Jack?s sin is apparently self-righteousness, but it?s indistinguishable from his self-loathing. There is an impression he hates himself for losing the opportunity ? not the job itself ? to star in ?On the Radio.? He is left to dismiss it, without concurrence in his girlfriend. He downs his whiskey and proceeds out into a rain-soaked night.
This is the worst things get for Jack. Prior, he was a celebrity, valeted about New York City in a limousine, with a gigantic apartment and girlfriend some two decades his junior. He has lost the fame, the recognition, and the girlfriend, but retained the pride. His professional dissolution was triggered once his advice, in his morning radio talk show, prompted one of his listeners to enter a restaurant and kill several of its patrons with a shotgun before aiming the barrel toward himself. Three years later, cement bricks affixed to his ankles, Jack takes another swig of alcohol and steps heavy toward the East River.
Terry Gilliam?s early films share a dismissal of corporations and corporate procedure: the time-traveling dwarves in Time Bandits and their refusal to pay their debt to the Supreme Being; Brazil, virtually in its entirety; and Baron Munchausen?s preference for fantasy in the middle of a war. None of the motifs these three films share ? inventive visuals, and despair told in cartoonish camera blocking ? are at first evident in The Fisher King. Its first act is brutal in demonstrating Jack?s guilt, and this brutality is noticeably uncharacteristic of Gilliam.
The Fisher King is an anomaly in Gilliam?s career; as such, it is inadequate in auteurist appraisal, especially in comparison to Baron Munchausen, which was notorious prior to its release for cost overruns and Gilliam?s volatile relationship with Columbia Pictures. The result is a majestically overwrought film, as justifiably derided for its excesses as it is for its fleeting moments of brilliance?a masterpiece that demonstrates both its maker?s imagination and vulnerability. Gilliam?s films at this point are an aggregation so exponentially excessive that there is little allowance for his imagination to further burgeon. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen was released in 1988, millions of dollars over budget, to a less than satisfactory box office return. The Fisher King would follow it three years later, with a reduced production budget and relatively few of the director?s visual hallmarks.
But The Fisher King remains a distinctly Terry Gilliam film. The few characteristics it retains from his previous ? and quintessential ? pictures are rarefied in the character Parry. He is an energetic homeless man who saves Jack moments after he is doused in gasoline by some thugs (this, just before his intended suicide). Parry is an unreliable but successful savior, outfitted in a Russian fur hat and garbage can weaponry. Before he and his equally unreliable army (most of whom seem to be elderly; one soldier holds a shield in tandem with his walker) dissuade the thugs, the party engages in an impromptu rendition of ?How About You.? Drunk, bruised, and without shelter in a rainstorm, Jack resembles his homeless saviors accurately. But his rescue sobers him a bit, and early in the morning he realizes he is not of their party. Parry has taken him in at his basement dwelling, and prior to Jack?s exit he pronounces his quest to find the Holy Grail?his intentions are true; he presages the announcement by kneeling and raising a sword. He eclipses an ethereal light, and ? before his shrine of Holy Grail ephemera ? he looks like a saint and not a schizophrenic.
Cleansed and rested, Jack returns to Parry?s dwelling to reimburse him for his hospitality. Parry is not present, and the building?s owner describes to Jack the nature of Parry?s frantic condition: three years prior, Parry ? a successful professor ? witnessed the death of his wife and seven others at a dinner interrupted by a desperate maniac and a shotgun. Jack?s tremendous guilt is thrown in sharper relief; he realizes he must aid Parry in his improbable quest in order to redeem himself.
