12 monkeys and artistic crimes
MAN...an ancient race
one of the most brilliant political satires ever--1984--and reduce it
to a series of gaudy and lamebrained circus acts with brazil.
But did he also have to trash one of the supreme works of cinema--la
jetee? gilliam is not a filmmaker; he's a plastic surgeon and his art
is as lousy as the plastic surgery performed in brazil. he takes ideas
and stretches them hither and thither but all to no avail.
by the way, gilliam looks like a monkey and if he wants to ape other
people's works, i suggest he stick to three stooges.
as it stands, 12 monkeys is not just a failed remake. it's an act of
desecration.
--
http://thenewrepublic.com/ & http://www.newcriterion.com/
http://www.observer.com/arts.htm
http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bjorn Olson
MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> terry gilliam is a louse. It was bad enough for this clown to take
> one of the most brilliant political satires ever--1984--and reduce it
> to a series of gaudy and lamebrained circus acts with brazil.
>
> But did he also have to trash one of the supreme works of cinema--la
> jetee? gilliam is not a filmmaker; he's a plastic surgeon and his art
> is as lousy as the plastic surgery performed in brazil. he takes
> ideas
> and stretches them hither and thither but all to no avail.
>
> by the way, gilliam looks like a monkey and if he wants to ape other
> people's works, i suggest he stick to three stooges.
>
> as it stands, 12 monkeys is not just a failed remake. it's an act of
> desecration.
>
Tony, r.a.m.c-f ca. January 1996 called. They want your thread back.
Alright, actual content, so no one mistakes me for Derek Janssen:
I've not seen LA JETEE, but I think you're unfairly dissing Mr. Gilliam
here. Perhaps 12 MONKEYS is a rip-off, I don't know, but what about
the facinating way Gilliam plays with time and perception. Besides,
what about the wonderfully complex narrative. From what I understand,
LA JETTE is mostly non-narrative.
I think Gilliam is probably one of the most inventive visual stylists
working today. You may not think much of him, but he makes me giddy.
--
Bjorn "Fear and Loathing in r.a.m.c-f" Olson
bemy...@freeze.com
It's the Uptown!
http://www.theuptown.com/
"Buddy of mine took a Chinese Fighting Muffin in the chest."
Tom Foster
while he was at a restaurant? Boo Hoo.
MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8va6os$fab$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Elrond Hubbard
MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> terry gilliam is a louse. It was bad enough for this clown to take
>> one of the most brilliant political satires ever--1984--and reduce it
>> to a series of gaudy and lamebrained circus acts with brazil.
Terry Gilliam is a genius -- an undisciplined genius, to be sure, but
I'll take any one of his works of anarchic brilliance over a dozen
high-minded duds by "serious" directors. His attitude, especially in
_Brazil_, might best be described as "ha ha, only serious". The film
takes the absurdity of everyday life and the frustration of dealing
with the powers-that-be, then jacks them both up a couple of notches
to the realm of the surreal. What's wrong with that? The film is not
about totalitarianism, it's not about _1984_ (although it clearly owes
a lot of its imagery to Orwell): it's about the ordinary world that we
live in. _Brazil_ has a very clear message: "There's nothing wrong
with being a little guy if you're happy that way. Take up arms against
a sea of troubles if you want to; just make sure you know what the
hell you're doing, because the machine will just crush you and move
on." Sam Lowry had a chance at happiness, but he blew it because of
his romantic illusions.
>> But did he also have to trash one of the supreme works of cinema--la
>> jetee?
I have not seen _La Jetee_; I only know it by reputation, so I can't
comment.
>> as it stands, 12 monkeys is not just a failed remake. it's an act of
>> desecration.
It's hardly an "act of desecration" to use one work of art as the
inspiration for another one. What, do you think Gilliam went through
the negative of _La Jetee_ and drew mustaches on all the faces?
>> by the way, gilliam looks like a monkey
Classy. This ad hominem comment suggests your argument is not worth
refuting. I only bother with it because Gilliam is worth defending,
even from the likes of you.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:51:47 GMT, Bjorn Olson <bemy...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>I've not seen LA JETEE, but I think you're unfairly dissing Mr. Gilliam
>here. Perhaps 12 MONKEYS is a rip-off, I don't know, but what about
>the facinating way Gilliam plays with time and perception. Besides,
>what about the wonderfully complex narrative. From what I understand,
>LA JETTE is mostly non-narrative.
