Terry Gilliam, a name synonymous with visually stunning and narratively complex cinema, often evokes a love-hate relationship among filmgoers. While his filmography boasts masterpieces like Brazil and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, it’s also peppered with projects marred by production woes and, at times, unclear vision. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, released in 2009, sits squarely in this Gilliam spectrum – a film as captivating as it is flawed. Revisiting this fantastical journey ten years later allows for a fresh perspective on its legacy and its place within Gilliam’s intriguing, if turbulent, career.
Dr. Parnassus Imaginarium Stage in London
Gilliam’s cinematic universe is a rich tapestry woven with threads of dystopian futures, as seen in the darkly comedic Brazil, and whimsical adventures, reminiscent of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. He masterfully blends the hilariously tragic, like in The Fisher King, with the unsettling darkness of 12 Monkeys. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas further cemented his reputation for visually arresting, albeit often disturbing, narratives. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus felt, upon its initial release, like a culmination of these diverse elements, echoing the visual grandeur of Baron Munchausen, the thematic depth of Brazil, and even a hint of the production challenges documented in Lost in La Mancha, the film chronicling Gilliam’s ill-fated attempts to bring Don Quixote to the screen. Back in 2009, the narrative surrounding Gilliam was often one of a brilliant but beleaguered artist, constantly battling studios and his own creative process to realize his vision. This perception undoubtedly shaped the initial reception of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, casting it in the light of a potentially compromised masterpiece.
The film’s production was, indeed, overshadowed by tragedy – the untimely death of Heath Ledger. Gilliam’s ingenious solution to this devastating loss was to reimagine Ledger’s character, Tony, as a shape-shifting trickster, capable of donning different personas within the dreamlike world of the Imaginarium. This narrative pivot ingeniously incorporated Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell into the role, each embodying a different facet of Tony’s complex personality. Given Tony’s morally ambiguous nature, reminiscent of a Loki-like figure, the shifting faces within the fantastical dreamscapes added a layer of narrative coherence. However, the question lingers: how much of the original script was altered? Was Tony’s arc initially intended to be a tale of downfall or redemption? These questions remain unanswered, lost to cinematic what-ifs. The theatrical release of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus presented a narrative that felt somewhat fractured, juggling the storylines of Dr. Parnassus, Tony, and Parnassus’s daughter, Valentina, without fully developing each thread.
The Imaginarium Mirror Portal
Looking back, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus stands as a poignant reminder of both Gilliam’s unique talent and the inherent risks of ambitious filmmaking. For some, including the original reviewer, the film marked a turning point, a moment where the initial enchantment with Gilliam’s work began to wane. The film, at the time, felt incomplete, lacking the vibrant energy and clear direction that characterized Gilliam’s earlier successes. It hovered in a nebulous space, failing to fully commit to being either heartwarming or truly heart-wrenching, resulting in a somewhat lukewarm and muddled final product.
However, revisiting the imaginarium of doctor after a decade prompts a re-evaluation. Does it hold up? Have those initial feelings shifted with time and perspective?
The film’s opening itself contributes to the initial sense of disorientation. We are introduced to a seemingly random scene of London’s homeless population before being abruptly transported to a dingy nightclub. A horse-drawn coach materializes, unfolding into a makeshift stage, and Anton (Andrew Garfield), costumed as Mercury, begins a theatrical performance in the vein of 19th-century street theatre. Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) emerges, embodying a stereotypical “Oriental guru” figure – a problematic trope that unfortunately recurs throughout the film. Drunken pub-goers stumble upon the performance, and a disruptive individual, attempting to impress his peers, inadvertently throws actors and then sexually assaults the lead actress. She escapes into a mirrored set piece, and he follows, only to find himself in a nightmarish realm, transformed and punished. The reviewer speculates whether this facial transformation was a later addition, intended to justify Tony’s subsequent shape-shifting, suggesting it feels somewhat disconnected from the overall narrative.
Later, Parnassus’s Imaginarium, a portal to fantastical realms, captures a troublesome child. This scene, intended to be high-stakes, falls somewhat flat. The child’s parents, depicted as stereotypical Cockneys, threaten Parnassus, while the child inside the Imaginarium nonchalantly plays with bubbles, seemingly oblivious to any danger. This is followed by the introduction of Mr. Nick (Tom Waits), a Dickensian debt collector and the devil incarnate, who looms over the weary Dr. Parnassus. A subsequent scene focuses on the burgeoning romance between Valentina, Parnassus’s daughter, and Anton. Valentina, on the cusp of turning sixteen (England’s age of consent), expresses a keen interest in exploring her sexuality and displays an unexpected fascination with domesticity, exemplified by her obsession with a home and garden magazine. The reviewer notes the emphasis on Valentina’s physical attributes and the somewhat uncomfortable portrayal of her burgeoning sexuality through a male gaze.
