Skip to main content

Does he have the squirrels in the attic?

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Well, at least he didn’t starve a horse to death this time. It took Terry Gilliam almost twenty years to remount The Man Who Killed Don Quixote following its initial disintegration, in which time original player Johnny Depp’s movie star career exploded then imploded, and original Quixote Jean Rochefort passed away (as a horse lover, Rochefort was understandably most upset about the equine; still, he gets an “in memory of”, along with intended replacement John Hurt). Gilliam managed to make four movies in between, none of which had anything approaching the kind of raves of his early efforts (several were outright slated) and his career seemed ever cooler and pet projects less attractive to financiers. Fortunately, Amazon finally came knocking. And then, less fortunately, they exited (while the budget fell to half that of the original, without factoring in inflation). The film still isn’t officially released in Britain, thanks to the rights tribulations surrounding the involvement of one-time producer Paul Branco, but where there would once have been excitement about whatever Terry had in store, there’s now a general sense that it simply isn’t worth the wait. Somewhere during those rewrites and shifting casts, Gilliam let his film escape him. Or maybe The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was never entirely there in the first place.

I’m a Gilliam apologist (although maybe not regarding the poor horse), and would count The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, in particular (with which this bears some similarities), as one of my all-time favourite films (if not theall-time favourite), but I’m hard pressed to find more than moderate pleasures in The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Like everything post The Brothers Grimm (in particular Tideland and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus) it’s prone to indulgence. Not in the glorious Gilliam sense of unfettered imagination, but rather in that it’s in desperate need of an editor who can set him straight (Lesley Walker, one of the two credited here, has been working with him as far back as The Fisher King, so perhaps indulges his worst instincts). The picture sprawls in ungainly fashion, eschewing clear narrative and character direction and as a consequence comes across as one long digression.

The reworked premise whereby protagonist Toby (Adam Driver) is now in advertising (rather than the original marketing executive), directing a commercial featuring Don Quixote in echo of a piece he made ten years earlier (“I made it a long time ago. It was my graduation film. It won awards”) is instructive in that it’s needless involved and unwieldy, giving rise to haphazard flashbacks that lack effective transitions or differentiations even before the film has properly started. There’s an intentionally autobiographical hue to this, which incorporates Toby having to face up to the ramifications of past decisions involving the student project; when he and Tony Grisoni revised the script, Gilliam outlined that “... the effect it had on many people wasn’t very nice. Some people go mad, some people turn to drink, some people become whores”. Unfortunately, this element never feels very serviceable; shoemaker Javier (Jonathan Pryce) was picked to pay Quixote but lost his mind, while in an unwisely Woody Allen-esque reflection of a director’s attraction to a (then) fifteen-year-old, Angelica (Joana Ribeiro) has left her small village and become a “whore” (model and escort).

Toby hooks up with Javier/Quixote, whose flights of fantasy recall and invoke both Brazil and The Fisher King in their melding of reality with subjectivity, taking in the inevitable tilting at windmills, and soon “Sancho” is beginning to show indications of the same bug (a village that retreats to the seventeenth century, a stash of gold coins revealed as washers; these are nice touches, but ultimately rather fruitless in a picture pitched at one exaggerated level – and when I say exaggerated, I mean in a scatty, disorganised way, rather than the controlled, aspirational lunacy of his early films). Simultaneously, he is trying to extract Angelica from her service to Jordi Molla’s oligarch Miiskin (whom Toby’s boss, Stellan Skarsgard is attempting to do a deal with).

The picture is, relatively, more focussed once Toby and Javier arrive at Miiskin’s castle, and Gilliam is at his most effective when foregrounding the collaboration between fantasy and reality, with the props and mechanics of Quixote’s performance in the court and the illusion of Angelica being burnt alive (again, this echoes Baron Munchausen’s stage show). The problem is, when you throw in self-conscious exchanges like “Try to keep up with the plot”: “There’s a plot?”, you’re inviting agreement rather than applause for modest wit. There’s a sense that Gilliam can’t really see that story any more, in any kind of linear fashion.

Worse, his characters fail to come alive, and you certainly don’t care for them. Driver is good, but he’s too bashed and buffeted by the Gilliam free-for-all to make anything significant from the Toby role. Quixote/Javier isn’t a character, merely a cypher, so there’s no opportunity to feel anything for him or about him, up to and including his titular death scene (compare and contrast with Baron Munchausen, larger than life but given to fits of melancholy and despair). Olga Kurylenko is clearly enjoying the opportunity to dig in to the temptress stereotype (as Skarsgard’s wife) but Ribeiro’s muse is entirely forgettable (despite “becoming” Panza at the end).

