"may be a testament to how decadent and perverted the American Way has become since the seventies,"
During which time Mr. Gilliam spent most of his time in England just as he does now.
"that it is thought artistic when a nine year old is preparing smack and helping someone shoot up, or place it in such overtly sexual and peadophilic situations."
The mere fact of showing any of those things isn't inherently artistic, it's what you do with them. Name me a movie that you think is artistic and I will break it down to the plot events and you tell me if the film is "artistic" or not based just on the events that happen in the film. For instance "The Graduate", I could easily say: well what's artistic about a young dude having sex with an older woman? Or I could say about "The Maltese Falcon", what's artistic about a guy looking for a stupid statue of a bird? Events in the movie aren't artistic, it's what the director does with the events.
"How can her folks let her be in a movie that she is not allowed to see until she is sixteen?"
Johnny Depp doesn't even watch his own films, lots of actors don't watch their own films. What, do you think that people act in movies so they can watch themselves on screen?
"Any parent who thinks about this for a moment would agree. Filmmakers shouldn't be allowed to drag someone of this age into this kind of horror, even if it is all fake and make believe, just for the satisfaction of their own egocentrical 'artistic' needs."
So now you've become some kind of film fascist, you're basically saying that no one should make a movie like this. You're saying this movie should not have been made. Who are you to decide? What, do you think they should have used a midget and dressed her up to look like a child? Because otherwise it would be impossible to tell this story. Besides which it is an extremely naive point of view, completely lacking in knowledge about film-making. This actress didn't see any of that stuff. You see the scene where she goes into Dell's taxidermy shack and watches Dell having sex with that guy? The little girl wouldn't have seen ANY of that, it's called a cut-away as far as I know. It's just editing making you think that she's actually there. Yes you see her preparing a shot of heroin, but as far as the actress knows it could be a Vitamin-B shot.
Even if that wasn't the case I think it's a silly argument. I've heard the same kind of argument with regards to Isabella Rossellini in "Blue Velvet" and various actresses in "A Clockwork Orange". In all these cases critics will say "oh, the director has embarassed the actress" when in reality it's the critic himself or herself who's embarassed.
And then on still another level I question your use of "egocentrical" and not just on the grammar front. Art is inherently non ego-centric. And if I take it right you're saying that even if you believed the movie was incredible it still wouldn't justify putting the actress in these situations you imagine her to be so traumatized by. Art is only "make believe" for kids, that's their shelter. For Gilliam this is far more important than "make believe". You make it sound very petty, as if the art itself wasn't worth much of anything but a little laugh and a little fun. I seriously wonder if you realize just how potentially powerful the cinematic art is, when you use words like "make believe" and "fake" with regards to a film story.
"I thought I was a big Gilliam fan but obviously I am mistaken. It really is about time he retired, along with the rest of his generation of filmmakers."
Yeah obviously you are mistaken, because most of the Gilliam fans I've talked to agree with me that this is his best film since "Fear and Loathing" and arguably since "Brazil." Let me guess, is your favorite Gilliam film "Twelve Monkeys"? It seems like you probably prefer films that aren't challenging.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
reply
share