Its characters are variably ugly, conceited, or disheveled, and each undergoes a metamorphic change into someone more beautiful or humble (or clean). But for a film concerned chiefly with the possibility of redemption, these changes are depicted with nuance and modesty. There is a key sequence in which Jack ? having arranged a double date with him and Anne, and Parry and his object of intense attention, Lydia ? bathes and dresses Parry in an inverted pinstripe suit. Parry shivers with excited tension atop a stool, as Jack staples his cuffs and trousers in makeshift hems. This is a beautiful action that both demonstrates Parry?s emotional baptism and retains his idiosyncratic flaws. In other words, this transformation (as well as every other in the film) is impermanent, yet it is not superficial. At the end of the evening, Parry walks Lydia home and admits his love. Shaken by his frankness and warmth, she rests her forehead on his. ?You?re real,? she says. Her words describe the vulnerability and hope of most every character in the film.
Despite their transformations and intentions toward the better, each of these characters remains flawed. Again: this film is not concerned with redemption in as much as the possibility of such. Parry?s successful evening with Lydia ? culminating sharply with a goodnight kiss ? triggers the debilitating vision of the Red Knight, a horrid manifestation of the memory of his wife?s death. It is an adversary only he sees, and his lapses that incite the premonition are occasional but never as lucid as on this evening in particular. He is chased to the bank of the East River, and beaten by the same thugs he had courageously disabled earlier. Parry succumbs to his adversary instead of running from it, his newfound love having tendered little transformative psychology.
The next morning Jack, having returned home in a much more optimistic demeanor, phones his agent for the first time, it is implied, in several months. But this newfound optimism restores his previous, more conceited mind state: after announcing his interest in returning to radio to Anne, he calmly suggests they break up. For the past three years ? the tenure of his depression ? she has been his support, and for him to renounce her so immediately, however calmly and honestly, is to rescind any of the values she has engendered in him. The dismissal extends to Parry. In his mind, Jack has rehabilitated his friend with concentrated orchestration (the previous evening, he loaned Parry his wallet so he could pay for dinner). Following his ill-received suggestion to Anne, the phone rings with news of Parry?s capture at a hospital, and his submission into another, possibly permanent coma.
Jack Lucas is until this instant the most skeptical and rational of Gilliam?s leading characters, which is to say he remains imprisoned. His is a prison of convenience and solitude, and reclaiming his old job encourages his breakup with Anne, as well as other distinct social segregations. As he enters a skyscraper to meet with a television producer, his agent eagerly in tow, he is recognized by one of Parry?s friends. Jack raises his sunglasses (the prop returns at this moment of the film; they are lenses that further cripple his perception) and squints at the man, and shortly proceeds indoors. The experience affects him, though, and he suddenly exits his meeting. To ensure Parry?s salvation he must fulfill his quest for the Holy Grail.
For Jack to do so he must absolve his pride and narrow notions of fulfillment. He dons what is perceptibly some of Parry?s tattered clothing, arms himself with a fragile shield and slingshot, and embarks to face the demons that lie between he and his prize. He does this in spite of his knowledge of the grail?s actuality. It is some sort of trophy, an ephemeral, worthless prop collecting dust in an aging millionaire?s urban castle. There are no demons, only a sophisticated security alarm and the threat of humiliation his capture would inspire. To fulfill his quest, he must imagine his own challenges and his own rewards.
The Fisher King?s closing moments follow, and they are the most formulaically saccharine in Gilliam?s entire career, but being as the characters are so carefully established as flawed, it does not feel permanent. Parry may continue to envision the horrific Red Knight, and Jack may continue to doubt himself and his relationship with Anne. But here, the two share a moment of quiet comfort in the aftermath of intense, transitional hardships. They lie on an expanse of grass in Central Park, staring up at the night sky. A happy ending perhaps, but nonetheless earned.
I really hated this film when first i saw it - so much so i remember where and when i was and the feeling of needing the WC that haunted me throughout the viewing.. in a Cinema in Milton Keynes - see i said i remembered...
To be fair though this film came out only slightly before that peter pan film and at around 12 years old it was the said peter pan film i was expecting to see.
Instead i saw this, a film about two men one driven to the wrong side of nutty by witnessing the murder of his wife the other the DJ who encouraged the eventual murderer somewhat inadvertently.
