What's new

Terry Gilliam on NPR (thoughts on Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) (1 Viewer)

Bryant Trew

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 3, 2001
Messages
346
Yeah, a kid losing his parents at one and growing up with out any material things of anything, being subjected to what would in this modern age be considered child abuse, and then still manage to be a pretty decent kid, all things considered. Real shallow.
Oh yeah, that was the focus of the film. A heartwarming a story about a kid who overcomes an abusive childhood :rolleyes:

Antwone Fisher, this was not
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
Oh yeah, that was the focus of the film. A heartwarming a story about a kid who overcomes an abusive childhood
It's not the focus of the film, sure, but it's certainly there, and IMO it works. I just don't see how anyone can find it totally crap. You may not like it, but I think it fairly easy to find something to admire.

(Can it be a thread crap when you post positive things in a thread that seems to exist to crap on a movie?)
 

Scott Weinberg

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Messages
7,477
:laugh: You knock the depth of the Potter flicks and use Antwone Fisher as your litmus test? :laugh:

Potter's a flashy pop-up book; Fisher's a blank Hallmark Card.
 

Joshua_Y

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,241
Gilliam rocks! Thats exactly the way I felt about HP, I didnt believe the world and I thought it was boring. The man knows the good stuff from the not so good stuff. When's he makin another movie? Anytime soon?

It's not the focus of the film, sure, but it's certainly there, and IMO it works. I just don't see how anyone can find it totally crap. You may not like it, but I think it fairly easy to find something to admire.
I find it totally crap. I dont like it at all. I found it to be dull and boring. 2 hours into COS, nothing had happened, the story had not progressed and I swear someone working on these films need to find an editor. COS was almost 3 hours and it did not need to be that long, there were easily like 30 scenes that could have been scrapped because they did not advance the story. Im sure they were references to the book, but you have to take that stuff out or limit it and throw it into the background, but no they have to create the entire scene. Their just to slavish to the material. On the other hand LOTR is not slavish, PJ knows that theres stuff in the books thats not gonna work on film or slow the film down. So he goes past it. Now yeah, LOTR is 3 hours long, but there is not one moment where the story or characters are not going somewhere and advancing. Such talent like Jason Issacs and Alan Rickman completely wasted.

BTW - Fisher King is one of my all time favorites.
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
Thanks for posting the link Vickie, fantastic read

Just finished watching Brazil which is awesome indeed and left me wondering that Gilliam could indeed direct HP

:emoji_thumbsup:
 

Aaron Reynolds

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
1,715
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Aaron Reynolds
I run really hot and cold on Terry Gilliam's work. The only film of his that I consistently like is Brazil, and even then, sometimes I feel that it just doesn't know where it's going in the second half (and as a result, it doesn't fully get there).

There are days when I love The Fisher King. Then there are days when I watch Living Out Loud, which was also written by Richard LaGravenese, and I see how it explores the same themes in a far more subtle and human way, and it makes The Fisher King look like a collection of gigantic empty gestures, all noise and smoke. I feel like that about a lot of Gilliam's work.

I would count myself as a fan.

I love Gilliam's images, even when they are heavy-handed. I love his gigantic imagination, even when it is distilled by budgetary restraints. In fact, I very much love it when his imagination manages to transcend the limitations and roadblocks he encounters.

I think that he is truly a visionary, and that even his worst film is worth watching. He thinks, and you can see that thinking right there on the screen.

I don't really know what else I want to say. :D
 

andrew markworthy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 1999
Messages
4,762
I wouldn't call HP a study of child abuse. The Dursleys are deliberately over the top awful and are meant to be ironic (they are stereotypes of a certain kind of middle class Brit, and with the greatest respect, some of the nuances may slip under non-Brit radars). Furthermore, they have to be there to conform to a long tradition in classic children's literature of an awful childhood from which the hero must escape.

For those who've not encountered this argument before, most classic children's literature has a background of an awful or at best crushingly boring background from which the child longs to escape. There is a transition during which either the parents are killed (e.g. The Secret Garden) or lost (e.g. Coral Island) before a new and far more appealing life is found. However, life in the new Eden is threatened, and the hero must solve the problem in order to keep their new-found lifestyle. Following a trial during which the hero's beliefs and skills are put to the test, the conflict is resolved and generally the hero voluntarily leaves the new idyllic world to return to their old life suitably empowered.

