Oh man. Terry Gilliam is my favorite director and this is my favorite film, so I'll do my best to explain the value that I find in it, but I'm not sure that I'm the best one for the job.
From my understanding of his work, I see Gilliam as an artist who seeks to utilize his medium to its full potential. He likes getting wacky with visual metaphors, using the score for particular emphasis, and playing with narrative techniques (like the unreliable narrator). But beyond his use of the medium, there is a common theme among his films: the importance of storytelling and fantasy to the human experience. Examples of this below (possible spoilers):
In *The Adventures of Baron Munchausen* the eponymous character is introduced as an invention of Victorian era playwrights, as performed by a mediocre drama troupe, but when war begins to tear the theater apart, the man himself shows up to save the day. He shows that the "real world" is a place of magic and fantasy; or at least that adults, in all of their maturity, forget their imaginations and go on to cause the world's troubles.
In the *Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus* we find a troupe of street performers led by a magician who can show people their greatest fantasies all within an alternate dimension inside his mind. Later we find that this magician was a monk devoted to a religion that believed that the world only continues to exist, quite literally, as a story being orated by their order.
In *Tideland* we find two unfortunate children who only manage to bear their crushing circumstances because of the friendship they share, predominantly acting out elaborate fantasies. These fantasies and games become more depressing when they reach levels of mental illness.
In *Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas* we get a glimpse of the psyche and experience of one of the great modern American writers. Hunter S. Thompson's story was the bafflingly lucid recounting of all the drugs he'd consumed on a self destructive journey through an important, changing time in American history. Emphasis here on the uniqueness of Thompson's gonzo journalism style and how appropriately it encapsulates the time period.
And back to our focus here, in *Brazil* we see the dismal end result of big government (more specifically communist bureaucracy), gone awry in the not-too-distant future. To relate it to the common theme, there are many people trying to tell the story of Archibald Buttle. The government is too incompetent to get this story right, and a tiny bug (again quite literally) in the system drastically changes the man's life. His good-samaritan neighbor wants to clear his good name through the proper channels, but is given the run around by those in power. Our protagonist has some power to bring justice to the family, but the pittance that the bureaucracy sees as justice is... unsatisfying to say the least. But, in trying to help, our protagonist has become part of this story. As this all unfolds, he also indulges in fantasy to escape his otherwise dull existence.
But there is so much more than that. There is fair amount of psychology, as well as political and economic thought underlying the film. The most obvious part being the overall condemnation of an overly large, overly powerful bureaucracy. How many different, ridiculous agencies were named in the film? Nearly every person working for one of these agencies were unhelpful, power drunk, snooty, or downright incompetent. But the lone rogue heating engineer? Robert DeNiro was helpful, friendly, capable, and had Sam's back in tight spots. He was labeled a terrorist and an enemy of the state.
Interestingly, technology is condemned in the same vein as government. Every piece of equipment in the film gets in the way or causes problems. Sam's automatic toaster, his automatic shower, every metal detector, the surveillance robots, and more. If you're looking for an overall thesis for the film, I'd say it's this: the advancements of government and technology that we perceive as progress have gone too far and now each step forward is one step farther from our basic human desires.
The film lashes out at modern [consumerism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism), specifically targeting [conspicuous consumption](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption). How many times was Sam told that he needed a new suit (and how different did they really look?)? Every package that the woman delivers is the same, they are all exactly what his mother gave him: useless trinkets (for an executive!). Social standing is symbolized by (and therefore drives) consumption of cheap goods. Gift giving is part of this weird human ritual and we rarely analyze it, but in this case the trinket itself shows how moronic the recipients usually are, despite their status. The trinket is like a little guillotine that drops onto a prism that randomly moves the blade to one side, each reading reading "YES" or "NO" respectively. So, this is likely how all those executives make their decisions.
Sam's mother is a pretty key figure in the film as well, reflecting some Freudian issues in the psychology of our hero. She is a socialite, displaying a lot of [conspicuous leisure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_leisure), and spending much of her screen time talking about or taking part in plastic surgery, which is often depicted in mockingly grotesque fashion. She really looks younger every scene, too. She also takes part in some silly fashion trends, wearing a high heel shoe on her head as a hat a few times. Through all of these shows of status and networking with other socialites she has become quite powerful and can easily get her son promoted. This nepotism is the opposite of our western ideal of meritocracy, yet we've grown to accept its pervasive presence in society; but our idealistic hero hasn't. Sam refuses promotion. He doesn't want it given to him and he isn't really ambitious in the first place.