I think i must have given up at round about the hour mark, as Mr Williams persisted in failing to fly about the place but by then i was in no mood to appreciate this film for what is was rather than hate it for what it was not.
I've seen it since and revised my somewhat jaundice view
Even in a somewhat "normal" movie, it's chock full of whimsy and it screams Gilliam! Made before Jeff Bridges was the Dude and Robin Williams was still a genius. Gilliam's ever-present theme of insanity in a sane society (and vice versa) shows up here as it did in Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and Lost in La Mancha - but this time he gives us a happy ending for once!
Jack Lucas: I don't mean to be flippant or to enrage you or anything, but you're a psychotic man. Parry: I know. Jack Lucas: A very nice psychotic man. Parry: Thank you.
Here's a decent enough comedy drama that has a number of effective scenes, some good performances, and oozes with Gilliam's style, even while being set in a more modern world for a change, but as a whole there are some problems and oddities that stop it working completely.
Jeff Bridges plays a shock jock radio DJ Jack Lucas, on the verge of getting larger fame, until he makes a mistake of telling a listener something that sets him off, resulting in that listener going on a shooting rampage and then killing himself.
Horrified by what he has done, Jack then isolates himself from everyone, living with his girlfriend Anne, Mercedes Ruehl, who owns a video store.
On a drunken/suicidal bender, in a desperate attempt, Jack tries to kill himself, before he is attacked, but then saved by a strange homeless man.
This man is Perry, played by Robin Williams, who alerts Jack of his quest to find the Holy Grail and the other oddities of his life. Perry is also on a daily quest to check out the shy girl, Amanda Plummer, he notices every day on her lunch break. Perry also suffers from massive delusions portraying some past demons he has.
It turns out that Perry used to be a normal character until his wife was murdered by the same man Jack unwittingly set off all that time ago. Now in attempt to redeem Perry and himself, Jack spends time with Perry trying to help him get the girl he likes and maybe become more normal.
Director Terry Gilliam's visual style is certainly apparent with his use of jarring camera angles, the constant shift in tone and mixing of various elements, not to mention the fish eye lens and a Tom Waits cameo. This all means its a good looking film and has a unique enough sense about itself.
The performances are pretty top notch. Robin Williams is essentially in a Robin Williams role, which combines his manic comic sense with the serious touches that have made his work as an actor memorable.
Jeff Bridges is sort of on and off, but that is mainly due to how the story uses his character. At points he is an understandably tragic character who let ego get ahead of him, and his relation to Perry works in many ways. Then there are times when he is just pushed too far out of character, whether it involves his interaction in Perry's life or how he treats others.
Amanda Plummer on the other hand, completely works and once she enters Perry's world, especially in one particular scene, you really want to see these two together.
It is Mercedes Ruehl who does the best however. Its nice to know she won and Oscar for her role as Jack's girlfriend. Her character is great as a person with good comic timing, a strong character quality, a believable person in terms of her relationship with Jack, and even very sensual in her own way.
There is also supporting work from Michael Jeter as a Drag Queen and a small role from David Hyde Pierce.
I enjoyed the story well enough, but its easy enough to see where its going, just too bad it tries to stretch itself out so much, opposed to editing around the number of very good scenes.
This is a good movie, working with the quirky characters, but just misses some of its beats.
Anne Napolitano: Didn't you say that what you liked about our relationship is that we didn't have to think? We could just be there for each other. Jack Lucas: Suicidal paranoiacs will say anything to get laid.
Well done, amusing, and interesting script. Solid acting. Fine all around movie, although I didn't love it for some reason, probably the fantasy element to it.
A touching and surprisingly serious movie from Monty Python's Terry Giilliam. It's about committing a major f^@#up and finally realizing that true redemption cannot take any shortcuts.