Nearly all classic children's stories adopt this plot, and HP is no exception. In some respects, JK Rowling is subverting the tradition. Although the Dursleys are awful, Dumbledore is insistent (in the books at least) that Harry returns there each year because they are family and offer some sort of protection that even Hogwarts can't manage.
 

Matthew_Millheiser

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 1, 2000
Messages
657
Another chime for great article, Vickie. That was a fascinating clip (and if all ya'll don't listen to Fresh Air on a daily basis, for shames!)

I'm a slobbering Gilliam fanboy, and think he would have made Harry Potter a wonder, a visual and magical marvel of a movie. Columbus did a decent if pedestrian job.

Thinking about WB and their "franchises", they are definitely on the conservative/safe side. They are not looking at films as art/treasures, they are looking at movies as contiunous revenue generators.

The HP films have combinded worldwide grosses totalling over $1.8 billion, and counting. Not to mention merchandising (toys, home video, coloring books, etc..), we're looking at BILLIONS of dollars. By WB's recokining, you don't hand over a billion-dollar property to an auteur. You hand it over to someone who can goose-step into line. Thus Chris Columbus is given the director's chair.

According to Hollywood scuttlebutt, they're thinking of handing over Superman to Dominque Sena, David McNally, and Antoine Fuqua. Based on WHAT?!! The fabulous, eternal works of cinema known as Gone in 60 Seconds, Kangaroo Jack, or The Replacement Killers?!?!

Fine, Training Day was alright, but still...


WB doesn't necessarily want someone who can make a great film -- they want somebody who follows orders and can hopefully generate a huge enough opening weekend before word-of-mouth sinks it.

I have great faith in Alfonso Cuaron -- A Little Princess is a great, GREAT children's fable/fantasy. But I wouldn't be surprised if they wrenched the film out of his hands in the editing room. Just a hunch.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Thanks for the doc, Vickie. :emoji_thumbsup: You always seem to be on top of this kind of thing.

Great post Andrew. :emoji_thumbsup: I would not have thought that HP was subtle enough to contain a nuance that slipped past me, but your point is well made.

I’d add that your précis of ‘classic’ children’s literature, besides being accurate (and succinct) is a perfect plot summary of Time Bandits.

I am in the ‘Gilliam would have done a great job’ camp.

Still I’m sure that WB is pleased. They have made a ton of money and have a guaranteed queue at the next opening.
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
Lew

make that 5 great queues for the next 5 films when they are made, and I do think that Cuaron will make it a very different film than the two previous pictures, based on his experience with Y tu mama tambiem, which makes it an odd choice indeed.

:emoji_thumbsup:
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
According to Hollywood scuttlebutt, they're thinking of handing over Superman to Dominque Sena, Terence McNally, and Antoine Fuqua. Based on WHAT?!! The fabulous, eternal works of cinema known as Gone in 60 Seconds, Kangaroo Jack, or The Replacement Killers?!?!
I assume you meant "David McNally", the director of Kangaroo Jack. Terrence McNally (with two r's) is one of American's leading playwrights and not likely to have any movie handed over to him anytime soon. (And I doubt he'd be interested.)

M.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
oscar,
I imagine The Little Princess had more to do with WB's choice than Y Tu Mama Tambien. But you never know.

Gilliam would have been inspired, but it was too costly to shoot for greatness. Columbus was a dull choice, but effective and pliable. He's not a bad director. They were decent, fun films, and I enjoyed them. But I LOVED the books.

Take care,
Chuck
 

Matthew_Millheiser

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 1, 2000
Messages
657
I assume you meant "David McNally", the director of Kangaroo Jack. Terrence McNally (with two r's) is one of American's leading playwrights and not likely to have any movie handed over to him anytime soon. (And I doubt he'd be interested.)
Oops... cerebral flatulence... :b
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
with the greatest respect, some of the nuances may slip under non-Brit radars
Oh, the satire is evident... America has it's own variety of such people. The puedo-snobs who are all about appearance and good-standing, dedicating their lives to the shallow pursuits of impressing others, often insuccessfully. I didn't suggest it was realistic in this case, but inspite of the over-the-topnicity (is that a butchery of the English language, or what?), the theme is still prevalent.

