airjosh's pick: "12 Monkeys" 08/17/03 - 08/23/03

[Morticia]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "12 Monkeys".

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are open to any ideas about running this forum.

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

thanks to airjosh for agreeing to participate in this discussion!

[mlemmond]

I watched this again last night and after seeing it several times now I am still amazed and entertained by Brad Pitt's performance, he was awesome. Twelve Monkeys is a very good movie with some great scenes and some really cool sets, it's classic Terry Gilliam and that's odd considering it was something he didn't write and he usually does a better job when he has written the material. I do find it interesting that the concept of time travel keps turning up in his work.

[limacharliewhiskey]

For me, 12 Monkeys is a film that just gets better and better with each viewing. I must admit that after my first viewing of the film, I didn't think too much of the film. But upon further viewings, I was able to pay attention to the details and subtle nuances of the story, and was able to see how brilliant a film this is.

Fabulous performances by both Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt. Talking about Bruce first, this was a great performance that allowed him to express a great range of emotions and show the audience a subtlety not seen in his previous film roles.

As for Brad Pitt, he is absolutely showstopping here, playing the mentally unstable Jeffrey Goines. He plays his character perfectly, appearing as crazy but not really dangerous or threatening. This plays well for the plot, as he seems to be the one who unleashes the plague upon mankind, but really doesn't.

Great supporting cast, with the lovely Madeleine Stowe, who holds her own against Willis, Christopher Plummer as Goines's father, and David Morse as the apocalyptic scientist.

Having seen some of Terry Gilliam's works (but not all of them, like Fear and Loathing, and Baron Munchausen), this is easily my favorite of his films.

[tomdkat]

For some reason, I just couldn't get "into" this movie. I bought the DVD and have watched it a few times and it just never really "grew" on me or anything.

Peace....

[airjosh]

I guess I was beat to the punch. I tried to post last night but it was still closed, so I guess I will lead the thread from a few comments in.

12 Monkeys is one of my all time favorite films and I think it is all of Gilliam's strengths coming together in one film, firing on all cylinders. I would like to talk about the movie in three pieces: the atmosphere, production, and the performances. I am going to talk about them in separate posts to give a chance for discussion on each area.

The Atmosphere

If there is something you can say about Gilliam's work is that it drips atmosphere with a vision that few people could contain inside of their heads. There are typically two styles to his films, both are equally saturated with detail but one is colorful as in Baron Munchausen and Fisher King, and the other style is dark and packed with psuedo-technological gadgetry as in 12 Monkeys, Brazil, and Time Bandits. These styles are balancing and visceral, feeding each hemisphere of the brain. Interestingly The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, RIP, looked to be a combination of both styles.

There are really three worlds inside of 12 Monkeys, the first is the flashback or dream world. This world comes in washed-out, bright glimpses that runs at a slow pace. As we come to find out the dreamworld is the key to the world of the past and fate manifested in the present. The movie is bookended in this world by the image of the young Cole's eyes.

Next is the world of the past. In this story the past is our present and it is offered without being spruced up or beautified in any way. The look in the past is a view much like the dirtier parts of most urban areas. It is certainly giving us a stark view at what our world really looks like. Also in the past we get a sub-world which is the disorientation of Cole. This comes up mainly when Cole is in the institution and is drugged up. When Cole gets confused and disoriented the filming follows in tow with sweeping moves and sort of a light fish-eyed style.

The world of the present (our future) is shaped by the events of the past and most of our view of it is a subterrainian prison. This prison will be instantly familiar to Gilliam fans with weird technological machinery, lots of bare tube screens, and a very amber tone. We do get a brief look outdoors in the present as animals have taken over the landscape of the city, but otherwise we are immersed in the perversely archaic advancement of the future.

