Talk:Brazil (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about 1980s comedy films during the week starting 6 March 2006.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Plot

This section (like most of the page) is terribly written. It doesn't even outline the plot fully. Parts of it are ambiguous, irrelevant and unnecessary. 91.105.150.13 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So rewrite it. Be bold. Cop 663 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

  • The film was originally called Brazil because the bug that leads to the typo (central to the plot) was originally seen in Brazil in an opening sequence (the rainforest is being cut down and the bug travels to the industrialised world along with its fallen home) — this was later cut. "Brazil"is also the name of the piece of music used as a basis for the film's score: "Aquarela do Brasil" by Ary Barroso. Conceptually, "Brazil" represents escapism.
  • An alternative ending to the "love conquers all" version was proposed by the studio, finishing when the Ministry of Information is blown up; Gilliam referred to this with some acerbity as "the Rambo ending".
  • Jack's triplets are played by Gilliam's daughter Holly. In one scene, Jack calls her by another triplet's name, to which she replies: "My name's Holly."
  • The shadowy smoking figure that stalks Sam at various points in the film is played by an uncredited Terry Gilliam.
  • Sam's boss, Mr. Kurtzman, is named after Harvey Kurtzman, the Mad Magazine creator, cartoonist and magazine editor who gave Gilliam his start in publishing by publishing his work in the magazine Help! and serving as Gilliam's mentor.
  • Vehicles:

--Rubiksphere 09:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)** Sam's "personal transporter" is a Messerschmitt KR175 with a jet engine attached to the back.

    • The police personnel carrier is a modified Supacat.
  • (goof) When Sam forgets to exit the public transport vehicle at "Level 41" and gets trapped in the doors, the one-legged woman standing in the vehicle begins to fall over but is propped up by the other actors in the vehicle.
  • The technician at the beginning of the film (whose bug-killing actions cause the death of Mr. Buttle) is played by Ray Cooper, a musician who has worked in six Gilliam films as either a musician or as an actor. In The Adventures of Baron Munchausen he plays Jonathan Pryce's assistant.


  • A number of scenes contain action that occurs in the background at the same time as the foreground story is being watched. This occurs notably during the party scene at Sam's mother's apartment, where we watch an argument between Jack Lint and his wife, Ida being chased by a "suitor" and the professional actions of Dr. Jaffee as he appraises people for plastic surgery.
  • The Samurai Warrior in Sam's dream sequences is played by Winston Dennis. Dennis had already played the Minotaur that battled Sean Connery in Time Bandits and would later have a major speaking role as Albrecht in Munchausen.
  • The Ministry of Information logo is "MOI" printed inside a black rectangle. This logo is seen all over Kurtzman's desk, indicating that the MOI has "official" items that its employees can use. These include tea cups, lamp shades and even Kurtzmann's goldfish bowl.
  • Prisoners who are about to be interrogated at Informational Retrieval are called "customers".
  • Background propaganda signs are similar to those that were posted around the UK during the Second World War, but with a subtle twist. These signs include:
    • Suspicion breeds confidence
    • Help the Ministry of Information help you
    • Information: The Key to Prosperity
    • -topia Airways (behind Sam and Harry as MOI is blowing up, note the implied ambiguity.)
    • Don't suspect a Friend: Report Him
    • Trust in Haste — Regret at Leisure (with a picture of a man behind bars)
    • Who can you Trust? (with a picture of MOI officials underneath. Seen as Sam says "Trust me Jack")
    • Mind that parcel. Eagle eyes can save a life (regarding terrorist bombs)

Here are all quotations:

Truth is information. Suspicion breeds Confidence Be Safe-Be Suspicious Liberty Equality Fraternity Information Eternal Vigilance is the price of Prosperity Regret Nothing-Report Everything Loose talk is a noose talk. Be a live patriot, not a dead traitor. Be alert. Some terrorists look normal. Is there a suspect in your family? Contact the Ministry of Information, Ring 100000 Trust in Haste. Regret in Leisure. Trust in Leisure. Regret in Haste. Don’t suspect a friend. Report him. Beware before. Beware after. Trust in security.

