I’m loving this design so much I MUST post it. In January I’m starting a series on the ten commandments. Actually, it’s starting on 1/10/10 to be exact! Anyway, we’re trying to push this as our first big series since my arrival, and my Admin, Amanda really took the idea and ran with it. The first pic is the them tile/slide for the entire series, and the second is a concept of what the individual text slides will look like.

What do you think? Did she nail it or what?!!!

reż. Terry Gilliam

W “Brazil” formalizm Terry’ego Gilliama niemal przesłania płyciznę treści. Zabawne, że generyczny, powielający schemat “Roku 1984″, scenariusz zyskał uznanie w oczach kolesi przyznających Oscary (co by go stawiało w jednym rzędzie z dziełami np. Roberta Towne’a czy Paddy’ego Chayefsky’ego) – przecież w kluczowych partiach filmu, kiedy obraz powinien szarpać emocjami, oddziałuje jedynie na wrażliwość estetyczną widza. Tym samym Gilliam utwierdza mnie w przekonaniu, że robi kino imponujące, ale z rzadka satysfakcjonujące. Plus pół gwiazdki za tę ostatnią scenę!

3.5 / 5

obejrzane 27 listopada 2009 r.

Di cosa stiamo parlando ? ma del nuovo film di Gilliam, Parnassus :l’uomo che voleva ingannare il diavolo.Cominciamo dicendo che il film è qualcosa di completamente magico e astratto. Non è un film per tutti , ha veramente moltissime chiavi di lettura . Mi sono sorpreso dall’inizio alla fine , finalmente dalla pentola di Hollywood è uscito qualcosa di originale e particolare. Sono convinto che ci siano persone che questo film lo hanno odiato, oppure che non lo abbiano sopportato , ma vi giuro che è veramente qualcosa di stupefacente. La storia che è veramente molto complessa è appassionante , ti cala direttamente sulla trama , ti coinvolge. Ci sono pochi film che mi hanno procurato questa senzazione e parnassus è uno di questi. L’attore che ha interpretato il Jocker si dimostra maestro nel recitare, Colin Farrell invece si dimostra il peggiore, gli altri in sostituzione sono bravi , se la cavano. Parnassus è un film molto misterioso , chi lo guarda ne esce con qualcosa di diverso , di cambiato , di magico .  Il Diavolo poi è reso in modo perfetto anche grazie all’attore che si cala perfettamente nei panni del suo personaggio e compie un lavoro di fino.E’ una piccola perla del cinema , và assolutamente visto o meglio , io lo consiglio vivamente. La colonna sonora è frizzante , i colori del film grazie agli effetti di post produzione e CGI sono caldi ma veritieri , sembra una favola da adulti. La durata di 122 minuti è troppo poca per spiegare tutta la trama intricata di questo film e anche i suoi contenuti che vuole esprimere, tuttavia la radice più importante della trama viene a galla e si capisce perfettamente. Certo ognuno la intende a proprio modo ma penso che il messaggio alla fine sia universale. Ovviamente non ve lo starò a dire , dovrete vederlo voi. Il film a mio parere meriterebbe anche o l’Oscar o perlomeno una candidatura come miglior film dell’anno. Sono veramente sorpreso di quello che il regista sia riuscito a fare e parlarne così a freddo davanti un pc non è l’ideale per esprimere quello che vorrei dirvi , semplicemente perchè non ci si riesce.

Avete presente una coperta calda durante una giornata d’inverno ? Ecco Parnassus mentre lo visionate vi farà lo stesso effetto. Questo perchè è oltre a una ventata fresca , anche molto attuale. Le varie personalità delle persone qui vengono descritte attraverso i vari cambi di attore , tra Law , Farell  etc, e la maestria con cui questo cambiamento continuo della personalità è talmente precisa e perfetta da lasciare tutti a bocca aperta. Gilliam si è superato , e ha dato una perla del cinema , ce ne dovrebbero essere di più di opere come questa, sembra quasi di guardare un quadro d’arte, ognuno ci legge quello che riesce a vederci . Ecco forse questa è la descrizione giusta. Il lavoro mentale di Parnassus di manipolare la mente delle persone attraverso l’uso della loro immaginazione e dei loro sogni avviene in un modo molto scenico e bello da vedere. La CGI fà un gran effetto in questo film . Lo specchio magico  in cui le persone entrano , vedono il loro mondo preferito con una scelta davanti , cambiare  ed essere migliori o rimanere nella propria situazione . Questo Parnassus ci mette davanti , questo confronto , questa scelta.Magari se fossi stato io il regista non avrei di certo chiamato il “mago” Parnassus , ma con un nome un pò più semplice. Ho letto alcune recensioni pesanti a confronto di questo film, recensioni che secondo me non hanno centrato il bersaglio e il messaggio del film che  voleva mandare il regista. Il finale dà un tocco di magia ulteriore, è veramente molto toccante da tutti i punti di vista. Questo film è uno di quei capolavori che difficilmente si scordano, sono film che avendo una storia originale ti rimangono impressi molto a lungo nella mente.

