Already there's been some division about the film on the board. I'm VERY interested to see what everyone has to say about this one.

i have to cop some shit to smoke before i attempt to watch this.

V.

Thu, December 28 11:30 PM DOUBLE FEATURE WEEK
BRAZIL

It's the North american release, but the picture quality is better than ANY other time I've seen the movie, and I've seen the film 3 times in art theaters, on VHS, on TV, on Laserdisc and on both versions of the Criterion DVD.

if you have any access to the HD version I HIGHLY suggest you watch it.

It's in compressed (but high quality) on alt.binaires.hdtv . I'll post some screens hots in a bit.

Here are some TIFFs from the 1920x1080 HD capture.


They were compressed before I TIFF'd em, but it shows what type detail shows up in HD.

http://www.therootsarchive.com/brazil/

The older I get, the more realistic this film becomes.

When I bought the Criterion box set, I saw the 90 minute version for the first time and thought "what the hell is this?" I missed it when it was broadcast on TV, and talk about bad.







DONATE THIS SEASON:
http://www.hawaiifoodbank.org
***
THE RUN-OFF GROOVE: a column, not a bloghttp://www.musicforamerica.org/node/113298

I know it's got a "happy ending", but you could possibly go into a bit more detail on the changes?

Here are a few links where you can find out about the "Love Conquers All" version, along with subtle differences in the original version shown in the US, UK, and Japan:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/brazil-faq/






JOHN BOOK'S MYSPACE
http://www.myspace.com/crutmusic

THE RUN-OFF GROOVE: a column, not a blog
http://www.musicforamerica.org/node/113336

just lemme know when y'all ready

While I'd be interested in seeing the cut version, I don't really want it to ruin the way I feel about the film.

The ending of the director's cut is really what sealed its greatness for me.



"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

myspace.com/dozingoff

-- Nate

one big pile o' shit.

one big pile o' shit.

I couldn't finish it. I felt like I had been watching for hours, and in actuality only 45 minutes had passed.

Not enough was explained and the movie just seemed to move with no clear direction. I'll never watch it again.

and to be honest the shit was just too long but other than that i definitely enjoyed it...


PEACE

I don't have much else to add...it's been a while since I've seen it and I probably won't get my hands on it anytime soon.

Great movie though.

It was more of a cameo than anything.

I feel the same way about his scene as I do with Don Cheadle in Rush Hour 2.

and yes, overlooked...regardless of how much time he spent on screne, how ofter do you hear "I loved DeNiro's performance in Brazil"

ask a group of people DeNiro's funniest performance and they'll probably say "Meet the Parents"

He absolutely killed a small role in a movie that your average american movie-goer hasn't seen.

So in conclusion...overlooked.

The thing about it is that everytime this movie comes up, his name is mentioned. The role is rather insignificant. I really consider it more of a cameo than anything.

Everyone knows that he was in the movie. Absolutely everyone.

Harry Tuttle is to Brazil what Harry Lime is to The Third Man. You don't need to be in more than a scene or two to make an impact on a film.

terry gilliam is strange..
but this is like "fear & loathing" meets "1984" meets "flying circus"..
the performances were stellar though..
and the writing is on point...

peace

And by direction I don't mean the literal direction of the plot. I mean the creation of a world and the exploration of so many different facets of that world. The writing is appropriately witty and necessary for creating dialogue to bring characters around to these new places in order for them to experience these things with us. But I think the direction, the unity of the vision, is what makes this film.

Officers tearing through the ceiling...

Sam's dream about Jill in the clouds...

The scene in the chamber where Sam's "dream" begins...

IMHO, the reason Brazil is so good is the visual imagery. While everything else from acting to the writing is on point, the visuals were more than enough. Icing on the cake.

BTW, in regards to DeNiro's scene, it's good because it's so bizarre.