  • At the refinery where Sam and Jill stop the truck, a safety sign in the background indicates "__3 Consecutive Hours without a Time-Loss Accident". Another sign at the refinery says "Merry Xmas to all our Staff".
  • The motto for the Ministry of Information is "The truth shall make you free", which can be seen on the statue in the lobby. This is a quote from one of the Gospels: John 8:32 and is the slogan that greets visitors to the real-life CIA. In the context of the film, the MOI's job is to gather information — truth — from society, and by doing this sets society "free".
  • A Salvation Army–style marching band is playing in the shopping district. The banner at the front reads "Consumers for Christ", with a picture of a Dollar sign stamped on a Christian cross. The message seems to be getting across: a little girl sits on Santa's knee and asks, for Christmas, for a credit card.
  • A poster at Shangri-la towers is an advertisement for "Mellowfields", a holiday destination that appears to be a large and odd-looking ocean liner with a massive swimming pool fed by an artificial waterfall. Around the liner are a number of seaplanes. The words on the poster say "Top Security Holiday Camps. Luxury Without Fear. Fun Without Suspicion. Relax in a panic-free atmosphere."
  • At the beginning of the film, the technician who eventually swats the bug is seen attempting to rub a spot off his desk, only to then cover it up with a stapler. Some see this simple gesture as a symbolic microcosm of the entire film that follows.
  • The bizarre executive toy that is exchanged several times in the film (it actually appears to be the only gift anyone is giving anyone else) was designed specifically for the film, and was, at one point, considered as a possible piece of merchandise.
  • The Elsa Schiaparelli "shoe hat"[1] worn by Sam's mother is based on a 1937 design by Salvador Dalí.
  • There is an intertextual link between Monty Python's "the Meaning of Life" and Brazil. The last vignette of "the Meaning of Life" is set in Heaven, where every day is Christmas day. In Brazil, yuletide iconography pervades almost every scene, and as no specific dates are mentioned, it can be inferred that here also the same is true - Heaven on Earth indeed! Jugurtha3 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The title

Does anybody know why the movie is called "Brazil"? I'm Brazilian and don't have a clue about why using the name of my country in this film. Felipe Ventura, at 0:47 (Brasilia time) Feb 12 2004 e-mail: felipe-ventura@ig.com.br

The reason is, I think, now correctly listed in the trivia at the top of this page. Namely, the beetle that causes all the Buttle/Tuttle confusion was originally depicted as flying in from Brazil in an early version of the film. --Quaternion 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The simplest explanation is that it's named after the title song. But another reason may be the original meaning of the word 'Brazil' before it was given to the country. In medieval legend, 'the island of Brazil' was a mythical place of legend far across the ocean. Gilliam may have chosen the name to be suitable to a film set in a mythical society that never really existed. The Singing Badger 17:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or, the mythical place of legend could be the fantasy world in Sam's head. In any event, the title doesn't refer (at least not directly) to the modern country. —Matt McIrvin 12:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or, the name could actually be a reference to the real country of Brazil which, at the time Gilliam was making this film, was ruled by an extraordinarily powerful military junta which was notorious throughout the entire world for its heavy-handed tactics for taking and keeping power, which including torturing or "disappearing" its opposition.
By 1985, when Gilliam's film finally came out, the irony of a song glamourising Brazil as a paradise for lovers----when the reality was that Brazil was a hellhole of political intrigue, class inequality, and repression----would not have been lost on the educated, freedom-of-expression-loving, Che-Guevara-loving, military-junta-hating, Monte-Python-fan audience that the film attracted. Sam Lowry's society was the Brazilian junta transplanted by Gilliam to a British-based culture: where Machismo was replaced by British sports metaphors; where religious symbols were replaced by executive toys; and where colorful, tasty food was replaced by scoopfuls of monochromatic mush (sorry, not a fan of English meals!).
My mother turned to me after we watched the movie together (her first time), and suggested that it was called Brazil because Brazil's constitution contains a provision disallowing extradition of Brazilian citizens. She said this right after the final scene, which cuts from Sam sitting in the torture chair, clearly in another world (insane/lobotomized), to the clouds as the song "Brazil" plays. Has he escaped to another land, never to be extradited? Probably a little far-fetched, but I thought it was a neat idea. Patrick Grey Anderson 05:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have come to think the title reflects the modernisation project that took place in Brazil during the 20th century, in effect creating an 'artificial' capital and subsequently populating it. Brazil as a title could represent the concept of a mechanised, dehumanised modernity being carried to the extreme level, exhageration being a conceptual recourse often used by the ex-pythons, particularly Gilliam, to make a statement. user: Deva 11 november

I have heard a quote from Gilliam detailing his moment of insperation for the film, seeing a man sitting on a volcanic (black) sand beach, while the song was playing on a radio in the background, and this was the initial inspeation for the Sam character, though doubtless this connection was fleshed out into many things as the story and script was put together.user:fitandhappy

I am not sure this description fits at the end of the title description (futuristic machines, technology and organisations.) nothing futuristic in this movie. as stated before the film is uchronic with a more Steampunk influence. I would call it Mechanicalpunk. With all the reference to mechanical ductwork. MadDogCrog 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoliberalism

Neoliberal societies of Thatcher's Britain and Reagan's US? You'd have to be seriously right-wing to describe these as neo-liberal. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is actually a fairly common term that takes a more classical view of liberalism and conservatism. The modern right-wing is much closer to classical liberalism than to classical conservatism. - SimonP 15:32, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)


I stand corrected. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We still probably shouldn't use it because it is somewhat ideological and can cause confusion. - SimonP 16:14, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Only for Americans. --B. Phillips 12:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (an American)

[edit] Jill's mysterious reappearance and change of heart

I think Jill's mysterious reappearance and change of heart occurred because she had been turned into an informant by the M.O.I. instead of being tortured and killed after she and Sam were picked up at the department store bombing. That's not to say Jill understood the consequences of turning informant -- both she and Sam were naive about the raw power and cruelty actually practiced by the M.O.I. (many incidents in the movie illustrate this).

Sam was the son of the former director of M.O.I and could make a lot of trouble through his society maven mother, so M.O.I couldn't kill or "disappear" Jill without first eliminating or discrediting Sam. To that end, M.O.I. sent Jill, without a scratch on her body (indicating that she had not yet been interrogated by Information Retrieval) to seduce Sam so that M.O.I. could catch him with a "suspected terrorist," thus giving Information Retrieval grounds to arrest him. Jill, who we know recoils at violence, probably was told by M.O.I. that she would go free and Sam would get a slap on the wrist because he was a government employee. Hence her apparentt hate-to-love switch.

That would also explain why Jill looked relatively calm when the stormtroopers first burst in; she expected them! Note that she didn't scream until one of the troopers grabbed Sam. At that point, she realized that Sam, despite his employment with Information Retrieval and family connection to M.O.I., was being treated as Mr. Buttle had been. She screamed in horror at the implications, and was summarily executed.

I think it's likely that Mr. Helpmann was directly involved in turning Jill to get rid of Sam. The evidence is that, just before the troopers burst into the room, Jill wrapped herself up in a huge ribbon as a Christmas present. Then later, when Sam was in a padded cell, Helpmann visited him dressed as Santa Claus.

Helpmann's motive for destroying Sam may have been more personal than patriotic. He traveled in the same social circles as Mrs. Lowry, who was herself very highly connected--perhaps more than himself. He could easily have exhonerated Sam (and Jill) with a nod of his head, but instead he chose to destroy Sam.

Remember, Helpmann's title remained *Deputy* Minister even after he assumed the dead Jeremiah's responsibilities. It appeared as though higher-ups had reservations about appointing Helpmann to head the ministry, and that Helpmann was just keeping the seat warm for the someone else.

Helpmann kept Ida Lowry's portrait on his desk, which indicated some sort of weird connection; perhaps Ida had a great deal of influence, as Jeremiah's widow, in the selection process for the next Minister. (After all, we heard her offer a ministry position to her plastic surgeon, through her social connections.) Also, we know that Ida was ambitious for her son; maybe Helpmann saw Sam as his rival for her political sponsorship. Maybe, if Sam Lowry began to show a little ambition, the powers-that-be would consider the well-connected, blue-blooded Sam to be a more suitable heir to M.O.I.'s throne than Helpmann.

At the end of Sam's torture session, we watch Jack and Helpmann, now codependent partners in crime, move towards us and away from Sam, kind of like the end of Casablanca (a famous anti-fascist political film which figured prominently in the Kurtzmann scenes) when Rick and Renault walked out of the hangar together, but with a bad twist---Sam, playing mirror image hero and villain, had escaped to an imaginary "Brazil," not to the very real non-fascist city of Lisbon, Portugal. (By the way, the Brazilian national language is Portugese, a result of Iberian colonialism. It is incredible how the structure and logic of this film is so tight...)

In one fell swoop, Helpmann destroyed a well-connected potential political rival and Jack destroyed the one person who could derail his career by linking him to Buttle's wrongful death. All they both would have to do to from now on is keep insisting that Sam Lowry was a terrorist.

Just a note: M.O.I. spells "moi" in French, meaning "me." M.O.I. is me, or a societal reflection of me and what I do and the things I support and uphold, kind of like an image in a mirror. Certainly, images in mirrors and lenses is one of the film's leitmotifs.

M.O.I. mirrors society and reflects back it's image -- but if the mirror or lens is imperfect, the image is not accurate, it is distorted like Sam's face in Kurtmann's computer magnifier. Sam looked very different to us from the computer's point of view.

Plus, we all know that a mirror reverses right and left, or, to play more on the French/English translation, adroit vs. gauche. Tuttle the adroit vs. Spoor the gauche?