voto

/10

☺☺☺☺☺

Scendere a patti con il diavolo è da sconsiderati , ma reiterare una seconda volta è da disperati. Lo sa bene il Dottor Parnassus (C.Plummer) che per salvare la dolce Valentina (Lily Cole) dalle spire di tal Mr.Nick (Tom Waits) dovrà servirsi di tutte le sue energie oltre che della disonestà di Tony (Heath Ledger) (l’appeso). Entrare in uno specchio portale di mondi paralleli conosciuti solo nel nostro inconscio , simboli di ambizione e di perdizione per poi uscirne migliori o peggiori di prima.

Forse che Gilliam non dovrà scendere a patti con il diavolo per concludere un film senza incidenti (più o meno tragici) lungo il percorso? Parnassus passerà alla storia come l’ultimo film di Ledger prima della sua dipartita, ecco spiegati gli incassi vorticosi al botteghino italiano, peccato perchè il film merita pur ritrovando idee già viste nelle precedenti esperienze di Gilliam in Brazil, Tideland e nei Monty. Si augura più fortuna al povero Terry, ma forse è contento pure così, noi almeno lo siamo.

Alla prossima pillola!

The latest film from director Terry Gilliam and sadly the last starring Heath Ledger, The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus concerns the adventures of a travelling theatre group which offers more than the average show.  Customers stepping into the ramshackle caravan and through a mirror are transported to a realm of imagination, where they experience what their mind projects, aided by a self-hypnotised Dr Parnassus (Christopher Plummer).  Set in present day London the troupe are finding business slow, with a public less and less interested in their side-show. Can the spivish Tony (Heath Ledger and playing aspects of his character Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell) be the answer and bring a much needed upturn in fortune?  Muddying the waters are the series of wagers struck between Parnassus and the Devil (Tom Waits), and the ensuing consequences for his teenage daughter.

Vivid, colourful and with wonderful costume design, Gilliam certainly knows how to use the big screen to its full effect.  Travelling through the mirror is to be transported into a kaleidoscopic world of CGI and contrasts sharply to the grim depiction of modern London.  This is trademark Gilliam, bold and adventurous, playful, but with sinister undertones, surreal and dream-like, teeming with vibrancy and verve.

The use of Messers Depp, Law and Farrell to replace Heath Ledger is effective, typically imaginative and brings a large dollop of star power to proceedings. None, however, can match Ledger’s performance when introducing the new revamped Imaginarium.  This is highly nuanced stuff, bristling with confidence; he’s at the top of his game.

Disappointingly, the rest of the picture leaves much to be desired.  Confused, and often confusing, it is strangely flat, never scaling the heights it initially promises.  The narrative doesn’t match the visual flair, the plot feels underdeveloped and at times a little explanation would have been handy.

While never dull, The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus never takes off.  Clearly, Gilliam had to make the best of the most unfortunate situation and completing the picture ranks as an achievement by itself.  As it is, it maintains interest, but never transcends to being more than average.

Penso che sia una buona cosa ricordarmi del giudizio dei film che ho visto, nel tempo ci si dimentica, mentre così rimane quello del primo momento.

Purtroppo, per questioni di tempo, non riesco ad andare al cinema come vorrei, ma intanto questo è quello che si può fare; ho iniziato tardi? … meglio tardi che mai!

o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

1. Basta che funzioni – (Woody Allen) – 26/9/2009.
   
2. Baaria – (Tornatore) – 17/10/2009.
   
3. Barbarossa – (Martinelli) – 24/10/2009.
   
4. Bastardi senza gloria – (Tarantino) – 27/10/2009.
   
5. Parnassus – (Terry Gilliam) – 3/11/2009.
6. La famiglia – (Ettore Scola) – 4/11/2009.
7. Vajont – (Martinelli) – 11/11/2009.
8. Amore, bugie e calcetto – (Lucini) – 15/11/2009.
9. L’onda – (Dennis Gansel) – 19/11/2009.
10. Meno male che ci sei – (Luois Prieto) – 1/12/2009.
11. Babel – (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu) – 2/12/2009.

Le locandine, i cast, i trailer sono stati tratti dal sito tematico www.mymovies.it,
mentre le recensioni sono solo personali punti di vista.

Bye  

La Jetee (AKA: The Pier) – 1961

Director – Chris Marker

Starring – Jean Negroni

Although this small scale, experimental film is short in length, it is certainly long in premise.

***SPOILERS***

If you’ve seen the Terry Gilliam film, 12 Monkeys, then you know the basic gist of what La Jetee is attempting.  La Jetee, the basis for 12 Monkeys, doesn’t have as much story to deal with, but still manages to pack a lot of plot into its 30 min. run time.  Unfortunately (in my humble opinion) it’s innovation and it’s stumbling block are the same, the delivery of the story not through motion pictures, but through still photos, or Photo Roman.  (For those who’ve never heard of it, Photo Roman is an older style form of story telling that is essentially photo-montage.) 