Other criticisms echo my own -- I seriously started this movie about 5 times before I finally finished because it drags so much, and that time I finally finished it was a major piece of will power. I'll admit I didn't re-watch it before I posted this, because I kept clamming up at the thought of going through with it again. I might do it before this sinks, but then again I just might not.

Basically, much of the film feels like a re-tread to me:

A bloated, distant beauracracy? WOW -- cutting, that satire there.
Invasive government police? IT'S LIKE HE CAN SEE THE FUTURE!
Modern living disrupting personal relationships? It's like he looked at art from the 1920s or something! Amazing!
Man dissatisfied with life finds revelation in revolutionary female love interest? What a totally unique romance!

I don't get the appeal -- I've read 1984, I've read the Brave New World, I've read Fahrenheit 451, I've seen Terry Gilliam's other pieces of whimsical fantasy, I've seen huge numbers of dystopian fantasies, and this one just doesn't click with me. It seriously lifts central elements from each of the works I just mentioned -- Big Brother from 1984, strict social hierarchy from Brave New World, revolutionary love interest from Fahrenheit 451, and all the art direction you know and love in every other Terry Gilliam film.

I mean, it's Gilliam so it has all the fingerprints of his talent, and as far as these dystopian things go, it hits all the notes and hits them rather predictably, but coming to it as basically the last of all the dystopian fictions I consumed, I'd have to say I'm pretty disappointed in it. Frankly, I'm hesitant to even class it as a sci-fi -- it's more just a cheesy fantasy with a non-descript time setting.

Still, given the paucity of sci-fi film which actually makes any effort to be something besides a space soap opera or an action movie with lasers, I suppose it's refreshing in that sense. Worth watching for serious film buffs to admire Terry Gilliam's handiwork, but nothing particularly ground-breaking in light of the huge number of other works which basically do what this film does, only better.

In the end, I'd rather watch Blade Runner again, then read a Brave New World and call it a day.

If a fan of the film could give a detailed analysis of exactly what works for them, I'd be curious to hear that. The art direction is pure Gilliam magic, I know that, but that story? How is it NOT one huge rip-off, and poorly paced at that?

>Other criticisms echo my own -- I seriously started this
>movie about 5 times before I finally finished because it drags
>so much, and that time I finally finished it was a major piece
>of will power. I'll admit I didn't re-watch it before I
>posted this, because I kept clamming up at the thought of
>going through with it again. I might do it before this sinks,
>but then again I just might not.

I recommend it. I really think rewatching movies at different points in your life make all the difference in the world, especially films that give you strong negative opinions.

>
>Basically, much of the film feels like a re-tread to me:
>
>A bloated, distant beauracracy? WOW -- cutting, that satire
>there.
>Invasive government police? IT'S LIKE HE CAN SEE THE FUTURE!
>Modern living disrupting personal relationships? It's like he
>looked at art from the 1920s or something! Amazing!
>Man dissatisfied with life finds revelation in revolutionary
>female love interest? What a totally unique romance!
>
>I don't get the appeal -- I've read 1984, I've read the Brave
>New World, I've read Fahrenheit 451, I've seen Terry Gilliam's
>other pieces of whimsical fantasy, I've seen huge numbers of
>dystopian fantasies, and this one just doesn't click with me.
>It seriously lifts central elements from each of the works I
>just mentioned -- Big Brother from 1984, strict social
>hierarchy from Brave New World, revolutionary love interest
>from Fahrenheit 451, and all the art direction you know and
>love in every other Terry Gilliam film.

But see, there's a problem inherent in that argument, and it's the problem with every "there's no original messages anymore" argument. Those things don't seem unique because they continue to be relevant, and when issues continue to be relevant, satire will continue to base their stories on these problems. The originality comes in the vision, in the delivery of it, and it's my belief that what you call the "art direction" is including the story, the characters, the world of the film. Every little thing is an absolutely important detail, so you can watch this movie several times and still not get the ENTIRE vision of the future. It's not just a visual thing, it's the storytelling through the visuals as the plot progresses.

