Terry Gilliam’s first solo directorial effort,
the whimsical medieval fantasy Jabberwocky, occupies a peculiar place in
the lore of Monty Python, the legendary UK comedy troupe of which Gilliam is
the sole American member. Two years prior to the release of Jabberwocky,
the troupe issued the beloved comedy Monty Python and the Holy Grail,
which is also set in medieval times. Therefore, because Jabberwocky
features a Python behind the camera as well as one in front of the camera—Michael
Palin plays the leading role—comparisons between the two films are unavoidable.
(A third Python, Terry Jones, plays a glorified cameo.) By any measure, Jabberwocky
pales next to Holy Grail—which is
slightly unfair, since the latter picture was never intended as a follow-up to Holy
Grail. Quite to the contrary, Jabberwocky is a straight-ahead
narrative, instead of a loose collection of sketches. It’s also a fairly grim
examination of themes related to fate, heroism, and politics. Many of the gags
in Jabberwocky have a tragicomic quality, since the story concerns an
everyman who stumbles into greatness without ever actually being great.
Gilliam, who cowrote this loose adaptation of a Lewis Carroll poem with
Charles Alverson, must have known he was asking for trouble by making a project
with so many similarities to Holy Grail—but then again, asking for
trouble has been Gilliam’s modus operandi throughout his entire directorial
career.
For all of these reasons, Jabberwocky is more noteworthy as a
Python anomoly than as a proper film. The narrative is sluggish, since Gilliam
seems more interested in production design than in dramaturgy. One is
hard-pressed to think of a filthier movie about the Middle Ages—nearly
every location is slathered with putrid-looking sludge, and the overuse of haze
filters gives the cinematography a murky look. This grubby aesthetic is
accentuated by the handmade nature of the film’s costumes and props, especially
the title monster, a dragon that Palin’s character must slay. Seeing as how Gilliam
put his image-making gifts to better use in subsequent work—beginning with his
next film, the wonderful fantasy-adventure Time Bandits (1981)—it’s not
as if the exercise of making Jabberwocky was a waste. For many people,
however, the experience of watching
the film may be a waste. Despite being a tremendously nimble comic actor, Palin
is far too gentle a personality to command attention in the contact of an
action story. Similarly, even though Gilliam is a genuine visionary, he falls
into one style-over-substance trap after another. Some viewers may be able to
groove on Jabberwocky’s irreverence, but many more will get tired of
sifting through dull scenes and second-rate jokes while searching for moments
of inspiration.
Jabberwocky:
FUNKY
1 comment:
The comparisons to Holy Grail were exacerbated by the fact that in the US, Cinema 5, who distributed Holy Grail, chose to market the film as "Monty Python's Jabberwocky". That dirty trick that was retained for the initial 1981 home video release by Columbia and a 1983 re-issue. It wasn't until 1985 that Columbia finally dropped the misleading Monty Python's tag although a year later a budget line VHS from Interglobal revived the hoax that it was a full Python feature.
As for the film itself, I haven't seen it in 20 years but I recall it being very uneven.
Post a Comment