***END SPOILERS***

I say, “stumbling block”, because the pacing of the film really is unable to accelerate to the degree I felt it needed to in order to stay exciting.  The drab black and white photos, while completely serving the tone of the film, somewhat hinder it’s ability to keep the audience engaged for the duration.  Save for one short sequence, the entirety of the film is in the Photo Roman style, with a French-accented English-language narration over the top over the top of it.  While this may have been a fine choice for a work that was 10 minutes, 30 minutes is a long time.

The story, for those who haven’t seen or heard of 12 Monkeys, is a simple one in theory, but a complex one to illustrate in a piece as short as this.  We open on our main character as a young boy with his parents at the airport, watching planes take off.  While there he is witness to an act of murder, imagery that sticks with him throughout his entire life.  Soon after, a terrible disaster (in this case a nuclear fueled World War 3) strikes and his home town of Paris is leveled.  We jump forward many years in the future,  the world on the surface is uninhabitable, and people are forced to live underground.  Our main character is now a prisoner of the “winners” of the war, and subject to experiments trying to send him through time for the answers to re-populate the earth.  The strong imagery of the man’s death, makes him an ideal candidate for the process, but his keepers may have ulterior motives for him when he returns.

The music/sound effects are the only other element that helps to carry this work along, and while they are well done and very tonally appropriate, they do very little to pick the pace up.  The Photo Roman style works very well to get across the dreariness of the main character’s present-day setting, but it does very little to capture the nostalgia and romance of his earlier days.   The impression that this story feels like a found record of what happened (a’la “The Blair Witch”, or “Cannibal Holocaust”), works well most of the time, and helps to see why this movie was influential in film history.  An area that doesn’t work as well with that tone, is the airport setting.  Some of the photography is pretty stunning, but after seeing it the first time through his younger self, the subsequent times we visit the airport don’t have any more impact, and in-fact, may have less.

By and large, La Jetee was a good piece of work that was most certainly influential, but it felt incomplete, and was ultimately overshadowed by the very similar, and visually superior, 12 Monkeys.

Non ho molto da scrivere in ’sti giorni, vi lancio la recensione di Parnassus, a cura del buon Francesco (se non caco non esco)

Niente speranza: non si vedono le tette della topa in questione

Un Attore Millenario (che poi attor non è), Un diavolo in bombetta, una chioma rossa, l’attor giovane di turno, il nano, lo “chiccoso” in bianco e una carovana di sogni e follie.
Signori, parliamo del geniale Dottor Parnassus.
Bisogna, veramente, togliersi il cappello davanti ad un altro buon film di Terry “Brazil, si sono pazzo ma in fondo rimango un bimbo” Gilliam.
La maggior parte della gente ha criticato questo film nelle salse più assurde e con in condimenti più vari. Purtroppo nessuno ha afferrato il messaggio della pellicola: non uccidere l’immaginazione, non uccidere l’arte, non uccidere il bello. Questo è il vero messaggio in Parnassus.
Ma andiamo con ordine.
il film si apre mostrandoci la carovana nel bel mezzo della sua attività. Ovviamente non viene minimamente considerata dalla “popolazione” circostante oramai solo avvezza ai piacere della modernità più varia. In questo inizio notiamo i toni pesanti di Gilliam nei confronti della società verso lo spettacolo e fa vedere come è ridotto lo spettacolo. La carovana è guidata da un Capocomico ubriacone che non riesce a fare il suo lavoro perchè nessuno lo considera.
Ed ecco che subentra la trama vera propria. Patto col diavolo, Tua figlia e mia, bla bla bla… Bisogna però togliersi il cappello davanti a Tom Waits nei panni di Mr. Nick. Semplicemente adorabile.
Passando avanti arriviamo finalmente a Heat Ledger che, almeno a me, ha suscitato un po di angoscia nel rivederlo, ma l’interpretazione è sublime. Purtroppo non posso recensire bene questo film perchè sottointenderebbe raccontarvi tutta la trama; ma fidatevi, Depp, Law e Farrel sono fantastici nell’omaggiare il compianto Ledger, ma sopratutto, a tenere viva e non banale la trama.
Come tutti sappiamo la peculiarità del regista è quella del forte impatto visivo, bisogna ammettere a pieno titolo che qua super ase stesso. Le ambientazioni dentro lo “specchio” (un passaggio fra realtà alternativa) sono veramente curate fin nel minimo particolare e tramite i giochi cromatici riescono a far leva sulle varie emozionil.
In finale la visione della”realtà” da parte di di Gilliam è ancora una volta aeccelsa fino all’ultimo (non mancano le strizzatine d’occhio al vecchio Flyng Circus). Insomma Cast d’eccezione, effetti visivi strabilianti, ottima colonna sonora e un grande messaggio alla fine rendono questo film, a mio parere, uno dei migliori del 2009.

