Review of Jabberwocky (1977) by Harry W — 20 Apr 2017

Being Terry Gilliam's first feature as a solo director, Jabberwocky sounded like a solid chance to see his fantastical mind in early form.

Jabberwocky captures Terry Gilliam's transition period between his work with Monty Python and a career as a director of fantasy narratives. The entire feature is abundant in transitional difficulty because it meanders between the tones of Terry Gilliam's earlier works and his later works.

Jabberwocky seems to be unable to decide whether it wants to be a serious fantasy film or a parody of one. The film is ripe with sporadic jokes, but the tone of the feature is very serious as are many of the themes. As a result I didn't know whether to laugh or take the film as a serious social criticism, ultimately doing neither. Mostly, the entire film like it was a pretentious mimicry of British sitcom The Black Adder (1983) as it follows a kind-hearted but submissive and ignorant man with a bowl-cut in a medieval setting. However, The Black Adder was clearly a sitcom while Jabberwocky seems unable to determine its tone. Elements of Monty Python still make their way into the film through sporadic jokes and ridiculously silly situations, but it feels far too numb by a film which is genuinely not funny. Jabberwocky is not a funny film, and it has none of the intellectual brilliance of Terry Gilliam's later features. There is no character development to assist anything along the way, nor is there a complete acknowledgement of just how ridiculous the film's concept is.

It's hard to tell what the real expectation should be for a film like Jabberwocky, but it just feels like an awkward and directionless series of sketches which have no consistent narrative to tie them together. It seems as if there is an attempt at universe building present in the film to connect everything, but everything is scattershot and uninteresting. And one of the most memorable issues with the film is the fact that the actual relevance of the titular Jabberwocky is inert. It is a creature mentioned sporadically throughout the story without playing any essential role in it, and then it presents itself out of the blue at the end of the film as an oversized marionette puppet whose appearance is difficult to discern from how it is presented on the film's poster. Audiences familiar with the Jabberwocky's relevance in Lewis Carroll narratives are likely to expect something more significant from the fantasy mind of the man who gave the world such marvels as Time Bandits (1981) and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988). Admittedly it is only his first film and much smaller in budget, but Terry Gilliam has worked wonders with small sums in the past. With Jabberwocky, he simply uses the mythological creature as a token hook to draw audiences into a lacklustre echo of his days in Monty Python.

As far as being a stylish experience, Jabberwocky feels far too low budget to gain any real credibility. Maybe some audiences will find amusement in the fact that the director is able to create a rather medieval setting without spending all that much, but this was already done previously with Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) which he also co-directed. The similarities are undeniable, and I spent the majority of the film in belief that Terry Gilliam had simply recycled the leftover set pieces from his previous work so that he may churn out another film in the same manner Roger Corman did with The Little Shop of Horrors (1960). However, the cinematography really burdens the film. With everything being shot up way too close with rather murky colour scheme, the film ultimately feels to small in scale to achieve its fantasy ambitions. There is also an abundance of shake in the camera; not in the same manner that contemporary action films suffer from, but the camera is constantly moving without any smooth tilts. As a result, there is a constant feeling on instability in the mood. I can certainly admit that I believed the universe in the film and had an appreciation for the scenery, set pieces and costume design. But given that neither the story nor the cinematography knows how to utilise these in any kind of effective manner.

Ultimatel, it's hard to tell whether Jabberwocky is meant to be a film that retreats from Terry Gilliam's Monty Python roots or embraces them, because it seems to do both and ends up in an awkward limbo as a result. You'd think that with fellow Monty Python alumni Michael Palin in the leading role there would be at least some sense of effective humour in the film, but this was not the case. This is heavily due to the fact that almost every other character in Jabberwocky outside of the protagonist just comes and goes on random occasion with no consistent relevance to the story. They don't develop anywhere or do anything aside from making a lame attempt at random jokes, and none of them have any landing. Jabberwocky really never had the chance of being a serious narrative, so if it went alongside the Monty Python theme a lot more then perhaps it would have landed some credible success. But despite all of Michael Palin's efforts, it couldn't.

But Michael Palin really does give it his all. Despite the script's lack of development for his character, he really captures the innocent and lovable nature of Dennis Cooper. He carries a very sweet nature to him without being excessive in conveying the character's vulnerabilities, displaying the potential for dramatic material to function in Jabberwocky. He is very smooth and consistent with his line delivery and has strong chemistry with every fellow actor, as well as engaging with the universe around him in a very consistent manner. He makes a believable character in a film where he is surrounded by one-dimensional others.

Despite Michael Palin's good-intentioned leading performance, Jabberwocky is an awkward misfire from Terry Gilliam with several awkward attempts at the comic nature of his earlier work and none of the intellectual brilliance from his later films.