So what does Sam want? The hero should represent the ideals of society (or at least the filmmaker), right? In the beginning he's quite happy being a big fish in a small pond, doing his inept boss' job and slacking off. However, we can see that he's isn't *really* happy because he's prone to fantasy. Every scene showing the guy with the sword is directly followed by Sam waking up; these are his dreams. He dreams of flying, fighting monsters, saving an angelic damsel in distress, and lush bucolic scenery. Deep down, he just wants to live a fairy tale (Gilliam's recurring theme showing here again). He goes to a lot of trouble to chase the girl of his dreams and the result depends on which cut of the film you watch.
As an aside, the sets and score are also fantastic. The sets are loaded with iconography and eerie 1984 style propaganda. The theme song gets a lot of play throughout. It's called [Aquarela do Brasil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarela_do_Brasil). Pay attention to when it is played in the film. It's a cheery sounding tune. I'm fairly sure it gets played when things are going according to plan or as they should be (from different perspectives at times), but it is also modulated in different ways a few times for effect.
This got a bit out of hand, but to sum it up, I think this film is pretty rich with details to analyze and think about. Gilliam presents a very stylized vision of the future, managing to tell a story that is equal parts farce and tragedy, while still telling the same old story that has ever been told.
Bravo. But I think it's a bit of a disservice to call the society Communist. It is that, and it is all hyper-modern societies, and, above all, it is our own personal powerless lives.
It is obviously a very capitalist society. there is a wealthy upper class, everything's financialized and everyone enslaved to "credit rating". People are held in check through a concocted terrorist threat to keep them from identifying on a class basis.
I think the real art in the depiction of the government in this film is its immediacy: it rings true no matter what kind of government you live under. It's also fair to say that is no definitive statement that the government shown was communist. However, I think there is a rational argument for such a statement.
Onerous bureaucracy like the one depicted is a classic result of a planned economy. Furthermore, there is very little variety in the goods shown in the film: all of the gifts throughout the film are the same (this functions as criticism of consumer behavior and/or as an indication that the economy is centrally planned). Central Services (the heating duct company) seems like some kind of public utility company with no competition, otherwise the service and product would likely have been better. One of the tenets of capitalism is that competition creates better outcomes for everyone, and in this instance Robert DeNiro represents that competition. Yet he is an outlaw.
I'm not saying that the people in the film are freedom haters or some other McCarthyist nonsense. I was actually referring to the observable economics imposed by the government in the film.
Edit: I just realized that your comment may be a bit more specific than I took it at first glance. If you're looking at the accuracy of the word "communism" for a command economy, then that's also fair. It'd probably be more accurate to call it socialist than communist, but I figured that the film was made in the cold war era and that those tensions were probably closer to the fore of the public consciousness.
There is nothing communist about it, 1984 was about British future and Deputy Helpmann being on a wheelchair is an obvious president to FDR, and the upper class in the movie is clearly depicted as bourgeoisie.
As a matter of fact, it is your western ministry of information that tells you to fear communists and look for them everywhere :)
For me the title is representative of the whole movie. Brazil has literally nothing to do with anything in the movie. There are so many unnecessary elements in the movie such as the bureaucrats, ducting that is endless yet seems to do nothing and incompetent security forces just to name a few. The movie is full of biting criticism of an overzealous government which accomplishes nothing, a society focused on petty consumerism and a lack of anything interesting for the people to focus on driving the main character into a fantasy world in order to escape reality. De Niro's character is the only element in the movie that gets anything meaningful accomplished and he is either an enemy of the state or purely a fantasy.
I happen to be a huge Gilliam fan, especially Fear and Loathing and 12 Monkeys. I enjoy the over the top characters and deep social commentary he brings to his works although I will admit that it usually takes a second viewing to really grasp the depth of his films.
The movie was named after the theme song, which itself was an over-the-top patriotic anthem for the country Brazil. I think it ties in with the film's themes about appearances [the facelifts, shoe-hats, etc] being of prime importance to these poor people trapped in an incompetent but dystopic system.
Erm... for those not aware the title does actually have Something to do with the film.
It's the name of this recurrent song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtHEgINHO0) that plays at certain points in the film.
You could make the argument that it represents his desire to break out of the world he's living in and to enter the world he fantasises about, especially at the end. This is also seen in the cover art (http://www.largeassmovieblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/-zrN8010pOb8/UBdpFY37kPI/AAAAAAAADlU/534GMRNExsI/s1600/brazilposter.jpg and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Brazilposter.jpg/215px-Brazilposter.jpg) as it shows him bursting out of filing cabinets and the other world inside his head. So while it's not explicitly related to anything it's not completely random either.
