I recently read through almost all of the book Gilliam on Gilliam, in-depth take on his life and career in films. The stuff about Baron Munchausen was pretty shocking, the amount of *beep* Gilliam had to put up with via his ridiculous producer and a stalwart Italian crew. When asked if he would want to put together a restored 'director's cut', which is sort of in two answers (the first question being what was missing from his final release version, the second being if he would ever make a restored cut for a Criterion DVD release), here's what he said:
1) It's not any one thing. It's a question of pacing; I think we ended up rushing some sections, so it becomes a bit of a jumble - like conducting an orchestra too fast. An extra five minutes would make a big difference. In my films there's always a danger of being swamped by the visuals, that's my albatross; and I think the longer version of Munchausen wasn't so frentic, so you had time to absorb the ideas. Our first cut ran three hours and I thought it was just perfect. it was so dreamlike, it floated; you could just wallow in those images or listen to the ideas. Now I find it whizzes past in a rush and Michael Kamen's music is probably too loud and too in your face. By the end there was so much energy pushing to get the film out that it actually hurt it.
2) I don't think I have the energy for it. I had a chance when we did the laserdisc, but it would be a hugely expensive process to dig out all the stuff and I would have to recut the film, so it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nobody's going to give me the money for that, since the film didn't make any money in the first place. What the editing down didn't do was solve the problem of getting the film released properly - which is what I was aiming for. I would have been happy with two hours twenty minutes - which would have been a better film - but we ended up with two hours.
so, some bleak words sad to say. Maybe some day someone will come forth and give Gilliam that kind of money, but till then, what we got is what we got. Personally, I would LOVE to see a three-hour cut of Munchausen, as it stands I give the final release version a 7/10, but for three hours, or even 140 minutes, who knows...
I prefer to be amazed by motivation, not manipulation.- Roger Ebert
reply
share
Blueghost
18 years ago
Wow.
I think the expense would definately be recouped in sales. I'd certainly buy a Criterion edition of a 3-hour Gilliam fantasy epic.
I'm extremely sorry to hear that he was forced to cut his intended theatrical release, and those comments (assuming they're his) do hit on some aspects of the film that I always thought were a bit klunky.
The pacing is off, it does seemed rush, and somewhat kludged together in certain parts. Even so I still like the film a great deal, but am now thirsty for the 3-hour version.
Wow, again. I really don't know what to say about that.
I was always under the impression that Gilliam had kind of gone wacko by wanting to spend money for the sake of it. I think he actually wrote that he wanted to make a movie that was prohibitively expensive... but maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.
Wow.
I too hope someone gives him the money to complete his work.
reply
share