The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) ***1/2

Terry Gilliam er einn af eftirlætis leikstjórum mínum. Hann gerir oft frekar skrítnar myndir þar sem skilin á milli veruleika og ímyndunar eru afar óljós. Ég held að lykillinn að flestum myndum hans felist í að hann gerir þær út frá sjónarhorni ákveðnar persónu í myndinni, og lætur sér ekki nægja skynjun hennar og orðræðu, heldur verða hugarórar og ímyndun óaðskiljanlegur hluti af heildarmyndinni.

Þannig fjallaði "The Fischer King" um mann með geðklofa, og við sáum það sem hann óttaðist og kynntumst af hverju hann óttaðist það. "12 Monkeys" fjallar um mann sem sér sjálfan sig myrtan í annarri persónu, en annað hvort hefur sú persóna sem var myrt verið hann sjálfur í tímaflakki úr fortíðinni, eða þá að hann hefur verið að ímynda sér þetta allt saman. "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" fjallar um leitina að hinum heilaga kaleik, en allar persónur virðast meðvitaðar um að þær eru leikskoppar í gamanmynd. "The Brother Grimms" fjallar svo um ævintýri Grimms bræðranna sjálfra, en ekki sögur þeirra.

Maður hlýtur að minnast á Heath Ledger, en þetta var síðasta kvikmyndin sem hann lék í áður en hann dó. Hann vann Óskarinn í fyrra fyrir hlutverk sitt sem Jókerinn í "The Dark Knight", en hér er hann varla svipur hjá sjón. Persóna hans er ekkert sérstaklega eftirminnileg í hans meðferð, og það er ekki fyrr en Colin Farrell tekur við honum að eitthvað fútt má finna í honum. Bestur allra er Christopher Plummer í titilhlutverkinu, en hann sýnir afar góða takta sem hinn ólánsami öldungur sem lifir við þá furðulegu bölvun að hafa atvinnu af leiksýningum, en geta aldrei klárað neina sögu. 

Þar kemur túlkun mín til sögunnar. Það má líta á hana sem spillitexta, þannig að ef þú ætlar að sjá myndina, slepptu því að lesa það sem eftir er gagnrýninnar þar til þú hefur séð myndina.

Túlkunin:

Ég vil túlka "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" sem draum heimilislauss manns (Christopher Plummer) sem þráir að eiga sér sögu og vera merkilegri en hann er, en þessi draumur hjálpar honum að sættast við sjálfan sig. Í draumnum er Dr. Parnassus yfir þúsund ára gamall, enda gerði hann fyrir löngu síðan samning við djöfulinn. Hann endurnýjaði samninginn fyrir nokkrum árum, þar sem hann bað um að skipta á eilífu lífi og æsku. Skrattinn fellst á samninginn en laun hans verða að fá dóttur Dr. Parnassus á 16. afmælisdegi hennar. Dr. Parnassus fellst á þetta, enda átti hann enga dóttur og hafði ekki hugsað sér að eignast eina. Hann hafði rangt fyrir sér.

Þegar hér er komið sögu í þessum draumi, er Valentina dóttir hans (Lily Cole) þremur dögum frá afmæli sínu. Skrattinn (Tom Waits) virðist sjá aumur á doktornum og gefur honum séns, ef honum tekst að koma fimm sálum til helvítis á þremur dögum, með því að tæla fimm illar manneskjur inn í töfraspegil, þá fær dóttir hans að sleppa undan örlögum sínum. 

Á leið um London finnur leikhópur Dr. Parnassus mann sem hangir á hálsinum undir brú, en leikhópurinn samanstendur af fjórum einstaklingum, Parnassus sjálfum, Valentina,  hinum unga Anton (Andrew Garfield), og smávaxna Percy (Verne Troyer), sem einnig er helsti vinur og ráðgjafi Dr. Parnassus. Þessi maður er auðmaðurinn Tony (Heath Ledger) sem frægur hefur orðið fyrir góðgerðarstarfsemi, en hann virðist vera minnislaus og ákveður að hefja nýtt líf með leikhópnum.

Hann tekur virkan þátt í að laða áhorfendur að sýningunni sem hefur verið í gangi síðustu þúsund árin eða svo, næstum óbreytt, og poppar hana svolítið upp. Tony slysast til að nota spegilinn nokkrum sinnum, og í hvert sinn sem hann fer inn í hann, breytist hann í útliti. Sundum lítur hann út eins og Johnny Depp, stundum eins og Jude Law, og stundum eins og Colin Farrell, en sá síðastnefndi fer vel með stærsta hlutverkið í heiminum innan spegilsins.

Þessi spegill er merkilegt fyrirbæri. Þegar einhver fer inn í hann, þá hverfur viðkomandi inn í heim ímyndunar sem er bæði ímyndun Dr. Parnassus og þeirrar manneskju sem fer inn í hann. Fari fleiri en ein manneskja inn í spegilinn er ómögulegt að segja til um hvaða ímyndaði heimur verður ofan á. Þessi ímyndaði heimur er að miklu leyti dreginn í anda meistara Salvador Dali, nema hvað hann er stöðugt á hreyfingu.