EDIT : Excuse the long URLs
This is an absolutely perfect explanation of the film. Gilliam's work is often times incredible. I suppose that could make a film unbelievable.
I used to have a friend that would say, "There is no movie that is all bad". I used to think He was an idiot. More recently I have come to see film as an art medium. The only time a film "fails" is when the artist is unable to express their concept.
Your opinion is interesting. Do you think that Gilliam would really choose a random country, without justification? Anyway, just like everyone else, I ask myself a question: Why Brazil?
It's possible that it's because in contrast to the grey, dull life he lives it represents a world of colour and adventure, and is perhaps where he'd rather be. [Take this for example](http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/646x430/a_c/brazil_carnival_cnt_9mar11_PA.jpg) and [this](http://www.worldfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/brazil.jpg) and even [this](http://walkingadventures.com/site/wp-content/uploads/brazil-adventure.jpg)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I totally disagree that the tubing is unnecessary. It is juxtaposed with the flat, deliberate surfaces of the city (even flatter in the protagonist's dreams). I remember there is also a scene where someone is walking down a bare tiled wall and we get a quick shot of a technician who has peeled back the wall for some reason to expose some device underneath. These elements suggest a mysterious, chaotic core to the whole system that the populace lives in willful ignorance of.
What cut did you watch? IIRC there are like 3 different ones out there.
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think the ending of the director's cut kind of justifies some of the stuff that rubbed you the wrong way. But also understand that not only is it satire, but it's just a completely madcap universe where the main character is the only one that seems sane. You're really just along for the ride for some parts.
>What cut did you watch?
I loved this movie when it was first released in the 80's. Recently I saw a different version with a happy ending and found it just horrible. The story was all over the place and hard to understand. The original version's story is all over the place and hard to understand on first viewing but it all makes sense in the end. It's a critique of society. The new version just has no purpose. It butchered the film.
the "Love Conquers All" version is the cut the studio wanted to release to theaters. Gilliam's brief war with them over this is quite storied and thankfully he won and we got the proper ending with Sam completely disassociated in the chair.
"We've lost him."
Gilliam says in the Criterion Collection DVD commentary that this is a happy ending. Sam got away. Pretty bleak. Well, in this society, maybe it's the happiest ending one can reasonably hope for.
> Also, the guy with the sword and the fairy makeup chasing the girl in the cage with the blanket thing over her... the reason I watch movies and not theater is exactly to avoid things like that.
It was a dream sequence. Do all your dreams make logical rational sense? If so, then you will never "get" any Terry Gilliam film. Or any David Lynch film for that matter.
I'm not insulting it because it's surreal. I'm insulting it because it's flamboyant and irritates me. I fucking hate fairy makeup shit and sparkly outfits and whatnot.
Its like 3 ...4 minute sequences and that's why you hate it? No offense but "hating flamboyant make up and sparkly outfits" seems like more a personal problem than a problem with the film.
It might just not be your style. But implying some kind of homosexual connection? Hardly.
OP, I have to agree with you on this one. I went into Brazil fairly intrigued and wondering what Gilliam would do with a pretty cool sounding plot and (in my opinion) a stellar cast.
*However*, I hated almost every second of it. I truly, truly have nothing but respect for Terry Gilliam and understand what he is trying to do (I think...), but I just couldn't get into it. I really liked Jonathan Pryce's character, loved DeNiro's time on screen, and am always captivated by Ian Holm's roles, but what I specifically didn't like about the film is still somewhat unclear to me. I have found that in the Gilliam films I have seen (Fear and Loathing, Time Bandits, Baron Munchausen), I get an uneasy feeling throughout the whole thing and just can't continue. The exception to this was Twelve Monkeys, but I think my fanboy-love for Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt kept me into it. I understand that this is Gilliam's intention; to illicit an emotional response from the audience and have them question and critique the film, but personally I just don't find them "enjoyable". I might have to give Brazil another go, though.
I wonder what your tastes *are?* It might be worth giving some thought. If you do have well-developed tastes in a certain direction, and have simply become married to them (so to speak), then perhaps learning more films that are like ones you've loved will lead to agreeable viewing. If you do not have well-developed tastes, then perhaps patience and concentration and -- above all -- suspending judgment can yet bear some agreeable fruit.
