulled a wombat out of my ear.

Woman: Why isn’t it going up?!?
Me: This nozzle just produces air. It’s connected to a compressor in the basement. It’s just air. This over here (showing helium tank) is filled with helium. It’s a “special” gas, lighter than air. But this is just regular air.

The Woman looked utterly confused. She stared, wondering why on earth it would stay resting alongside my fist rather than perk upright. Then, her face perked up. She got it.

Woman: Put a ribbon on it!

(She said this triumphantly, as if she had just solved an evil calculus problem.)
My turn to blink. But, to show her the ridiculousness of her solution, I did. I tied the balloon to a yard of ribbon. I now had a balloon going in reverse, so to speak, looking like a Science Fair model of an unmotivated major component of the reproductive system. The Woman, needless to say, stared on with sheer bamboozlement.

Woman: WHY? Why isn’t it going up?!?
Me: Because this is not -

A revelation!

Woman: Put a weight on it! The weight’s heavier - it will make it go up!

Really? Did she even factor in that I weigh considerably more than a hunk of wood? What sort of logic is this? Physics scholars everywhere be warned: Ye have it all wrong!

At this point, I could take no more, handed Sally the balloon, and retreated to the office upstairs. Don’t ask me how the Woman fared, I tuned out.

I suppose I should tie this unbelievable occurrence into writing. And what comes to mind is when Sparrow, my college Writing Prof, taught us that not everything can happen in fiction. Oh, it’s an irony to be sure. A student, following the adage “write what you know” included a series of events in his story. Sparrow questioned it, citing the absurdity of the scenario. “But it really happened!! To my dad!” Sparrow went on to say that he didn’t doubt that it actually took place. “But not in fiction.” Just because something is true, it does not mean it makes for plausible storytelling. Yes, there is a suspension of disbelief…but it can be stretched too far. If it sounds overly outlandish, it probably won’t sit right among the rest of the written landscape. (Unless, of course, the tone and intent of the entire piece is comprised of outlandish events such as The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.)

Helium Woman, as it stands, would not ring true in a narrative.
Because truth and stupidity are stranger than fiction.