Inside Job

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classic

In 2003, Charles Ferguson took his Doctorial degree in political science from M.I.T. and his 13 years of experience as an independent consultant for various U.S. government agencies and technology firms and applied them to a new line of interest, documentary filmmaking. A few years later, he released his debut film, No End in Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq, an investigation of mistakes made by the Bush administration during the two-year period following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now, Ferguson is targeting Wall Street and the global economic crisis of 2008 in his sophomore film, Inside Job, narrated by Matt Damon.

The film starts with a comparison to the similar economic situation in Iceland. From there, Ferguson breaks down his theory like any trained lawyer and gives us a rundown of events presented in chronological order. Much like Michael Moore’s 2009 film, Capitalism: a Love Story, Ferguson’s Inside Job also traces the root of our current economical fiasco back to de-regulations made by the Reagan administration. Yet, where Moore only touches upon this brief factoid then reverts to his usual antics, Ferguson takes the time to explain his theory, back it up with data, conduct intelligent interviews with the parties involved, and provide testimony from financial experts around the globe.

According to Ferguson, this is what happened: Reagan’s administration de-regulated the banks and repealed the Garn-St. Germain Act, which lead to the lead to the S&L crisis. Next up was Clinton’s administration and their repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which allowed the consolidation of commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. His regime also enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, banning all regulation of financial derivatives and exempted them from anti-gambling laws. Bush’s administration followed up with more de-regulation, accounting fraud, predatory lending, credit default swaps, and an international Ponzi scheme. By the time 2008 hit, Obama’s administration was facing the collapse of major financial institutions, record foreclosures, excessive unemployment, and resorted to bank bail-outs.

Ironically, the scariest part of the problem isn't isolated in Washington or on Wall Street. The corruption has now seeped into the study of economics itself. Presidents of Ivy League universities are sitting on boards of the same financial institutions that pay Wall Street “financial experts” to teach at their business schools and endorse de-regulation. It’s become an institution of who’s paying who to say what.

In other words, Wall Street had become one big frat-party with all the accompanying drugs, strippers, booze, and criminal activity being financed at the country’s expense. Literally. Unfortunately, every party must come to an end; and, that it did in September of 2008 when reality finally came knocking on the door in the form of a global economic crisis. Yet, the banks are still fighting reform? Why? The last time any Wall Street executive was punished for illegal banking activities was in1990.

Since then, they’ve managed to avoid the inconvenience of accountability simply by reshaping the laws (via lobbyists) to suit their own personal gains and turned the U.S. into a Plutocracy. President Obama called for reinstating financial regulation during his campaign; yet, he chose to employ the very same economic advisors who engineered this mess from the beginning. But before you go blaming Democrats or Republicans for the failing economy, don’t forget that both parties are at fault.

Obama’s economic advisors belong to the same greedy Wall Street fraternity as Bush’s advisors and Clinton’s advisors. In essence, it’s no longer a matter of voting. Even though, 99% of the population is more than enough to sway any vote, the fact remains that you can’t vote someone out of an office they were never elected to run in the first place. So, what’s the solution? Ferguson doesn’t offer one.

Overall, Inside Job is an informative look into the reasons why our economic crisis reached global proportions. Aesthetically, the film is mostly constructed of talking head interviews, which Ferguson still manages to conduct in an entertaining way. Even I had to laugh when a Columbia Business School “professor” attempted to weasel out of Ferguson’s uncomfortable questions by claiming that he “had to go re-edit a textbook.” I’m betting he’s not going to add the suggestion to invest in a ticket to see Inside Job and learn the real reasons why we all went broke.


© Left From Hollywood 11/5/10

Princess Kaiulani

Image courtesy of Roadside Attractions

During a trip to Iolani Palace, the former home of Hawaii’s royal family in Honolulu, movie producer Mark Forby found the subject for his next film hanging on the wall. A portrait of Princess Ka’iulani, the last heir to Hawaii’s throne, inspired Forby to investigate her story at the Hawaiian state archives where he obtained the majority of his research on the princess. In January 2004, Forby sat down to write his screenplay. Four years later, Forby is finally releasing his directorial debut, Princess Ka’iulani, a very romanticized and somewhat misleading tale about the annexation of our 50th state.