Oh, e non lamentatevi se non scrivo così tanto ultimamente.
Non mi sta capitando niente di divertente (a parte fare immani figure di merda con DioBrando, intendo).

STEVE MCNAIR WAS A GOODMAN! REST IN PEACE

Steve Mcnair, Adrian Gilliam and Sahel Kazemi: The Good, Bad and Evil‏

15.52 Ancora GOSSIP su George Clooney e la Canalis. PAre che un giornalista abbia chiesto all’addetto stampa se i due si sarebbero presentati insieme sul carpet. L’addetto ha risposto testuali parole: “Clooney e la Canalis hanno concordato per fare la passerella mano nella mano”. Interessante che una coppia debba conbcordare se passeggiare mano nella mano o no.

14.15 Sono arrivate all’auditorium almeno 60 suore. la sfiga si propaga per le sale del Festival. Ma visto che qui c’è anche Asia Argento, mi sto chiedendo se andranno a fuoco prima le suore oppure Asia.

9.43 NOn poteva cominciare peggio questa giornata. No, non parlo della sveglia che non ho sentito. Non parlo della cacca che non riesco a fare. Non parlo della fame che mi attanaglia da giorni. Parlo del film di STEFANIA SANDRELLI. Moh, io sono arrivato qui sbattendomi. Ho fatto tutto di fretta solo per correre in anticipata stampa e vedere sto CHRISTINE/CRISTINA e dopo venti minuti di proiezione ho pensato: “ho perso dei preaziosi minuti della mia vita”. Anche uscire in strada e ruttare per venti minuti sarebbe stato più costruttivo. La Sandrelli non è mai stata capace a fare molto, e quindi voleva dimostrarci che non sa fare neanche la regista.

Ieri sera, invece, ho visto lo splendido PERNASSUS. Ultimo film di HEATH LEDGER, diretto da TERRY GILLIAM, PERNASUSS è un film toccante, divertente, pesante e davvero ben fatto. E’ una storia sulle scelte e sulla fantasia. E’ un fantasy moderno che consiglio a tutti.

Miss Sixty

From October 12th 2009, the main windows of Miss Sixty’s stores in Rome and Milan will be transformed in Doctor Parnassus’ Magic Mirror. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is an upcoming fantasy film directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam …and Charles McKeown. The film follows the leader of a travelling theatre troupe who, having made a deal with the Devil, takes audience members through a magical mirror to explore their imaginations.
Christopher Plummer, Tom Waits, and Heath Ledger star in the film, though Ledger’s death one-third of the way through filming caused production to be temporarily suspended.Ledger’s role was recast with Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell portraying transformations of Ledger’s character Tony as he travels through a dream world.

http://www.misssixty.com/home.asp

☺☺☺☺☺

Vi è mai capito di dover sbrigare un’azione semplicissima ed essere sommersi da documenti e permessi da compilare fino allo stremo? di dover pagare una bolletta o riscuotere un assegno ed essere rimpiattellati da un ufficio all’altro , da uno sportello ad un altro? ecco questa è la burocrazia. Perchè questo preambolo? Ma perchè il nostro protagonista Sam Lowry (J.Pryce) ,impiegato al Dipartimento informazioni, vive nella burocrazia, lavora per la burocrazia ed è a sua volta vittima della burocrazia, da sfondo una città distopica di un futuro non troppo lontano dal nostro (certo il contrario di utopica) e di contro il suo spirito sognatore e libero incatenato. Parteciperà al risveglio di Sam dalle artificiali abitudini l’incontro con Harry Tuttle (De Niro).

Avvertenze:

Perchè l’esigenza della burocrazia verrebbe da chiederci? I ben pensanti subito azzarderebbero una miglior razionalizzazione dei servizi ed effettivamente così dovrebbe essere ma quando questa diventa asfissiante l’unica possibile motivazione è il controllo. Il controllo è assenza di libertà e assenza di libertà è costrizione, costrizione è dittatura. Chiari i rimandi alle letture di Orwell e Huxley e così Gilliam tra onirici incubi e sogni (sua marca di fabbrica) ci regala uno dei suoi gioiellini.

Alla prossima pillola. 

I’m not a regular viewer of ‘The One Show’ on the BBC, but I do catch it once in a while. I’ve been a mazed by the amount of deluded rape apologists in the arts signing petitions to free Roman Polanski, so seeing that Terry Gilliam was going to be on it wasn’t overly promising with him being one of these petition signatories.

In a past era, he’d be written off as an old duffer talking shite and no one would take any notice of him. But in this connected age where everyone can keep up with what’s going on in the media easily and immediately, you need to be one of two things. Ideally, you’d be free of prejudice, and able to talk to interviewers quite happily without shoving your foot in your mouth on a regular basis. On the other hand, if you are prejudiced, or use the excuse of being old, and ‘things were different in my day’, then if only for your own benefit, you need to be careful of what you say.