The M.O.I.= "moi" = "me" relationship is also consistent with one of the central themes of the movie: that we are supporting the very institutions that are destroying us at the same time they claim to help us --- just as Alma Terrain supported the "acid man" who claimed to be helping her but in the end scorched her to death. She was complicit in her own destruction.

["Alma Terrain" = fostering earth (like "alma mater" means fostering mother). Alma's destruction was akin to the destruction of the landscape that we see in the movie behind the endless billboards.]

The complicity of victim and perpetrator is why the (Sam-or-I) warrior's face mirrored Sam's face, and why we wonder whether the constant explosions are due to the incompetence of Central Services, rather than some shadowy terrorist underground. Also, take a look at a closeup of the very "graphic" graphic design of M.O.I.'s logo to see how that organization views it's mandate to the general population---one of the very rare cases where obscenity is used to bolster a larger work of art, rather than just to get attention.

Gilliam did not show us even one sociopathic, dangerous person who was detained by M.O.I. In fact, the only vicious sociopaths we saw were employed by either M.O.I. or Central Services: the maniacal bureaucrat at the beginning of the movie who would not rest until he killed the innocent bug, Spoor and his buddy, Jack Lint, and perhaps Mr. Helpmann.

And Mr. Kurtzmann was no angel either. In order to distance himself from the Buttle incident, he faked hand pain to get Sam to sign Kurtzmann's name on all documents related to Buttle's reimbursement check. It is very common for a boss to ask a trusted assistant to sign his/her name on a routine document. But because this supposed "criminal forgery" was one of M.O.I.'s charges against Sam, we can infer that Kurtzmann turned around and falsly accused Sam of perpetrating an inside job to discredit the Ministry, of which Kurtzmann claimed no prior knowledge. Here's lookin' at you, you little, little man...

Buttle was an innocent worker-bee-family-man destroyed by a mechanical error caused by a maniacal bureaucrat who risked life and limb to kill a harmless bug that innocently flew into his office--- and might just as innocently flown out if it weren't for the bureaucrat's furious, obsessive-compulsive drive to kill it. Note that a human being was completely responsible for the bug's fall into the printer that caused Buttle's misfortune.

Jill was simply seeking justice and the "rights of working men and women," a "working class heroine," oblivious that justice was too much to ask from a decaying system that had all it could do to cover up it's own incompetence and rot.

Sam was a naive, self-absorbed, unambitious dreamer born to wealthy aristocratic (or at least socially prominent) parents; a spoiled man-child who thought nothing of plowing headlong into a group of nuns blocking his bee-line path to work. And, as he tried to "bee-line" his way into Jill's heart, he plowed headlong into the very system that spawned and nurtured him, and that could crush him just as singlemindedly and mercilessly as the maniacal bureaucrat crushed the pesky bug at the beginning of the movie.

I love this film.

That is an interesting idea, though I feel i should mention, in the Europian cut you do hear the shots that execute Jill, so there is no ambiguity about her death in that version. Its was removed from the other two cuts, the "love conquers all" so that it fitted with the new ending plot, and the other because it was one of the elements that the studio saw as being too dark, and would put off the audiance. - user: fitandhappy4th december
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by..."Also, take a look at a closeup of the very "graphic" graphic design of M.O.I.'s logo to see how that organization views it's mandate to the general population---one of the very rare cases where obscenity is used to bolster a larger work of art, rather than just to get attention." I recall the logo being MOI in a rounded rectangle, other than that, I must have missed something.
From a distance the M.O.I.'s logo is interpreted by some to have sexual overtones. From a distance the M can look like a woman's spread legs with the I serving as a male or phallic image and the O serving as one or both of their heads. It's a broad interpretation, but not entirely w/o merit. Plumlogan (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved essay from article