The movie starts with a few of the events leading up to the Bayonet Constitution, wherein the Hawaiian monarchy was stripped of its power and the land given to American, European, and native Hawaiian elites. Shortly after being forced to sign the new constitution, Hawaii’s King Kalākaua (Ocean Kaowili) dies, leaving Queen Lili’uokalani (Leo Anderson Akana) what’s left of the royal throne. Shortly after naming Princess Ka’iulani (Q’Orianka Kilcher) her heir, the queen promptly ships the princess off to boarding school in England to be formally educated.

Once Princess Ka’iulani arrives in Britain, the entire second act of the film wallows in her time abroad, especially her romance with Clive Davies (Shaun Evans). Forby spends so much time on this insignificant romance between the princess and Davies that you almost forget Hawaii is in upheaval halfway across the globe. Occasionally, Forby will insert brief flashes of Hawaiian turmoil, but not enough to give the viewer any kind of insightful look into the events of what really happened during the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.

Eventually, Forby gets back to the business of Hawaii being unwillingly annexed by the United States, showing how Princess Ka’iulani won over of the American media, as well as her plea to President Cleveland (Peter Banks) for his support in restoring the Hawaiian throne to its monarchy. Unfortunately for the princess, her presidential plea is too little, too late. Even with his support, Cleveland was merely a lame duck waiting for McKinley to take office in a month’s time. Princess Ka’iulani did manage to make it back to her beloved island in time to witness its annexation, but died one year later at the age of 23. According to the film, she supposedly died from a broken heart over the loss of her country.

At best, Princess Ka’iulani might be considered a somewhat informative film for those who aren’t very familiar with Hawaiian history. But, for those audience members who are at least willing to do their own fact checking, Forby’s film is nothing more than a vague history lesson seen through rose-colored glasses. Most of this stems from the fact that Forby chose to research personal letters instead of textbooks. Yes, letters are more likely to provide better insight to the characters; however, it is rather misleading for filmmakers to rely on subjective opinion over objective facts if they’re trying to pass off their film as an accurate biopic.

Another problem with Forby’s subjective storytelling is that he omitted quite a few details about what really happened in Hawaii during its annexation. Granted, he does show how the European business community conspired against the king in order to convert most of Hawaii into their own private plantations. Yet, he completely overshadows these important fragmented facts with the romance between Ka’iulani and Davies. Did their romance really exist? If so, it’s never mentioned in any textbook of Hawaiian history. Ironically, what Forby makes no mention of is the princess’ official engagement to Prince David Kawananakoa that made by the queen to secure the royal Hawaiian bloodline.[1]

Even more ridiculous is the film’s claim that Princess Ka’iulani died of a broken heart over the loss of her country. Of course, all of the princess’ travelling between tropical Hawaii and cold, dank England had no impact on her health. Nor, is it possible for the princess to have come down with any illness after being caught in a storm while horseback riding shortly before her death.[2] Apparently, that’s the conclusion Forby came to after consulting all those unbiased Hawaiian linguistic, historic, and cultural experts and reading his assortment of personal letters.

What the film does have going for it is Q’Orianka Kilcher. Unfortunately, it’s the same actress in the same story we saw in Terrence Malick’s The New World, in which a native princess sees the European takeover of her homeland, gets sent to England, formally educated, and falls in love with a Brit. Only this time, Kilcher’s performance is trapped within a lame version of “Masterpiece Theatre” instead of a real movie. Forby is clueless when it comes to composing truly compelling scenes; and, his lack of directorial experience shows in the film’s flattened dialogue, overabundance of pretty landscapes, and onslaught of classical music. If you squint your eyes hard enough, it could even pass for a Disney film (minus the musical numbers).

At times, it seems like all of Forby’s emphasis on researching subjective personal views over objective textbook facts clouded his cinematic version. But, maybe that’s what he wanted? Maybe he was trying to distract us from the ugly Americans’ annexation of Hawaii with a bunch of pretty pictures about a fabricated romance? Hell, why not? Most people don’t want the ugly truth. Or, do they? If you’re in the minority who’d rather hear the truth, you’ll definitely want to brush up on your Hawaiian history before viewing Princess Ka’iulani. However, if you’re in the vast majority of American audiences who don’t, you’ll probably like Forby’s rose-colored version of history.


