MovieChat Forums > The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2010) Discussion > My thoughts, for others who found the fi...

My thoughts, for others who found the film intriguing

posted 10 years ago by tph890
5 replies | jump to latest

Is "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" simply a tale about an old man who carries dreams around London in a trailer, or is it an extended allegory regarding the nature of humanity?
These are the kind of questions I found myself asking after viewing the film (for the third time) (not in a row). The first viewing left my mind dazzled, and a bit confused but still pleased by the experience. I knew there was something going on beneath the surface, but I was far too high (marijuana) at the time to make any of those types of inferences. I had really just wanted to witness a Gilliam/Ledger (Depp/Law/Farrell) collaboration, and like always, Gilliam takes us on a dreamy, visceral trip-fest of a ride, and Ledger is convincing, hilarious and intense (though at times he seems frail, and this brings a definite eeriness to the viewing of the film). All the other players are top-notch of course and the premise is intriguing and thought provoking and yada yada yada...
But what is this damn thing about? I mean, really?
No clue. Not after the first viewing. Obviously it couldn't be literal (could it?). And it doesn't feel like straight fantasy either, too surreal.
So, all throughout the second viewing, I'm searching, I'm looking at this thing, I'm combing through the scenes, I'm PAYING ATTENTION. And nothing really jumps out...not at first, at least, or in the moment. I was trying to put things together when I should have been PAYING ATTENTION. I was nit-picking. I was still bewildered. For a few hours. And then the thought occurred that maybe I was...suffering from tunnel-vision. That maybe the entire story was itself a symbol.
And that thought sat and marinated in the back of my mind until now, having just caught the flick on IFC and Now I Think I Know. Or at least, I have settled upon two possibilities.
One: This film is a transcription of an old man's life told through his own manic tongue, a man who has been ravaged by years of self-abuse (alcoholism in this case), has lost his family and career because of it, and is delusional by the time he tells his tale (thus, we have all this vivid, extraordinary imagery). Perhaps it is even an internal monologue of an old wino recounting his life (perhaps an idealized version of it) as he begs, bowed down on the pavement with his hands held out, shaking...pleading to his creator... And of course, his little buddy, some small flicker of inspiration (his one chance at redemption) comes around and cleans him up, gets him working again. But he is temped once more by that smart-lookin', mean 'ol devil (the bottle) and his little friend has to remind him to keep his head down and do his duty...but will he listen? Will he go on with his little stage and puppets...?
(which I think in itself is a bit of a statement on humanity, or or at least for people who tend to set traps for themselves)
Two: Old Man (Christopher Plummer, always magnificent and especially commanding here) and his tormentor (Tom Waits, nuff said) are two parts of the same entity, what humans think of as 'God'. Valentina, God's 'child', is mankind, so far innocent, beautiful and unsullied. The other members of the troupe represent various incarnations of earthly purpose or virtue; guardians, mentors, sibling, confidant, etc. (each member possess a few virtues), who all have influence on the development of 'mankind'. Then they stumble upon Tony, who is mayhem, and deceives them from the very start. He's a strife who worms his way into 'mankind's trust only to betray her in pursuit of his own purpose/goal. And this pestilence we call Tony is so insidious that even 'God's tortured soul is troubled by him. 'God', who keeps keeps fighting with himself over what to do with his child, must put that battle aside in order to rid himself of this treacherous 'Tony' once and for all (who has already, unknown to him, corrupted his child). He succeeds, but returns to his former battle to find his opponent uninterested and his child gone without a trace. Until he finds her later, dining with her 'brother' (virtue of brotherhood perhaps?) and having spawned another beautiful virtue (one that is not revealed to us, and it doesn't matter, just look at the good Doctor's face in that scene looking in through the window, that joy and tenderness in his eye, that's all we need to know about the benevolence of this particular virtue). And still, later, he must keep his head down and go on giving life to something otherwise lifeless but seeing it still only as cardboard cutouts. He must ignore his tormentor's challenges.
(I am starting to believe that this film is not a statement on humanity, but rather spirituality, or maybe the effect of one on the other) (or maybe it isn't about 'God' at all, maybe it's about your boss at work)
I admit, number two is a little incoherent and not fully formed as an idea...but hey, I'm only trying to share my thoughts. Maybe I need to watch the movie again. I'm leaning more towards number two right now but I could also accept number one.
I wonder if anyone else felt anything similar while trying to piece this film together. Or has anyone found a moral or main idea because it's still eluding me. Be kind to one another? Do your duty? Mankind is easily corruptible? Maybe even God has struggles? I don't know. Maybe it doesn't matter. Or maybe it's quite clear and I'm just missing it.

...

"Buy the ticket, take the ride." --Raoul Duke, the great shark hunter

[–] Gulbrand 10 years ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Obviously some spoilers in the following reply:

I also quite enjoyed this film. Just finished the first viewing myself, and I must say it is definitely not straightforward, which I guess is what makes it intriguing.

I think your first explanation has a lot going for it, and I think it is one of several ways of looking at the story.

As for the other explaation, I can see what you're gripping at, and I've thought similarly myself while watching the film, but as you say it is less clear cut.

I feel there is at least put a lot of significance on the choices of people, mostly between temptation/fear and toil/personal sacrifice. I feel like it should hold some significance that at the end Parnassus says "enough with the choices", but not quite clear how. He believes nothing happens by chance, which should mean that the whole film is ripe for overanalyzing, hehe.

