Terry Gilliam: ‘I’m tired of white men being blamed for everything wrong with the world’
If, like me, in the 1970s, you stayed up late enough to watch Monty Python’s Flying Circus and/or watched any of the Monty Python movies offered in the 1970s and 1980s, you will probably recognize the name Terry Gilliam. If you did not, at least realize the impact the brand of humor had on the minds of a generation of college students trained on valor by a troupe of Arthurian knights lost in the Black Forest outside an insane asylum, somewhere in England.
Love them or hate them, the brilliant minds who gave us Monty Python and the Holy Grail gave us a comic revision of the tale of King Arthur that is more powerful than any remnant of a real Arthurian Legend I’ve ever read. I’m delighted Gilliam’s long-held dream (Don Quixote) was achieved and that he is still with us tilting at windmills and taking on the titular topics of today. When I saw he was still offending as many along the way as possible. I wanted to offer this one on TBP. MG. It is a great first paragraph.
After two decades of trying, the director and former Monty Python member has finally managed to make The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and, among other things, he discusses the trials of being a white man and why he’s decided to become a ‘black lesbian in transition.’
By his own admission, Terry Gilliam is offensive. But it’s not his fault, it’s yours.
“People work so hard to be offended now,” he says with a grin. “I don’t know why I’m doing it. It’s not fun anymore.” He seems to be enjoying himself today, though. The more incendiary his opinion – that the #MeToo movement is a witch hunt; that white men are the real victims; that actually, it’s women who hold all the power – the bigger that smile.
We’re in his publicist’s London offices to discuss Gilliam’s new film, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. But the 79-year-old writer, director and former Monty Python member has other ideas. “I’m so booored of talking about the film,” he groans, rolling up the sleeves of a maroon overshirt, which has a cut not dissimilar to a posh dressing gown. With grey hair, cut short except for a long rat’s tail around the back, and a weathered face, he looks his age – just about – but he has sharp, keen eyes, and the air, energy and trainers of a man many years younger.
He’s had other setbacks in the meantime. Heath Ledger, the star of his 2009 film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, died midway through filming, and was replaced by a handful of A-listers. And his 2013 sci-fi film The Zero Theorem flopped spectacularly. But his early years were an embarrassment of riches. After starting out as an animator for Monty Python – he’s responsible for those surreal, Dali-esque collages and that famous giant foot – Gilliam soon joined the troupe full time, the only American-born member among five Brits. His directorial debut was with them, 1975’s riotous Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and he helped write the equally adored (though not by Catholics) Life of Brian (1979).
And when the Pythons slithered their separate ways, he kept on going, making work that was weird and fantastical, shot through with dark comedy and dystopian undertones: 12 Monkeys (1995) with Brad Pitt, for example, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) with Johnny Depp. But his masterpiece is surely 1985’s Brazil, an Orwellian dystopian satire starring Jonathan Pryce as Sam Lowry, a low-level government worker trying to find the woman of his dreams (literally).
Gilliam’s teamed up with Pryce again for The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, which finally got off the ground thanks to a large cash injection – which he says came from a woman who identified with “my jihad, mein kampf”. It is a beguiling film. Pryce plays Javier, an elderly man who believes himself to be Don Quixote. And Adam Driver is Toby, an arrogant advertising director who triggered Javier’s delusion by casting him in his student film a decade ago. “Don Quixote is a mad man,” says Gilliam, who has reluctantly deigned to talk about the film for a moment, “but his view of the world is a noble one. It’s about chivalry. It’s about rescuing maidens. All these wonderful ideas.” The film flits between the 17th century and the 21st. Is it about the clash between modern masculinity and old-fashioned ideals of manhood?
“There’s no room for modern masculinity, I’m told,” says Gilliam. “‘The male gaze is over,’” he adds, letting his derisive air quotes hover for a moment.
For the rest of the article, visit https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/terry-gilliam-interview-harvey-weinstein-victims-metoo-race-a9269136.html
I came across this article Gilliam while reading a feminist magazine regarding Bodice Rippers and their impact on feminism. (Is crap, but this article is interesting!)
https://jezebel.com/saturday-night-social-at-last-someone-is-standing-up-1840810591
And, I certainly admire him for being willing to SAY it!
“Don Quixote is a mad man,” says Gilliam
Well so is Trump but you don’t see people making movies about him. Then again, they made one about Bush and another about Cheney.
Give it time. If there’s money to be made, someone will do it.
That is exactly so.
I don’t know what genre you worked in… I am delving into the background of the historical romance novel aka bodice ripper genre and what a sleazy bunch of women I’ve discovered there.
Please tell me you are not one of them.
And if that doesn’t make one smile… “yes, maggie, in fact I am xx, queen of the bedroom rape scene”
Nope. I would be rich if I wanted to go that route. You can see my genre – on the right are 5 books of mine that Jim has graciously allowed me to link to Amazon. Sci-fi & fantasy. I have one western done that’s not linked here and am about 1/3 done on its sequel. Then back to my present series, fantasy.
I have summaries or the first chapter or two on about 50 books, of just about every genre, and a few non-fictions.
I might be realistic, but I don’t do sleaze. There’s a women here who writes ‘historical western fiction’ about our area. She does fairly well, but she went the ‘explicit sex-scene’ route. I refuse to go down that road.