Of course, in any area of your life you should read the small print before signing anything, so there’s still no excuse for adding your name to a petition for the release of a confessed child rapist.

If he hadn’t signed the petition I probably wouldn’t have taken much notice of what he was saying, but I guess I’m a little biased against him, and in the of the fact that he had, wondered what he’d be like in a n interview in the prime time evening daily TV slot. He got off to a slow start, saying Britain has gone downhill in the time since he first came, though on the upside he did have the decency and massive arrogance to take the blame for it all (not even a shared credit with the rest of the Python team).

He followed up with comments on an article which told the story of a 73 year old lady who had been charged £40 each way on Ryanair flights because she hadn’t checked in in advance via the Internet. It was a £57 return flight. The £40 boarding pass was printed out by someone from Ryanair at the airport in seconds. The show’s presenters asked Gilliam if he’d flown with Ryanair, and what he thought of the lady’s case, and he said he had flown with Ryanair to his house in Italy. He also thinks they’ve been a bargain for years, and the way they work, you go to a nice place with them, you fall in love with the place, buy a house and then have to keep using them……. Yeah right. For millionaire film directors maybe. Anyway, As for the lady in question, he just said it was tough. Nice guy. To be fair to him though, The Internet is there to find out about just about everything, and you should always read the terms and conditions. Similar to looking up the details of Roman Polanski’s legal case on the Internet, and being sure you’re happy to sign a petition demanding freedom for someone who admits drugging and raping a 13 year old. A half hour job, which may have saved you from whatever level of boycott of your work materializes following your Polanski support. But as he says himself. Tough.

He came across pretty well in conversation about his new film, and even the comments on John Cleese were the kind that friends might sometimes make amongst themselves. Not entirely sure joking about his divorce was particularly good taste though. Christine Bleakley’s comment that he could say that as a friend, but the program couldn’t seems to show she felt the same (or maybe a voice in her ear did).

Christine followed up by saying if you were going to see the film to take a friend rather than go alone. Gilliam adds ‘bring your children’. Well it’s only a 12A I suppose.

The last article in the show was about Nazi memorabilia. An odd subject for such a mainstream family show in the first place I guess. Gilliam was fairly non-committal on the collecting, but did say he didn’t like banning things or making them taboo. And that the Pyhton’s wanted to play the Nazi’s because their uniforms were nicely fitted and looked good, rather than the scratchy baggy British ones. He then went on to say what great designers Hitler and Speer were, with a little aside that what they did was evil and awful. And then commented that Nazis and fashion went hand in hand, and that they were like good theatre designers and worked with great style. Finishing with a ‘joke’ that Nazis and fashion go hand in hand and to keep an eye on what happens at fashion week as it can go very badly. wtf?

A final round up with viewers limericks, Gilliam’s finishing on the idea that his film’s make him a million. To which he exclaims ‘if only’. I know you could probably have a second house in Italy without actually having to be a millionaire, but is he really expecting anyone to swallow his protestations of not being a t least a paper millionaire? If he isn’t then he needs a new accountant.

So why did I write about that show? Well, I’ve just seen someone mention on twitter that Gilliam had written something for The Times, followed up with this comment: ‘They’re not heaping praise on you Gilliam, you deluded Polanski sycophant, they’re heaping praise on Heath Ledger. This is just beeeeeyond!’ So I went and had a read of that, and a couple of bits sounded pretty similar to things said during his appearance on the TV. So that you can compare for yourself:

TV show – Times Column

You’ll have to catch the TV show within it’s one week window of availability (deadline 7:29pm Thursday 15th October 2009), and it may not be available outside the UK.

The column that drew that fairly unimpressed response from a twitter user didn’t appeal to me much either. Telling how you’ve been ’suffocated by your own success’ as an opening line is a fairly egocentric start. Then again, the world loves Terry. At least some of it does. His name was shouted and at a premier, and everyone oozed congratulations. Sounds horrible to me, like being complimented by Uriah Heap, but each to their own. Some stuff about the film, and being angry as an occupation before we get to the BBC bit.

The program he was on last Thursday was on the main BBC channel at prime evening family viewing time. There’s no advertising on the BBC, but the I suspect the promotion it was worth would need a huge spend in advertising slots. But within a few days it appears the BBC has now become a joke. Of course ‘it’s not like in my day’ he opines. When the beeb gave him and the rest of the Python’s the freedom to make mistakes. Now it’s just a Hollywood studio like bureaucracy. Well then you got lucky that it gave you the platform to start a successful career back when it was easier didn’t you, you ungrateful old twat. Next time you’re peddling your films remember that before you do anything on the BBC. Although hopefully, you’ll be suffering from a comprehensive boycott by then, and they won’t be interested, or even better, they just aren’t interested anyway on account of you being a senile old shite.

I still don’t think he’s the worst person that ever lived, but you can probably tell that the little I thought of him in the first place is shrinking further all the time.