© Left From Hollywood 6/11/2010


[1]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9C04E3DA1638E433A25751C1A9649C94699ED7CF

[2] http://www.hawaii-nation.org/hawaiis-own1.html

Please Give

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classic

It’s been four years since Nicole Holofcener’s last film, Friends With Money, nearly drove me insane trying to figure out why it pissed me off as much as it did. Now, she’s back with another multi-dimensional character study of the haves versus the have-nots. Only, this time Holofcener has whittled her narcissistic characters with money issues down to one instead of four in her latest film, Please Give.

Shot in a simplistic filmmaking style reminiscent of Dogma 95, the main focus of Please Give revolves around Kate (Catherine Keener) and her husband Alex (Oliver Platt) whom make their living buying furniture from the relatives of recently deceased people and selling it for profit in their trendy 10th Avenue shop in Manhattan. Consumed with guilt for profiting off other people’s loss, Kate tries to compensate by handing out cash to every homeless person she sees on the street.

Of course, this only angers Kate’s 15 year old daughter Abby (Sarah Steele) who doesn’t understand why her mother would rather give money to every needy person who crosses her path than buy Abby the $200 pair of designer jeans that she wants, especially since Kate has no problem spending that much money on jeans for herself. Alex, on the other hand, doesn’t share Kate’s guilt, and frequently sides with Abby in the ongoing jeans war.

The couple have also purchased the apartment next door for the sole purpose of expanding their own digs through renovation upon the death of its current occupant, 91 year old Andra (Ann Guilbert). Andra is looked after by her granddaughters, the shy, responsible Mary (Amanda Peet), and the blunt, self-centered Rebecca (Rebecca Hall), both of whom frequently refer to Kate and Alex as “vultures.”

Are Kate and Alex really vultures? Yes and no. Much like the narrative layers of this complex story, every character in the film has their good and their bad points. To illustrate this, Holofcener offsets the sad elements that comprise these characters’ mundane lives with everyday comedic folly. Amongst death and all its relics, you’ll find love, witty banter, teen angst, and squishy mammograms.

Holofcener based Kate and Alex’s apartment scenario on a similar incident encountered by one of her friends; and, even shot the film in the same building in which her friend currently lives. Holofcener also states that Kate’s inner turmoil mirrors her own guilty conscience for having money. Yet, after watching the film, it’s plain to see that it isn’t a matter of ethics weighing on Kate’s mind. It’s really about narcissism and the real meaning of charity.

Even though Kate spends the film's entire 90 minute run-time blindly navigating her way through this delusional soul search, she still ends up at a seemingly wrong conclusion. No, Kate doesn’t realize it’s the wrong conclusion; and, kudos to Holofcener for keeping the character true to life. Whether or not we like to admit it, most people don’t do charity work to make those in need feel better. They do it to make themselves feel better.

Kate's real agenda is most evident in the scene where she bursts into tears while watching a group of perfectly happy, content children with Down Syndrome playing basketball. She’s so wrapped up in feeling sorry for them, it’s evident she has no interest in sharing their feelings. Kate’s only concerned whether or not helping them will make her feel better. Eventually, Kate’s guilt subsides after she breaks down and buys the $200 jeans for Abby. Why? Like everyone else in the realm of charity and volunteer work, Kate only feels better when she’s personally affected by the results of her efforts.

Overall, Nicole Holofcener presents us with an honest, yet humorous, look inside the lives of her narcissistic characters in Please Give. Sometimes, it’s funny. Sometimes, it’s poignant. Sometimes you just don’t know what to feel for these mixed-up characters, masterfully played by one hell of a gifted cast. For once, it's nice to see that a Holofcener film isn’t as shallow as its characters seem.


© Left From Hollywood 6/4/2010

Chloe

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classic

Toronto based filmmaker Atom Egoyan is well known among the indie film crowd for his non-linear tales of alienation, seduction, and isolation in such mid-90s hits as Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter. He’s made a few more since then, but nothing quite as memorable. Egoyan’s latest film, Chloe, finds him revisiting these same themes (minus the non-linear narrative format) in his remake of Anne Fountaine’s 2004 French film Nathalie, wherein a suspicious wife hires a prostitute to seduce her husband.

In Egoyan’s version, +Toronto gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is immersed in the clinical side of sex while her husband David (Liam Neeson), a popular college professor, has no problem flirting openly with his students. Slowly over the years, this successful couple has fallen victim to a breakdown in communication and intimacy. Catherine feelings of alienation from her teenage son Michael (Max Thieriot) and her festering insecurities about her flirtatious husband eventually come to a head when she finds a suggestive text message on David’s cell phone one morning.