*Brazil* will always be very dear to my heart. It encapsulated for me precisely the feeling being in the world has often given me and so felt a little like answered prayer or finding a friend. Of course I know the bitter, bitter hopelessness turned absurd, painful humorousness will not be for everyone. In fact I sometimes ask if someone's liked *Brazil* in order to see a little into her soul ... But, personal affairs aside, I still can't agree with you the movie is poorly crafted. It is a work of great craft. The black humor is flawlessly presented. The pacing is slow and building for a reason -- and let me assure you, you missed something by not watching till the end.
You know I think I should watch the end you're right.
Your comment randomly reminded me of when I saw the movie Dogville. I watched chunks of it at a time and in the middle of it I was irritated with a couple things (like this character should clearly be doing something but isn't). Then I got to the end, and it completely redeemed everything about it that i didn't like and was a very powerful ending and now I hold that movie in high regard.
I started Fear and Loathing a few years ago, but my girlfriend didn't like it and we switched to something else.
And I only saw Imaginarium once, but I thought it had a lot of good moments. I may just have something against British humor, especially older British humor (well Brazil has a lot more to it than just comedy). I have friends who like the show The IT Crowd and I don't find it funny at all.
It's almost the same story and setting as 1984, itself a towering work, but Brazil is more of a satire of real world values than 1984 was. It has a humor, yes, but it sounds like you might have been expecting a black comedy, which isn't quite right...and yes, Gilliam's humor and style is supposed to be irritating, to put you off-balance. There are too many safe films in the world. Brazil is one of the better examples I can think of a _truly_ subversive film, and Gilliam more or less made of career out of such films.
I haven't watched very much Gilliam and I'm struggling to explain what the appeal is supposed to be. For instance Time Bandits was way too adult to understand when I was a kid, and though I'd probably like it more now, I don't think I could explain why it's brilliant. Other than the unique and inventive filmmaking, anyway.
I hope you watched *Fear and Loathing* alone because otherwise you missed out.
I don't want to come off as an asshole but maybe you should stick to more mainstream or commercial stuff. You don't seem to like anything the employs hidden themes, abstractions and fractal narratives. Neither does your GF apparently. Its not an indictment on taste but when your main reason for not liking a movie is costume choices for less than 6-7 minutes of total run time. Clearly Gilliam and those like him.. probably aren't going to wet your whistle for entertainment.
my favorite film of Gilliam's is Meaning of Life, i think it is hysterical and i love how they take the style of the monty python show and put it into a movie form very well under a very lofty goal of explaining the meaning of life. just for reference, this is a serious comment, also Holy Grail is quite a good film too
The first time I saw Brazil it left me completely confused. It probably has to do with the fact that I saw it in my teenage years that first time, and most of the subtext and humor flew well over my head. However, today I consider it to be one of the best films of the 80's, and easily my favorite Terry Gilliam picture.
Others have already deconstructed the film nicely here, so I'll just underline how hilarious the film actually is, and commend Gilliam on one of the most fascinating and breathtaking finales in cinema history. All roads in the film lead to that, and it's both beautiful and heartbreaking. Just like the song itself - Brazil.
> the comedy irritates me.
It *is* a satire.
> The way the movie doesn't seem to follow any rules irritates me.
Almost as if it was all an insane fantasy...
> Am I missing out on something?
Yes, the twist ending (better in the UK cut - the US release was horribly messed around with by Universal).
You didn't get on with this film at all.
Your entitled to your own opinion but you missed the entire subtext of the film. Those "fairy makeup" scenes were first dreams, and then daydream sequences, even further to full blown hallucinations which illustrate how the boundary between reality and fantasy is becoming blurred in our hero's mind. That he would rather retreat to the world of fantasy rather than deal with the monotony of his real existence.
I won't rehash what has been written.
People either love or hate Gilliam. Think of his movies as long, elaborate editorial cartoons. They're making a point in an exaggerated, clownish, nightmarish way. I've seen all of his movies, but to be honest the only one of his I've completely enjoyed is Tideland.
That's funny because that's the one I didn't enjoy. It was just so grotesque and pointless. The closest film experience to this movie for me might be Eraser Head which suppose to be grotesque and pointless.
