No Quixote for Depp

[missferal]

Its been rumored for a while, but Terry Gilliam has now officially confirmed that Johnny Depp won't be returning for a second go at The Man Who Killed Don Quixote when the long-gestating production finally begins filming again next year.

"I can now honestly say that I'm not working with Johnny on Don Quixote," Gilliam told The Independent. "He's booked himself up on a lot of other films."

Depp's slate does have a roadblocked look to it, with Pirates Of The Caribbean 4, The Lone Rangerand Dark Shadows all scheduled to begin filming in 2010, or soon after, although Gilliam had hoped he'd find a way to reprise his role as a marketing executive transported back to the 17th century. Sadly that hasn't proved possible.

I want to shoot Don Quixote next year, said GIlliam. Johnny Depp said he's not available and we have both agreed that I'm going to die soon, so it would be nice to get this film under my belt.

[RobRoy]

This is an interesting follow-up to the documentary Lost in La Mancha (I recommend it) which followed the Gilliam/Depp picture on its initial outing. The production was plagued with set-backs almost from day one, and the documentary was fortuitious enough to catch everything from Gilliam's initial excitement over the project, to the ultimate (temporary) demise.

Given that Jean Rochefort suffered major back problems, which ultimately resulted in his inability to ride a horse, it seems a recasting of everyone might be in order. Rochefort's loss to the film is doubly unfortunate, as he was very passionate about horse-riding for years.

[august]

I saw Lost in La Mancha back when it came out, and while I enjoyed it, it really made me sad to see how little control Gilliam had on his own set. It really does answer the question that I had years ago, as to how the artist (and usually) non-performing member of Python ended up being the director, and the answer seems to be that he is a great visionary artist, and in that capacity lends a lot of creativity to screenplays that some professional writers collaborate with him on, but sadly depends on people around him to do a lot of the dirty work of directing a film. Which is why they tried to sack his assistant director as a way of placating the investors.

I asked Xena/Herc/Jack director Josh Becker a few questions about it at his site, and he agreed that when Rochefort got sick, they should have made a few dozen quick calls to unemployed older actors like Richard Harris and Peter O'Toole, and had a new star on the set within 24 hours. Granted, that might not have been in keeping with his vision, but the nature of film-making is to have some tough guy on set to say "&%$# your vision, we've got to get this filmed one way or another!" Same with the red clay gully where the first scene was filmed, and the terrain got washed away - the solution would have been to film as many close-ups with the principals as possible, and shots of the prisoners from the gorund up to their faces, so that no background was really visible. And then at some point dispatch the 2nd unit to find some generic shots of similar terrain somewhere else, to be edited in later. Or just pull an all-nighter and re-write the scene so that the terrain isn't that important (and surely it couldn't have been anyway.)

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by august

I saw Lost in La Mancha back when it came out, and while I enjoyed it, it really made me sad to see how little control Gilliam had on his own set. It really does answer the question that I had years ago, as to how the artist (and usually) non-performing member of Python ended up being the director, and the answer seems to be that he is a great visionary artist, and in that capacity lends a lot of creativity to screenplays that some professional writers coolaborates with him on, but sadly depends on people around him to do a lot of the dirty work of directing a film. Which is why they tried to sack his assistant director as a way of placating the investors.

That was actually the very interesting part for me. I know you've been in the industry, but I'm really an outsider looking in, and this was akin to a wake-up call regarding the "machine" that is movie-making. While movies are a business, the making of them is anything but cookie-cutter. It's more like a mini-dictatorship for the couple of weeks to months that it takes to put the thing together. Some dictatorships are ruled by an iron-fist, and are very mechanical about how scenes are shot, etc. Others, like Gilliam, are much more organic about the pace, and are, as you say "visionary" about their art. For example: I understand that Clint Eastwood shoots scenes once or twice and that's it. Rarely does he do multiple takes such as Kubrick is famous for.

So watching Lost in La Mancha showed me that Gilliam is really ruled by events, and reactionary to them, sometimes to his detriment.