Instead of confronting her husband, she decides to obtain “proof” of his infidelity by hiring a call-girl, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), to seduce David and report back to her. At first, Catherine is appalled by Chloe’s story. Yet, because she is so desperate for intimacy of any kind, Catherine quickly finds herself seduced by Chloe’s extremely detailed erotic tale. As the “affair” between David and Chloe escalates, the relationship between Catherine and Chloe intensifies; ultimately leading everyone involved to an ambiguous, violent end.

All in all, Chloe offers good performances, evocative cinematography, and intensely steamy action while addressing some rather interesting issues. However, just when you think Egoyan is back on top of his game, Chloe goes from erotically engaging to downright ridiculous. The first two acts are fantastic because Egoyan effectively uses the erotic game of “Who’s seducing who?” to build the narrative tension. Unfortunately, once Chloe reaches its lesbian climax, the refractory period (i.e. the 3rd act) veers off on an odd Fatal Attraction tangent with an ending so cliché, it’s almost laughable.

Part of this may be due to the fact that Egoyan admittedly altered the script for Neeson’s brief absence during production when his wife (Natasha Richardson) died from a skiing accident. It’s unclear whether or not this is the case. However, since Neeson’s character is little more than a backdrop in this character study of enigmatic seduction, it’s definitely a factor to take into consideration. In any case, whether or not you’re willing to sit through Egoyan’s latest flick that’s too “artsy” to appeal to mainstream audiences with an ending too mainstream for the art film crowd just to see a little girl-on-girl action, is entirely up to you.


© Left From Hollywood 3/26/10

The White Ribbon

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classic

Over 10 years ago, Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke came up with an idea for a television mini-series about the tumultuous changes taking place within a German village prior to Word War I. Unable to find a co-producer to finance it, Haneke was forced to shelve the project until 2007 when he decided to revive it as a feature-length film. Finally, after 6 months of casting, 3 months of filming, and almost a year of post-production clean up, Haneke’s latest film, The White Ribbon, is coming to an art house movie theater near you.

To date, The White Ribbon has netted the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, a Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Picture, and three Euro Film awards for Best Film, Best Director, and Best Screenwriter. It was even selected as Germany’s submission for Best Foreign Language Film at the 82nd Academy Awards. Unfortunately, the submission of The White Ribbon as a German entry has stirred up a little controversy.

Apparently, the head of the Austrian Film Commission, Martin Schweighofer, believes Haneke’s film should have been an Austrian submission since the filmmaker (Michael Haneke) is Austrian, even though it was cast, shot, and produced in Germany. According to the vague Academy rules, the film can be submitted by either country. However, the American Distributor for The White Ribbon (Sony Pictures Classic) urged Germany to submit the film for tactical reasons stating that, “Austrian films have been submitted two years in a row (The Counterfeiters & Revanche), making a third consecutive nomination unlikely.”

As for the movie itself, the story is told in retrospect by the schoolteacher (Christian Friedel) of a Protestant German village, who is reminiscing about the year he met his future wife, Eva (Leonie Benesch). During this same time period (July 1913 to August 1914), a series of disturbing events occurred in the schoolteacher’s village of Eichwald. The first incident involved the local doctor (Rainer Bock) being seriously injured when his horse encounters a suspicious tripwire. Later, the Baron (Ulrich Tukur) finds his cabbages destroyed and his barn burned to the ground in retaliation for a woman who died working in the Baron’s neglected sawmill.

Although no suspects have surfaced, the local pastor (Burghart Klaußner) takes it upon himself to start giving confirmation classes to his own children. He also reinstates their mandatory wearing of white ribbons to remind the children of the innocence and purity from which he believes they have strayed. Yet, even with the pastor’s strict reformation efforts in full effect, the mysterious events continue to escalate. Finally, after two of the local children, Sigmund (Fion Mutert) and Karli (Eddy Grahl), are physically attacked and maimed, the villagers enlist the help of an outside police force to get to the bottom of things.

Obviously, the slow metamorphosis of Eichwald is a symbolic synecdoche of pre-Nazi Germany as a whole. During this one tumultuous year in the village, suspicions mount, facades are revealed, desertions are made, morals are shunned, and families are broken. Yet, it’s the corrupted innocents rebelling against abusive authority figures who make us realize that the real underlying theme of this masterfully woven tale isn’t the overt allegory of Eichwald being likened to all of Germany. It’s the genesis of terrorism.