As for the God/Man/Devil allegory, I kind of feel like if anything it is more about just Man and the Devil, with Parnassus being a prime example of a fallible man with hopes/dreams, but also vices. In many ways Tony is a clear allegory to Parnassus himself, achieving his dreams by making a deal with the wrong people, which ultimately ends up coming at a terrible cost.

Tony also genuinely tries to redeem himself, but ultimately falls prey to his own vices, and there has to be some significance to Parnassus offing him in the end.

This is quickly becoming rambling, and I feel I will need to return to this film again at a later time. A sign of an interesting film for sure!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkyfry 8 years ago

I also quite enjoyed this film. Just finished the first viewing myself, and I must say it is definitely not straightforward, which I guess is what makes it intriguing.

as I say, I think of the film itself as a kind of magic mirror. You're going to see that there's nothing here, it's all a confused and confusing mess, or you're going to see that there's everything here. There's very little middle ground. There's very few people who are going to see a movie like this, or even moreso "Tideland", and they're going to walk away saying, "oh well, it was ok." It's pretty much a love it or hate it kind of movie. In much the same way that the mirror sometimes transports people to a magical place, and sometimes it's just some cheezy tinsel in the back of an old trailer and you end up looking like an idiot standing there with your eyes closed waiting for something to happen.

As for the God/Man/Devil allegory, I kind of feel like if anything it is more about just Man and the Devil, with Parnassus being a prime example of a fallible man with hopes/dreams, but also vices. In many ways Tony is a clear allegory to Parnassus himself, achieving his dreams by making a deal with the wrong people, which ultimately ends up coming at a terrible cost.

Have you considered, though, the possibility that Tony never deserved or wanted redemption? That he was just a bad person? I think in a lot of ways Gilliam and McKeown are teasing us with this character, because they know that we're going to see some of ourselves in Tony and that we want to believe that anybody can be redeemed. But Tony doesn't want to be a storyteller like Parnassus, he doesn't want to inspire people; he wants to have power over them, he wants to control them. He wants people to worship and admire him, so he raises money for charity even though he has no moral compass. There's nothing wrong with raising money to save refugee children, and there's nothing wrong with telling stories -- but Tony isn't really saving children, and the kind of stories that he would tell would not inspire them. The devil is frustrated by Tony because, essentially, he can't buy or steal Tony's soul -- Tony has no soul.

"Now, you may encounter the devil's bargain if you get that far. Any old soul is worth saving, at least to a priest, but not every soul is worth buying--so you can take the offer as a compliment." -- William S. Burroughs, "Words of Advice for Young People"

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] rajkostojanovic 9 years ago

I love seeing someone liking this movie as much as I do! :)

First idea is too trivial IMO.

After Tonys death, Parnassus says to devil about 3 things: one is that there is no black magic, only cheap tricks, and that he cannot remember other two. Those are (IMO): when you make deal with devil, you'll suffer and 3rd There is ALLWAYS a choice (God or Devil; and a way with it). He cannot remember those two because of alcohol - his choice and another thing (you may not understand it) Parnassus is personification of ARTIST: he has to tell a story. It is his life. If he doesn't tell it the world will end. And in the movie we see it ending. (doesn't matter whitch came first: bottle or collapse)

[–] funkyfry 8 years ago

I'm gonna say a few things.... first of all: thank you, I enjoyed reading your thoughts and especially your recollections of the first few viewings of the film. I've come to feel that the film is a sort of magic mirror itself, and that it has different things to offer different people and even the same person from different perspectives. I think it's a film about redemption, and from my first viewing I've had a feeling that Heath Ledger's character is sort of a "negative" or reverse-image of Jeff Bridges' "Jack" character in "The Fisher King." "Imaginarium" is a more cynical film -- Gilliam tricks us into wanting to see redemption for Ledger's character. Many people are so convinced that "Tony" deserves to be the hero of the film, that they either forget about the parts where he's revealed as the villain, or they manage to convince themselves that somehow his villainy itself was a trick and that he actually was a hero.

You talked about the scene at the very end where Dr. Parnassus is doing his puppet show.... you're right that this scene, and Parnassus' relationship with the midget Percy, is a last parting shot on the theme of "redemption." A couple things here.... the scene and setting are obviously intended, like Scorsese's "Hugo", as a tribute to the french fantasy film pioneer Georges Melies, who ended his life selling toys in a train station in Paris. There is something poignant and undeniably majestic about this figure, who actually invented new ways of telling stories, being reduced to a much smaller version of himself, but still trying to find ways to delight and inspire children.

Dr. Parnassus has to be able to maintain his dignity, to be redeemed -- he couldn't become a janitor, for example. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with being a janitor, but it would be sad to see that happen to a storyteller. He has to accept a miniature version of the imaginarium, but it's still the imaginarium. Perhaps it will even inspire more people, even though it's smaller, because it will reach more people. This reflects Terry Gilliam himself, making these small budget movies because he alienated the powerful people in Hollywood and because his "personal vision" didn't inspire enough people over the years to open their wallets. Dammit, he seems to be saying, at least I'm still telling stories! Better to make a small film like "Tideland" that might change a small number of people's lives for good or bad, than to make the latest X-Men movie.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'