"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" krefst þess að áhorfandi fari á hana með opnum hug. Hún er ekki eitthvað sem rennur ljúft í gegn eins og "Avatar", heldur er hún full af hugmyndum og gagnrýni um hluti sem eru ekki allir þar sem þeir sýnast. 

 

Myndir: Wikipedia

ICESAVE: An Issue of Freedom for Future Generations

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!" Mel Gibson as William Wallace in Braveheart.

The government has made an agreement to pay insurances for private banks, that happen to have been Icelandic public banks before 2002, and for doing that cut down public services and increase taxes, is, for a lack of better words, silly and tragic. It may be that the cost for each Icelander, rich or poor, healthy or sick, young or old, will be at about USD 12,400 for each person, and the reason:

USD $3.72 billion divided by 300.000 (population of Iceland)
= 12,400 for each person to pay*

*(To be fair, the amount may be reduced based on how much money the government can get for the assets of Landsbankinn, but that amount is very hard to predict, and could be high, it could be low, but that is not the main issue).

Privatized banks collapsed due to internal corruption and greed within the banks and government. Most politicians in the previous government and in the present government received healthy amounts from those very banks that supported them to run for office. Many managers from the banks have now received key consultancy offices within the Icelandic government. The people of Iceland are no confronted with the confusing situation that they must protect themselves from their own government, a government that came to power after the previous one resigned due to constant and increasing demonstrations outside of congress. In the international media those demonstrations were called violent riots, which they were not, since the demonstration was peaceful, except for a handful of exceptions. There was a lot of violent sounding noise however, since people brought their pots and pans from their homes to be heard. Riots are when peacefulness is the exception.

 

The Icelandic government did not do their job in watching over their business in Iceland, nor did the Dutch government do that in Holland or the British government in UK. As a counter example, the Norwegian government did their job well in Norway, and nobody got hurt there.

The government sent a former politician, a friend of the minister of finance, to lead agreement negotiations with the British and the Dutch. The British and the Dutch sent professionaly competent people. It seems the former Icelandic politician was humbled against the opposition and went back with probably the worst contract ever written in history. The minister of finance acclaimed this contract to be fine work, the best that could ever been had, neglecting that various acclaimed professionals had offered their advice and work, and would have been able to bring this issue into a perspective anyone could grasp, from any side of the table.

But the minister of finance had a fixed belief. His mind was set. The contract was to be agreed upon. He tried to force the contract through congress, quickly,  based on people trusting his word, that indeed this contract was one of the greatest accomplishments for the state. The opposition wanted the contract to be made public. When it finally became so, the truth was revealed. It was a horrid, horrid thing.

The minister of health suggested that everyone within the government cooperated in discussing their disagreements, and work together for a better solution. The whole congress, the opposition and the people in power worked together for the whole summer to reach an acceptable document. His friends in government were not happy with him. The minister of health was fired from office.

The government did agree upon the contract, but with conditions that the British and the Dutch had to accept. When they did not accept these conditions, the financial minister decided to try forcing it through the congress again, now without any conditions or modifications, that could appeal to an international court of law.

The political opposition used their only weapon, they talked against the agreement for weeks, attempting to take up as much time as possible, for this injustice not to take place. Remember James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? That was the situation in the Icelandic congress. The parties in power hardly showed up during the discussions, while the opposition spent night and day defending against this impending injustice. The course was set. The contract was going to be forced upon the Icelandic people. With or without consent.

One final and formal step needed to be made. The Icelandic president had to sign the law, agreeing to this contract. Only once during the last 80 years has the president refused to sign a law, and at that time referring to a gap between the people and the government. He did the same on January 5, after receiving a petition from more than 60.000 Icelanders, about 25% of the people who had a right to vote.

The president declared that he refused to vote for this contract, and deferred the decision to a national vote. The worldwide reaction was a cheer for this brave deed, and around the world, voices were heard that declared that people should not let themselves be oppressed any more by the private banking system, that was sucking everything away from honest working folks, their homes, their vehicles, their jobs; and left families in ruins, just to get more money. As if money in itself means anything? Money is a tool. Not a goal. Even though it may be both for most, and when they have it, they may have no idea how to spend it.

 

The reaction from the Icelandic government has surpised me deeply. Instead of listening to the acclaim, they have done their best to humiliate international experts giving their opinion on the issue, who see the issue from a different perspective, and the government simply claiming that they will pay, no matter what, and that they would fight for their case with propaganda, paid by the government, to convince the people to vote for the contract.

 

That is where Iceland is now. Heading for a public vote on a contract that could harm future generations, but not the present one, since payments from a loan that would be used to pay these "debts" would only start in about six years; but of course, political responsibility seems only to extend over three years in Iceland, and financial responsibility seven years. So, that would mean when the rocks start to tumble down the hill on the people below, they would appear to be coming from nowhere, since nobody would be responsible for pushing them anymore, since the push took place such a long time ago. Too much time would have passed.

I invite you to comment on this article, especially my many friends from different countries around the world. You don't need to log in to comment.

 

 

 

Take a look at the video from FarmannTV. It is an appeal to Icelanders, phrasing pretty well the root of the problem, and offering a solution, that may or may not be appropriate.