As I understand it, that's correct. Again, I've never seen _La Jetee_,
but it has been explained to me as a film about a state of mind which
either does not understand or has no use for linear time. Taking place
after a holocaust which has destroyed human society, the events in _La
Jetee_ do not fall into any linear order because they are not
perceived that way by the participants.
>I think Gilliam is probably one of the most inventive visual stylists
>working today. You may not think much of him, but he makes me giddy.
Me too. Long may he run.
Elrond Hubbard
elrondh [at] yahoo [dot] com
Jeremiah Lee McVay
Bjorn Olson wrote:
> I've not seen LA JETEE, but I think you're unfairly dissing Mr. Gilliam
> here. Perhaps 12 MONKEYS is a rip-off, I don't know, but what about
> the facinating way Gilliam plays with time and perception. Besides,
> what about the wonderfully complex narrative. From what I understand,
> LA JETTE is mostly non-narrative.
> I think Gilliam is probably one of the most inventive visual stylists
> working today. You may not think much of him, but he makes me giddy.
>
Actually, LA JETTE is very much a narrative. True, it is non-traditional,
but it is a narrative, pure and simple. (mostly) still images with a
voice-over, but the images tell a coherent story... it's not just random
images with a story toild over them.
You should try to find a copy. It's really a very good and interesting film.
~JLM
John Harkness
payday for him, let him finish The Last Bolshevik or whatever he was
working on at the time.
Anyway, you should see it -- it is on VHS, and if you can't find a
renter, you can get it at Amazon for about $20. Well worth it.
John Harkness
In article <8vaon3$sk4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Bjorn Olson <bemy...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8va6os$fab$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > terry gilliam is a louse. It was bad enough for this clown to take
> > one of the most brilliant political satires ever--1984--and reduce
it
> > to a series of gaudy and lamebrained circus acts with brazil.
> >
> > But did he also have to trash one of the supreme works of cinema--la
> > jetee? gilliam is not a filmmaker; he's a plastic surgeon and his
art
> > is as lousy as the plastic surgery performed in brazil. he takes
> > ideas
> > and stretches them hither and thither but all to no avail.
> >
> > by the way, gilliam looks like a monkey and if he wants to ape other
> > people's works, i suggest he stick to three stooges.
> >
> > as it stands, 12 monkeys is not just a failed remake. it's an act of
> > desecration.
> >
>
> Tony, r.a.m.c-f ca. January 1996 called. They want your thread back.
> Alright, actual content, so no one mistakes me for Derek Janssen:
> I've not seen LA JETEE, but I think you're unfairly dissing Mr.
Gilliam
> here. Perhaps 12 MONKEYS is a rip-off, I don't know, but what about
> the facinating way Gilliam plays with time and perception. Besides,
> what about the wonderfully complex narrative. From what I understand,
> LA JETTE is mostly non-narrative.
> I think Gilliam is probably one of the most inventive visual stylists
> working today. You may not think much of him, but he makes me giddy.
>
> --
> Bjorn "Fear and Loathing in r.a.m.c-f" Olson
> bemy...@freeze.com
> It's the Uptown!
> http://www.theuptown.com/
> "Buddy of mine took a Chinese Fighting Muffin in the chest."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Visit my movie review archive at
http://www.angelfire.com/on/Alberich/index.html
MAN...an ancient race
Bjorn Olson <bemy...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>You may not think much of him, but he makes me giddy.
Exactly why I don't like him. I hate feeling giddy.
And especially not when one of my most beloved films is shamelessly
trashed.
flagg...@my-deja.com
thought-provoking than the likes of The Matrix (which, by the way,
ripped off countless comics and movies without giving any credit).
--
http://www.geocities.com/flaggaz/
MAN...an ancient race
Elrond Hubbard <elrondhO...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <8va6os$fab$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
take
> >> one of the most brilliant political satires ever--1984--and reduce
it
> >> to a series of gaudy and lamebrained circus acts with brazil.
>
> I'll take any one of his works of anarchic brilliance over a dozen
> high-minded duds by "serious" directors.
So you want a genius to act the clown?
This isn't always detrimental to artistry when you consider the great
bugs bunny cartoons but then those cartoons, for all their brilliance
and outrage, never pretended to be anything more than cartoons.
> His attitude, especially in
> _Brazil_, might best be described as "ha ha, only serious". The film
> takes the absurdity of everyday life and the frustration of dealing
> with the powers-that-be, then jacks them both up a couple of notches
> to the realm of the surreal.