>I mean, it's Gilliam so it has all the fingerprints of his
>talent, and as far as these dystopian things go, it hits all
>the notes and hits them rather predictably, but coming to it
>as basically the last of all the dystopian fictions I
>consumed, I'd have to say I'm pretty disappointed in it.
>Frankly, I'm hesitant to even class it as a sci-fi -- it's
>more just a cheesy fantasy with a non-descript time setting.

It doesn't classify well, that's what I love about it. And I doubt that the whole thing, especially the end, was predictable to you. I mean, sure, if you've seen a bunch of Terry Gilliam you get a feel of how things will go, but that doesn't make the experience of watching events unfold less pleasurable.

>Still, given the paucity of sci-fi film which actually makes
>any effort to be something besides a space soap opera or an
>action movie with lasers, I suppose it's refreshing in that
>sense. Worth watching for serious film buffs to admire Terry
>Gilliam's handiwork, but nothing particularly ground-breaking
>in light of the huge number of other works which basically do
>what this film does, only better.

What exactly do you feel this film "does"? For me, I think this Gilliamesque pessimism combined with the wicked sense of humor combined with the absurdist visuals...turning THAT into the "standard dystopian tale" is something no other film has achieved to the degree that this one has. No "Brave New World" style vision of the future used such absurdist imagery, or gets so much laughter. You might even argue that not many views of the future get too much darker than this one. I think this film does a number of things, many of which are better than any attempts by other directors, specifically the VERY difficult task of handling pessimistic humor and making it hit so consistently within the context of science-fiction social satire (nice alliteration).

>In the end, I'd rather watch Blade Runner again, then read a
>Brave New World and call it a day.

I think both of them achieve different things than Brazil does.

>If a fan of the film could give a detailed analysis of exactly
>what works for them, I'd be curious to hear that. The art
>direction is pure Gilliam magic, I know that, but that story?
>How is it NOT one huge rip-off, and poorly paced at that?

The pace you could argue, especially when in the sections where he's merely "showing us the world," not moving along the plot. The plot is admittedly rather thin. BUT I think there is a story there, and the story allows us to see this vision that truly is a one-of-a-kind, hilarious, and potentially brilliant creation. It's hit-and-miss in terms of sheer moviemaking and storytelling, but I think that's a product of the ambition.

>I recommend it. I really think rewatching movies at different
>points in your life make all the difference in the world,
>especially films that give you strong negative opinions.

Well, it was about exactly one year ago that I watched it (I spent Christmas last year in my friend's empty apartment finally laboring through it) so I don't think it's going to unfold too much more for me at this point. I mean, I own it (it was a gift, a very good one) so I'll definitely re-watch it at some point. I dunno, you really have to be in the right mood for this one.

>But see, there's a problem inherent in that argument, and it's
>the problem with every "there's no original messages anymore"
>argument. Those things don't seem unique because they continue
>to be relevant, and when issues continue to be relevant,
>satire will continue to base their stories on these problems.
>The originality comes in the vision, in the delivery of it,
>and it's my belief that what you call the "art direction" is
>including the story, the characters, the world of the film.
>Every little thing is an absolutely important detail, so you
>can watch this movie several times and still not get the
>ENTIRE vision of the future. It's not just a visual thing,
>it's the storytelling through the visuals as the plot
>progresses.

I know, I hate the "no idea is original" sentiment as well, but the elements I mentioned felt like reminders of other works I had enjoyed, and not really fully developed points like they were in the other work. 1984 FULLY explores Big Brother, to the extent that it's taken on a whole cultural baggage itself. Brave New World FULLY explores the social hierarchies, whereas it just comes up as a footnote in Brazil, just a quick detail that disappears rather completely.