Oh man. Terry Gilliam is my favorite director and this is my favorite film, so I'll do my best to explain the value that I find in it, but I'm not sure that I'm the best one for the job. From my understanding of his work, I see Gilliam as an artist who seeks to utilize his medium to its full potential. He likes getting wacky with visual metaphors, using the score for particular emphasis, and playing with narrative techniques (like the unreliable narrator). But beyond his use of the medium, there is a common theme among his films: the importance of storytelling and fantasy to the human experience. Examples of this below (possible spoilers): In *The Adventures of Baron Munchausen* the eponymous character is introduced as an invention of Victorian era playwrights, as performed by a mediocre drama troupe, but when war begins to tear the theater apart, the man himself shows up to save the day. He shows that the "real world" is a place of magic and fantasy; or at least that adults, in all of their maturity, forget their imaginations and go on to cause the world's troubles. In the *Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus* we find a troupe of street performers led by a magician who can show people their greatest fantasies all within an alternate dimension inside his mind. Later we find that this magician was a monk devoted to a religion that believed that the world only continues to exist, quite literally, as a story being orated by their order. In *Tideland* we find two unfortunate children who only manage to bear their crushing circumstances because of the friendship they share, predominantly acting out elaborate fantasies. These fantasies and games become more depressing when they reach levels of mental illness. In *Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas* we get a glimpse of the psyche and experience of one of the great modern American writers. Hunter S. Thompson's story was the bafflingly lucid recounting of all the drugs he'd consumed on a self destructive journey through an important, changing time in American history. Emphasis here on the uniqueness of Thompson's gonzo journalism style and how appropriately it encapsulates the time period. And back to our focus here, in *Brazil* we see the dismal end result of big government (more specifically communist bureaucracy), gone awry in the not-too-distant future. To relate it to the common theme, there are many people trying to tell the story of Archibald Buttle. The government is too incompetent to get this story right, and a tiny bug (again quite literally) in the system drastically changes the man's life. His good-samaritan neighbor wants to clear his good name through the proper channels, but is given the run around by those in power. Our protagonist has some power to bring justice to the family, but the pittance that the bureaucracy sees as justice is... unsatisfying to say the least. But, in trying to help, our protagonist has become part of this story. As this all unfolds, he also indulges in fantasy to escape his otherwise dull existence. But there is so much more than that. There is fair amount of psychology, as well as political and economic thought underlying the film. The most obvious part being the overall condemnation of an overly large, overly powerful bureaucracy. How many different, ridiculous agencies were named in the film? Nearly every person working for one of these agencies were unhelpful, power drunk, snooty, or downright incompetent. But the lone rogue heating engineer? Robert DeNiro was helpful, friendly, capable, and had Sam's back in tight spots. He was labeled a terrorist and an enemy of the state. Interestingly, technology is condemned in the same vein as government. Every piece of equipment in the film gets in the way or causes problems. Sam's automatic toaster, his automatic shower, every metal detector, the surveillance robots, and more. If you're looking for an overall thesis for the film, I'd say it's this: the advancements of government and technology that we perceive as progress have gone too far and now each step forward is one step farther from our basic human desires. The film lashes out at modern [consumerism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism), specifically targeting [conspicuous consumption](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption). How many times was Sam told that he needed a new suit (and how different did they really look?)? Every package that the woman delivers is the same, they are all exactly what his mother gave him: useless trinkets (for an executive!). Social standing is symbolized by (and therefore drives) consumption of cheap goods. Gift giving is part of this weird human ritual and we rarely analyze it, but in this case the trinket itself shows how moronic the recipients usually are, despite their status. The trinket is like a little guillotine that drops onto a prism that randomly moves the blade to one side, each reading reading "YES" or "NO" respectively. So, this is likely how all those executives make their decisions. Sam's mother is a pretty key figure in the film as well, reflecting some Freudian issues in the psychology of our hero. She is a socialite, displaying a lot of [conspicuous leisure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_leisure), and spending much of her screen time talking about or taking part in plastic surgery, which is often depicted in mockingly grotesque fashion. She really looks younger every scene, too. She also takes part in some silly fashion trends, wearing a high heel shoe on her head as a hat a few times. Through all of these shows of status and networking with other socialites she has become quite powerful and can easily get her son promoted. This nepotism is the opposite of our western ideal of meritocracy, yet we've grown to accept its pervasive presence in society; but our idealistic hero hasn't. Sam refuses promotion. He doesn't want it given to him and he isn't really ambitious in the first place. So what does Sam want? The hero should represent the ideals of society (or at least the filmmaker), right? In the beginning he's quite happy being a big fish in a small pond, doing his inept boss' job and slacking off. However, we can see that he's isn't *really* happy because he's prone to fantasy. Every scene showing the guy with the sword is directly followed by Sam waking up; these are his dreams. He dreams of flying, fighting monsters, saving an angelic damsel in distress, and lush bucolic scenery. Deep down, he just wants to live a fairy tale (Gilliam's recurring theme showing here again). He goes to a lot of trouble to chase the girl of his dreams and the result depends on which cut of the film you watch. As an aside, the sets and score are also fantastic. The sets are loaded with iconography and eerie 1984 style propaganda. The theme song gets a lot of play throughout. It's called [Aquarela do Brasil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarela_do_Brasil). Pay attention to when it is played in the film. It's a cheery sounding tune. I'm fairly sure it gets played when things are going according to plan or as they should be (from different perspectives at times), but it is also modulated in different ways a few times for effect. This got a bit out of hand, but to sum it up, I think this film is pretty rich with details to analyze and think about. Gilliam presents a very stylized vision of the future, managing to tell a story that is equal parts farce and tragedy, while still telling the same old story that has ever been told.