And then there’s the section titled ‘Roman Scandal‘. He’s had a fortnight now to find out what the facts are in the case, and even he didn’t have time personally, surely he could have asked someone, or even told someone who worked for him. Is it possible that he isn’t in contact with a single person that would tell him there may be a backlash against the petition he signed? Either way, he starts the section with a contrived, pointless swipe at Tracey Emin, just to set up the beginning of the Polanski whine. He wouldn’t miss Emin if she left Britain, but he does miss Roman if he ends up in jail. Aww, how sweet.

Who is it benefitting? The Swiss were embarrassed and protesting. What good is it all these years on? Yes, some of the standard guff that’s been repeated ad nauseum all over the web, and is still as irrelevant to the legal case, and also the actions that Polanski admitted. But then we get to the real reason for this. I’ve seen people pondering on whether there’s a connection, but Mr. Gilliam is more sure than any I’ve seen before. “The Swiss authorities just wanted to signal to America how co-operative they are, so they can keep their banks as non-transparent as possible.”

A quick comment on his next film. He’s lucky as it now has a new script, so hurrah for the herniated disc the lead actor had last time he tried to make it.

And then a happy ending!

He’s one of the world’s luckiest people. But he doesn’t think he knows anything about making films yet.

Well if he doesn’t by now, he should do us all a favor and just stop. However weird and wacky the stuff he comes up with, I don’t see how it can ever compete with the fantastical world he actually lives in already.

I’m afraid my boycott will be meaningless as his work doesn’t appeal to me anyway, but I’m there in spirit.

In vier delen blik ik de komende week vooruit op de laatste maanden van het filmjaar 2009. In dit eerste deel aandacht voor 3D-brilletjes en surrealistische werelden…

Antichrist

Regie: Lars von Trier (Dogville, Manderlay)

Met: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Ziek, gestoord, pornografisch, gewelddadig, bizar. Slechts een kleine selectie van de woorden die zijn gebruikt door critici om hun afkeer voor Lars von Trier’s magnus opus Antichrist te laten merken. Eigenlijk is het niet eens zinvol om te beginnen aan een voorbeschouwing van de nieuwste film van -naar eigen zeggen- wereld’s beste cineast. Antichrist werd met de grond gelijk gemaakt door pers en publiek bij de eerste screening in Cannes eerder dit jaar. Toch ben ik benieuwd, zeer benieuwd…

Avatar

Regie: James Cameron (The Terminator, Aliens)

Met: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi

Nooit eerder zijn de verwachtingen voor een nieuwe blockbuster zo hoog geweest als voor James Cameron’s Avatar. Een revolutionair 3D-spektakelstuk, als we de geluksvogels mogen geloven die de 20 minuten durende preview zagen eerder dit jaar. Mijn voorspelling? Een recordopbrengst aan ouderwetse dollars en historische cinema.

Brothers

Regie: Jim Sheridan (In the Name of the Father, In America)

Met: Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman

Een Amerikaanse soldaat gaat naar Afghanistan en komt om het leven. Zijn broer ontfermt zich over de vrouw van de soldaat en krijgt zelfs een relatie met haar. De soldaat blijkt toch te leven en komt weer thuis. Intens drama van Jim Sheridan, de Ierse straatvechter die bekend staat om zijn rauwe en realistische aanpak, maar flink de bocht uitvloog met het misbaksel Get Rich or Die Tryin’ (50 Cent!). Nu met goede acteurs.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Regie: Terry Gilliam (Brazil, Twelve Monkeys)

Met: Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Tom Waits

Toen Heath Ledger afgelopen februari overleed, was hij net bezig met de opnames voor dit surrealistische epos. Het script werd vervolgens aangepast, Depp, Law en Farrell vervingen hem en Terry Gilliam ging vrolijk verder met filmen. Ledger gaat zichzelf definitief bij de groten der aarde voegen ook al is hij er zelf niet meer. Doctor Parnassus wordt een klassieker, dat staat vast.

The Limits of Control

Regie: Jim Jarmusch (Down by Law, Mystery Train)

Met: Isaach de Bankole, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Gael Garcia Bernal, John Hurt

Met een van de meest originele moderne filmmakers aan het roer lijkt The Limits of Control weer een ware lust voor het oog te worden. Cinematografisch fantastisch met altijd een lichte twist van het bizarre. Niemand die dat zo goed kan als Jarmusch. Hoofdrol is verrassend genoeg voor de Ivoriaanse veteraan Isaach de Bankole. Bill Murray is ook weer van de partij, zoals het hoort in een Jarmusch.

by Nolan Wilson Goff

Here’s the UK trailer for Heath Ledger’s final performance, Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.

