Heath Ledger is dead

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:15 pm

yeahduff wrote:If we were as hot as Clark Gable, our shortcomings would be forgiven a lot more often.

No one loved Clark Gable more than Clark Gable, though.

Nanda · Post by **Nanda** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:17 pm

Noise Monkey wrote:
yeahduff wrote:If we were as hot as Clark Gable, our shortcomings would be forgiven a lot more often.
No one loved Clark Gable more than Clark Gable, though.

How could he not?

Jessi_B · Post by **Jessi_B** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:16 pm

I like your "lo-lo-lo-location". ...bad pun.

Nanda · Post by **Nanda** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:21 pm

Jessi_B wrote:I like your "lo-lo-lo-location". ...bad pun.

Thanks. (The character in my avatar image is named Lola.)

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:54 pm

Jim North wrote:
mcDuffies wrote:I liked "Brothers Grimm", personally.
ME TOO

theSuburbanLetdown wrote:The Brothers Grimm is alright, but it's not nearly as strong as Gilliam's other work. There were a lot of confusing transitions and the brothers' motivations seemed to change at odd times.
Admittedly I'm not extremely familiar with Gilliam's work (though I have seen a good bit . . . Monty Python of course, Twelve Monkeys, and decent sized sections of Time Bandits), but based on what I have seen I have to ask . . . how is that really that much different from his other work?

Haha I'm gonna break Jim's brain one of these days.
Well Time Bandits and 12 Monkeys aren't particularly representative of Gilliam, first one because it was his second film and I always consider it as a kind of warming up and forming his vision, plus it's probably most conventional of his films. The second one because it's very restrained and genre film (though still great) which is not usual for him, and as such it stands out of the rest of his films.
Brasil and Baron Munchousen are much more representative. Fear and Loathing was probably the most unrestrained and irrational until he made Tideland. Basically his films are all rather different, though they all bare a strong mark of his style, he worked in a number of genres and modes and that resulted in many very different films.

But I disagree with Sublet on account that I think that to Gilliam, script is never a primary thing. Visuals are always a carrier of the message. People often praise Brasil because of the theme, but when you lay the script bare, it's pretty much a traditional antiutopia story. Baron Munchousen script is simply too short for a decent movie, and Fear and Loathing script by it's nature actually wins the more illogical and incoherent it is. Gilliam pretty much shapes those scripts as to give him a chance to show the visual ideas he has, and what he communicates through these images, is what the film is about.
Incidentally my problem with the "Brothers Grimm" script was more that characters (as well as the plot) were too linear and conventional. Both brothers were given stereotypical roles and how these roles would change was very predictable because it always happens the same way in films.

Brothers Grimm was pretty much a project he was brought on after other directors quit, but his being Gilliam, I'm pretty sure that there were some major rewritings by him or writers he choose. Film bears a mark of Hollywood production more than his other films, and you can see from Tideland (which was filmed before Brothers Grimm but edited after) that his interests at the time weren't anywhere near Brothers Grimm theme.
Incidentally I liked Tideland. But I also like Lynch and Jeunet so one may say I have a penchant for bizzare.