The last, but certainly not least significant factor that contributes to the atmosphere of the film is the music by Paul Buckmaster and Tom Waits. The inclusion of Waits here is not surprising given the dark and strange nature of his work that is complementary to Gilliam's style. The amazing accordian music really sets the tone of the film and provides a most needed bridge between the worlds, oddly providing a stable beat to an offbeat film.

One of the things that fascinates me about Gilliam is his ability to make odd, european-feeling films within the hollywood system. Not that it has been easy at all and in some cases (Quixote) impossible, but my admiration of his ability to produce his vision and texture is boundless.

Lets talk atmosphere!!! Next we'll talk production...

[Morticia]

Originally Posted by airjosh

I guess I was beat to the punch. I tried to post last night but it was still closed, so I guess I will lead the thread from a few comments in.

I opened it Sunday night.

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by Morticia

I opened it Sunday night.

I know, it was just after I went to bed

I wasn't trying to take a shot at you, just pointing out why I didn't get in there to post first.

[Morticia]

Originally Posted by airjosh

I know, it was just after I went to bed

I wasn't trying to take a shot at you, just pointing out why I didn't get in there to post first.

I know, , and I was just trying to say "I'm sorry" for not getting to it earlier, I try to be more on the ball than that.

[darthbenbo]

I'm a huge Terry Gilliam fan, and while I enjoyed 12 Monkeys, I don't consider it one of my favorite Gilliam films. Of course, a less than perfect Gilliam film is still miles ahead of anything else out there.

I thought that Chris Marker's storyline was incredible. Everything about the plot and the development of the story really pleased me. I was easily sucked into the story from the opening scenes until the closing credits. The narrative elements of this film really gave the film a wonderful backbone to work from.

The visual aspect of this film is typical Gilliam - marvelous. Amazing props, locations, backgrounds, the list goes on and on. I think Gilliam did an outstanding job of using locations that really stood out for what portion of the "worlds" (as airjosh mentioned) they were meant to be a part of. Each one gave the viewer a certain feeling and atmosphere that helped to keep the transitions between the worlds from distracting the viewer from the basic story. Gilliam never gives his fans anything less than a visual masterpiece.

As far as the casting was concerned, I think that the people involved were prefect for their respective roles. I could go on and on about how spot-on Brad Pitt's performance was, but you've all seen the film, so I won't bother. With that said, my only gripe with this film was with Bruce Willis' character. I was apprehensive about him in this role to begin with, but I was quite surprised with how well he was able to carry the film. What bothered me about his character was the fact that he always seemed to be holding something back. Here he is thrust into this position where the fate of mankind rests squarely upon his shoulders and he always seems so passive about it all. He rarely lashes out expressing his frustrations and fears. He almost seems to sort of stumble through the entire ordeal. I understand that the emotional burden of traveling back and forth through time and the boughts of paranoia would all act to keep him somewhat floored, but I wished at times that he would have just errupted when constantly trying to explain his mission to those around him.

I know it's probably a petty complaint about an otherwise fabulous film, but it was something that ate away at me towards the latter portion of the film. I think that I would have eventually exploded if I had been in his position, and I guess that I just half-expected Willis to do the same. I will admit that he surprised me in this role. I think that it was a fantastic departure for him as far as his normal character choices are concerned, and I really found a respect for him from his work here.

Ok, I've rambled on enough. Discuss amongst yourselves now.

[darthbenbo]

Sorry airjosh I kinda got rolling and covered more than just atmosphere in my post.

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by darthbenbo

Sorry airjosh I kinda got rolling and covered more than just atmosphere in my post.

no problem, I'll talk a bit about your comments about the cast in my next post.

The Production

First thing interesting of note is that Gilliam used a fresnel lens to film 12 Monkeys and he used the same type of lens to film Brazil.

In the world of the past we get treated to the amazing abilities of Gilliam as a director, the set up of the shots and placement of everything in the scene is immaculate. The lighting is always perfect, but also seems really natural despite the grit of most of the environments in the past.