While acknowledging the validity of a young female character exploring her sexuality and desires, the reviewer critiques the execution in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, both in 2009 and in the context of the #MeToo movement. Valentina’s character feels underdeveloped, reduced to a stereotypical “horny teenager,” lacking the depth needed to resonate beyond a superficial level. The film, in its two-hour runtime, struggles to give adequate narrative space to Valentina, Parnassus, and Tony, resulting in a sense of character thinness. The reviewer also points out Gilliam’s perceived weakness in writing complex female characters, suggesting Valentina is a step, albeit a flawed one, in that direction. Valentina’s dialogue and characterization, even upon initial release, felt somewhat objectified and stereotypical. This aspect, the reviewer suggests, contributed to the film’s unfavorable initial impression.
The opening scenes, in retrospect, feel primarily expository, setting up plot points rather than engaging the audience emotionally. While establishing the characters’ precarious situations, they fail to build genuine tension. There’s a palpable sense of weariness pervading these early scenes, suggesting a potential lack of engagement from Gilliam himself by the time the film reached the editing stage.
Heath Ledger as Tony in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
The arrival of Tony (Heath Ledger) injects a much-needed jolt of energy into the film. The reviewer posits that Tony’s introduction was likely intended to occur earlier in the original script, allowing for a more gradual narrative development. Ledger’s performance is undeniably captivating, bringing a chaotic vibrancy to the film. Echoes of his iconic Joker portrayal are discernible in Tony, a similarly tormented and morally ambiguous character who serves as a foil to the selfless but world-weary Parnassus.
From Tony’s entrance onwards, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus gains momentum and becomes considerably more engaging. The mechanics of the Imaginarium’s world become clearer as Tony takes control, exploiting Parnassus’s gift for personal gain. The reviewer finds glimpses of the original script’s intentions emerging – the central conflict shifting from a simple souls-collecting contest between Parnassus and Mr. Nick to a more profound question of whether imagination can redeem a corrupted soul like Tony’s.
Despite initial negative impressions, revisiting the imaginarium of doctor reveals it to be less flawed than remembered. While certain elements, particularly the portrayal of Valentina and some dated cultural references, haven’t aged gracefully, the core narrative resonates more deeply with a mature perspective. The protagonist, an aging immortal who relinquished immortality for the complexities of human experience – the joys and sorrows, successes and failures – becomes more relatable with the passage of time.
However, the film’s structural issues remain. The first hour struggles to establish a clear central plot, and the second hour feels rushed in resolving multiple narrative threads. Is it a story about a fallen deity battling the devil? A coming-of-age tale centered on female sexual awakening? A redemption narrative of a trickster figure? The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus attempts to encompass all of these, resulting in a somewhat diffuse and unfocused narrative. In 2009, compressing these ideas into a two-hour film might have seemed viable. However, in 2019, within the “Golden Age of Television,” the reviewer suggests that The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus might have been better suited to a multi-season streaming series. This format would have allowed for a more expansive exploration of Parnassus’s imaginative worlds and the intricate lives of the supporting characters. Parnassus himself, in the first half of the film, is strangely sidelined in his own story. Perhaps this narrative choice, circling back to his deal with Mr. Nick after detouring through the Valentina-Tony-Anton drama, is intentional. Could it be a meta-commentary on the relevance of art, questioning Parnassus’s own relevance within his own creation? The film’s intentions remain ambiguous.
Similar to other Gilliam films, the extent to which the narrative and visual confusion is deliberate is debatable. The reviewer doubts the quality of the CGI was a conscious artistic choice, but the self-aware narrative shifts and character motivations prompt a reconsideration of Gilliam’s artistic intent. Is he a misunderstood genius, or did he simply stumble into completing a somewhat haphazard film? Perhaps, the reviewer muses, meaning is subjective, and audiences are meant to construct their own interpretations from a series of seemingly nonsensical, yet melodramatic scenes.
Ultimately, isn’t that the essence of the imaginarium of doctor Parnassus itself? To invite audiences to create their own meaning within fantastical narratives? Is that not what Mr. Nick is attempting to subvert, steering souls away from the power of imagination and towards simpler, more earthly desires? Re-watching The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus leaves the reviewer, and likely many viewers, in a state of perpetual ambivalence, forever caught between its captivating brilliance and frustrating flaws.
