Introducing Terry Gilliam and The Fisher King

 Film of the Month Club: Fisher King and Terry Gilliam Tickets, Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:00 PM | Eventbrite

Here is my intro for the film:

If watching a movie critically is a richer experience than watching a movie passively, than Terry Gilliam is a good place to start because every choice he makes is strong. His artistic process is among the most transparent of any film maker. It’s very easy to spot his bold choices and it might not be too much of a stretch to reach into his head.

The former animator for the Monty Python troop sees the world as a children's storyteller of sorts influenced by mythology, science-fiction, and absurdist humor.

Pretty much nothing about the way his films are made are ordinary from the internal logic of his films, to the way his actors act exaggerated and can even be seen as live-action cartoons, to the close-ups and Dutch angles by which he will film his actors, to the artifice of the art direction, to the overwrought scores. But does it all add up to the sum of its parts? Is it enchanting?

The Fisher King might be Terry Gilliam's most adult film. It deals with loss, trauma, and metamorphis, and the nature of charity. 
His cartoonish style when Jack Lucas is interacting with Parry is juxtaposed against a straighter visual and aural tone when Lucas is interacting with people in the regular world. Whereas his characters often act cartoonish, Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams deliver two of their greatest performances here, Mercedes Ruehl won an Oscar in the supporting actress category, and Amanda Plummer should have won the Supporting Actress Oscar for my money. It would be rather far-fetched for anyone to earn a nomination in any of the earlier stages of Gilliam's career.

WHAT ELSE WILL THE FILM OF THE MONTH CLUB BE COVERING:
Future installments include: Sunshine State and the poverty exposes by John Sayles; Zorba the Greek and the jet set era of 60s films; Sex Lies and Videotape and the birth of indie films; Treasure of the Sierra Madre and the capacity for the adventure film; Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the re-interpretation of noir.

Looking at some of the 2013 shows that didnt measure up

I just posted my Top 10 List along with an Honorable Mention. On top of that, I include a list of shows that I watched so someone reading my Top 10 List will know what it was up against because no critic watches everything. In that respect, I'd like to also review 2013 by discussing some of the shows that fell short of being considered by myself for the year's best TV:

The Crazy Ones-It's a somewhat dependable sitcom and the Robin Williams/Sarah Michelle Gellar is a great pairing. I'll never understand the school of thought that Robin Williams is kind of annoying instead of a supremely talented guy who is among the most gifted comedians out there. Though I'd place myself in the top 10% of the population in terms of how much they like Robin Williams, even I found him a little redundant here. The show also loses points for having one of my last favorite stock characters: The lothario who is effortlessly irresistible to the opposite sex. This wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that it's supposed to be his comic trait and there's nothing that inherently funny about a guy who uses women like he does. Amanda Setton is clearly a talented actress but she isn't used particularly well here (ironically, I think she fit in better on "The Mindy Project") and she's given her character a weird tic of making every line of dialogue sound like a nervous question (perhaps she's trying to get on the cast of "Whose Line is It Anyway?").

Brooklyn Nine-Nine: This was a great addition to my weekly schedule for several weeks but the show had some irritating traits that eventually cancelled out the show's strengths. Andy Samberg does not make a believable cop (or a likable character for that matter) which begs the question: If the show's sole function is as a vehicle for Andy Samberg, why place him into TV's most overused genre when he doesn't fit into it? While some of the side characters (this show could win a diversity award for best Latino cast on TV) and relationships are excellent, the show lacks any sort of grounding upon which to build comedy. The comic tone is geared so much towards one-liners and quick gags, it feels more like vaudeville than a multi-layered source of laughs.

Modern Family-The show is high enough in quality to have merited honorable mention every year thus far, but by this point, the show has used up nearly every bag of tricks at its disposal. At this point, how many more hidden talents can Cam reveral? How many more revelations can there be that Jay's really a softie? How many more times can Alex surprise Haley by climbing her way up the social ladder? Hasn't she had her first boyfriend three times by now? This is not a fault of the show as it's doing what it is designed to do: Produce consistent and interchangeable episodes so that it can make a killing in syndication. I would happily watch this show five years from now when it turns up on the TV on a random afternoon and I still watch it now. It's just no longer event viewing.

The Sing-Off-It was probably right around #11 the last time it came on in 2011. Since the Sing-Off came back from the brink of cancellation, it acquired a new corporate producer in the form of Sony Television which made a few small changes that ended up making the show worse. I thought seven episodes was the optimal number but I didn't feel like I got the chance to know most of these groups. More backstory was needed and the swan songs, Ben's blog and the post-performance camera chats might have helped that.

The Awesomes (Hulu)-Seth Meyer's newest venture, the show got off to a great start and seemed to find something unique to say in the now overcrowded genre of superhero spoofs. I still watched it all the way through but the plots lost a little firepower after a while as certain plot motifs started repeating themselves (i.e. no one catching onto Malocchio's plan, Prock having a crush on Hotwire, Muscleman dealing with his inferior intellect in comparison to Prock) in ways that didn't build. Of the eight superheroes, I found only about half to really hold my attention as interesting characters. Coincidentally, that's the same hit-miss ratio as SNL sketches so, hey, at least Seth is consistent.
 
