Review of The Fisher King (1991) by Zsuzsanna B — 04 May 2011

As with every movie Terry Gilliam, this is an almost preposterous amount of fun and bizarre whimsy. However, more than most of Gilliam's other films, this one is actually relatively grounded in the real world, and focuses more on its characters' somewhat-plausible inner lives than on actual magic.

The story is certainly quite original: a radio shock jock (played by the always excellent Jeff Bridges) inadvertently causes a massacre with a careless remark, and three years later is suicidally depressed. Just when he hits rock bottom, he is saved by a homeless lunatic on a quest for the Holy Grail. The movie goes in all kinds of directions from there, and they don't all perfectly hold together. But, still, you can follow the core story easily enough, and even the bits that seem nonsensical or out-of-place are always at least enjoyable to watch. Terry Gilliam and his screenwriter Richard LaGravenese (who was Oscar-nominated for this screenplay) may occasionally lose focus, but they never ever forget to please the audience.

Robin Williams, nominated for an Oscar for the movie, is really great here. You know the sort of role where Williams gets to be silly, but also occasionally gets to have a straight dramatic moment - Good Will Hunting, Good Morning Vietnam, Jakob the Liar. It's the best type of role for him, and this is one of those. You just can't help but love the guy in this movie. Jeff Bridges is solid as the suicidal DJ, as you would expect. His character isn't as flashy, but he has to carry the movie at certain points, and does it well. Mercedes Ruehl, who won an Oscar for this movie, is quite funny and sassy as Bridges's no-nonsense girlfriend. Amanda Plummer, playing the opposite of her Pulp Fiction role, is adorable as the super-shy object of Williams's affections. The late character actor Michael Jeter has a hilarious, somewhat random scene as a singing, homeless Ethel Merman-wannabe. Tom Waits also has a funny scene because, you know, why not?

Stylistically, the movie is quite interesting. Normally, Terry Gilliam is free to create his strange, baroque visual worlds from scratch - see Time Bandits, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Here, though, he has to find his fantastical little worlds while shooting within New York City. That it still looks like a Terry Gilliam movie is impressive. Williams's absurdly decorated basement is the most obviously lovingly-created set piece, but Gilliam even manages to make a video store and a Chinese restaurant look weird. As you would expect, there are oblique camera angles and at least one usage of a fish-eye camera lens; but it all gives a sense more of a quirky perspective on possibly real events, rather than just totally weird events.

Just for point of comparison, I'll contrast this with a totally different film I've been thinking about lately (because I'm writing a paper on it): Peter Brook's 1971 film version of King Lear. The more I think about that movie, the more I see what it was doing: it was a very carefully controlled exercise in making the audience as miserable as possible. Peter Brook was totally in charge of that film, and it does precisely what he designed it to do, but what he designed it to do is induce misery and drain the life away from the audience. This movie, on the other hand, is about as generous a movie as you can get. It may seem to be slipping out of Terry Gilliam's control every now and then, but the movie is just falling all over itself in its attempts to give you something fun and memorable. I know which type of film-making I find more admirable and worthwhile.