I can understand why the film has had trouble finding a distributor (Lionsgate is distributing it in the UK, Sony Pictures Classics in the US). It appears to be a difficult film to market. Nonetheless, this has become one of my most anticipated films of the year. It appears to be an adventure in the same vein as a Lewis Carroll story, with a Baz Luhrmann flair. I am also impressed by the appearance of Ledger’s replacements. I was skeptical when first hearing of the direction Gilliam wanted to take Ledger’s character following his death, but it appears that the clever rewrites have actually paid off with some great work by Jude Law, Colin Farrell, and Johnny Depp. Check out the Variety article detailing the rewrites here

What does everyone think?

Video Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR521AgiI8g&hd=1

Editor’s Updated Note:  According to IMDB, This film is slated to come out on Friday, December 25, 2009.

Semana Temática: “Aquí Dentro Están Todos Locos” (1)

Hoy, “12 Monos”, por Terry Gilliam (1995).

Vale más caer en gracia que ser gracioso. Lo he pensado toda la vida. No importa lo mal que lo haga alguien que nos cae bien, siempre encontraremos justificación para sus actos o elecciones. De la misma manera, qué más da lo bien que lo haga o lo oportuno que esté alguien a quien no podemos ni ver. Por ejemplo, Zaplana.

Es fácil hacer de enfermo mental, y es además fácilmente premiado. En numerosas ocasiones otorgamos el mérito de la interpretación a un mero cambio de registro por parte del actor (Charlize Theron en “Monster”, por poner sólo un ejemplo), pero el esbozo de locura que plantea Brad Pitt sirve para deleitar al espectador, tanto detractor como fan declarado.

Pone el contrapunto el guapo Pitt a la imaginería de un Terry Gilliam que (esta vez sí) conjuga su personalísima visión con la comercialidad que sin ofender transpira la cinta. Remata el equilibrio la tensión que siempre ofrece el papel del loco que trata de convencer al mundo de su cordura en manos de un más que correcto Bruce Willis, al servicio de un guión con aristas pero que no marea al espectador.

—————————————————

En otro orden de cosas, ayer se celebró un referendum en Arenys De Munt, y yo que me alegro.

Se pueden extraer decenas, cientos, miles de lecturas de lo que ayer sucedió ahí, pero la única realmente objetiva es que el 97% del 33% de la población mayor de 16 años de Arenys De Munt está a favor de ser una nación propia, independiente y aparte de esta que llamamos España.

No por esperado era menos esperado el resultado. Me explicaré: yo siempre he pensado que es absurdo tratar de pertenecer a un sitio donde sé positivamente que no me quieren (el síndrome del vegetariano en la hamburguesería), del mismo modo que es ridículo tratar de mantener cerca a quien no quiere estar a tu lado. Así pues, que cada uno esté donde decida y le dejen, y la verdad es que tenía muchas ganas de que alguien tuviera la voluntad, la valentía y el permiso oportuno para preguntar de una vez por todas al pueblo qué es lo que opina.

Tras los resultados de ayer e incluso antes de conocerlos, no pocos alcaldes de localidades catalanas han demostrado su deseo de plebiscitar en sus propios municipios y bien que me parece a mi, que considero ridículo que sólo nos pidan la opinión tres veces cada cuatro años. Y no me cabe duda alguna de que la gran mayoría de estas votaciones reflejará grandes mayorías de síes a la independencia, lo que sin duda alguna pondrá encima de la mesa por fin el tan recurrente tema a un nivel que trascienda lo teórico.

Pero no tiremos coets ni focs d’artifici todavía. Si el sentido común incita a pensar que un referéndum global (y vinculante) es ya sólo cuestión de esperar a que madure la fruta, me resulta más difícil pensar que uno “bueno”, uno de verdad, salga adelante. Una decisión tan importante dentro del contexto de una nación de derecho se toma por las armas o por las urnas y no creo que el Gobierno central se deje ganar la partida en ese aspecto. El mismo sentido común me incita a pensar también que Madrid impondrá (si hace bien las cosas) que la vinculación del resultado esté a su vez vinculado a un factor como es la participación. Y ahí está la trampa.

El soberanismo catalanista sobrevive, como todas las posiciones políticas y opiniones, gracias a la visibilidad. Alguien que se manifiesta independentista, aunque sea mínimamente, hace de ello una parte importante de su vida, si no el eje central que condiciona su día a día. Esto, que se me entienda bien, sucede en la misma medida con la pertenencia a un partido político, a un equipo de fútbol, la homosexualidad militante o cualquier cajón en que nos queramos meter de manera voluntaria. Eso nos lleva a que quien es independentista (como quien tiene carnet de afiliado al PSOE o es del Atleti), manifiesta su independentismo, su socialismo o su atletismo en cuanto tenga ocasión. Si alguien me pide la opinión al respecto me movilizaré, pero si mi postura es tibia me moveré solamente si me pilla de camino a comprar el periódico de los domingos o si me da por ahí.