Alpha House (Amazon)-Based on an article from the New York Times, the show about four Senators sharing a house in Washington is a premise winning enough to get a good bidding war and the necessary amount of hype to kick off Amazon's original content platform. The show is pleasant and breezy through the first three episodes. At the same time, it's somewhat underwhelming due to the fact that it seems episodic in tone with little serialization. It almost seems like the remnants of a multi-camera sitcom. It's also worth noting that John Goodman seems to be recycling some of his old roles for the lead character (I see some traces of Evan Almighty, Flight, the Babe and some of his  Coen brothers films). He is a bit grumpy, a little lazy, and that's about it. This is is even more disappointing considering that most standout shows in the Golden Age of TV have incredibly strong protagonists. The upside is that the show has a lot of potential for good plots as there's a lot of amusing situations I can imagine placing four senators in. In the third episode, for example, they go to Afghanistan on a fact-finding trip for self-serving reasons. Although I was disappointed that they were in Afghanistan only in the episode's third act, it had potential.


My disappointments with Lilyhammer, Scandal, American Horror Story, and 1600 Penn are covered elsewhere on this blog.
  
   

My top 100 films of all-time 87-80

I just interviewed the Washington D.C. Filmmaker of the Month and we discussed films shot in D.C., opportunities for local actors and The West Wing. Click here

My top 100 continued. I don't entirely have it mapped it out (I might be guilty of forgetting a film or misplacing a film), but let's see how this goes:

87. Three Kings (1999) directed by David O Russell, Starring George “Please stop writing magazine articles about this guy” Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice-T, Nora Dunn

I was heavily debating between this and "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" and felt an urge not to over-Clooney my list*. The film certainly isn’t a conventional war film or even a particularly patriotic one. Like MASH, this is a film of people who are apathetic to the war around them. More significantly, they’re bored which explains why they initially go on their adventure. The film also deepens in unexpected ways. The film is very gritty visually and doesn’t shy away from gore (it even gets creative with shots of internal organs) but it’s not overly crude just for the sake of being edgy.

86. Cat Ballou (1965) directed by Henry Hathaway, Starring Jane Fonda, Lee Marvin, Dwayne Hickman, Nat King Cole

I’m not sure if I’m becoming guilty of overloading my list with goofy pictures of no technical value other than they just make me smile, because like “In Like Flint” this might fall into that category as well. It’s got some pretty heavy comedic leanings, but it’s a solid adventure that’s just as kinetic as the most fun Western you can imagine. The film really is a perfect fit for Jane Fonda too.


I did once review this film years ago on my blog, so that should cover it.

85. Fisher King (1991) directed by Terry Gilliam, Starring Robin Williams, Jeff Bridges, Amanda Plummer, Mercedes Ruehl

Sometimes Gilliam gets lost in his own imagination and the effect can be that the story gets diluted through cartoonish characters and deviations from the plot. This is a shame because some of his stories are really great. This is one such great plot idea and it helps here that these are probably the four best acting performances I’ve seen in a Gilliam film. It’s a great fusion of solid drama with the abstract stylings of Gilliam’s bizarreness.

84. Seabiscuit (2003) directed by Gary Ross, Starring Jeff Bridges, Tobey Maguire, Chris Cooper, William H Macy, Elizabeth Banks

This is my one clichéd Disney story of an underdog entity winning against all the odds. I would rethink this corny period piece until I remember that the film was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar so other people must have thought it was pretty good too. The production values are great, the source material is converted to cinematic effect, and the acting is tremendous (I remember thinking: man, that actress who plays the wife should get nominated for an Oscar. She didn’t but she was Elizabeth Banks and became famous later). Also, it does have some very bittersweet undertones despite being a film made for no other reason than to stir up inspirational feelings.

83. Rain Man (1998) directed and written by Barry Levinson, Starring Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman

I generally don’t think a film can be considered great solely on the basis of one performance. “Rain Man” comes close. Hoffman is a fascinating character but Tom Cruise doesn’t get enough credit for his role even though he acts like Tom Cruise for the first half of the movie. While it’s a story about two people with very rigid temperaments changing (one because he’s biologically incapable, and one because he’s “a prick” in his own words) for the better.

82. Goldfinger (1964) directed by Guy Hamilton, based on the book by Ian Flemming, starring Sean Connery, Gert Forbe, Harry Sakada, Honor Blackman, Los Maxwell, Shirley Eaton, Cec Linder, Bernard Lee

Embodies the best of everything that you associate with James Bond: Beautiful scenery, ornate lairs, diabolical villains, creative technology, sexy women, and a convoluted plan for world domination. There’s not much more to say. Last time a James Bond film came out pre-Daniel Craig era, I found it amusing to see the reviews because there really isn’t much to say about a Bond film. You basically just check off a list of elements because as complex as the stories are, it’s mostly an excuse for the elements.

81. McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971), dir. Rob Altman, starring Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, Rene Auberjoinis, Keith Carradine, William DeVane

This film is basically a response to the other Westerns of its time. It’s not really a great film on its own, because you have to see at least a couple other classic Westerns to really appreciate the way that this film turns those conventions on their head. It’s definitely a film worth watching a second time, if only for the fact that you’re not going to get everything anyone’s saying. It’s also a piece with a lot of symbolism that sort of pieces together in a thinky kind of way.

80. Goodfellas (1990), Martin Scorsese, written by Nicholas Pileggi, starring Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Lorraine Bracco

I'd probably characterize my reaction to this film as a classic that I agree is worthy of being a classic. Other people call this the most influential film of the 1990’s or whatever. I won´t say that´s untrue but I have no idea why, so if anyone wants to correct me about that in the comments. Didn´t Scorsese make other mob films? I just see it as a very good film within an already existin genre.

On a recent poll of best supporting actor winners of all time, I ranked Pesci #1 (& Waltz #2). To me the film is most notable for Pesci's performance and the very organic character change from Henry Hill, the relatively morally straight teenager who admired the local hoodlums, to a ruthless man and almost entirely unsympathetic character.

Fisher King review

The Fisher King (1991):
Dir. by Terry Gilliam, Starring Robin Williams, Amanda Plummer, Jeff Bridges, Mercedes Ruehl

The Fisher King is one of Terry Gilliam’s least bizarre adventures but it certainly is a wonderfully bizarre movie by the standards of the average movie. Jeff Bridges, in a role that seems fairly similar to his persona in The Big Lebowski, plays an emotionally devoid radio DJ who hits rock bottom when one of his callers goes on a killing spree. Three years later, he’s an unemployed bum who feeds off a live-in girlfriend (Ruehl in an a role that won her the supporting actress oscar) who runs a video store in Brooklyn. His life turns around when in a drunken stupor he falls into an alleyway where on the verge of getting beaten to death, a crazy homeless man named (Robin Williams) saves his life. The lives of the two become interconnected as Bridges’ character learns that Perry (Williams) was once a respected professor of medieval history whose downfall into the bottom rungs of society he is indirectly responsible for.
Gilliams’ films are usually bizarre visually, but this is one of the few Gilliam films that possesses that wonderful sense of imagination in its storyline (the other one would probably be Brazil). It’s thoroughly engaging and has a good amount of depth below the surface. It was also probably the most challenging role of Williams’ career to date and holds up as one of his best. It does not fit the typical Robin Williams’ mold of inspiring leader (i.e. Patch Adams, Dead Poets’ Society, What Dreams May Come), the funnyman (i.e. Flubber, Good Morning Vietnam) or his desperate attempts to go against type performances in 2002 (Insomnia and One-Hour Photo). His role in Fisher King combines perverted elements of Robin Williams the funnyman, Robin Williams the romantic, and unique elements of Robin Williams’ range that have never been seen before or since.

Review: Man of the Year

I was aware of Man of the Year’s critical pans and unremarkable gross, but was prepared to give the film the benefit of the doubt because I know pictures can fall under the radar during the crowded release schedule of the Fall months.

What I found out was that the movie is surprisingly uninspired. Surprising is an understatement considering Barry Levinson’s gift for political satire (demonstrated in Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog) and Robin Williams’ obvious comic gifts. Robin Williams, in fact, is mysteriously underused. On the “Making Of” featurette that comes with the DVD, Barry Levinson talked about how sometimes he let Robin Williams improvise off the script, like it was some naughty secret of his. Um…are you really that much of a moron, Barry Levinson? Whenever you have Robin Williams in your film and want to use him for his comic abilities (basically, every movie he’s been in other than Insomnia or One Hour Photo), don’t cage him within a script. Let him ad-lib whatever he wants because he is the funnier than anything anyone else can write for him and his uncontained comic rants can instantly raise the bar on any mediocre movie like RV or Patch Adams. What I found even more baffling in his failure to make use of Robin Williams was that back in 1987, Levinson used this exact formula to perfection in Good Morning Vietnam, injecting Robin Williams’ bursts of comic zaniness into a war picture to make a resounding political piece.

So the film isn’t as much of a laugh-fest as it could be and feels awkwardly lost in its tone. If the film had potential to work as anything, it might have made one of those thrillers from the mid-‘90s in the style of The Pelican Brief, The Fugitive, or one of those Jack Ryan films. Its plot centered around an employee at a Silicon Valley company uncovering a glitch in a system that reveals that the country elected the wrong president and the efforts of the CEOs to eliminate her before the secret gets out, so if you replaced Robin Williams with some Harrison-Ford-type actor, or perhaps even Harrison Ford himself, added a couple more explosions, I could have seen it working that way.