I moved this from the article because it needs NPOVing and to be made more encyclopedic. There is good content here, but it currently reads too much like a personal essay or term paper (especially the first few paragraphs). --Lexor|Talk 09:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Understanding "Brazil" – England as a counter-terrorist state
See "Brazil" first, then see "In the Name of the Father" starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Pete Postlethwaite, and Emma Thompson, and "Brazil" will suddenly make sense. The subject that "In the Name of the Father" deals with in the mode of realistic drama, "Brazil" deals with in dark humor and fantasy.
Many know of the "tactical campaign" of the IRA in Northern Ireland, but the IRA also conducted a strategic campaign of attacks on London, Manchester, and elsewhere in Great Britain. Such attacks have a direct effect in terms of terror upon the civilian population, but they also have an indirect effect in terms of reaction to those attacks and the way that reaction affects not only civil liberties but the overall civility of the culture.
The name "Brazil" is also the name of a Latin-rhythm popular song, called Aquarela do Brasil by Brazilian composer Ari Barroso, not only the theme music of the movie but which also initiates the fantasy sequences of the main character. The movie plainly is about England and not a South American country, but it is suggested that England had been going down the path of the English and U.S. stereotype of a South American country: people have become adapted to the attacks of terrorists (even though this is more like the Spanish-speaking countries of South America rather than Brazil), where the attacks have become so institutionalized that the grievances of the terrorists and perhaps even their identities have become forgotten, and while the authorities fight back against the terrorists, the counter-terrorist program has become institutionalized to the point where it is not clear that it has any effect on the terrorists or even if the original terrorists exist any longer.
The term "information retrieval" is used throughout the film, and one is quite a long way into the film before one figures out that information retrieval is a euphemism for torture. It is quite chilling that such an innocuous and bureaucratic term would be used for something so brutal, and the torture methods depicted in the movie are brutal. Also, the movie begins with a society that is crazy enough to be a fantasy, but the fantasies become so outrageous that at some point the action is taking place inside the mind of the main character. The main character is being tortured, so perhaps the fantasies begin at the start of the movie, but in a way, it doesn't matter.
As to the failure of the film at the box office, "Brazil" can be contrasted with "Dr. Strangelove", directed by Stanley Kubrick. While "Brazil" dealt with the socially corrosive effect of a terrorist war, "Dr. Strangelove" dealt with the equally serious topic of atomic war. "Dr. Strangelove" was a mixture of satire and camp, but the context of that film was more accessible to the movie audience.
For what it's worth, when the film came out, Gilliam gave a "Guardian Lecture" (actually an interview) at the NFT in London, where he stated that the film was about the United States (telling a story that related the decline of Mrs Terrain with something less drastic that happened to his father). I don't know if this is online anywhere, though.Grangousier 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry/Tuttle

Just saw this movie today. It makes the Matric make sense (though I think I actually enjoyed this more to II & III)

Isn't Harry the mysterious Tuttle? The points to consider section says Tuttle doesn't exist, but isn't he De Niro's character?

NVM I think I understand now.--ZayZayEM 23:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also I think a mention should be made that the MOI actually charges people for the service of interrogation to the customer. This is the epitome of the level of consumerism in the society depicted in Brazil.--ZayZayEM 13:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed points to consider

After reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I really don't feel this belongs in the article. I've tried to summarise the main "points" of these points into the Analysis section.

[edit] Points to consider after several viewings

  • When does Sam lose contact with reality? Does he undergo a lobotomy or is his final escapism merely a consequence of severe torture inflicted by a former good friend? Are daydreams good or do they blur the distinction between fantasy and reality for everybody?
  • Do the terrorists exist at all, or is it just a coverup for the incompetence of Central Services (et al) when all the technology fails? Perhaps the bombings are staged to justify the information department's existence, or—as in 1984 and certain times and places in history—to keep the public cowed and supportive of its government as a presumed protector?
  • Does Tuttle exist at all, or is he just another of Sam's daydream fantasies? In fact, isn't it really Sam himself who tampers with the air conditioning? No one else really meets Tuttle, although he does make an exit when Sam's girlfriend appears.
  • Is the hate-to-love transition inconsistent, or is it that Sam struggles a lot to prove himself worthy to her? When this love-transition finally comes, is it not exactly where Sam loses touch with reality completely?
  • Notice the society portayed: companies and government are melded together. Their technology level is quite high, but all the wrong things are automated, and they are extremely poorly designed. They put energy into designer ducts, when no one really wants those ducts at all. Computers and telephones are also beautiful examples, half modern, half Victorian. Due to these misdesigns (driven by a central authority), everybody is incompetent at what they do.
  • What similarities exist between the movie and the societies of United Kingdom under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979 - 1990) or the United States under President Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1989)? After all, isn't the film contemporary to the IRA bombings in London?
  • What is the deeper meaning of all the dream sequences? While some of them are clear, many seem to be confusing to the point that the viewer will dismiss them as "just dreams". It should be noted that due to budget problems Gilliam was unable to shoot many of the dream sequences he had planned.
  • Doesn't it seem as if it is perpetually Christmas time? What does the constant presence of the Christmas season say about this society's relationship with consumerism? Also, think about the fact that people are constantly giving each other the same cheap paperweight gift. What does this say about how the film views interpersonal relationships in relation to consumer goods?
  • Notice that the security force in the movie are eventually portrayed as regular people just doing their jobs - what does this mean? Compare with Stanley Milgram's 'Obedience to Authority'.
  • What is the significance of the very small TV screens and the large magnifying glasses? What does it say about the society in the film?
  • Not enough has been made about the fact that Gilliam himself has said that the explosions are merely the shoddy mechnical work failing (he talks about it in an extra in the Criterion box set of the movie). If anything I see the movie as most critical of beuracracy and inefficent government in general. It is inefficiency that causes the explosions and an out of control beuracractic government that fails to recognize them as this and thus goes torturing for answers that don't exsist, perpetuating the broken cycle.