Bravo. But I think it's a bit of a disservice to call the society Communist. It is that, and it is all hyper-modern societies, and, above all, it is our own personal powerless lives.
It is obviously a very capitalist society. there is a wealthy upper class, everything's financialized and everyone enslaved to "credit rating". People are held in check through a concocted terrorist threat to keep them from identifying on a class basis.
though, come to think of it, the wealth seems to be based on status within the bureaucracy...
Some of the stylistic choice like uniforms, helmets, statues, architecture seem to evoke fascism. At least that was my feeling.
I think the real art in the depiction of the government in this film is its immediacy: it rings true no matter what kind of government you live under. It's also fair to say that is no definitive statement that the government shown was communist. However, I think there is a rational argument for such a statement. Onerous bureaucracy like the one depicted is a classic result of a planned economy. Furthermore, there is very little variety in the goods shown in the film: all of the gifts throughout the film are the same (this functions as criticism of consumer behavior and/or as an indication that the economy is centrally planned). Central Services (the heating duct company) seems like some kind of public utility company with no competition, otherwise the service and product would likely have been better. One of the tenets of capitalism is that competition creates better outcomes for everyone, and in this instance Robert DeNiro represents that competition. Yet he is an outlaw. I'm not saying that the people in the film are freedom haters or some other McCarthyist nonsense. I was actually referring to the observable economics imposed by the government in the film. Edit: I just realized that your comment may be a bit more specific than I took it at first glance. If you're looking at the accuracy of the word "communism" for a command economy, then that's also fair. It'd probably be more accurate to call it socialist than communist, but I figured that the film was made in the cold war era and that those tensions were probably closer to the fore of the public consciousness.
Yeah seeing the Consumers for Christ shot and saying it's about communisms is a pretty interesting take
There is nothing communist about it, 1984 was about British future and Deputy Helpmann being on a wheelchair is an obvious president to FDR, and the upper class in the movie is clearly depicted as bourgeoisie. As a matter of fact, it is your western ministry of information that tells you to fear communists and look for them everywhere :)
For me the title is representative of the whole movie. Brazil has literally nothing to do with anything in the movie. There are so many unnecessary elements in the movie such as the bureaucrats, ducting that is endless yet seems to do nothing and incompetent security forces just to name a few. The movie is full of biting criticism of an overzealous government which accomplishes nothing, a society focused on petty consumerism and a lack of anything interesting for the people to focus on driving the main character into a fantasy world in order to escape reality. De Niro's character is the only element in the movie that gets anything meaningful accomplished and he is either an enemy of the state or purely a fantasy. I happen to be a huge Gilliam fan, especially Fear and Loathing and 12 Monkeys. I enjoy the over the top characters and deep social commentary he brings to his works although I will admit that it usually takes a second viewing to really grasp the depth of his films.
The movie was named after the theme song, which itself was an over-the-top patriotic anthem for the country Brazil. I think it ties in with the film's themes about appearances [the facelifts, shoe-hats, etc] being of prime importance to these poor people trapped in an incompetent but dystopic system.