I asked Xena/Herc/Jack director Josh Becker a few questions about it at his site, and he agreed that when Rochefort got sick, they should have made a few dozen quick calls to unemployed older actors like Richard Harris and Peter O'Toole, and had a new star on the set within 24 hours. Granted, that might not have been in keeping with his vision, but the nature of film-making is to have some tough guy on set to say "&%$# your vision, we've got to get this filmed one way or another!" Same with the red clay gully where the first scene was filmed, and the terrain got washed away - the solution would have been to film as many close-ups with the principals as possible, and shots of the prisoners from the gorund up to their faces, so that no background was really visible. And then at some point dispatch the 2nd unit to find some generic shots of similar terrain somewhere else, to be edited in later. Or just pull an all-nighter and re-write the scene so that the terrain isn't that important (and surely it couldn't have been anyway.)

That's a great take on the entire affair. On the "red clay" issue, it was also completely possible for Gilliam to use CGI to make changes as necessary for those shots where it wasn't possible to re-shoot or edit around.

I think Gilliam was hoping for some medium to best-case scenerios, and events just lined up against him. With Rochefort, Gilliam shut down production for one of his lead actors in the hopes that he would be back quickly and there would only be a short delay in shooting. I can see how each one of these should have been an easy fix, but also where Gilliam was trying to hold his "vision" together, while the perfect storm of delays was about to crush his production beneath its booted heel. Perhaps that reflects that he's a good artist, but a poor administrator.

[august]

I think that's exactly right. Whereas with someone like Sam Raimi, he's a tyrant on-set, although a benevolent and beloved one. He likes to shoot everything a hundred different ways, so that once he's in post-production, he doesn't have to worry about whether or not his actors did perfectly, since he can always edit it to make it look like they did.

I dug up a few of Josh's comments (Josh and Sam of course were childhood friends and Josh labored through the original Evil Dead shoot in about a dozen crew capacities) from his site - these were in response to questions from me and some other people:

In "Lost in La Mancha" it was pretty clear (Gilliam) didn't have a clue what he was doing, I think he's probably just dropped off the deep end.

I guess my point about Gilliam is, if he cast an old, reasonably unknown actor in the lead, who then got sick very early into production, why not immediately replace him? You haven't shot that much.

That's what disturbs me about it and why I didn't rush out to see the documentary -- it sounds like an apology for Terry Gilliam's egocentric, idiotic behavior. It sounds like bad casting to start with -- a Frenchman as a Spaniard speaking English -- then Gilliam is too much of an "artist" to recast, meaning he doesn't give a **** about the millions of dollars that have already been spent. A movie is a high-stakes business venture, it's not a play being put on by friends. The second you find out that your actor is too old to ride a horse or wear the armor, which should have all been discovered in pre-production, not during production, you recast the part. It's more about a lame filmmaker than an unlucky artist. I have no interest in lame filmmakers, and if I did I'd watch "Project Greenlight."

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by august

I dug up a few of Josh's comments (Josh and Sam of course were childhood friends and Josh labored through the original Evil Dead shoot in about a dozen crew capacities) from his site - these were in response to questions from me and some other people:

That's what disturbs me about it and why I didn't rush out to see the documentary -- it sounds like an apology for Terry Gilliam's egocentric, idiotic behavior. It sounds like bad casting to start with -- a Frenchman as a Spaniard speaking English -- then Gilliam is too much of an "artist" to recast, meaning he doesn't give a **** about the millions of dollars that have already been spent. A movie is a high-stakes business venture, it's not a play being put on by friends. The second you find out that your actor is too old to ride a horse or wear the armor, which should have all been discovered in pre-production, not during production, you recast the part. It's more about a lame filmmaker than an unlucky artist. I have no interest in lame filmmakers, and if I did I'd watch "Project Greenlight."