Movilizar al 19% de la población catalana que según las últimas encuestas está interesada en poner punto y ser un aparte no requiere ningún esfuerzo, ya lo harán ellos solos, que para algo llevan tanto tiempo deseando esa oportunidad. Convencer al resto del electorado para que, no digo algo tan complicado como que cambie su opinión, sino para que se levante y la manifieste votando, dotando por tanto de credibilidad, sentido y legitimidad al resultado: ese es realmente el caballo de batalla con que habrán de luchar los soberanistas, y no con trabas del Estado o manifestaciones de antipatía de mayor o menor índole.

Y esa es la batalla que habrá que ganar si se quiere conseguir la independencia. En caso de que eso sea lo que realmente quiere el pueblo.

Número de familiares en el extranjero: 1. D is for delightful.

Terry Gilliam and Heath Ledger

Upon first glance, I’m sure that the title above means nothing to you (unless you’re a film dork like myself). But allow your trustee DailyDale correspondent to fill you in. The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is currently the most talked about and controversial film coming out of Hollywood right now. The reason for the controversy is two-fold: First, the films protagonist, Tony, is played by Heath Ledger. As we all know, Heath suffered an untimely and mysterious death last summer right around the time the Dark Knight was released, making his Joker interpretation all the more creepy. He was in the middle of filming this movie (Parnassus) when he passed. This my friends, is called a dilemma. So, wild and whacky Terry Gilliam, who’s responsible for celluloid trips (weird movies) such as Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas just happens to be Parnassus’s director and co-writer. Long story short? This pretentious bastard decided it would work to show the audience multiple sides of the character, and use a different actor for each “side”. Thus, the film employs four different actors to play the same guy. Gillaim claims this works perfectly as art and for the story’s sake, everyone else smells a dead-actor cover-up.

That my friends, is just the first reason why this movie is causing so much controversy. By the way, when I say controversy what I mean is that now that this film has been made and edited, no distributor in the United States wants to touch it. But why you ask? Wouldn’t everyone be rushing to see Heath’s final film? Won’t that be the number one selling point, that this is Heath Ledger’s last body of work, and thus every distributor should be lining up for it like they did for The Dark Knight? Normally, yes. That should be the case. But, and boy is this a big, fat, Oprah BUT, but what if i told you that the first time you see “Tony” (the Heath character) in this movie he’s hanging by his neck from a noose attached to the London Bridge? Would that be a creepy image to give audiences, perhaps a little too much, when the last time this man was making headlines it was for his death which could have been a suicide? This would be like if Michael Jackson was in the middle of recording an album when he died, and the album came out today with the title track called “If I die from too many pharmaceuticals”. Creeeeeeppppyyyyyyy.
So here’s what we have: A Terry Gillam directed movie (always a gamble to begin with) where the lead actor who died mid shoot is seen hanging from a noose in the first scene, and throughout the rest of the movie is replaced with three alter-egos played by Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law. So hey, at least Gillaim picked inexpensive actors!!! (Why do the alter-egos have to be sexy? Couldnt they have casted Andy Dick or Philip Seymour Hoffman? I don’t think my alter-ego is 6′3, blonde with a six-pack)

Anyway, perhaps now you can understand why no distributor in their right mind wants to touch this gamble. But, the fact remains that Heath Ledger was an unbelievably talented, dedicated and versatile actor. For that reason alone I think this movie deserves to be seen. If Parnassus never gets released, Heath’s lasting body of work would be a nut-job clown who makes me shit my pants whenever he opens his mouth. Word on the street is “Tony” in The Imaginarium is a human character with human emotions and someone to identify with. I’d like to see one more of those roles with Heath, I sure as hell identified with him in A Knight’s Tale. And Brokeback. I could do this all day…

Heath in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

Tratos con el diablo, teatro con humanos, imaginación, temas únicos por el director Terry Giliam, este 25 de diciembre, regresa triunfante con su mejor película, ” The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” así la nombra el mismo director de películas como: “Fear and Loathing in las Vegas”, “Twelve Monkeys”, “Brazil”. También comediante, de entre sus personajes más conocidos destaca Patsy, el escudero del rey Arturo en Los caballeros de la mesa cuadrada, película que llevó a cabo con Terry Jones.

Si se trata de manipulación de sueños, tiempo y realidad, con Terry Gilliam lo podemos explorar, Lo mejor de Terry es su facilidad para tocar temas tan intensos fantásticos con un enfoque humorístico fino que llena todavía mas de vida su arte.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, relata una historia, llena de imaginación en donde un líder de un teatro mediante un pacto con el diablo, abre la ventana a toda una audiencia para explorar su imaginación. Vale la pena verla y no lo digo por la participación estelar de Heath Ledger, que fue el caso que retraso esta producción, sino el rococó de el talento de este gran director, también actúan Johnny Depp, Jude Law, y Colin Farrell.

Esta historia tiene lo que a todos en general nos gusta, una historia interesante, un héroe y una odisea, por esto mismo, “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” tiene una cita para todos nosotros el 25 de Diciembre, justamente para pasar un navidad y nuevo año con buen arte.