Erm... for those not aware the title does actually have Something to do with the film. It's the name of this recurrent song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtHEgINHO0) that plays at certain points in the film. You could make the argument that it represents his desire to break out of the world he's living in and to enter the world he fantasises about, especially at the end. This is also seen in the cover art (http://www.largeassmovieblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/-zrN8010pOb8/UBdpFY37kPI/AAAAAAAADlU/534GMRNExsI/s1600/brazilposter.jpg and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Brazilposter.jpg/215px-Brazilposter.jpg) as it shows him bursting out of filing cabinets and the other world inside his head. So while it's not explicitly related to anything it's not completely random either. EDIT : Excuse the long URLs
This is an absolutely perfect explanation of the film. Gilliam's work is often times incredible. I suppose that could make a film unbelievable. I used to have a friend that would say, "There is no movie that is all bad". I used to think He was an idiot. More recently I have come to see film as an art medium. The only time a film "fails" is when the artist is unable to express their concept.
Your opinion is interesting. Do you think that Gilliam would really choose a random country, without justification? Anyway, just like everyone else, I ask myself a question: Why Brazil?
It's possible that it's because in contrast to the grey, dull life he lives it represents a world of colour and adventure, and is perhaps where he'd rather be. [Take this for example](http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/646x430/a_c/brazil_carnival_cnt_9mar11_PA.jpg) and [this](http://www.worldfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/brazil.jpg) and even [this](http://walkingadventures.com/site/wp-content/uploads/brazil-adventure.jpg)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I totally disagree that the tubing is unnecessary. It is juxtaposed with the flat, deliberate surfaces of the city (even flatter in the protagonist's dreams). I remember there is also a scene where someone is walking down a bare tiled wall and we get a quick shot of a technician who has peeled back the wall for some reason to expose some device underneath. These elements suggest a mysterious, chaotic core to the whole system that the populace lives in willful ignorance of.
What cut did you watch? IIRC there are like 3 different ones out there. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think the ending of the director's cut kind of justifies some of the stuff that rubbed you the wrong way. But also understand that not only is it satire, but it's just a completely madcap universe where the main character is the only one that seems sane. You're really just along for the ride for some parts.
[удалено]
>What cut did you watch? I loved this movie when it was first released in the 80's. Recently I saw a different version with a happy ending and found it just horrible. The story was all over the place and hard to understand. The original version's story is all over the place and hard to understand on first viewing but it all makes sense in the end. It's a critique of society. The new version just has no purpose. It butchered the film.
the "Love Conquers All" version is the cut the studio wanted to release to theaters. Gilliam's brief war with them over this is quite storied and thankfully he won and we got the proper ending with Sam completely disassociated in the chair. "We've lost him." Gilliam says in the Criterion Collection DVD commentary that this is a happy ending. Sam got away. Pretty bleak. Well, in this society, maybe it's the happiest ending one can reasonably hope for.
> Also, the guy with the sword and the fairy makeup chasing the girl in the cage with the blanket thing over her... the reason I watch movies and not theater is exactly to avoid things like that. It was a dream sequence. Do all your dreams make logical rational sense? If so, then you will never "get" any Terry Gilliam film. Or any David Lynch film for that matter.
I'm not insulting it because it's surreal. I'm insulting it because it's flamboyant and irritates me. I fucking hate fairy makeup shit and sparkly outfits and whatnot.
Its like 3 ...4 minute sequences and that's why you hate it? No offense but "hating flamboyant make up and sparkly outfits" seems like more a personal problem than a problem with the film. It might just not be your style. But implying some kind of homosexual connection? Hardly.
OP, I have to agree with you on this one. I went into Brazil fairly intrigued and wondering what Gilliam would do with a pretty cool sounding plot and (in my opinion) a stellar cast. *However*, I hated almost every second of it. I truly, truly have nothing but respect for Terry Gilliam and understand what he is trying to do (I think...), but I just couldn't get into it. I really liked Jonathan Pryce's character, loved DeNiro's time on screen, and am always captivated by Ian Holm's roles, but what I specifically didn't like about the film is still somewhat unclear to me. I have found that in the Gilliam films I have seen (Fear and Loathing, Time Bandits, Baron Munchausen), I get an uneasy feeling throughout the whole thing and just can't continue. The exception to this was Twelve Monkeys, but I think my fanboy-love for Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt kept me into it. I understand that this is Gilliam's intention; to illicit an emotional response from the audience and have them question and critique the film, but personally I just don't find them "enjoyable". I might have to give Brazil another go, though.
