|
D
|
A
|
N
|
G
|
E
|
R
|
S
|
E
|
E
|
K
|
E
|
R
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
© DSFC |
LOST
IN LA MANCHA
|
|||||||||||
| THE
MAN WHO KILLED THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE |
||||||||||||
| by
jim When Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe began shooting some "behind-the scenes" footage to be used on the DVD release of Terry Gilliam's new film THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE, they had no idea they would end up documenting another victim of The Curse of Quixote... You see Orson Welles couldn't make Quixote into a film, he literally died trying. For all you cinema buffs out there, apparently Welles' did his now infamous fish stick ads in order to help raise money for the film. Other's had tried and all had failed. Sure there was the TV version on a few years ago and there are actually several Quitoxe films from the silent era, but there remains no definitive film adaptation. That is what Terry Gilliam was trying to create. Everyone knew it was an ambitious project to undertake, everyone knew that they shouldn't try to do the film on half the intended budget, yet everyone marched on, determined to bring to life Gilliam's decades long dream. The documentary style is very raw, and there is a decent amount of filler throughout the film, but that's pretty forgivable under the circumstances. Fulton and Pepe didn't come into this piece with a battle plan. They just happen to record the films disaster by accident. It's like shooting some home video footage of your kids when an unexpected tornado hits. Of course, how often are tornadoes unexpected? I think that's just poor parenting. He deserves to watch his kids be flung through the air in fierce swirls of wind! Sorry...Needless to say, had the guys known things would go as badly as they did, I think they would have approached the project differently. The footage does catch some truly candid emotions and moments than I think a lot of more "scripted" docs do. Even though the filler they had to include to beef it up to feature length slows down the action a bit, I think it was worth it. Much of this material gives the audience background info on the director. Gilliam, who's reputation is certainly well known within the art crowd circle, isn't exactly a household name. So, the sequences do allow it to be more accessible to the average viewer. The events that conspire to bring down the production are pretty well documented and it's nice watching the director and producers troubleshoot and try to make up for set-backs. Ultimately, the film is very non-judgmental, Gilliam is seen as a hapless victim of circumstances and there is no idea of an "evil" producer dictating the disaster. All there is, is Gilliam,like Peter Pan, not wanting to grow up or let go of his Neverland; Johnny Depp, who's so good-natured and laid back throughout, that anyone not already dying to work with him will now; and Jean Rochefort, noble in his demeanor and age, yet heart-breaking in his frailty; Assistant Director Phil Patterson rolls with punches, doesn't flinch under fire, and remains loyal to a fault. Everyone comes off as such good, hard working people that it sucks you know all along they will fail. You have to suspect there was more shouting and finger-pointing that went on that was diplomatically excised from the final cut. After all for a well known auteur watching his baby go down in flames, Gilliam remains pretty cool. Maybe he never believed he would be overcome? Who knows? All I'm saying is, I think there was another layer of tension and nastiness that, perhaps, was regretted later and therefore left out. LOST IN LA MANCHA should be required viewing for all those in film schools and budding independent filmmakers. Besides some good lessons on the importance of strong pre-production, it gives you a real first hand feeling of what life on a film shoot is really like. |
 DAMN MONGOLIANS ARE INVADING THE SET!  TERRY! LOOK! MONGOLIANS COMING RIGHT FOR US!  HEY, JEAN, THE MONGOLIANS ONLY WANTED YOUR HORSE  HOTTEST GIRL IN THE MOVIE: VANESSA PARADIS |
|||||||||||