Well yes, I have my gripes whenever I have to deal with City Hall
morons, too. But brazil was inspired by 1984 where the theme is not
centered around everyday hassles and inconveniences but revolves
around the vision of the worst kind of oppression with which mankind
can imprison itself for all eternity.
When you work with a theme as grand and important as that, I except
something weightier than visual fireworks--mostly derivative--and a
narrative that changes mindlessly to compensate for the utter lack of
depth or coherence.
Which is why the fabulous Jacques Tati limited his skills--which were
elegant, light, and fanciful--to satirizing bourgeois french society.
Gilliam's reach in Brazil was far more ambitious but all he had to
offer us were cartoon imagery.
Besides if this guy is so original and such a genius, why is he
remaking other people's movies? Baron Munchassen? 12 monkeys? Both
are remakes.
And brazil is a remake of a dozen films from silent era to present.
Plagiarism upon plagiarism.
> What's wrong with that? The film is not
> about totalitarianism, it's not about _1984_ (although it clearly owes
> a lot of its imagery to Orwell): it's about the ordinary world that we
> live in.
It's not an ordinary society. It's really a rip off of Brave New World
and 1984. In 1984, people were oppressed through intrusive state power
that seeped into every crevice in every dingy apartment. Brave New
World envisioned a society where people were kept happy and unthinking
by bread and circuses. Brazil offers us both but hasn't the chilling
brilliance of 1984 nor the humorous insightfulness of brave new world.
Brazil is just a jumbled mess which degrades important ideas while
elevating stupid ones to the sanctimony of 'genius'.
>_Brazil_ has a very clear message: "There's nothing wrong
> with being a little guy if you're happy that way. Take up arms against
> a sea of troubles if you want to; just make sure you know what the
> hell you're doing, because the machine will just crush you and move
> on." Sam Lowry had a chance at happiness, but he blew it because of
> his romantic illusions.
What? This is contradictory.
>
> >> But did he also have to trash one of the supreme works of cinema--
la
> >> jetee?
>
> I have not seen _La Jetee_; I only know it by reputation, so I can't
> comment.
>
> >> as it stands, 12 monkeys is not just a failed remake. it's an act
of
> >> desecration.
>
> It's hardly an "act of desecration" to use one work of art as the
> inspiration for another one. What, do you think Gilliam went through
> the negative of _La Jetee_ and drew mustaches on all the faces?
Worse. He sat over it and took a dump. Remakes happen quite
frequently. When we are talking about remakes of charlie's angels or
even something like thomas crown affair, there's nothing much to fear
since the originals weren't much to begin with. But if you're gonna
remake something that had been done to perfection or greatness, you
better have a good reason.
Gilliam isn't untalented but his talent is as a debunker. His best
work was with Monty Python with all those utterly nonsensical but fun
animation which pulled the rug under any sense of propriety and decency
held dear by British society.
But when Gilliam earnestly tries to pay homage to artists so much
greater than hisself, he suppresses his best instincts and we get
pudding like brazil and twelve monkeys.
>
> >> by the way, gilliam looks like a monkey
>
> Classy. This ad hominem comment suggests your argument is not worth
> refuting. I only bother with it because Gilliam is worth defending,
> even from the likes of you.
He'd probably take it as a compliment. He's one goofy guy. I wish he
understood his limitations and gave us funny movies instead of big
pompous ones. Like Woody Allen reached his rock bottom with his
bergman imitations.
>
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:51:47 GMT, Bjorn Olson <bemy...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've not seen LA JETEE, but I think you're unfairly dissing Mr.
Gilliam
> >here. Perhaps 12 MONKEYS is a rip-off, I don't know, but what about
> >the facinating way Gilliam plays with time and perception. Besides,
> >what about the wonderfully complex narrative. From what I
understand,
> >LA JETTE is mostly non-narrative.
>
> >I think Gilliam is probably one of the most inventive visual stylists
> >working today. You may not think much of him, but he makes me giddy.
>
> Me too. Long may he run.
>
> Elrond Hubbard
Oh no, it's one of these kooks!
I suppose you think BAttlefield earth is a great one too.
MAN...an ancient race
John Harkness <john_h...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It's not a ripoff when Marker is credited -- I'm sure it was a nice
> payday for him, let him finish The Last Bolshevik or whatever he was
> working on at the time.
>
What a coincidence. Marker sells his work to capitalism and makes a
movie called the last bolshevik. No wonder.
MAN...an ancient race
"Tom Foster" <tfo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What's the matter? He didn't give you his autograph when you bugged
him
> while he was at a restaurant? Boo Hoo.