In my opinion the only person that sets up shots better then Terry Gilliam is John Frankenheimer. He had an amazing ability to fit a huge amount of people into a frame in a way where everyone contributed to the scene without it feeling unnatural, his understanding of depth of field was pure genius. Gilliam's genius is in setting up the shots with multiple layers of detail, all functioning pieces of the set up and all contributing to the overall impact of the scene.

Apparently in one shot in 12 Monkeys when Cole is drawing his blood, there is a shadow of a hampster in a wheel on the wall and he spent the entire day on a scene that would have taken minutes because the hampster wouldn't run on the wheel. That is a deep vision and committment to the film.

In the present world we see the depths of Gilliam's vision and his eye to detail. The super-mechanical nature of the surroundings may have been built by the props people, but I can guarantee that the vision in all of its detail came from Gilliam's head. In the present we also get Gilliam's ability to create coherent storytelling from minimal, vague, loosely stitched together scenes and dialog.

As darthbenbo said, Gilliam is sure to give his fans a visual masterpiece everytime he helms a film.

[airjosh]

I was away for a few days with no phones and I didn't even look at a computer. I am sure it was some kind of record for me.

Anyways, to wrap up our little discussion on 12 Monkeys I would like to talk about the cast that really did an amazing job in this movie.

We'll start at the top with Bruce Willis, if you didn't believe in his ability to act, you should now. I have always been a fan of Willis since the days of Moonlighting. He is funny and charming, but also can be tough and angry. In this film he showed the range of emotions, including naivity. When I think of great acting performances I think of the scene in the car after he kidnaps Kathryn. His performance was so genuine and his reactions to the radio are very childlike and innocent. There is one shot in particular where he isn't really crying, but his eyes are really showing the emotion and the light is bouncing off of the moisture in his eyes and it makes me well up out of empathy for all the character has to endure.

I understand where darthbenbo is coming from when talking about Willis's performance about seeming that it is holding something back and being passive, but that to me seems right on the money for the character. The thing is that he comes from a world where the devastation has already happened, he believes that any actions taken in the past (our present) won't really matter to the future (his present), he even alludes to this a couple of times in the film. He is passive about the situation until he begins to have faith and even then it is hit and miss as he is confused about what is the real world and what isn't. For two-thirds of the movie Cole's motivation is doing a good job collecting information about event that already happened in order to get a pardon in his own world.

I was hugely disappointed that Willis's performance wasn't recognized by the award circuit. It was tough competition for the year this film came out, but at the very least nominations should have been handed out. Pitt was able to squeak out a nomination and a couple of smaller awards, which was much deserved but I thought Willis was deserving as well

People either really love or really hate Brad Pitt's performance in the film, I for one love it. Brad Pitt will never get the recognition he truly deserves (maybe when he is 90 and he gets one of those pity Oscars like Robert Altman got a couple of years ago) because he is one of the beautiful people and no one really wants them to be good looking AND talented. He ranged from contained chaos with the appearance of lucidity to complete madness. His physical performance was mind blowing and oft-copied. When watching Solaris all I could think about watching Jeremy Davies was that he was doing a Goines-esque performance. He wasn't nearly as wacky, but certainly some of the physical gestures were right out of Brad's performance in this film.

I am not really a huge fan of Madeleine Stow but she was as strong as any other lead in the film. Everyone in the film was really great, from the scientists to Jose. I can't really think of any dead weight which is odd considering there is almost always dead weight.

[MooglePorn]

I'm not one for long examinations of movies, but in a desperate attempt to participate in this area of the forum, I would like to say that I love the way they blended "What a Wonderful World" into the movie. One of the best aspect to a movie in my opinion in the soundtrack, the blending of excellent audio and visual to bring about emotion. It's why my favorite director is Cameron Crowe, because he is a master at it.

Every time I watch 12 Monkeys I am impressed by the way Gilliam used such an old and cliche song in such a wonderful way it still feels powerful. Just amazing that he could pull that off, IMO.

