I loved the end of Tideland. Her time of living alone inside her head has ended. perfect. I looked forword to that film for a long time because where I grew up there is a place called the Tideland mental health center. I thought that was cool and reflected Gilliams work.
I loved it too. It remains one of my favorite Gilliam films, because it had such a deep impact on me. A Gilliam film is such a rare treat. They stand apart from all other cinema for me.
gah, double post. my first. how annoying is that?
Genius is usually misunderstood.
After all, being misunderstood is the fate of all true geniuses, is it not?
~~ Howard Stern, Private Parts
I think Gilliam drifted off into esoterica as his career has progressed. I haven’t seen Tideland yet, though.
An ex-manager of mine once said, “Terry Gilliam is a $100M imagination on a $3M budget.” Sometimes he pulls it off and sometimes he doesn’t—I like The Fisher King, but I don’t think it’s that great of a movie, whereas Brazil should by no means actually work and yet it somehow does. I, too, loved Tideland, but I had plenty of people disagree with me and say that he “took it too far.”
I don’t…. really think that he’s misunderstood. I think most people who watch Terry Gilliam movies knowing that they’re Terry Gilliam movies have a pretty good idea of what’s going on, even if what’s going on doesn’t strictly make sense. I think the reason he doesn’t entirely get wide releases and huge audiences is because he’s a little too involved in his own imagination that sometimes his works aren’t very inviting. You get to look at his world, but not very often do you get to participate.
Anyway, once, a while back, I heard that he was in talks to make Terry Pratchett/Neil Gaiman’s book “Good Omens” into a movie, and though I doubt that’ll actually happen, I really hope it does. Nobody fits the sensibility more.
—PolarisDiB
Not everyone is meant to understand Terry Gilliam, or his films, of course. Artists, intellectuals, musicians, writers, animation/filmmakers, graphic designers, etc… will ‘get Gilliam’. Basically all of the folks that ‘conservatives’ can’t stand (which I’m sure he appreciates!) I’ve been a Gilliam fan since childhood (Monty Python first, then Time Bandits, Brazil, and almost everything else…)
My college photography prof. made us sit down and watch all of only one film – Brazil – he instructed us to watch for ‘symbols’ and ‘symbolism’ in the film (Thanks Doug M!) and to see how Gilliam mixes fantasy/dream elements with so-called ‘reality’/waking life of his iconic and imaginative characters. I absolutely LOVE ‘Fisher King’, and even have had dreams about the themes involved. I wish it would get a better DVD treatment (with ANY bonus features/commentary!) ‘Tideland’ shows that Gilliam’s imagination/genius has not waned- I was abit ‘stunned’ at first watching, but then I started to ‘get it’… (the meanings of themes in ‘Tideland’ is a LONG discussion- I appreciate Gilliam’s commentary to the film. And I do like the tip-of-hat ‘homage’ of sorts to ‘the dude’ of Lebowski fame…)
‘12 Monkeys’ and ‘Fear and Loathing’ IMO could have been abit more wholly-realized (but then again, I’m not Gilliam! Not even close…)
So WHY does CC have excellent releases for Life of Brian, Brazil, and Time Bandits (love those commentary tracks!) but no ‘Fisher King’? Anybody else like this film but find it under-appreciated? If not- ‘FORGIVE ME!!!!’ (And Have a Nice Day…)
No one mentioned the start of Gilliam’s oeuvre – Monty Python and the Holy Grail (co-directed w/Terry Jones, of course), and Jabberwocky? I mean, his first film, made on nothing but imagination and suggestion, is a classic of comedy rivaled only by Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles or Young Frankenstein. And Jabberwocky is as austere (and as funny) as Samuel Beckett in parts, with performers mired in muck, their grandest dreams no less mired…
Count me in as a huge Gilliam fan. One of the few living directors whose work I will see without question. I hope there’s more to come from him, our lives depend on him.
I can understand TIDELAND being a bit (okay, a lot) too dark for most people’s taste (though it was his first that I felt truly had heart), but I confess myself baffled that his films aren’t bigger hits. What is really so unapproachable about MUNCHAUSEN or BROTHER’S GRIMM. They’re wildly inventive and wildly funny. Yes, they have a good bit of Beckett’s sensibility in them (something I hadn’t considered until reading the comment above but instantly recognized as true), but it’s cloaked in a gleefully wacked-out sensibility.
Gilliam strikes me in many ways as the British Tim Burton (or since he was directing first, perhaps the designation should be the other way round?), but for some reason gets less appreciation from the general public (though Burton, too, is probably a niche director … but with a bigger niche).
I’m a pretty big Gilliam fan. I appreciate most of his work. Actually, Brazil is among my favorite films. But I do believe that he is a little much for some people and a lot of his films are very unapproachable. I made my girlfriend sit down and watch the director approved version of Brazil with me which i believe she said made her feel “uncomfortable”…but on the other hand, she loved Adventures of Baron Munchhausen.
That’s true, Dean. Time Bandits—which I haven’t seen since I saw it during its theatrical release as a ten year old, but remember quite vividly—is another of his films that’s very accessible, but even the more user-friendly films tend to be rather baroque, and it could be argued that in some of the later films, the details threaten to overwhelm narrative and character development.
I was a bit shocked by Tideland the first time I saw it, and had to see it again to really appreciate it, and for every time I have seen it I just like it more and more. But as Dean point out, I guess his films can be rather impalatable for most people.
Wow. Am I that used to densely layered films that I see Gilliam as accessible?
Admittedly not, let’s say, Judd Apatow accessible, but too much fun to be offputting … aside from TIDELAND and, possibly, BRAZIL.
I will readily admit that his films are off-putting at first. I often do not enjoy them the first time I see them. There is very little material in them that is immediately accessible to me, and I often feel that some of his choices are less about an artistic goal than they are about being “clever”.
However, given some time with his films, and some time to get past the veil of his neuroses that manifest themselves on-screen, his films ARE often very rewarding. A lot of my love for movies comes right from Gilliam.
The only film of Gilliam’s that I loved immediately was Tideland — to go contrary to the initial poster, I identified with Jeliza Rose in ways that I am not entirely comfortable with. I think Gilliam is growing as a filmmaker, which is awesome. I hope his best work is still to come.
Samurai Panda Poetry
I’m a huge Gilliam fan. It seems a lot of his films are unapproachable by your average movie goer, and more often than not box office flops and failures, but still always seem to gather a cult status.
To me, Gilliam seems to be able to take you as a viewer places that other auteurs can’t even come close to, visually and emotionally. His imagination, when unrestrained, seems to be more ambitious than anyone’s.
I’ve never been more uncomfortable at the end of a film than i was after viewing Tideland. I knew what Gilliam was trying to say, what point of view he was trying to portray, but I was not able to identify with the young girl. Not at first anyway. And that’s what’s great about a Gilliam film. You leave with something. Even if you hate the movie, it leaves it’s mark, and in that regard makes it successful.