The privileged and lucky few didn’t have to wait til Cannes. As mentioned earlier in the day in brief, Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus,” screened in L.A. last night to potential “major independent” buyers. EW has a little bit to add in their reactions (but their story basically serves to muscle in and prove them have ‘Parnassus’ contacts and cred too).
The audience was apparently left, “befuddled,” but apparently the consensus felt it was “better than expected,” i.e., expectations are low because Gilliam hasn’t had a home run in forever.
As mentioned, the picture came allegedly affixed with a seven figure price tag too and as THR said, the sellers were looking for a “studio-level deal with studio-level prices.”
But EW tries to refute that by saying “such an opaque story might limit its commercial prospects.” Blah, blah, blah. Why did we start this story again? Oh yeah, the reactions which are new, but minimal and can mean all kinds of things. However, no one should be surprised that anyone seeing a Terry Gilliam film — especially the fairly convoluted ‘Parnassus’ script.
Harry Knowles also recently saw the film, but well… you know it was going to be a win-win for the producers to show him that obviously.
It’s interesting to note today’s Hollywood Reporter piece that calls, ‘Parnassus’ the “hottest U.S. acquisition title at the upcoming Festival de Cannes,” was written by Steven Zeitchik, the same writer who wrote and suggested that excitement from U.S. buyers about the project had waned back in March (and that initial piece which begat a lot of “Is Parnassus Never Coming Out?” blog speculation elicited a pretty fierce response from the ‘Parnassus’ camp too who called it “erroneous” and “misleading”). Just goes to show, we guess…
“i.e., expectations are low because Gilliam hasn’t had a home run in forever.”
He has made two bad movies and like 10 great ones. This guy can afford to hit and miss.
Why is it that when something isn’t extremely retardedly simple, it’s branded as “difficult to understand”? Are journo’s just that fucking dumb?
Maybe I’m missing what you’re saying, Gabe, but Parnassus’s script is a pretty convoluted mess, especially in the first half which I almost gave up on. Another friend who reads scripts religiously did give up on it. While it does have some great parts, it’s now surprise to hear some were confused by it.
I dunno, I’m just sick of hearing movies being described by mainstream publications as confusing or difficult. It’s embarrassing.
I think its code for “I didnt like It”
Haha my Word Verification is “retav”, making blog comments is pretty Retavded i guess.
Gabe, be that as it may, that doesn’t mean Parnassus isn’t clunky on paper (which it is). Also, journos get it, the public doesn’t frankly, so when they’re calling it opaque, they might saying the majority of the moviegoing public isn’t going to get it.
And sure, the majority of the moviegoing public doesn’t get Gilliam films in general, so it might even mean that even for the average Gilliam fan this might fall squarely into the camp of “Brothers Grimm”-era Gilliam, i.e. faaaaaail.
Also, top anon, i think that ratio is completely off and don’t get me wrong I love Gilliam, but…
Actually, I read that, for the first time since Munchausen, Gilliam heavily storyboarded the film and then translated the storyboard in script… So it might explain why the script can’t render all the depth of a film which would be based on strong visuals that Gilliam didn’t bother to detail in the script ’cause he had the storyboard to show to his producers and crew.
I sort of by that…
Parnassus’ second half does get better script wise, so there is hope. There’s some genuinely really funny moments.