"Parnassus" Comes to Town

Current Tunes: Fox News coverage of the Haiti earthquake aftermath

As diametrically opposed as I am to anything popular, I’m at a loss for words to explain why exactly I’ve always wanted Terry Gilliam’s films to become popular. I suppose the best explanation is how fervently I believe in his storytelling prowess. He always grasps onto challenging, expansive stories and presents them to an audience with wild gestures and a boisterous voice, like a mad entertainer on the streets, bedazzling and beguiling the passersby with tales of the unreal.

That tradition continues for Gilliam in “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus,” his newest feature, and the final work of Heath Ledger. Though I doubt it will be, I could see “Parnassus” being Gilliam’s last hurrah, a final practice of his art, the last message he had for a world that never quite got what he’s really on about. Not unlike his brighter, more magical features like “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen” or “Time Bandits,” this newest venture into the haunted life of the (literally) immortal Parnassus, who is (Christopher Plummer) constantly on the run from the dastardly, mischievous Mr. Nick (played by famed musician Tom Waits). The price of Parnassus’ immortality? His youthful, vibrant teenage daughter, Valentina (newcomer Lily Cole). But perhaps he can save her from the hands of the devil, with a little help from the stranger, Tony (played mostly by Heath Ledger, with the missing pieces of the role filled in by Jude law, Colin Farrell, and Johnny Depp).

With such an overwhelming stack of interesting, dynamic actors it was pretty surprising to see such underwhelming performances in this flick. I’m particularly talking about Christopher Plummer and, sorry folks, Heath Ledger. Both performances are decidedly flat and uninspired, though I would suspect that the script is mostly to blame. Tom Waits though definitely catches your attention. His devil-in-the-flesh smirk and swagger is near-legendary. I’m not familiar with Tom Waits’ musical career quite so much, but from what I had been told he was born to play this role, and it certainly looks that way. But what does that say that a musician with limited acting ability outshines award-winning professionals like Plummer and Ledger?

So since the actors/characters fall short, the real star of the show becomes the pure imagery of the film, as it almost always is with Gilliam’s work. The stage pieces are awe-inspiring, unlike most anything you’ve ever come across. The feel and presence of this film is what carries the load for this film. Cinematography director Nicola Pecorini, who has a long history of working with Gilliam, generates some of his best work yet in “Parnassus.” Dark and dirty scenes transition into colorful, bright worlds with ease and grace, but even more impressive is how Pecorini manages to keep all the madness and chaos of the film in frame.

One thing I especially admire about Gilliam as a filmmaker is in most cases he’s always very honest with the work he puts out. He’s never afraid to be forthright and insightful about his film, and doesn’t tease you with pretentious generalities and intellectual fluff, which seems so counter-intuitive given the nature of his work. In the lead-up to the release of “Parnassus,” I heard Gilliam say over and over how he felt this was one of the more complete films he’s ever done, and given his past record I had no reason to not believe him. When he’d made “Brothers Grimm,” he was fully aware of its inferiority, but accepted it.

I have to say he’s wrong about “Parnassus.” This isn’t a complete film, truly. It’s also not his best. Which in and of itself is not a serious fault; it’s extremely rare to find a director who’s works improve consistently from one to another. The real failure of “Parnassus” has got to be plain and simply that Gilliam didn’t do anything here that he hadn’t done before. The strength and innocence of childhood. The power of imagination. Even the eye-catching visuals I mentioned before. This was all just Gilliam going through the motions again. In plenty of other directors that wouldn’t even be noteworthy, but Gilliam I hold to a different standard not just because of his unique style, but because I think he holds himself to that higher standard too. He knows he can make an artful, complex film and he knows he’s a talented filmmaker. So why should he limit himself to making the same film over and over again?

It wasn’t a bad try though. A little slow to start, and a bit difficult to understand for us Americans (unintelligible British accents abound), and certainly rough around the edges, “Parnassus” held much promise but ultimately fell short I’m afraid to say. This hasn’t stymied my faith in Terry Gilliam at all though, I’m confident he can move forward to new material and hopefully get the chance to work on a project where his main actors stay health (and alive) all throughout production.