As Haneke himself points out, “The grownups of 1933 and 1945 were children in the years prior to World War I.” Metaphorically, these are the same children who, in the film, are forced to wear their white ribbons as a reminder of the innocence and purity that was lost before their cinematic story even began. Just remember that Haneke’s goal is not to explain their actions. He is merely offering us a possible set of psychological preconditions that drove these misguided adherents towards Nazi fascism.

Ironically, the black-and-white visual design that gives the film an aged look reminiscent of the time period isn’t as authentic as you might think. All of the footage was shot by cinematographer Christian Berger, AAC, in 35mm color before being digitally altered during post-production. Why? Initially, the producers wanted a color version for television. Haneke, on the other hand, wanted to utilize the black-and-white imagery to maintain the audience’s disconnection from the subject matter. Overall, it works because Haneke doesn’t incorporate the typical German Expressionistic elements into the film’s stark visual design. What he leaves us with is a sobering horror drama void of horror imagery.

Overall, The White Ribbon, like many of Haneke’s other films, ultimately raises more questions than it answers. It is not a mystery of suspense. It is one of suspicion. Look closely, and you will find that explanations do exist and logical inferences can be made. This slow-paced, haunting character study of pre-Nazi Germany is a rewarding film for those viewers willing to sift through its ambiguities and ferret out the seeds of horror planted deep within its layers of deceit.


© Left From Hollywood 2/19/2010

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Ribbon
2 http://www.sonyclassics.com/thewhiteribbon/whiteribbonpressbook.pdf

Black Dynamite

Image courtesy of Destination Films

I love Blaxploitation films. They’re bad. They know they’re bad. They own it by embracing the very camp humor that defines the entire genre. Plot? Hell, they don’t need a plot. Just give 'em one cool vigilante, some malt liquor, a harem of ho’s, and a drug problem. They’ll be kicking the Man’s honky white ass outta the ghetto and stealing his bitches before you can say
“Superfly.”

Yet, what I love even more than Blaxploitation films are those rare parodies of the genre that know the difference between good-bad and bad-bad. Scott Sanders’ latest film, Black Dynamite (jokingly filmed in cinemaphonic quadrovision), is one of those good-bad parodies that will unleash some serious kung-fu treachery on any jive turkey who questions their definition of what’s “bad,” while the rest of us laugh ‘til it hurts.

In the movie, ladies man Black Dynamite (Michael Jai White) is an ex-CIA commando working over both sides of the law in Los Angeles. When his brother Jimmy (Baron Vaughn) is killed under mysterious circumstances, the CIA reinstate Black Dynamite’s license to kill. With the help of his rhyming sidekick Bullhorn (co-writer Byron Minns), and the flamboyant Cream Corn (Tommy Davidson), Black Dynamite declares war on all the drug dealers pumping smack into the ghetto.

The overly muscular, mustachioed vigilante and his nunchucks then spend pretty much the rest of the 2nd act kung-fu fighting their way through a badly edited pool hall scuffle, drug dealing pimps, and the mob. Eventually, Black Dynamite deciphers the most asinine logic pattern on the planet and realizes that dope is the least of his problems. The Man has been flooding the ghetto with tainted malt liquor!

Sanders’ film works because the visual gags aren’t over-the-top and in your face. Instead, he subtly employs all the bad jump cut editing, continuity errors, jarring rack focus, odd sepia tones, and unnecessary split screens characteristic of the decade to enhance the clichés and weaknesses of the genre. The bad dialogue and even worse delivery aren’t meant to be slapstick coming from characters aptly named Tasty Freeze, Mo Bitches or Kotex. They’re as serious as the movie is trying to be.

Another thing working in the film’s favor is the intelligence of its irony. For some reason, it’s just funnier when real life martial arts master Michael Jai White, a legitimate badass (he holds black belts in six karate styles and over 26 titles), goes goofball, and winds up apologizing to first lady Pat Nixon (Nicole Sullivan) for pimp slapping her. When the CIA tells Black Dynamite not to leave behind a river of blood in the streets and he agrees to only leave a puddle, we laugh, but still believe him because he makes us want to believe him.