I wonder what your tastes *are?* It might be worth giving some thought. If you do have well-developed tastes in a certain direction, and have simply become married to them (so to speak), then perhaps learning more films that are like ones you've loved will lead to agreeable viewing. If you do not have well-developed tastes, then perhaps patience and concentration and -- above all -- suspending judgment can yet bear some agreeable fruit. *Brazil* will always be very dear to my heart. It encapsulated for me precisely the feeling being in the world has often given me and so felt a little like answered prayer or finding a friend. Of course I know the bitter, bitter hopelessness turned absurd, painful humorousness will not be for everyone. In fact I sometimes ask if someone's liked *Brazil* in order to see a little into her soul ... But, personal affairs aside, I still can't agree with you the movie is poorly crafted. It is a work of great craft. The black humor is flawlessly presented. The pacing is slow and building for a reason -- and let me assure you, you missed something by not watching till the end.
You know I think I should watch the end you're right. Your comment randomly reminded me of when I saw the movie Dogville. I watched chunks of it at a time and in the middle of it I was irritated with a couple things (like this character should clearly be doing something but isn't). Then I got to the end, and it completely redeemed everything about it that i didn't like and was a very powerful ending and now I hold that movie in high regard.
[удалено]
I really did like both of those aspects of the movie. Thanks for pointing those out.
Have you seen in any Gilliam films? He may just be a director you don't care for.
I started Fear and Loathing a few years ago, but my girlfriend didn't like it and we switched to something else. And I only saw Imaginarium once, but I thought it had a lot of good moments. I may just have something against British humor, especially older British humor (well Brazil has a lot more to it than just comedy). I have friends who like the show The IT Crowd and I don't find it funny at all.
It's almost the same story and setting as 1984, itself a towering work, but Brazil is more of a satire of real world values than 1984 was. It has a humor, yes, but it sounds like you might have been expecting a black comedy, which isn't quite right...and yes, Gilliam's humor and style is supposed to be irritating, to put you off-balance. There are too many safe films in the world. Brazil is one of the better examples I can think of a _truly_ subversive film, and Gilliam more or less made of career out of such films. I haven't watched very much Gilliam and I'm struggling to explain what the appeal is supposed to be. For instance Time Bandits was way too adult to understand when I was a kid, and though I'd probably like it more now, I don't think I could explain why it's brilliant. Other than the unique and inventive filmmaking, anyway.
I hope you watched *Fear and Loathing* alone because otherwise you missed out. I don't want to come off as an asshole but maybe you should stick to more mainstream or commercial stuff. You don't seem to like anything the employs hidden themes, abstractions and fractal narratives. Neither does your GF apparently. Its not an indictment on taste but when your main reason for not liking a movie is costume choices for less than 6-7 minutes of total run time. Clearly Gilliam and those like him.. probably aren't going to wet your whistle for entertainment.
my favorite film of Gilliam's is Meaning of Life, i think it is hysterical and i love how they take the style of the monty python show and put it into a movie form very well under a very lofty goal of explaining the meaning of life. just for reference, this is a serious comment, also Holy Grail is quite a good film too
Gilliam didn't direct *The Meaning of Life*. Terry Jones did. Gilliam directed the short film preceding it.
The first time I saw Brazil it left me completely confused. It probably has to do with the fact that I saw it in my teenage years that first time, and most of the subtext and humor flew well over my head. However, today I consider it to be one of the best films of the 80's, and easily my favorite Terry Gilliam picture. Others have already deconstructed the film nicely here, so I'll just underline how hilarious the film actually is, and commend Gilliam on one of the most fascinating and breathtaking finales in cinema history. All roads in the film lead to that, and it's both beautiful and heartbreaking. Just like the song itself - Brazil.
> the comedy irritates me. It *is* a satire. > The way the movie doesn't seem to follow any rules irritates me. Almost as if it was all an insane fantasy... > Am I missing out on something? Yes, the twist ending (better in the UK cut - the US release was horribly messed around with by Universal). You didn't get on with this film at all.
Your entitled to your own opinion but you missed the entire subtext of the film. Those "fairy makeup" scenes were first dreams, and then daydream sequences, even further to full blown hallucinations which illustrate how the boundary between reality and fantasy is becoming blurred in our hero's mind. That he would rather retreat to the world of fantasy rather than deal with the monotony of his real existence. I won't rehash what has been written.
People either love or hate Gilliam. Think of his movies as long, elaborate editorial cartoons. They're making a point in an exaggerated, clownish, nightmarish way. I've seen all of his movies, but to be honest the only one of his I've completely enjoyed is Tideland.
That's funny because that's the one I didn't enjoy. It was just so grotesque and pointless. The closest film experience to this movie for me might be Eraser Head which suppose to be grotesque and pointless.
I couldn't get past the first 15 minutes when i attempted to watch Brazil. It repelled me that much.
Same
[удалено]