At about 42 min in Terry talks about the ups and downs and some films being successes and others not. He says there are a number of factors and gives distribution as the main example. I think this is dead wrong. He is a very uneven filmmaker who getting overly enamored with the image and the fanciful (characters, sets, etc)... he never really grasped the systemic, narrative "architecture" that needs to be there for a a film to be a great film. It's why he could create certain sets and shoot cinematography as grandiose and awe inspiring as Welles or Kurosawa, but the whole film never being in the same category as a Welles or Kurosawa. Then what distinguishes great Gilliam films from poor/forgettable Gilliam films? It mainly boils down to how much the material, the script, is commensurate to Gilliam himself, his personality, strengths, weaknesses and obsessions, being a filmmaker-as-a-character. Which further explains his good run in the 90s, peaking at Fear and Loathing. He was the best fit for folding his visuals and kinetic energies on those specific stories that required outrageous visuals being storytelling devices in themselves, glued together by all those specific kinds of kinetic energies. That's my theory at least !
Haha everything you have said here goes against everything I believe film to be. It’s actually depressed me massively. Most people believe the tripe you have posted here. I know some people who cannot stand Gilliams Tideland. And yet for some, it’s their main artistic inspiration and even their favourite film. I chose that film specifically because of how polarising it is and how it goes against all the nonsense you have typed here. I don’t even like Gilliams films much but that’s personal taste. This whole idea of a film being perfect and this film being better than that film and top 10 lists, 5 stars makes me want to vomit. So many amazing films fall to the wayside because of this moronic opinion. So what about Nic Roeg? What about John Cassavetes? What about Robert Altman? What about Monte Hellman. I watch these directors films on loops. Yes, even the ones that got panned. It’s just like putting on your favourite piece of music. And it’s a visual experience. Your view of films is nonsense. It’s just a dumb attitude that is rampant like some disease. WHEN WILL IT END??? We do live in a world that views sport as important above most everything else so that explains it somewhat. Hopefully one day your point of view will die and go away and then films can properly enjoyed instead of being crowbarred into the smallest of boxes. What about silent cinema? So Fritz Lang’s Spies or Murnau’s Sunrise are not good enough for you? Film is a visual medium. I associate film with time. I also see film as close to poetry. I like films that play out like poems. But apparently, that’s not how films should be made in your eyes. What a moron you are. Not every film has to be liked. Not every film was made for you. It’s made for an audience always. If the audience embraces or rejects it is another story. Doesn’t mean the film is bad. The film will speak for itself. If it’s been made purely for profit or product or success and career then it will be found out eventually. Not in the same category of Welles or Kurosawa. What a pretentious worm you are.
When he dies, and I so hope it's quite a few more years hence, I will have to paint a giant bipedal middle finger riding a six legged horse in his honor. This man has always been my own personal anti-hero.
Terry Gilliam is good for the soul.
He’s so comfortable in his own skin even though he seems to want to jump out of it at times.
Thankyou for sharing this with everyone!
My favorite interview with Terry.
Fantastic
My Monty Python book is missing Terry's signature. I've got Mike and John's but I _seriously_ want the scribble of me fave writer/director.
Der Gilliam
At about 42 min in Terry talks about the ups and downs and some films being successes and others not. He says there are a number of factors and gives distribution as the main example.
I think this is dead wrong. He is a very uneven filmmaker who getting overly enamored with the image and the fanciful (characters, sets, etc)... he never really grasped the systemic, narrative "architecture" that needs to be there for a a film to be a great film. It's why he could create certain sets and shoot cinematography as grandiose and awe inspiring as Welles or Kurosawa, but the whole film never being in the same category as a Welles or Kurosawa.
Then what distinguishes great Gilliam films from poor/forgettable Gilliam films? It mainly boils down to how much the material, the script, is commensurate to Gilliam himself, his personality, strengths, weaknesses and obsessions, being a filmmaker-as-a-character. Which further explains his good run in the 90s, peaking at Fear and Loathing. He was the best fit for folding his visuals and kinetic energies on those specific stories that required outrageous visuals being storytelling devices in themselves, glued together by all those specific kinds of kinetic energies.
That's my theory at least !
I love your analyziz - do you have blog or channel?
Haha everything you have said here goes against everything I believe film to be. It’s actually depressed me massively. Most people believe the tripe you have posted here. I know some people who cannot stand Gilliams Tideland. And yet for some, it’s their main artistic inspiration and even their favourite film.
I chose that film specifically because of how polarising it is and how it goes against all the nonsense you have typed here.
I don’t even like Gilliams films much but that’s personal taste. This whole idea of a film being perfect and this film being better than that film and top 10 lists, 5 stars makes me want to vomit. So many amazing films fall to the wayside because of this moronic opinion.
So what about Nic Roeg? What about John Cassavetes? What about Robert Altman? What about Monte Hellman. I watch these directors films on loops. Yes, even the ones that got panned. It’s just like putting on your favourite piece of music. And it’s a visual experience.
Your view of films is nonsense. It’s just a dumb attitude that is rampant like some disease. WHEN WILL IT END??? We do live in a world that views sport as important above most everything else so that explains it somewhat.
Hopefully one day your point of view will die and go away and then films can properly enjoyed instead of being crowbarred into the smallest of boxes.
What about silent cinema? So Fritz Lang’s Spies or Murnau’s Sunrise are not good enough for you? Film is a visual medium. I associate film with time. I also see film as close to poetry. I like films that play out like poems. But apparently, that’s not how films should be made in your eyes. What a moron you are.
Not every film has to be liked. Not every film was made for you. It’s made for an audience always. If the audience embraces or rejects it is another story. Doesn’t mean the film is bad. The film will speak for itself. If it’s been made purely for profit or product or success and career then it will be found out eventually.
Not in the same category of Welles or Kurosawa. What a pretentious worm you are.
1:01:38 minutes of complaining.
When he dies, and I so hope it's quite a few more years hence, I will have to paint a giant bipedal middle finger riding a six legged horse in his honor. This man has always been my own personal anti-hero.
ghkghkghk