[darthbenbo]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Every time I watch 12 Monkeys I am impressed by the way Gilliam used such an old and cliche song in such a wonderful way it still feels powerful. Just amazing that he could pull that off, IMO.

Excellent point. I don't think Gilliam gets enough credit for the music that he uses in his films. For example, if you were to listen to the soundtrack to The Fisher King without the film it probably wouldn't strike you as anything special. But the way he places those songs into his films is perfect. They never take anything away from the scene or remove the actor from the situation, which is a common complaint of mine about many modern directors.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by darthbenbo

What bothered me about his character was the fact that he always seemed to be holding something back. Here he is thrust into this position where the fate of mankind rests squarely upon his shoulders and he always seems so passive about it all. He rarely lashes out expressing his frustrations and fears. He almost seems to sort of stumble through the entire ordeal. I understand that the emotional burden of traveling back and forth through time and the boughts of paranoia would all act to keep him somewhat floored, but I wished at times that he would have just errupted when constantly trying to explain his mission to those around him.

Wow.
Thank you for perhaps hitting the nail on the head of why I'm reserved on this film.
It's Gilliam - it's sci-fi - I'm there, but I never bought off on this Gilliam film.

I think it may well have been that Willis' character didn't act the way I expected a 'hero' to act, as you described.
He was blase, unfocused, uncommitted, unsuccessful - he seemed a pretty bad candidate to save the world.

I could easily be wrong, since I've only seen it once in the theater, and a 1/2 time on TV, but Willis' character probably was one of the main problems with the movie for me.

The other main gripe was that (as I remember) it was somewhat "difficult" to watch. Difficult as in dirtier and more graphic and brutal than it needed to be, IMO. Similar to how Born on the 4th of July, and Natural Born Killers were (though not as bad).
I just didn't think some scenes had to be played out the way they were (I forget specific examples, but one was near the beginning, in his suit).

[wakwak007]

Hi all-
I've been reading everybody's take on 12 monkeys and since I literally just finished watching this film, I thoguht "I'd venture into class" and add my few pennies to the pot. First as everyone as added the atmosphere and look is incredible. The acting is great and i can see peoples pionts, especially about Willis' acting. However if I could add that an aspect when looking at Willis' performance and in fact, one of Gilliam's characterisitics ( in exactly all of his movies) is his dark humor and the double edge it plays in this film. In terms of Willis' character. As Reaperaurus and Darthbenbo said that he just doesn't appear to be like a hero. And I agree but think about this from a humorous aspect..Our future society puts its survival in the hands of people who they have segrated out of thier society for not adherring to thier norms and who they feel do not belong in its society ( ie. getting convicts, "anti-heroes" to save them) Remember by "voluntering he gets paroled. In fact the whole first part of the movie has many aspects that is both dark/humorous and tragic. For example, when they in fact sent him to 1990 and they were aiming for 1996. It turned out that by thier own actions, they actually created the 12 monkeys and mis-directed their efforts chasing them down and not looking at the scientists who were creating the virus'. Also the whole intertwining of mental health aspect ( I work in the mental health field and it was a very creative take using symptoms of mental disorders) or the shower scenes (ie shrubbing him down after he returns from the outside with samples into the future world and upon entering the hospital ( how he fits in our world) To me the humor of no matter where Cole is just doesn't fit in and is considered an "dirty outcast."

Anyway, thats my two cents to ponder...If I could also add a side note that makes this movie more personal to me. I rented this film couple years ago ( first time on DVD) and when I watched the documentary, not only did I think it was great but I was around one of those scenes. The scene in which Gilliam is screen testing the film at a Cineplex Odien in DC (I used to live in Maryland) I was at that movie theatre when they were filming and saw Gilliam and didn't recognize him but knew I've seen him before and was wondering why he was being filmed. Now I didn't see me in the scene but it was cool to know I was there and remember wondering who is that man with the hat.