The parallel between the source material and the events that transpire is suggested by the co-author Tony Grisoni at the close of the documentary and is happily not overplayed at all. In fact the documentary is played pretty straight being both chronological and even-handed. While everyone on-set praises Gilliam for his responsibility and dedication at the outset, as things fall apart the criticisms begin. But you do get the sense that either these extremely pacific, patient and gentle people or else that there's some footage of bloody noses and screaming tantrums left on the cutting room floor. Seeing a multi-million pound investment decimated and ultimately destroyed by a combination of the rain, a sore bottom, hubris and sheer bloody-mindedness is met with extraordinary on-screen patience. I wish I was that patient when I run out of milk and have to go out late at night and buy some more!
Of course the really tantalising thing about the documentary is the great "what if...?" question. Everyone believes in the project, everyone thinks it will be great, everyone is firmly behind Gilliam's vision and so the documentary works on the premise that we're witnessing the loss of Gilliam's masterpiece. I went with it, it heightens the sense of drama and sharpens the romantic tragedy. But as a lukewarm Gilliam fan (loved Brazil and Fear and Loathing, liked the Python films he directed, didn't much care for Twelve Monkeys or Parnassus) I find it hard to buy. What troubles me is the rewrite of the narrative he's done (adding another layer of fantasy with Depp travelling back in time and being mistaken by Quixote for Sancho Panza) because you're talking about one of the all-time great works of fiction. It doesn't need sexing up, it's not a bloody first draft!
We don't learn a great deal about The Man Who Killed Don Quixote beyond that, and the fact that Johnny Depp has to fight some string puppet soldiers at some point and is almost eaten by a giant (that was a wonderful piece of casting, by the way). But that's okay, the film is back on for a 2011 release with Robert Duvall taking the lead in place of the visually perfect but physically incapable Jean Rochefort (the Frenchman at least has the dubious consolation of having been in Mr Bean's Holiday since).
As someone who has limited knowledge of film-making but a fair degree of experience in commercial projects, this film also gave a fascinating insight into the way films are made. Apart from the sheer logistical effort involved (all those names scrolling up at the end have to have something to do I suppose) I was taken aback by the sheer ineptitude of the people running this thing. Tying the finance of the project to the participation of an elderly Jean Rochefort was a case in point; if Depp or Gilliam pull out it'll be tough to get an equal box office draw to replace them but Rochefort? Fine actor he may be, but he's no Will Smith when it comes to getting bums on seats even, I suspect, in France. Even more so was the sight of Gilliam and his First AD Phil Patterson trying to get to grips with the intricacies of their insurance policies and ascertain whether Rochefort's herniated disc qualified as a force majeure. Big and costly decisions were made seemingly on a whim and the producer René Cleitman's role seems to be to nod sweetly and sign the cheques. Perhaps Cleitman's inability to do his job was the fatal human flaw that sparked the tragedy. But whatever the financial quibbles, for the film fan it's fascinating to see the pre-production footage and the transition from vision to reality.
It's a terribly entertaining, terribly sad, terribly frustrating documentary and I'd recommend watching it. I somehow doubt the film we eventually see will be as clear and faithful a distillation of the spirit of the wonderful Cervantes novel as this is.
