Jabberwocky (1977)

Synopsis:

During the Dark Ages, a young barrel-maker (Michael Palin, A Fish Called Wanda) leaves his small village in search of a better life. The naive peasant arrives at the capital city, where he is quickly mixed up in the King’s plan to destroy a deadly creature, the monstrous “Jabberwocky,” that has been terrorizing the kingdom.

Reaction & Thoughts:

“It is the middle of the Dark Ages. Ages darker than anyone had ever expected.”

Monty Python alumnus Terry Gilliam’s (Time Bandits and The Fisher King) solo directorial debut is an irreverent revisionist take on medieval morality plays. There are segments of the movie that could be considered tasteless and the pacing is a bit on the slow side, but it never runs out of saucy gags and inventive ideas.

Though it sometimes feels like a collection of outtakes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), Jabberwocky has its own identity. The difference between director Gilliam and his classmates is obvious: While The Pythons hated conventional storytelling techniques, Gilliam tells a coherent story, albeit in an irreverent way.

I can’t say I prefer one approach over the other. However, I believe Gilliam’s style suits cinema better, which is probably why The Pythons only made a few films, while Gilliam has been able to carve out a fine cinematic legacy. Anyhow, Jabberwocky shouldn’t be dismissed as a Python copycat — it’s the first film of a bona fide auteur.

But, is the movie any good? Although this is hardly one of Gillian’s best efforts, I liked it a lot. I tend to agree with The New York Times film critic Vincent Canby who called it “a monster film with heart” and “a wickedly literate spoof.” Granted, Jabberwocky isn’t a laugh-a-minute comedy. It’s more like a witty, slow-burn satire.

The film was inspired by a poem written by Lewis Carroll and introduced in his book Through the Looking-Glass, the sequel to Carroll’s classic Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. The screenplay was written by American novelist Charles Alverson (Goodey’s Last Stand) and director Gilliam, who also has a small (and hilarious) role in the movie.

I loved the film’s look more than anything else. The sets and costumes are grungy, the cinematography is drab, the movie looks kind of disgusting, but I wasn’t turned off by its ugliness. On the contrary, I truly appreciated the fact that Gillian went against the common practice of romanticizing the Middle Ages. The director puts movies like The Lion in Winter (1968) and Braveheart (1995) to shame!

I even liked the lack of sophisticated visual effects. The title monster looks like a paper mache marionette. It shouldn’t work, but it does. This is a very low-budget production, and I was impressed with how Gilliam turned the movie’s lack of resources into an asset. The cheap-looking visuals fits perfectly with the story’s surrealist vibe.

Conclusions & Final Thoughts:

How do you determine whether a movie comedy is good or bad? Film critic Gene Siskel had a simple system: it’s good if you laughed, it’s bad if you didn’t laugh. It’s probably a bit more complex than that. The truth is that you can’t really predict how a viewer is going to react to a joke. All I can say is that Jabberwocky made me laugh. In any event, this Terry Gilliam movie is worth watching at least once. Color, 106 minutes, Rated PG.

7 responses to “Jabberwocky (1977)

  1. The Monty Python gang–tasteless? Lol. Understatement!
    I did like portions of this a lot, but some fell flat. Still thing Terry G. was a genius at times (in his whole career).

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s definitely a mixed bag. However, I think the good outweighs the not so good. Not sure if you agree or not, but Gilliam’s next two movies, Time Bandits and Brazil, are great, so I viewed Jabberwocky as a nice warm-up exercise.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Obviously I meant think and not thing above, ha.
    I COMPLETELY agree. Those are two of my favorite movies of all time in general. “Is that absolutely necessary?” [gibberish] “What did he say?” “He said, ‘I’m afraid so.'” LOL
    And Brazil–crystal ball stuff. We were starting to go that way back then, but we’re definitely living that now. Incredible!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Agree with Gene Siskel, it should be a very good movie because I remember I saw it many times when I was a student and I laughed as I never did. I’m so fond of that chicken predator monster!
    And you made for it a very good review.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s