Ah yes. The end works on paper as a neat loop/passing on of the Quixote legacy, but fails to translate on screen. It simply has no impact. Comparisons to Gilliam’s other work are thus inevitable, but only negatives tend to come to mind. Don Quixote smacks of the unstructured, aimless fantasy of Tideland in tandem with Brazil’s retreat into a comforting world of make believe. That film called a harsh full stop on such ventures, of course, whereas Munchausen concluded in triumph; Don Quixote offers neither. Toby assuming the mantle here is more of a shrug, but then the entire film is something of a shrug.

This was Gilliam’s first film shot on digital, and it looks it for the most part. While Nicola Peroni has done good work with the director, I can’t help think that sticking to one cinematographer for too long can breed lethargy of vision. It’s undoubtedly happened to Spielberg, and while Peroni did great work on his first couple of collaborations with Gilliam, his last few have definitely been less remarkable. You also feel the lack of budget, that the limitation has both constrained its director and caused him to become more liberal with the elements he cancontrol, namely running time. But I’m doubtful, given all the money in the world, he’d have made Don Quixote more coherent. It has the same kind of ramshackle, intermittent energy as Parnassus (a film I really like) but endeavours to try the patience with it, in the wilfully distracted manner of Tideland.

One might hope this would be a palate cleanser for Gilliam, finally exorcising himself of the spectre that has haunted him for two decades. The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is intermittently effective (I love the irreverent “We don’t need these. We understand each other perfectly” as Toby sweeps the subtitles off the screen, and Toby in a passionate kiss with a goat), but it’s the work of someone trying to summon enthusiasm for material that’s long since burned out, and along the way has second-guessed himself and convinced himself to settle for second best in numerous areas. Sadly, it’s difficult not to conclude that the director’s best days are long behind him, and that at 78 (yeah, a decade younger than Clint, but how many good movies has hemade lately?), he may just keep on recycling old projects – a TV Defective Detective has been mooted – rather than become genuinely inspired and enthused by something again.






Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You are, by your own admission, a vagabond.

Doctor Who Season 10 - Worst to Best
Season 10 has the cachet of an anniversary year, one in which two of its stories actively trade on the past and another utilises significant elements. As such, it’s the first indication of the series’ capacity for slavishly indulging the two-edged sword that is nostalgia, rather than simply bringing back ratings winners (the Daleks). It also finds the show at its cosiest, a vibe that had set in during the previous season, which often seemed to be taking things a little too comfortably. Season 10 is rather more cohesive, even as it signals the end of an era (with Jo’s departure). As a collection of stories, you perhaps wouldn’t call it a classic year, but as a whole, an example of the Pertwee UNIT era operating at its most confident, it more than qualifies.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983)
(SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. That doesn’t mea…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ (or Zootopia as our American cousins refer to it; the European title change being nothing to do with U2, but down to a Danish zoo, it seems, which still doesn’t explain the German title, though) creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). It’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

So credit’s due to co-directors Byron Howard (Bolt, Tangled) and Rich Moore (of The Simpsons, Futurama, and latterly, the great until it kind of rests on its laurels Wreck-It-Ralph) and Jared Bush (presumably one of the th…

You can’t keep the whole world in the dark about what’s going on. Once they know that a five-mile hunk of rock is going to hit the world at 30,000 miles per hour, the people will want to know what the hell we intend to do about it.

Meteor (1979)
(SPOILERS) In which we find Sean Connery – or his agent, whom he got rid of subsequent to this and Cuba – showing how completely out of touch he was by the late 1970s. Hence hitching his cart to the moribund disaster movie genre just as movie entertainment was being rewritten and stolen from under him. He wasn’t alone, of course – pal Michael Caine would appear in both The Swarm and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure during this period – but Meteor’s lack of commercial appeal was only accentuated by how functional and charmless its star is in it. Some have cited Meteor as the worst movie of his career (Christopher Bray in his book on the actor), but its sin is not one of being outright terrible, rather of being terminally dull.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years.

Diamonds are Forever (1971)
In conception, Diamonds are Forever was a retreat to safer ground for the series following the “failure” of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In the end, it proved to be a significant break in tone and humour from what had gone before. More playfulness was evident in the heightened characterisations and settings, but simultaneously more boundaries were pushed in terms of sex and violence. Las Vegas lends the film a tarnished, glitterball quality that would quite accurately predict the excess and decadence of the coming decade. And presiding over the proceedings was a greying Bond, somewhat gone to seed and looking noticeably older than the near-decade it was since his first appearance. Somehow, the result is as sparkling and vital as the diamonds of the title, but it is understandably a curate’s egg. In many respects it bears more resemblance to the camp affectations, eccentricities and quirks of the television series The Avengers than the more straightforward…