The Fahrenheit 451 connection, yeah -- that's not that strong. I think mainly I don't like stories where it's romance or love that saves the protagonist. Like he'd be nothing if it wasn't for the girl. It's a sort of weird masculine desire for a female to fill in all their holes, and you see it time and time again. I guess I'd just rather have the character discover and explore himself, and not have this female icon for him to pour everything into.

Also the beauracracy satire thing just gets old. Waiting in lines and rubber-stamping lol. I mean, we've all been to the DMV and traded stories and bitched about it and etc. etc. etc. It's like pointing out that politicians sometimes fib, it's just not very insightful.

>What exactly do you feel this film "does"? For me, I think
>this Gilliamesque pessimism combined with the wicked sense of
>humor combined with the absurdist visuals...turning THAT into
>the "standard dystopian tale" is something no other film has
>achieved to the degree that this one has. No "Brave New World"
>style vision of the future used such absurdist imagery, or
>gets so much laughter. You might even argue that not many
>views of the future get too much darker than this one. I think
>this film does a number of things, many of which are better
>than any attempts by other directors, specifically the VERY
>difficult task of handling pessimistic humor and making it hit
>so consistently within the context of science-fiction social
>satire (nice alliteration).

Your point about the humor is a good one. Too many works that treat this dystopian kind of thing never break to smile ONCE. The scenes with his mother are funny, if not a little misplaced, but yeah, the humor is definitely one thing that makes this film stand out.

Otherwise like I said above, I think it alludes to elements more than it actually explores them. Overall it's almost just a romantic comedy. It's more about love and cheap satire than it is about any real exploration of these ideas which are alluded to in the film.

>>In the end, I'd rather watch Blade Runner again, then read a
>>Brave New World and call it a day.
>
>I think both of them achieve different things than Brazil
>does.

Right, I do too, but like I said, I think they achieve more, which is why I prefer them. (I know I threw Blade Runner in there tangentially, it's just my favorite film sci-fi of all time, that's the only connection.)

>The pace you could argue, especially when in the sections
>where he's merely "showing us the world," not moving along the
>plot. The plot is admittedly rather thin. BUT I think there is
>a story there, and the story allows us to see this vision that
>truly is a one-of-a-kind, hilarious, and potentially brilliant
>creation. It's hit-and-miss in terms of sheer moviemaking and
>storytelling, but I think that's a product of the ambition.

Right, I definitely like it for what it is -- a huge fight against the studio in the name of artistic freedom, a very very imaginative and creative piece to look at, and one of the FEW sci-fi films that is ANYTHING besides a space soap opera.

I just don't see it as this particularly great or enjoyable film experience, and as far as sci-fi's ability to show us an alternate future, a different version of our society, and really explore certain social theories or dynamics in a way that illuminates the present day, I think it fails. It's just a love story with some funny scenes. I swear, It's more RomCom than anything really insightful.

Having typed all this, I'll have to watch it again soon. Come on people, chime the fuck in! I know lots of folk have seen it.

...it's still a masterpiece. I am in the minority when I say I didn't like Time Bandits at all (it's one of those films I think you had to see as a kid to really love...I didn't, so I don't). I say that because I find Gilliam fascinating and amazing, but not infallible. I think he's made 3 genuine masterpieces (Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing) and another great film in The Fisher King...but he's certainly not beyond criticism (is anyone, really?)

That being said...you bring up great points. The story is thin, but I think when I first saw it (maybe 2 years ago) I was hooked when in the first minute or two there's a voiceover interview on TV with the Prime Minister and they say something along the lines of "You've been fighting this war for 10 years and clearly they're winning...what do you have to say?" and he says, "Beginner's luck!" - that, to me, is on some shit that's hilarious right now because...well, you know.