[edit] Orwell

From the article:


...in analogy to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four novel, which Orwell himself described as a criticism of communism.

This is a long-standing debate among Orwell critics (though moreso among opportunistic political commentators with little understanding of Orwell, who simply want to see their own ideology in him), some of whom have interpreted in Nineteen Eighty-Four a critique of contemporary socialism, some of English war-time policy and others a combination of the two. Not only is this sentence taking a very contentious position on a hotly debated topic, but it's taking an utterly simplistic position, which virtually no one presently endorses (that 1984 was simply about communism, rather than Stalinism, fascism and war-time policy all combined). Unless the individual who originally posted this can come up with a meaningful reference for Orwell's having held at some to the idea that Nineteen Eighty-Four was just about communism, on the basis of his statements regarding Nineteen Eighty-Four in his letters, I'm going to just remove the text asserting Orwell's position entirely, given that, as it stands, it is incorrect. --Yst 21:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Indeed, its just dishonest to further propogate the myth of 1984 as merely "anti-communist". Orwell himself was a socialist and his novel is much more than simply an anti-marxist screed. Atleast, it is a criticism of Stalinism... in addition to a number of other things. --B. Phillips 12:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Gilliam's working title for the movie was 1984½. Terry Gilliam claimed he had not read Nineteen Eighty-Four before making Brazil." How could the title have been 1984 1/2 if Gilliam had never read the book? This interview claims that it was his love of Fellini but even so it seems strange. In this interview Gilliam even admits that he wanted to do what "what 1984 did in 1948." --Hazelorb

yeah Brazil is essentially a remake of 1984.. i'm suprised 1984 isn't mentioned much higher in this article --Frantik 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I probably should watch 1984 (film) before commenting but I believe if it wasn't mentioned that might be because it's not really a remake or even Gilliam was ever reall aware of the first movie. I can tell for sure I'm not aware of every move released today, even the hits... Don't even mention 40 years ago. I do think it's easier to be a coincidence. Subjects such as the ones threated in Brazil are repeated all over many different films in many different ways. --Cacumer 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In Gilliam's commentary on the "Brazil: The Final Cut" DVD release he says that he never read the novel 1984 and later he says the original title for the movie was to be "The Ministry".70.108.64.20 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I have the "Criterion" edition of this fantastic film, and in the notes Terry Gilliam remarks that he was really disppointed most reviewers referred to the film as 'Orwellian'. Shades of '1984' perhaps but with a considerable difference. 'Brazil's' government is -- much more realistically -- bumbling, inefficient, and mistake prone. This doesn't jive with Orwell's '1984' completely. Personally, I think the references made to Orwell and 1984 in this article are too prominent and lengthy considering the great differences in the two governments portrayed. Even the synopsis reads that the film appears to have a strong anti-Orwellian, anti-totalitarian themes. I disagree. I think it's more a generalized criticism of modern government and beauracracy. And certainly the critisms made in the film aim as much at government inefficiency and stupidity as at government control. I'd personally prefer if we simply refer to it -- more accurately -- as a satirization of modern government.Kriskey 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to read Orwell's book to know its themes and significance. Phrases such as Big Brother and Room 101 have entered the language, and the concept of a 1984 society is pretty well-known - even to people (including me!) who haven't read it. Peterwiki 02:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Python's Love Story

A little introduction to put my opinion in perspective. I love Monty Python and all Gilliam's works I've seem so far, which is limited to 3, the third beeing 12 monkeys. I do not share Gilliam's view of the world as a hopeless and never ending vicious cicle where nobody can do nothing to change it. By the way, I'm brazilian.

I've seem the movie in which I believe is the third ending. It shows love conquering it all, but still he dies in the end, as well as his beloved one, all because he forgot to watch his own back and cleaned the trails only of her, "killing" her on the papers.

The movie is a critic to burocracy, of course. But everything is a background to the plot, which is a dreamming person fightning in a real chaotic world (of Brazil) and trying, by himself, just get away of all that to get together with his dream's loving woman. It is a love story, but, from Terry's point of view, he could never have got anything out of such a hardened world fightning alone, and that's why he should die even before getting close to his dream.