Terry Gilliam's early work is such a mixed bag, it's hard to put in any one particular genre. In The Fisher King, we get laughs, romance, tragedy and drama, all in the space of minutes. Very touching and dark story with some great performances from Williams and Bridges. Did anyone else wonder what ever happened to Mercedes Ruehl? Gilliam's portrayal of mental illness is probably more realistic than most and is explored more in his later movies. An interesting modern day fairytale.
Terry Gilliam is a werido so he makes werido movies and this is no exception. I saw this when I was in junior high school so maybe I should git it another go. . .still. I remember thinking, "Wow, men are so hairy! Ew!" I don't want to go through that again.
I've seen this movie a couple times. It's very hartwarming and also extremely dark intermittently. The English nerd in me also enjoys the Arthurian references. This movie seems to have everything: depressing scenes, cute scenes, funny parts, and oh yes Tom Waits!
Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges are terrific together in this moving story about a DJ who's callous insults cause a tragic murder and the victim he tries to to help in order to lift himself out of his 3-year depression. This is a wonderful study in human behavior and bonding.
This film seems symptomatic of a bourgeois society that has so little to fill it's life that it must make up faciful stories for the sake of it rather than to give out a broader message.
It begins with the King as a boy--having to spend a night alone in the forest to prove his courage so that he could become king. While he was standing there alone, he's visited by a sacred vision. Out of the fire appears the Holy Grail, the symbol of God's divine grace. And a voice said to the boy, "You shall be the keeper of the Grail, so that it may heal the hearts of men." But the boy was blinded by greater visions, of a life filled with power and glory and beauty. And in this state of radical amazement, he felt for a brief moment not like a boy, but invincible ...like God. So he reached into the fire to take the Grail. And the Grail vanished, leaving him with his hand in the fire, to be terribly wounded.
Now, as this boy grew older, his wound grew deeper, until one day, life for him lost its reason. He had no faith in any man, not even himself. He couldn't love or feel loved. He was sick with experience. He began to die.
One day, a fool wandered into the castle and found the king alone. Being a fool, he was simpleminded, he didn't see a king, he saw a man alone and in pain. And he asked the king, "What ails you, friend?" The king replied, "I'm thirsty. I need a some water to cool my throat." So the fool took a cup from beside his bed, filled it with water, handed it to the king. As the king began to drink he realized that his wound was healed. He looked at his hands, and there was the Holy Grail that which he sought all of his life! And he turned to the fool and said in amazement, "How could you find that which what my brightest and bravest could not?" And the fool replied, "I don't know. I only knew that you were thirsty."
Mythic and capturing. This combination of Terry Gilliam's directtion and Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges in leading roles makies for quality through and through.
This is a wonderful movie about the human mind. The plot may be pretty straight forward, but it touches your heart. Not only does it give you a glimpse into the human mind, but it also gives you a look into those in the public eye as well as the homeless. The characters are so well defined that you become attached to every single one of them. You find yourself rooting for certain characters. The language is very strong, and there are a couple of nude scenes, but it is great nonetheless.
a splendid redemption film with terrific performances from all involved. heartfelt drama, touches of nutty humour, sparks of romance, and mental trips to the world of fantasy. a genuinely great movie.
The beauty of flixster never ceases to amaze me. Just remembered what a great film this is, and am now off to ebay to find it!! Laugh, cry and laugh some more in this truly heart warming tale!
Just a classic movie, brilliantly written and well executed, a really heartwarming story. Terry Gilliam is a fantastically creative director and he hit the nail on the head with this one. The Jeff Bridges character was frustrating but I think that shows great acting to play someone who is human, all too human (Nietzsche pun intended).
I watched this in my psychology class and I was suprised by how good it was. I really liked the story and the ending is just sad and happy rolled in one.
MCT:September 7, 2008
MCT:September 7, 2008
MCT:June 24, 2008
MCT:April 22, 2008
MCT:April 14, 2008
MCT:March 5, 2008
MCT:January 24, 2008
MCT:January 23, 2008
