1 Comment | Add
Rate & Share:
Related Links:
Info:
Terry Gilliam Talks Heath Ledger
Mania Q&A: Terry Gilliam By
Rob Vaux
December 24, 2009
The late Heath Ledger in Terry Gilliam's THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS(2009).
© Sony Picture Classics
Terry Gilliam attained immortality at a very early age with his participation in the legendary Monty Python comedy troupe. His strange, surreal animation sequences segued easily into filmmaking, resulting in one of the most storied--and torturous--careers in Hollywood history. His battles with studio establishment, budgetary limitations and even Mother Nature are almost as fascinating as the unique visions he puts onscreen. His latest effort, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus contains the same commitment to originality and individuality that all of his films evince. He spoke about the project recently to the press, as well as the way technology is changing films and the final performance of his deeply missed leading man.
Question: You've commented before on how modern technology tends to separate us from each other. Is that part of it with this film?
Terry Gilliam: It's always a part of it. On the one hand, we're networking like mad, so we're connected, and on the other hand we seem to be so separated. It's a very strange time we're living through. I just want people to get back and start touching each other, and talking directly. That goes back to 12 Monkeys, with Bruce [Willis] in his human condom suit. I don't know what's going on. We're frightened of each other, we're careful of what we say. We can't use words that are the right words because somebody might take offense. We're frightened, protected people. I think it's horrible. I just want to get back down in the muck all together, and start wrestling in the mud.
Q: What does that do for you as an artist, to know that your audience has a shield up in a way? How does that change what you do?
TG: Well, it doesn't. I just do what I do, and hope somebody likes it somewhere. I'm basically very reactive, so whatever's bugging me about the world I try to deal with in the films I'm doing. I suppose each film is an attempt to invent a world and see if I've got it right. Then I finished the film and realize, "Nope, I got it wrong. Let's do another one." I try to invent a world that makes sense to me.
Q: One of your trademarks in presenting those worlds is your use of wide-angle lensing. What is it about wide angle that lends itself to your films?
TG: I don't know. Every time I look into the camera, I feel like I'm not quite in there yet. Wide angle lenses fill up your peripheral vision. I like that, and I like people being in environments. Somehow, when you're using long lenses, you're separating all of that. It's a more efficient way to shoot, with long lenses. It's much easier. It shows exactly what you want to show to the audience. But I kind of like leaving space for them to decide what they want to see in the picture, and… I don't know, I've never gotten around it. I keep swearing I'm going to start using longer lenses, and every time I start shooting, it doesn't look right, so back to wide angles!
Q: You joked during the premiere that you made this film for iPods. Does that bother you at all, the notion that people might look at it on such a tiny screen?
TG: It's terrible! My memory of the cinema is that you go in there, and there's a vast world, and you want to just dive into that world. That's what I felt the cinema was always about. And now we're down to these little things. You may have an image, but scale is everything. On these [gestures to the table full of recording iPods], you can do comedy very nicely, because it's just two people telling jokes. But I want to create environments and worlds. Why do you want to watch Star Wars on that?
Q: What about 3-D?
TG: I don't see any need for it. I watched Up the other day in 3-D, and I thought they did a lovely job. It was beautiful. But it's a lot easier to do with CG animation. Many people are out there with live action, there's a bulky camera, everything becomes more difficult, you have to light it differently, it slows everything down… and therefore it costs more money. I would rather spend less money and have the freedom to do what I want. Every time the ticker starts rising in cost, it means more people saying, "don't do this."
Q: Does that apply to films other than your own?
TG: I think… I mean, it tried to save the industry back in the 50s. Did it? Is it going to save the industry now? I don't know. I don't mind 3-D. I thought Up used it very well, though it wasn't quite 3-D; it was 2.75-D I think. And there's something quite magical about that. We're waiting for Avatar. I've seen great chunks of Avatar in 3-D. [Note: this interview was conducted several weeks before the release of Avatar.] But I don't know that the experience is any better. Perhaps with Avatar, you have to make the same film we've seen before, only in 3-D and more glorious. It's very beautiful, but is it a new experience?
Q: Have advances in technology allowed you to create your visions more cost efficiently?
TG: CG's very useful. It does a lot of things. We used everything. I've got models in there, I've got CG, I've got real stuff. It's a mixture and I'll always work that way. But we were trying to create environments that were more painterly, I suppose. CG was perfect for that. It's also easier to just build a world. Once you build it, you're free. You can go to town. So it's very useful in that sense. I think the thing that I love most about it is that I can sit there on blue screen and wiggle the camera all over the place, and the computer can track it later once we've built our 3-D environment, and fill up the backgrounds very efficiently. So that's good stuff.
Q: Regarding Heath Ledger's performance, what are you glad you caught on film, and what are you sorry you missed?
TG: The sorry part is easy; we'll never see what he was going to do behind the mirror, and I know he had a lot of tricks up his sleeve. He was building that character, and it was a very chameleonic character. He shifts accents from Australian to cockney to proper English. He was just this fluid creature who could be anything on the other side. We'll never get to see that. That's the thing that I miss the most about the film, but not what I missed most about Heath. He was just… as a human being, he was extraordinary. He had this seemingly ancient wisdom. None of us who were close to him ever understood how he was so old and wise for a guy in his twenties. He was becoming more playful and he was growing more confident and he was taking more chances. He was just growing. I hate the loss of greatness and the loss of potential, and that's what happened with Heath. He would have been unbelievably phenomenal, because he was fearless. To be fearless and playful at the same time was quite wonderful. I had never worked with anyone like that at all. I just thought, "this kid's going to go forever; he'll never stop." And then he fools us and he stops.
LOGIN
REGISTER
RSS
HOME
As a filmmamker who creates such tactile work, Gilliam's comments about CG are great. So many people rally against CG effects in general as a reaction against when they are over-used or used poorly, not realizing what a powerful tool it is in the right hands.