Brazil, in reality, is about the same thing as the movie. It is a place ruled by burocracy nearly dictatorial. People who join the politics get corrupted because every human has a dark side, and it's so easy to let it grow. A single person could never fight against such a big machine. Unlike Matrix, where there was a savior, Brazil has none, since all of them just die trying. I think that's what Terry thinks, even while he doesn't let it clear why the movie is called Brazil, the suggestion he makes is that it's just a coincidence because he named it after the song. I believe in him.

So, the movie basically tells me few things:

  • watch ourselves even before our loved one, or we will die and drag her (or him) with us, sooner or later.
  • that will happen because the world is that bad today, and it will only get worst.
  • the good friends will watch for us even when we least expect.
  • bad and good feelings are all in our mind, and that's the hardest and only thing we can control.

--Cacumer 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with trivia item - factual or figurative?

"* At the end of a working day, Kurtzmann speaks to Sam about some important matters before saying "Come on... before they turn the lights out". Obviously the M.O.I. does not allow people to work overtime."

It is not obvious that the lights will actually go out. I take this line as a figurative line meaning "it's late; let's not work any more today."

[edit] post-apocalyptic vs. dystopian

The synopsis of the film suggests that 'Brazil' is set in a post-apocalyptic world. I disagree entirely. There's no indication that any apocalypse has taken place. A coherent, organised society exists. I'm removing this line from the article.

ahpook 12:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It does say "almost"! But feel free to remove it. --Guinnog 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far to many pics

There are way too many pics on here. We should take off around 7 or 8 to even it out at the bottom of the page. --Rubiksphere 09:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to come on here and state the same thing, but I saw that you had already done it. Let's get started on it. Ps. Did you remove the 'o' from 'too' as some kind of joke? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that we shouldn't delete any pictures, but just move them in a gallery section. --69.253.15.246 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:FUC I removed the gallery since they were all fair use images. Some of them of course can be put back in the article but they have to comply with the fair use criteria. Garion96 (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version question.

On the film ratings website, if one types up Brazil in the search box, results will happen. Note that one of those results reads as follows:

Brazil (1992)
Rating: R
Rating Reason: Rated R for some strong violence
Distributor: Universal Studios, Inc.
Alternate titles: Edited version

Does anybody know what version of Brazil was re-released and re-rated in 1992?

I have decided to answer my own question. Based on sources I've read, it is the European cut for it's limited 1992 re-issue.

[edit] Post 9/11 relevance

I'm in the process of watching Brazil for the first time since 9/11 and I'm quite surprised at how many post-9/11 technologies and attitudes are displayed in Brazil, from racial profiling and the implied use of facial recognition technology to everyone having to pass through security terminals to enter their places of work to the more explicit terrorist fears. There's even a bit that touches on the "what counts as torture" argument that has arisen of late. Putting any of this into the article without sources would be an NPOV violation -- so has anyone heard or seen any reviews of the film that make reference to this sort of thing? Yes, I know Brazil has a lot of 1984-isms as well, but some of the ones I mention above aren't all Orwellian. 23skidoo 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compare and contrast to V for Vendetta

It is interesting to note the similaraties (and differences, of course) to the V for Vendetta movie and graphic novels. The post-modern world run by the beurocracy. The mysterious figure fighting the standards to place a scenes of the old world back into the new way of thinking. The blowing up of government buildings. The main character being imprisoned in the system.70.108.64.20 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Find some references and I'm down. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 08:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What part did they write?

Does anybody know what part of the script Gilliam wrote? The same goes for co-writers McKeown and Stoppard. I don't wish to put it in the article; I just wish to know...sounds like interesting trivia. --69.253.15.246 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the credit on the IMDb, their names are listed with ampersands in-between. This means that they worked together or on the same draft of the screenplay. So, it's essentially impossible to know. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Synopsis

I have decided to expand the plot synopsis section of this article. Trouble is, it is rather confusing even as I try to write it while while watching the DVD. I'll do my best not to make it too long or pedantic. Maybe later I'll do a few other jobs. Please make any corrections and leave any suggestions here.--ChrisJMoor 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have erased nearly all of that plot synopsis, I'm afraid, and replaced it with my own interpretation. I've tried to not spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it. Tell me what you think, or feel free to expand upon it or make other changes. 100DashSix 06:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't touched the section yet, and no need to apologise anyway. I don't think you should have deleted the section describing Sam - I thought it was very good as it was. Personally, I think your new section is a bit too 'interpretive' - for example: 'The movie appears to have strong anti-totalitarian themes'. Fair comment, but the 'plot synopsis' section should be a summary of the plot and not an interpretation of it. Then we can have an 'analysis and themes' section below for people to read about the meaning of it all while referring to the well-detailed plot section above. I take note of your concerns over ruining the movie with too much detail but for this we have the standard spoiler warning (which seems to have disappeared...I'll put it back now).

