It’s easy to blame “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus‘” fractured storytelling on the death of star Heath Ledger mid-shoot.
But director Terry Gilliam’s reputation for dodgy narratives began long before death struck the set of his latest movie.
In fact, the solution to replacing Ledger actually enhances “Imaginarium.”
The film still is a chore, a visually sumptuous enterprise that doesn’t stick to its own sense of purpose.
Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) runs a most unusual carnival show in modern England. It’s a traveling affair, with his beautiful daughter (Lily Cole), a little person (Verne Troyer) and a magic mirror which can transport people to fantastic realms.
Really. It’s not a parlor trick.
Neither is the date on the doctor’s birth certificate. He long ago made a deal with the devil (Tom Waits, perfect casting) for immortality. The cost? He must hand over his daughter’s soul to the devil when she reaches 16.
The deal is a smoky matter, one not thoroughly vetted by poorly illuminated character description. That matters since it’s one of many ways we’re not allowed to connect with Gilliam’s latest confection.
That’s especially true of Tony (Heath Ledger), a man the carnies find dangling from a hangman’s loop. They rescue him and he quickly becomes part of their troupe.
The devil decides to give Dr. Parnassus a final deal to save his daughter. If he can collect five souls before the devil can, his daughter will go free.
The rest of the story is as jumbled as a cat’s hairball, a rush of stimulating images and CGI vistas which distract from a potentially intriguing setup.
It all starts with the magic mirror, the portal to the doctor’s “Imaginarium.” And whenever Tony goes through the mirror he emerges as a different actor – first Johnny Depp, then Jude Law and finally Colin Farrell.
That gamble, which Ledger’s death necessitated, mostly pays off if only as a curiosity. But no trickery of any sort can make the movie palatable for those who feast on strong characters and an emotionally engaging tale.
“The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus” is probably catnip for those addicted to all things Gilliam, but others will long to step into the magic mirror and end up outside the theater.
(Photo: Jude Law helped complete the role started by the late Heath Ledger in “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus.” Sony Pictures Classics)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Fine review, Christian. As always.
Gilliam’s movies are certainly an acquired taste, and often a confused mess — that don’t necessarily become less confusing or less messy upon repeated viewings, but one tends to appreciate them more as art.
His obsession with capturing the mood of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries (roughly) with productions like this and “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen” has always seemed extremely odd to me. He never fails to create something visually stunning (no matter the technological restraints) and arrestingly creative. But there is virtually no cultural hook upon which audiences can hang their hats.
Are there even any more traveling carnival shows of this stripe in modern England? Does anyone attend them? An “imaginarium”? What the hell is that? And Dr. Parnassus? Can you even come up with a worse semi-pronounceable character name in a random word generator? I’m not saying Gilliam should have titled his film “Dr. Smith and the Magic Mirror,” but c’mon.
It’s as if Gilliam makes movies solely for himself and his hip, cool friends. And there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with that. But it’s hard for general audiences to get invested in movies with plots and character arcs “as jumbled as a cat’s hairball.” I sometimes stand in amazement that Gilliam gets any investors or studio backing for his movies.*
(* I now await the deluge of opprobrium for not properly appreciating Gilliam’s genius.)
Great points, all. I admire someone who follows his gut … but in order for him to do so he must accept working with a very tiny budget. That’s often not the case with his projects.
I think I’m just fed up with movies without stories, characters I can’t empathize with and special effects which ultimately prove hollow.
Yeah, the whole traveling circus is an anachronism, and that aspect of the film is intriguing. So is Dr. Parnassus, and your comments on his name are quite true.
At the movies, names mean everything – a great name can be the ultimate marketing trick (Zack and Miri Make a Porno) while a lousy name (“Extract”) begets a crappy b.o. return. The name of Gilliam’s latest is almost like a middle finger to the marketing folks …
I liked the film a lot more than you did, Christian, as is clear in my own Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. A few nits that might help you understand what’s going on too:
1. The deal that results in Parnassus having to give up Val resulted in him gaining his youthful appearance so he could woo and marry her mother. He gained immortality after the first bet with the Devil, the one where the winner got 12 disciples first.
2. Tony/Ledger survives the hanging because he swallows the metal whistle. That’s why it’s a pivotal element later in the film when he’s trying to trick Parnassus while in the world of the Imaginarium.
You close by saying that this isn’t a good film for those who “feast on strong characters and an emotionally engaging tale.” and I’ll agree. In fact, I suggest that nothing Gilliam has ever done was emotionally engaging. Still, I think he’s a brilliant filmmaker and creates far more visually fascinating works than just about anyone else in the industry.
Oh, oops, the review on my site can be found with this link:
http://www.daveonfilm.com/review-the-imaginarium-of-doctor-parnassus-9287.html
(if you’d like, feel free to add it to the previous comment and axe this one. Or not, either way.
Dave, I amended my review based on your comments … I found it all quite cloudy, frankly, but you gleaned a much more thorough understanding of the story than I did. I do think Gilliam is a love ‘em/hate ‘em type of talent. I wish I fell on the former side of the aisle.