Yes, the standard assortment of costumes, sexcapades, drugs, dealers, pimps, Cadillacs, the Man, and a badass fighting the system are all in there, but they only make up the visual format of this film. You can also find the covert trademark Blaxploitation themes in Sanders' film as long as you know where to look for them. Those who do will find the silencing of political awareness, the curbing of the black man’s sexual prowess, a romanticized focus on self-indulgence, and the evils of advertising.

Obviously, this film isn't for everyone. But, if you're into Blaxploitation parodies, Black Dynamite is a hilarious tribute to the genre. This intelligent, self-reflexive spoof is loaded with enough camp humor to keep you in stitches long after it’s over. If you're planning on seeing this one in the theaters, try to catch a midnight showing. That way you can kick back with your 40 oz. and laugh yourself silly at all the boom mics falling into shots and stand-ins who look nothing like the actor they're replacing. Can you dig it?

© Left From Hollywood 1/15/2010

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics


Like all creative geniuses, Terry Gilliam is cursed. But, not because he is creative. Terry Gilliam is cursed because he’s constantly challenged with the task of enlightening the rest of us non-creative types through his unique visions. Not everyone will understand him, and even fewer will fully appreciate him. Yet, he still creates. It’s the curse of the artist. Always trying to get everyone else to see what they see. In his latest film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Terry Gilliam gives life to an age-old morality tale and challenges us to see it in a whole new light.

In the film, Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) made a deal with the devil, Mr. Nick (Tom Waits), a thousand years ago and became immortal. Today, he travels around London with his theatre troupe made up of Percy (Verne Troyer), Anton (Andrew Garfield), and Parnassus’ own daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) performing a very unique magic act. Audience members are transported through a special mirror onstage inside their own imaginations which the doctor has the ability to manipulate.

One night, a drunken Parnassus confesses to Percy another deal he made with Mr. Nick in which he has to give Valentina to him on her 16th birthday. Later, after the doctor passes out, the rest of the group runs across a man (Heath Ledger) hanging from a rope underneath a bridge. They save him, he joins their act, and Mr. Nick returns to make one final deal with Parnassus – the first one of them to seduce five souls wins Valentina.

Without question, Parnassus is vintage Gilliam. It shares many of the same themes and visual styles as Time Bandits, Brazil, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. All of them deal with expanding the limits of imagination, and Parnassus is no exception. The characters travel back and forth between a dark, grungy, modern day London and the bright, colorful realm of their own minds as they’re forced to choose between the easy road and the hard road of salvation.

The biggest difference between his latest venture and his earlier work is that Gilliam has incorporated a little of Faustus and Everyman into his version of a morality tale; and, yes, being a morality tale, Parnassus is loaded with overt Christian iconography. You name it, it’s in there: forbidden fruit, a serpent, even a dance with the devil. But, it doesn’t stop there. Gilliam has also thrown in some pretty deep subtext about God, free will, and the consequences of our choices. So much so, in fact, that it’s impossible to catch everything in a single viewing.

But, that’s Terry Gilliam for you. He’s mastered the art of creating surreal worlds through his ultra wide lenses and deep focus cinematography that the audience literally has to choose which aspect of the shots they want to see. Personally, that’s what I love about Gilliam’s films. You get more out of them on the second and third viewings than you ever do the first time around. Sadly, most people will probably miss a lot of what’s really going on in Parnassus because they’re going to be too focused on the fact that it was Heath Ledger’s last film.

With Ledger’s untimely death from an accidental prescription drug overdose halfway through filming last year, it’s a miracle Gilliam finished the movie at all. After a brief stopdown, he was finally able to rewrite the rest of the story to where Ledger’s character Tony could be portrayed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Collin Farrell (respectively) each time he enters the Imaginarium. As it turns out, the solution was perfect. By having a different actor play a different facet of Tony, it gives more depth to the character in this unbalanced world of opposing forces.

Overall, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a visually stunning and emotionally complex film, but it’s not for everyone. If you’re looking for mindless, formulaic Hollywood entertainment, this movie isn’t for you, and Terry Gilliam is OK with that. He knows better than anyone that most artists aren’t successful when battling the curse of creativity. Not everyone can see the bigger picture. However, if you’re at least willing to try, Gilliam’s latest flick is worth a trip (or two, or three) to the theater. Believe me, it’s no coincidence the first image of Ledger onscreen is of him being resurrected from the dead. Parnassus isn’t the only one playing God in this Imaginarium.


© Left From Hollywood 1/8/10