Otherwise, thanks for making a start on this - I've tried several times but found it a very difficult film to summarise well.--ChrisJMoor 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally feel the movie is anti-Orwellian. Seems to be an interpretation. See "Orwell" above. Kriskey 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Admittedly, I hadn't seen that Orwell talk section above, and suppose that the arguments against calling it "Orwellian" in any form make sense. "Anti-totalitarian" carries the meaning just as well. 100DashSix 20:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis section is mostly not about the plot. Shouldn't some of it be moved to "Themes" or something? Jibjibjib 06:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. How about just "synopsis?" 100DashSix 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...crushed beetle..."

Recently added: "...(the scripted beginning, cut for budget reasons showed the crushed beetle coming from Brazil)..."

Is this actually relevant? Furthermore, it is placed at the very beginning of the article--would a reader of this article actually be concerned about this factoid? I propose removing it, or at least placing it near the bottom. (I don't even remember seeing a crushed beetle in the movie.)

100DashSix 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, look at the entirety of the first section. The first sentence announces that it's a film, and then it isn't until the last sentence of the second paragraph that we get any information regarding what the film is actually about. It's a segway into the main content of the article, yes, but at this point in reading do we really need to know that: a. It isn't about Brazil the country, b. But the director says it's a documentary about a justice system (which only confuses things further, because it isn't a documentary), c. It potentially represents someone's interpretation of some song from 1939?

To be used as guidelines for rewriting this section: a. It is a film in a particular satirical style. It was made by these people. These people starred in it. It came out at this point in time.

b. Briefly, the main drive of this movie is this: ______. It appears to attempt to state _____ and does so largely through the use of _____.

The rest are details that should be relegated to some section in the article, in my opinion. I can rewrite this if there is some interest.

100DashSix 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ending

The article seems to suggest that Sam was rescued from his torture yet the version I saw ends with him going mad during the torture and imagining being rescued. I heard from someone that the ending was cut in some versions. --Phoenix Hacker 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right. He DOES go mad via torture. The papers eating tuttle for example to me is an allegory showing that the paperwork ruined his carrer forcing him to be a missing person, a freelancer. Or it could mean that the buerocracy finaly caught up with him and dealt with him. He was having another fantasy during then, but this one is his.. hehe... "Final" Fantasy.... hmm I wonder if implies to the game....

It depends... I can easily see why some buerocratic/socialist countries wouldnt want the real ending though... or the movie whatsoever... Its confusing. Ah well. For discussion purposes all Im gonna say is: In the Amrecian Versoion (Comcast On Demand) has him have a fantasy, then it shows him still there being tortured and it goes into credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.249.209 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Popular Culture

I think the Simpsons' references deserve some mention, as does the Federal Express ad that parodied the scene in which clerks trail Mr. Warrenn as he zooms through the filing cabinets in Information Retrieval.

--Editing (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, because i have never seen the add nor i watch the simpsons, but add it. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No, please DON'T add it. The category is "References" in Popular Culture, not "Similiarities" in Popular culture. Unless you can cite an author/producer who says that she/he was intentionally referencing Brazil in her/his work, then it is NOT a reference no matter how similiar it may be. Why there is an uncited "reference" to Futurama in this section is beyond comprehension.

[edit] DVD question?

I was wondering, has the original unaltered 142-minute version of this been released on DVD yet? I keep thinking I probably saw an edited version: Tuttle drives away into the countryside in the giant truck, and we see a shot of it in a peaceful field/forested area, and it abruptly cuts to a pair of doctors stairing at Tuttle, who is catatonic and strapped to a gurney, humming to himself, in a giant room with concrete walls. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean Sam Lowry? That's the ending that's on the director approved Criterion release of the movie. The love conquers all edit represents the peaceful forested area as real and not as an illusion thought up by the now insane Sam. Davhorn (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I mean Sam, sorry my bad. :P So the unaltered 142-minute version is the Love Conquers All edit? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the Love Conquers All edit is 94 minutes long. The one you saw is the original unaltered 142-minute version. Davhorn (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reuse of Music in other things

I think its worth noting that parts of the Michael Kamen score have been re-used significantly since the films release for trailers and various other movies. Especially throughout the 90s. It used to seem like every time I turned around I heard the music being used somewhere. Does anyone else think that should be mentioned and how? -- Suso (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)