Ever cross paths with Deborah Chester? I’ve seen them but never knew if you wrote under “other” names. Many, including Deborah, do. Although, she wrote under different names for “stylistic” reasons (and because her romance fans didn’t like her sci-fi fantasy stuff. She was one of the George Lucas Film writing team… Golden One trilogy…)
Like I said… I met a few of those hard-core “women’s fiction” writers at the two seminars I helped with as a grad student (just before my head exploded.) More than one was a man. But, now I realize I was gender shaming then.
Nope. Every thing I do is under L. E. Thissell. I toyed with the idea of doing some romance books (I have a few started) under the byline Ellie Teah, but never did.
The whole Monty Python “thing” was funny to me and not anyone else in my family got it. I was enthralled by the quirky, weird humor. And, then when I saw the troupe clippety-clopping through the forest on pretend horses, I realized I’d found my herd.
It is why I suspect I am adopted, even though I am the spitting image of people in my family. I am a nabisco cracker baby, I think.
“the troupe clippety-clopping through the forest on pretend horses”
I remember that in the theater. we saw/heard arthur riding up, slowly coming into view over the hill crest, and we slowly realized there’s no horse, he’s hopping, and then we noticed the serf behind him banging the coconut shells together to simulate the horse hooves. arthur waved his hand to halt, and the serf clippity-clopped the shells to a stop, and we all just stared. then arthur waved forward and the serf started banging the shells together – and we all cheered.
Yeah, The Holy Grail.
Gilliam is a creative genius. Whether you actually like the style is personal taste, of course. I really like it. One of my favorite movies of all time is Fierce Creatures.
[youtube
To paraphrase that memorable Holy Hand Grenade scene; “The Holy Number is 200. It is not 199, nor is it 201. Thee must count exactly to the Holy Number 200. If thee reach 199, it is not yet, and thou must refrain thy fingers. But if thee reacheth 201, then all hope is lost and thee must refrain until the next centurial number of Holiness is reached.”
That woman, in the rest of the interview, is shallow and smarmy. You could just feel the eye-rolls in the tone, style and choice of words. No thoughts, no trying to get a better understanding of what her interview subject is saying.
The world done went and got in a big damn hurry. No time or thought for delving.
When I was a technical editor, several of us editors collected all the crazy things technical not-writers would insist could not be changed… This brought to mind one such Holy Wording.
A pompous weapons system expert had written what he believed to be a clever introduction to his training material. He had created a big bold warning banner he wanted in ALL our training manuals to tell students that when walking under the aircraft wing, they should put their heads on a swivelto watch for FOD on the asphalt. FOD is military speak for any item on the flightline which might cause Foreign Object Damage.
1. The guy was a freaking officer and never participated in a fucking FOD walk in his entire career.
2. The guy thought it was funny to imagine someone’s head turning side to side as they walked under the wing and never realized every single student was told to leave their heads under the wing on a swivel.
We all HATED the phrasing and the pompous shithead went over our heads to get his silly warning banner into our technical material.
So, we devised an evil plan. A “leaving the airplane” banner reminding students to get their heads off that swivel they left it on earlier.
The Holy Hand Grenade routine reminded me of the type of anal thinking militarily trained minds have. It also reminded me of my clever (not unethical at all) flanking maneuver to hit 400.
I thought the title was so good! I think only a very few of us know whom Don Quixote is and almost no one cares about holy grails any more. They’ve all just smiled and walked away…
Oh, I’m well acquainted with that type of thinking. Try being the electric shop supervisor at a Naval weapons center. At that time there were only 2 such centers, Patuxent in MD and China Lake in CA. It was a very demanding, challenging and fascinating job. BUT, it was a very desirable political appointment for the upper-echelon officers. Who showed their ignorance at damn near every turn. And the admiral over them was a doozy. All of the pilots and the junior officers were just as frustrated as we were. Well, except for a couple of career division officers and non-flight Zeros.
I was an E-6, looking at Chief (E-7). I saw the writing on the wall and bailed after that and went to a private Fed contractor just across the ramp. 3x the money and managers/supervisors that were a dream to work for. Plus working on vintage a/c (like the F-86) and state-of-the-art remote control electronics.
Patuxent in MD I do know what went on there… not too far from the really big research lab sites, is it?
Are you a DEW believer or a denier?
There’s more than one area with DEW as an acronym. Which one are you referring to? Directed Energy?
I saw the writing on the wall too but I ended up with managers who were former commanders and they still thought I was hired to to all their work for them and make coffee.
It makes me feel good to know one of them paid the EEOC $2500 for a derogatory comment to my friend.
So, yeah… 3x the money but the new boss WAS the old boss.
” it’s women who hold all the power ”
…because feelings.
“According to the paper, the police report also stated that the woman said Hachiyanagi began attacking her after showing up uninvited on Dec. 23 and saying that she wanted to talk about her feelings.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts-professor-accused-of-trying-to-kill-faculty-colleague-in-christmas-eve-attack
I think you flung this ugly bitch on the wrong post, flash!
Nope. Content fits the comment. It really is a bitch’s world.
Okay, okay… I see what you are saying now. I was looking at it as a “nostalgic” look at the work of Monty Python in the context of cultural change.
And, you were actually reading what Gilliam said!
Interesting… Macro-interpetation (mine) versus Micro-interpetation (flash).
Theory versus Reality…