Me ask for autographs? Hey!! I'm not that kind of demeaning beggary.
>
> MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8va6os$fab$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
James Walters
MAN...an ancient race
La Jetee isn't just a movie. It's a work of art!!!
and hostility is my middle name.
MAN...an ancient race
flagg...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Twelve Monkeys is a great film. I found it far more emotional and
> thought-provoking than the likes of The Matrix (which, by the way,
> ripped off countless comics and movies without giving any credit).
>
matrix stinks even more.
indedamon 2000
flagg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Twelve Monkeys is a great film. I found it far more emotional and
> thought-provoking than the likes of The Matrix (which, by the way,
> ripped off countless comics and movies without giving any credit).
>
i'm sure if you tried hard enough, you can count them.
i have faith in you.
as for 12 monkeys,
shame on all of you for taking gaza seriously.
--
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last." Bill Maher
Dan DunLany
> It's not an ordinary society. It's really a rip off of Brave New World
> and 1984.
And, according to that line of reasoning, 1984 and Brave New World are
really nothing but "ripoffs" of Zamyatin's "We" - a finely wrought dystopic
vision of which both 1984 and and BNW could be said to be "derivative" of.
This person seems to be making a vast stretch by saying the Brazil is "based
on" 1984 - ridiculous as a matter of fact. Might as well say that "Buck
Roger's in the 25th. Century" was "based on" "Star Wars".
Actually, IMO, if you want to get that absurdly hung up on dissing the
"derivative", in this case being used as a catchall for everything from
subtle intertextuality to wholesale plagiarism, then I believe that all
stories/movies/etc. would fit in
and could be slammed for exactly the same thing.
Brazil, is a fantastic movie with some common themes to 1984.
Claims of it being a lesser movie, because it's derivative are mere opinion
and
(rather tenuous) conjecture. Nothing more.
MAN...an ancient race
Dan DunLany <d...@neoucom.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > It's not an ordinary society. It's really a rip off of Brave New
World
> > and 1984.
>
> really nothing but "ripoffs" of Zamyatin's "We" - a finely wrought
dystopic
> vision of which both 1984 and and BNW could be said to
be "derivative" of.
What is 'we'? Anyway, Brave New World and 1984 are substantial works
in their own rite. But let's say I had seen Brazil with no prior
knowledge of Huxley or Orwell. It's still a jumble of confused thought
and visual trivia.
It's not a bad idea to adapt 1984 or brave new world to the screen or
to base films on either but brazil is simply a series of clever
nonsense strung together.
>
> This person seems to be making a vast stretch by saying the Brazil
is "based
> on" 1984 - ridiculous as a matter of fact. Might as well say
that "Buck
> Roger's in the 25th. Century" was "based on" "Star Wars".
Brazil was inspired by 1984, a book Gilliam admitted never having read
but only heard about. What does that say about Gilliam? He skims off
the surface features of someone's idea and tags onto them all the
cartoonish trivia his monkey brain can muster.
By the way, Star Wars is a nonissue because both Buck Rog and Star Wars
are honest kiddie movies. Brazil on the other hand tackles serious
ideas and turns them into multi-colored cotton candy.
>
> Actually, IMO, if you want to get that absurdly hung up on dissing the
> "derivative", in this case being used as a catchall for everything
from
> subtle intertextuality to wholesale plagiarism, then I believe that
all
> stories/movies/etc. would fit in
> and could be slammed for exactly the same thing.
'subtle intertextuality'? Well, professor, I simply think Brazil
stinks. It doesn't add anything to orwell or huxley's vision. And i
think most sensible people would be upset if an important novel they
prize very highly had been turned into barbarella.
>
> Brazil, is a fantastic movie with some common themes to 1984.
It's a fantasy movie that lacks emotional power because nothing is
grounded in a sense of reality. The hero in 1984 also lives in a
small fantasy world he thinks he can call his own. This fantasy, this
vision of escape, carries emotional weight because it's so much at odds
with the grim presence of the state. But in Brazil, since the whole
movie is so fantastic and ludicrous, the hero's escape into his own
world of imagination becomes as insipid and stupid as the real world
around him.
>
> Claims of it being a lesser movie, because it's derivative are mere
opinion
> and
> (rather tenuous) conjecture. Nothing more.
>
>
I say when one takes ideas from 1984 and combines them with ideas from
such things as 'you only live twice', you ought to be doing comic books
or telling dumb jokes in the corner. Why anyone would be impressed by
such gimmickry and cleverness baffles the crap out of me. Maybe most
Gilliam fans are superficial twits.
