Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with RoloTamasi again, this time it has him looking at a flick called THE PIANO TUNER OF EARTHQUAKES, that is supposedly produced by Terry Gilliam. Sounds like a weird-ass movie, but something I'm very curious about, personally. Following up Rolo's report, we have another take on Gilliam's TIDELAND! Enjoy!
Hi Harry, Quint,
RoloTomasi here again. After TIDELAND, I saw THE PIANO TUNER OF EARTHQUAKES, directed by the Quay Brothers. At least I think I saw it. It's also entirely possible that I arrived at the theater, the lights went down, and I fell fast asleep and dreamed the strangest dream. Except usually my dreams don't have an "Executive Producer TERRY GILLIAM" credit. That's not Gilliam's usual way of messing with my head. So I was awake, and this film is the most worthy film I've ever seen of the term "dream-like".
The movie follows a somewhat linear story arc. The jealous Dr. Emmanuel Droz (Gottfried John) kidnaps Malvina (Amira Casar), a beautiful Opera singer on the eve of her wedding to her beloved Adolfo. Droz fakes her death on stage right in front of Adolfo, declares her dead, then carries her off to his island retreat, where he attempts to purify her voice while treating his various patients' mental disabilities through strange, unreal therapies. He invites Fernandes (Cesar Sarachu), a Piano Tuner to his retreat to work on seven automatons, machines of music that he has created to create the perfect sound for a recital he is preparing with Malvina. Fernandes is distracted by the presence of the beautiful singer. He wakes at night to the sound of her voice (Or is he dreaming?). He sees her dancing in the courtyard, watching the ocean praying for Adolfo to save her. Meanwhile, Fernandes is not sure he can fix Droz's Automatons in time for the performance, or if he even should.
Fernandes is not just any piano tuner, he is THE PIANO TUNER OF EARTHQUAKES. This means, in his words: "I can hear anything from a sneeze to infinity". If this makes perfect sense to you, then this movie is speaking your language. For those of us who are somewhat more literal-minded, this film is narratively one tough nut to crack. I would say that the story and dialogue pay homage to gothic horror classics of the early 20th century. The film is not paced in any traditional sense, and will put off mainstream audiences. Like for instance, the guy who was snoring three rows behind me. Was he dreaming about being kidnapped by Dr. Droz? Maybe it was the falling dream? Naked in a stadium? Sex with Farm animals? I don't know, but I guess he was enjoying it more than the Quay's dreams. Anyways, I don't think story is the focus here. This film is about the senses, Sight and Sound.
The Quay Brothers have created a unique visual environment. The sets are exaggerated and theatrical. The island retreat looks like a model. The film is shot in muted tones, washed out to an almost sepia look by day, and blue by the light of the moon. The decidedly lo-tech optical effects generate a decidedly unreal and unfamiliar world. The brothers have also animated a number of sequences involving the moving parts of the automatons, strange machines full of gears and cogs, horns that play on a button's command, and displays that come to life, like a boat that pilots itself done a rough river, or a woodsman and his axe. I honestly didn't know what to make of many of these images, but dreams can never be truly interpreted. I could accept that here as well.
As for the performances, only Gottfried John and Assumpta Serna, who plays Droz's lusty maid, seem to be having fun with the characters. The only other major roles belong to Casar and Sarachu, Casar is nice to look at, but is mostly a cipher. As for the Piano Tuner Fernandes, I had a pretty hard time taking Sarachu seriously as the romantic lead because I kept reminding myself of how much he resembles Kevin McDonald, the loser member of KIDS IN THE HALL.
I also have to comment on the sound design in this film, which really washes over the audience, overwhelming us with the natural noises of the island. Waves crash on the shore, birds sing, insects chirp, Malvina's lone voice cuts through everything else.
I think this film is impossible to describe or really analyze. I'm not even sure I can recommend it. Narratively it never engaged me and its 2 lead actors left me cold. However, I was always riveted by what I was seeing and hearing, so that's something of a recommendation. I wish I could have stayed for Q&A, I probably would understand more.
Still to come, my reviews of BANLIEUE 13, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING, SEVEN SWORDS and HARSH TIMES.
Rolo Out.
Here's one more for TIDELAND!!!
Hi Harry,
For the purpose of this review you can call me Captain. I'm a first time writer to AICN and I noticed that a "Tideland" review was conspicuously absent from your website. Fortunately, I saw it at the Elgin Theatre in Toronto on Friday and am more than happy to share the verdict... Er, my verdict, that is.
Okay, so having not seen "The Brothers Grimm", but being an avid Terry Gilliam fan nonetheless, is "Tideland" a return to form for Gilliam? I can't say. What I can say, and what Gilliam himself emphasized in his humble intro to the movie, is that it's unlike anything he's done before. Among other things, Gilliam described the movie as being small and spare and he asked the audience to keep an open mind.
So, the movie starts off rollicking enough, introducing our young female protagonist, Jeliza-Rose (played by newcomer Jodelle Ferland), amidst a golden wheat field, in an overturned bus, before flashing back to Jeff Bridges singing and rocking-out, looking something like Lemmy from Moterhead, in a small club. We soon discover that Bridges and Jennifer Tilly are the drug addict, dead-beat rocker parents of young Jeliza-Rose. In a run-down apartment, Jeliza-Rose innocently cooks up daddy's heroin fixes, shooing-him-up, as well. She takes some verbal abuse from Tilly, who's appearance in the film is quite brief and, after tragedy strikes, Jeliza-Rose and Daddy flee via bus to Bridges' dead mother's place on a dilapidated farm in the middle of nowhere.
Now, I must admit, I'm loathe to sit here and run down the rest of the events that occur in the movie, suffice to say that Jeliza-Rose is soon left to fend for herself, along with her prized Barbie-Doll heads, against some of the precious few, and very odd, locals, as well as a pesky squirrel. In addition, Jelize-Rose, must keep from starving and going insane, but these harsher aspects are handled quite subtly--well, for the most part anyway.
People expecting this movie to be like a darker "Alice in Wonderland" might be disappointed. In fact, people expecting any one kind of film from "Tideland" are bound to be left scratching their heads, as it is a strange animal.
Past Gilliam greats, such as "Brazil", "The Fisher King", "12 Monkeys" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", all seem rather busy, manic, and bursting at the seams compared to "Tideland", which spends a large amount of time with Jeliza-Rose, all alone in her farmland surroundings, talking to her Barbie heads. The film abounds with the trademark Gilliam fish-eye perspectives, unstable canted angles, and intricate, strange set-pieces, however, this time, Gilliam seems to favor long takes, allowing scenes to really play out, and atmosphere over the usual theatrics. Compared to the aforementioned films, "Tideland" definitely takes a less-is-more approach, which is certainly not your parents' Terry Gilliam.
That said, all the actors in the film are quite good, although some characters leave us well before their welcome has worn out, and I suppose that's the point. As Jeliza-Rose, the movie rests on young Ferland's shoulders, and she does an admirable job at that. But the simple fact is, "Tideland" seems unfocused. It kind of strays here and there, before catching itself again. Long, quiet stretches go by, before a new character or situation pops-up. The film contains some great elements, among them: embalmed loved ones, a fiery train wreck and Jeff Bridges' flatulence--but, overall, "Tideland" left me feeling kind of indifferent. I didn't love it, I didn't hate it, and I probably could do with another viewing to make up my damn mind. Heck, I guess people are just going to have to see it for themselves.