Joshua, I was referring to PS/SS with my comment. COS is much more of a straight up adventure flick. Hopefully, Cuaron will take on his past full fledged with PoA (my favorite of the series).
 

Eric Bass

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 13, 2000
Messages
308
"Hey what are you guys doing?"

"We're playing Harry Potter"

"HA!!"

Well that's as far as I'm taking that given it's politically incorrect finish.

Great post Vickie! I'm not a fan of all of Terry's works, but I definately respect his views when it comes to film.
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
Chuck

in response to your post about why Cuaron was chosen.

How many people are actually aware that he directed The Little Princess, that was 7 years ago. So I think WB & JK R perhaps thought with the amount of more adult material, he is the right person for the third movie

:emoji_thumbsup:
 

Brian Ford

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Messages
72
Thank you Vickie for the transcript. I just listened to the entire interview. As a big Gilliam fan and a huge Potter fan, I am not surprised that he disliked the first installment. While I would say that the first two movies are actually good (the second bordering on very good), there is something lacking, and it is interesting to see someone major voice this opinion.

While they happen to be Columbus' best works to date, I am fairly certain that on June 11th, 2004, we are going to see what a real Potter film can become, something that will most likely be remembered as a real classic.

Prisoner of Azkaban is shaping up to be the "Goldfinger" of the series. Better source material with a new director that is going to hold the world's attention. I wish only success for Gilliam.
 

Brian Ford

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Messages
72
Oddly enough, I found another interview with Gilliam, where he talks about his current plans on "Good Omens", the Nike commercial, and even the new Potter director, Alfonso Cuaron.

"Like many film-makers, Gilliam tries to avoid cinemas when in production. "It's about being diverted from your goal by seeing something better." he explained. "You lose all your confidence." Yet off location, he claims a similar reluctance, for fear of disappointment. "Movies are so important to me." I asked what he had seen recently. "Y Tu Mama Tambien, just last week." he replied. Alfonso Cuaron's road movie hit is the biggest selling Spanish language film in UK box office history, a huge boost to Mexico's growing reputation for its cinematic output. "The film's really good, full of exuberance and life... this stuff is alive. It's not technically brilliant; it's all handheld but it's on the button."

Here is the full interview....
http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/cpirie02.htm
 

Ryan Peter

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 15, 1999
Messages
1,220
I read an interview with Columbus and he said Little Princess was a huge factor for choosing Cuaron.
 

Claire Panke

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
412
Thanks Vicki...I was driving to my office when this show aired, and I stayed in my car in the office parking lot until the segment ended so I wouldn't miss a word. I was hoping Gilliam would comment on LOTR.

I already knew he liked FOTR. I'd read an interview with TG in a Brit movie mag where he said that unlike most films he'd seen lately, FOTR was "actually *about* something" (emphasis TG) and that it had characters one "really cared" about. He went on to say that unlike in most effects driven films, in FOTR the effects were brilliantly designed but served the story and the characters, instead of the other way round.

Interestingly, in the same article, TG cited the arena battle in AOTC as an example of an effects concept he particularly disliked (he wasn't talking about ILM's CGI execution, but the choreography and elements of the sequence itself), commenting that it was of what I call the "too much is not enough" school. In Gilliam's opinion, the scene was cluttered - if one monster is good then 100 monsters is even better - which he thought detracted from the drama. (I was thrilled to hear a director of TG's stature say this, as I totally agree. Cluttered and busy was my first impression of AOTC. More isn't necessarily better.)

Chris Columbus is a hack IMO, competent but uninspired, and possessed of a limited visual vocabulary. It's a tribute to the material and actors that the HP films are as charming as they are. I kept waiting and waiting for one transcendent moment, one grace note, one piece of visual poetry in the HP movies, to no avail. These films could have been so much more. Y Tu Mama Tambien was one of 2002's best films IMO, and The Little Princess is a lovely film, very underrated. Perhaps, if Columbus and WB will let him get on with it, Cuaron will lift the HP franchise out of the mundane with this next installment. It's the best material so far...we shall see.

Gilliam's work is wildly uneven. But I would rather see Brazil, or Fisher King, or 12 Monkeys than any of Chris Columbus films.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,561
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top