Tom Waits? Faustus? Jephthah?

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus retells Faustus with a twist of Jephthah (Judges 11:29-40). The story is biblical, or epic, in proportion. The old magician (the father? God?) has made a deal with the devil (Tom Waits!) for eternal life. For this (which becomes a horror rather than a blessing) he must give his daughter, at the age of 16, over to the devil. Why he makes this selfish wager, that is what makes him the kind of person that will make such bonehead deal, is left unplumbed. We do find out that he believes (naively of course) that over time he will find a way to undo the deal and keep his daughter safe. To quote another great screenstar: "What a maroon!"

Well you can guess how it plays out. And you'd be right. It's an entertaining enough movie. Tom Waits is worth seeing, but the film is locked into its own devices. Having chosen the back story, Gilliam can't find a way to us in to care about it. Even as Parnassus offers similar deals to other souls, in an attempt to appease the devil, and we are presented with a listing of the ills of humanity, they are too societal. Certainly we have a problem with stuff, with ambition, with greed, etc, but why do I  have this problem? Why do you? And since the movie's not about me or you, well then it might as well plumb the characters it presents. But this film doesn't. Everyone does what the book says they should do, in flat and predictable ways. The film might have been interesting if we'd been give some sense of why Parnassus (other than blind love) wishes for eternal life when given the consequence of losing his daughter's soul? Why doesn't Valentina run off with Anton, even though she says she'd like to? Why does Tony use a charity as a front to launder gang money? Instead these are simply trotted out as back story, to explain a character's actions, rather than offering an opportunity to illuminate the character him/herself.

The answer to all this might be that when you have money to spend on effects, you will spend that money on them, rather than on writing, which means the plot (and it'll have to be a simple one) rules (even if you are Terry Gilliam). This is how you make a Hollywood movie. Plot, plot, plot. Celebrity, celebrity, celebrity (Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law). Effects, effects, effects. What usually makes a Terry Gilliam movie interesting is the way he uses effects to create a setting that makes the plot feel new. Then he engages memorable characters in real-life dilemmas, in these other-worldly settings. His great movies - 12 Monkeys, Brazil, The Fisher King - do this in most excellent ways. Since Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas however, Gilliam seems to have lost (or forgotten, or ignored) that a compelling character is necessary in any sort of narrative project. If people are supposed to care, and not simply be bamboozled a la Avatar they need to be anxious for the people they watch. As long as we fall in and out of love and getting beaten in a bike race, we will be compelled by the drama of watching someone in these sorts of common dilemmas. Even the Bond and Bourne series understand this.