@lamprey263: to be frank, i don't finance his movies so i don't really care whether or not they have a broad appeal. gilliam reminds me a bit of cronenberg (except somehow with more money) in that he's swinging for the fences in pretty much every movie. sometimes his work will be great and sometimes it will suck and oftentimes people will disagree on what is great and what sucks, but he's never boring. if you take that out of him, i don't know how much would be left.
i'm glad she mentioned the fisher king and brazil.
the fisher king was gilliam trying to be restrained and it just doesn't work, partly because gilliam can't keep a straight face in his filmmaking. what starts as a very believable character piece turns into an off-the-wall melodrama and the two parts never fit. you're lead to believe that these characters share our reality and then they do things people would never do and gilliam seemingly is forced to shoot the film like 2 stories, neither telling you much of anything.
brazil immediate establishes itself as either fantasy or gilliam's own emotional reality (whichever you want to see it as, i suppose) and plays around with the idea that there are no rules so long as he can film it. bizarrely, this winds up with more tonal consistency. your expectations are that anything can happen and, right up until the very end, anything does happen. free of realism, gilliam used expressionistic film noir tools to tell the audience that it's more about the overall ride than all the specific events. he's actually able to deliver his message.
Log in to comment