Anyway, the art direction in Brazil is beyond amazing. I LOVED the scenes in Sam's office with the desk being tugged back and forth, and the mob running through the Ministry of Information's facilities...brilliant in it's simplicity really. Almost the Office Space before Office Space, if you will. I know what you're thinking - "OH! Someone commenting on the monotony of office work! He's thinking what I'M thinking! How revolutionary!" - but really, it kind of was. He wasn't doing anything DIFFERENT but it was in a different way. Hell, The Apartment spoke on the monotony of office work...but Brazil was the first film (I've seen, anyway) to do it in the way that was parodied for years to come. The beauracracy, the lack of ambition, etc. Still relevant today.

The director's cut is great but it almost feels uneven in that certain things are just overexplained (love story) or underexplained (Robert DeNiro/Harry Tuttle). Much as I love the film...it's certainly uneven in many parts. I love Gilliam, but if he had his way, his films would have $400 million dollar budgets and 6 hour runtimes. His dream sequences, in both this and The Fisher King, are pretty ambitions but they are a little much in certain places.

I dunno, I like it...even if it goes against a lot of my general principles (longer than it needs to be, art over substance, thin story, etc.), but it's still a great film. I can't really explain it other than it's Gilliam.

Brazil begins with a fairy tale/fantasy. The protagonist, Sam Lowry, is an angel/warrior who saves the damsel-in-distress (Jill) and the world from destruction. The dream is an eternal desire, the last wish of a brain dead man. In reality Sam Lowry is a casualty, not a hero.

In his films Gilliam loves to comment on prisons, both of the mind and the body. His cinematic prisons are institutions and the urban environment. The bad guys are bureaucrats and administrators who are so devoid of emotion and humanity that they appear robotic in their movements and interactions. The good guys are living off the grid (labeled terrorists...hmmmm).

Starting with a dream we are able to see that Sam is more than a robot. His desire is the desire of any person stuck in a maze (or a cubicle).

This is why I like this film.

Brazil is an example of postmodernity much like Blade Runner and others but it does not give us a vision of a post-apocalyptic world. This is a world we already live in, a possible world we could all live in if we give into corporations, over-population, and technology (which has not progressed since 1975). Like Blade Runner Brazil shows us the world miles and miles above the surface of the planet. 12 Monkeys turns the world 180 degrees; the people live under the surface. In these films the sky, nature is non-existent. In Brazil class (and race) are nonexistent...where's the lower class?

This is why I don't like the film.

In Brazil the only escape is lobotomy that renders the person trapped forever in a dream (in his mind). This film compresses space and time, so that in the beginning we are not aware of where we are in the story. Are we in a mythic fantasy or the ugly retro-future world? As the film progresses we realize that Sam Lowry is reluctantly being forced off the grid, so to speak, by a administrative mistake not of his making. He just wants to do the right thing and get the girl.

I love Brazil because it reminds me of a choice I made as the child of a computer programmer. I never wanted to work in a cubicle and I never wanted to be a bureaucrat. I was sad when Harry Tuttle gets erased by the excess (paper) of the world. This is when I realized that Lowry's mind was someplace else. What I was watching was not real.

I give the film a B+

i liked it on the whole. definitely a crazy movie, in terms of cinematography and set, costume, etc. kind of a half way point between Metropolis and Michel (Gondry).

also, minus the obvious mention of the movie and the "here's looking at you, kid," there were meant to be Casablanca undertones in this movie, right? while fundamentally different than casablanca, if you paid attention, whenever there's a big scene or certain kind of scene (mainly love) in brazil, it goes back to the theme song, like in casablanca. plus, the title, which seems pretty irrelevant, is kind of an exotic place, like casablanca. can anyone more versed on the film than me expand/explain some of this further?

i thought the ending was cool, and definitely a surprise. i'm still trying to digest it and am reading everyone's comments for more understanding on the film, and trying to make sense of some of the more hard-to-find themes.


maybe i'll be back later with more. but good pick for the movie club. its a classic that i had never seen, so felt compelled to finally check it out because of its selection here.

Seems like something I would like.

Then read up on it.

Then watch it again.