And I still say Twelve MOnkeys is a DESECRATION of a great work. And
don't tell me Gilliam can justify himself thru declaration of
ingnorance of the original work in this case. He didn't read 1984 but
he did see le jetee.
Iain Fisher
> > really nothing but "ripoffs" of Zamyatin's "We" - a finely wrought
> dystopic
> > vision of which both 1984 and and BNW could be said to
> be "derivative" of.
>
> What is 'we'? Anyway, Brave New World and 1984 are substantial works
> in their own rite. But let's say I had seen Brazil with no prior
> knowledge of Huxley or Orwell. It's still a jumble of confused thought
> and visual trivia.
"We" is a superb novel by the Russian Zamyatin.
Both Huxley and Orwell acknowledged its influence on Brave New World and
1984. Its available from Penguin, well worth reading. I think Zamyatin
died in the Soviet purges.
As far as I know it has never been filmed, I reckon Terry G could do a good
job.
Iain
Savage Messiah: a Ken Russell site
www.iainfisher.com/russell.html
impr...@my-deja.com
"Man...an ancient hostility race"
In article <8vchvu$csp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <3A19C3B5...@home.com>,
> James Walters <jimmyw...@home.com> wrote:
> > Such hostility -- towards a movie of all things...
>
> La Jetee isn't just a movie. It's a work of art!!!
>
> and hostility is my middle name.
--
-Imp
Theatre is life,
Film is art,
Television is furniture.
Please check out www.improvius.com
DJoz.
>
> La Jetee isn't just a movie. It's a work of art!!!
It is indeed...saw it last year in my film class, VERY impressive...but I
don't even bother comparing it to 12 Monkeys...I like Gilliam, but Monkeys
is basically just "inspired" by La Jetee...yes, the storylines are almost
identical, but the styles, characters, and visuals are so remote from each
other that they aren't even really comparable...
-Oz
Peter Oberg
"Iain Fisher" wrote...
> > And, according to that line of reasoning, 1984 and Brave New World are
> > > really nothing but "ripoffs" of Zamyatin's "We" - a finely wrought
> > dystopic
> > > vision of which both 1984 and and BNW could be said to
> > be "derivative" of.
> >
> > What is 'we'? Anyway, Brave New World and 1984 are substantial works
> > in their own rite. But let's say I had seen Brazil with no prior
> > knowledge of Huxley or Orwell. It's still a jumble of confused thought
> > and visual trivia.
>
> "We" is a superb novel by the Russian Zamyatin.
> Both Huxley and Orwell acknowledged its influence on Brave New World and
> 1984. Its available from Penguin, well worth reading. I think Zamyatin
> died in the Soviet purges.
No he moved (escaped) to France. Very good novel though.
> As far as I know it has never been filmed, I reckon Terry G could do a
good
> job.
>
> Iain
> Savage Messiah: a Ken Russell site
> www.iainfisher.com/russell.html
Peter Öberg / Panderator
----------------------------------------------------------
http://get.to/petero - the panderator homepage
http://www.mp3.com/panderator - panderator @ mp3.com
http://hem.passagen.se/tpe/hardfeed - hardfeed mailinglist
http://welcome.to/thedystopiate - your guide to dystopia
----------------------------------------------------------
MAN...an ancient race
No no!!
Anthony H. Gazzo. Humility, Heart of gold, Heroic, and Hostile to all
forms of stupidity.
>
> In article <8vchvu$csp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> MAN...an ancient race <antoniu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <3A19C3B5...@home.com>,
> > James Walters <jimmyw...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Such hostility -- towards a movie of all things...
> >
> > La Jetee isn't just a movie. It's a work of art!!!
> >
> > and hostility is my middle name.
>
> --
> -Imp
>
> Theatre is life,
> Film is art,
> Television is furniture.
>
> Please check out www.improvius.com
>
MAN...an ancient race
"DJoz." <DJWax...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Such hostility -- towards a movie of all things...
> >
> > La Jetee isn't just a movie. It's a work of art!!!
>
impressive...but I
> don't even bother comparing it to 12 Monkeys...I like Gilliam, but
Monkeys
> is basically just "inspired" by La Jetee...yes, the storylines are
almost
> identical, but the styles, characters, and visuals are so remote from
each
> other that they aren't even really comparable...
>
The difference in style and approach bothers me than the big difference
in quality. Twelve Monkeys is simply laughable. Fellini at his
laziest was more impressive.