I liked this one the best, although I think it's a bit harsh. But the concept about the money that was spent, some $32 million I believe (please correct if wrong) makes it sound like that money just disappeared, when in actuality, almost everyone who was supposed to get paid did. I say almost, because obviously the investors didn't get their payday as they expected, and lost part of their investment (IIRC, there was an insurance claim for some $15 million). If we're being harsh, then I would just say "tough cookies" to them. It's an investment for a reason, and if you can't afford to lose your investment, then you shouldn't be investing.

I don't know his background well enough, but was he reasonably successful from the start? He was part of the Monty Python troupe from the begining, so he was only about 29 when he started to see some regular fame and fortune. Would this, in part, be a reason/cause for his "idiotic behavior"? He was successful in many of his endeavors, and that fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants has paid off more often than not?

[august]

Well, that's just Josh's opinion, and Josh can be pretty blunt, to say the least, plus he'd admit that Terry Gilliam has been infinitely more successful than he has... but Josh has brought all his films in on time and more or less on budget.

Gilliam definitely began to see fame in his late 20's, although since Python was a low-budget BBC production featuring unknowns, I doubt he saw much fortune for years until things like videotapes and cable were invented, by which time he was in his 40's. (He's 69 now.)

His early efforts (Time Bandits, Jabberwocky) were such low-budget films that I'm sure they turned a decent profit eventually, and even his A-list projects (12 Monkeys, Fisher King, Fear and Loathing) have made a little profit domestically... but he's never had a BIG hit, not like a Tim Burton kind of hit.

It definitely worked for the Python films... but he had his 5 partners with him there... and several of them collaborated on some of his later films. My guess is that with things like Fisher King, he had supportive producers and stars who ran interference for him.....

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by august

Well, that's just Josh's opinion, and Josh can be pretty blunt, to say the least, plus he'd admit that Terry Gilliam has been infinitely more successful than he has... but Josh has brought all his films in on time and more or less on budget.

Gilliam definitely began to see fame in his late 20's, although since Python was a low-budget BBC production featuring unknowns, I doubt he saw much fortune for years until things like videotapes and cable were invented, by which time he was in his 40's. (He's 69 now.)

His early efforts (Time Bandits, Jabberwocky) were such low-budget films that I'm sure they turned a decent profit eventually, and even his A-list projects (12 Monkeys, Fisher King, Fear and Loathing) have made a little profit domestically... but he's never had a BIG hit, not like a Tim Burton kind of hit.

It definitely worked for the Python films... but he had his 5 partners with him there... and several of them collaborated on some of his later films. My guess is that with things like Fisher King, he had supportive producers and stars who ran interference for him.....

So perhaps Gilliam hasn't seen "fortune" on the same level as some A-list directors we could name, but it sounds like he found fame in ever-increasing levels, throughout his career, thus in some ways insulating him, and explaining some of his "idiotic behavior".

Thanks august!

[august]

Yep, I think his fame is mainly based on his visual style, which is not surprising, given that he was/is an artist. So as a production designer and perhaps even director of photography, he'd be one of the greats. And often there are some neat performances in his films, but then it's from people like Johnny Depp, Jeff Bridges, Robin Williams, etc. i.e. people who might have given the exact same performance for another director, or for themselves if they were directing. And he's been very lucky to have some incredible cowriters working with him, like playwright Tom Stoppard, as well as some great original scripts.

But, take a peek at his Wikipedia bio, under "Production problems" and "Projects in development or shelved" for some of the many controversies he's been involved in.

Basically, the structure with Python probably worked best, where Terry Jones co-directed (probably working with the actual actors) all six co-wrote, and there were veteran producers doing the actual business stuff.

[RobRoy]

It is interesting that when Heath Ledger passed away during the filming of Doctor Parnassus, he was pretty much reduced to having to replace his lead, and so thought of a reasonably clever way around that issue with various incarnations being presented as the same character.

I hadn't read his bio in full from Wikipedia, but I thought Warner Bros. response to consideration of Gilliam as the director for Harry Potter was pretty telling.

In the final review, it seems Gilliam has a great genuis of the art of story-telling within a film, but not so much when it comes to the more mundane tasks of directing a movie set, actors, etc.