Brazil

It really is a spectacular film, and one of my favorites. I just barely ordered the 3 disc Criterion dvd set last week, and it's shipped, so I may have it as early as tomorrow. It's going to be a great viewing, as I haven't seen it since I first saw it back in 2004. It felt to me as an adaptation of a comic book that never was made. The atmosphere, and the shots of the flying Pryce and the costumes and sets really helped with that.

The ending really is tragic and very dark. His humming and singing of Brazil at the end is disturbing.

One of my all-time favorites, largely just for its sheer inventiveness. It's such a stubbornly bizarre idea for a movie that I have to admire the balls it took to even try to make it, much less succeed.

As a side note, if you have the Criterion edition, watching the "Love Conquers All" cut with the audio commentary on is a fascinating study in how editing can completely alter the focus and meaning of a film. And when viewed alongside the accompanying documentary, The Battle of Brazil, there's a drama there nearly as absorbing as the film itself.

The interesting thing is that you really could make a case that it's not tragic at all. He really does beat them, after all. They never do destroy his ability to dream, and in fact, that's what ultimately saves him.

I also particularly love how the entire score is merely different variations of the song Brazil.

One thing I really miss from my VHS of the US theatrical cut, is that the walkway no longer stays there while clouds replace the background. It reinforces your point about dreams, not to mention the fact it's a wonderful image.

Great, great movie. I'll come back to this thread when I'm not so fucking tired.

I remember when we rented this when I was in college. We watched it, sat there in stunned silence for about a minute, then rewound it and watched it again.

I just regret never having seen this on a big screen.

This is one of my absolute favorite films. It's just so perfectly constructed, and the performances are pretty much great across the board. The opening sequence, from the explosion in the TV store to the mix up with Tuttle (or is it Buttle?) all the way up to the introduction of Sam Lowry, it just does a great job of setting up the world and the type of humor the viewer can expect for the duration of the film. Nothing but love for this one.

Apparently, that image was inserted against Gilliam's objections, but I always liked it myself. I suppose that Gilliam's version staying with the dome image creates the sense that while he's still dreaming, we're not going with him this time. We're still stuck here in the "real" world.

Another thing I've always loved -- I've never been one to bash CGI simply for being CGI, but the practical effects work here is just amazing in its simplicity. Harry Tuttle is nothing more than a little model on a string when he zips away from Sam's flat, but damned if it doesn't look like that's DeNiro sliding down a couple of dozen stories to make his getaway. I really think this film would have lost something had it been made in the CGI era -- the dreams would have looked too real.

Whenver someone asks what my favorite film is (I hate that question), this is the one I always use. And y'know what, it pretty much is my favorite. From the opening's eerily relevant conversation on terrorism, to the ridiculous obsession with ducts (which I think is a metaphor for the intrusiveness of modern home technologies), to the deep, layered character of Sam with his good heart in conflict with his desire to escape. And the practical FX? Incredible. That moment in his first dream sequence where his angel is reaching out to him with the sun setting in the background is just about my favorite moment in film, ever. And it couldn't have ever been done like that with CG. I can't say enough about this movie, if you haven't seen it you need to.

My copy of the Criterion 3 dvd set came in the mail today like I hoped, and I'm going to be watching it later.

And Greg, completely agree with you about him winning after all. It's tragic in a sense that he never "really" made it out, but in the end he sort of did by just withdrawing into himself. Can't wait to see this magnificent film again. I'm also going to see the "love conquers all" version to see how much of a mess that really is.

I've actually got the cover image of the Criterion release tattooed on my upper right arm. Brazil is easily one of my favorite movies of all time.

I agree that the ending, while tragic, marks a victory of human imagination over soul-crushing bureaucracy. It doesn't matter what happens to Sam's body-- in the end, his fantasy saves him.

And the "Love Conquers All" version is worth watching if only to witness just how much the edits muddled the picture. It helps to watch the full picture afterwards. At least, for me.

I don't get this sentiment at all. I think you some of you guys are trying to pull your own "Sam Lowry" and turn the film into a "dreams conquer all" statement. The ending makes Sam look weak and pathetic while underlining that he was sadly powerless the whole time...the only thing he can do is escape through his imagination. Yeah, he might not be "dead" but he's not grounded in any concept of reality. The man gets tortured until he goes insane. How is that a good thing?

The whole movie is about the struggle of the artist against the forces of bureaucracy trying to crush his creativity; more literally, they're trying to crush his dreams. Ultimately, what they do to his real life, or physical existence, doesn't matter, because they fail to crush his dreams. His inner life remains alive and well. He gets away. Whatever they were doing to him in that dome, he didn't notice, because he was living happily ever after in his imagination.

The crux of the conflict never had anything to do with his body. It was about his ability to dream. And he never lost that. Thus, victory. Your interpretation is pretty sadly literal, which makes me think that you didn't understand his character, or the film, at all.

So you didn't watch 3 of Gilliam's best till recently, and his work hadn't connected with you previously? No surprise there. Which of his had you seen prior? Unless you're telling us you revisited these 3 after not liking them initially? Even BARON MUNCH and FEAR & LOATHING are incredibly imaginative... HOLY GRAIL? I guess I could understand if all you've seen was TIDELAND.

I disagree with your take as well. Yes, Sam escapes in a sense. It is a victory, in a sense, but it is NOT a true victory. It amazes me that people overlook the fact that Sam, very adept when he is motivated (as when he does Ian Holm's work for him, and we see his head grow huge from behind the magnifying plate), never uses his ability or his opportunity to climb the bureaucratic rungs. Here is a man of intelligence and incomparable opportunity who could have potentially climbed to the top, to make REAL change. To make the lives for others better.

Time and again Sam, good hearted as he is, hears the screams of Buttle's wife, he sees the faceless troll-like masses marching toward him in his dreams, he sees them looking at him from behind a mirror. They call out to him for help, they, the helpless ones who have been victimized just as much as he, and Sam ultimately ignores them to pursue his own ends.

We don't blame him, most of us would make the same selfish decision he did. It was bold enough that he fought at all, even if just for himself. But it's that decision that keeps Sam from being a real hero, it's why he dreams of true rebellion in the end, of being like Tuttle, and thus why he's only allowed his small victory.

Spot on Judd. Spot fucking on.

Good points, Judd. I wouldn't claim that what Sam wins is a total victory. But to say that it's a total defeat wouldn't be accurate either. I was arguing with Parker's contention that the ending is nothing but Sam going insane under torture. If his fantasies are nothing but insanity, then he's insane for the entire length of the story, and the torture didn't matter.

So yes, as you say, he's hardly a heroic figure. But in the end, what made him such an oddball is what allows him to escape his fate.

But if Sam climbs the rungs, does he really stand a chance of retaining what it is that makes him unique? I think he ends up like Jack, consumed by the system, convincing himself he's doing the right thing even while he's doing the wrong thing. And I think Gilliam is saying that you can't fight the system by joining it and destroying it from within, because no matter your intentions, it'll eventually consume you.

He's not totally insane the whole time, but he is totally defeated the whole time. The guy has no chance at all, which is whats so ironic (and sad) about his hero fantasies. Even if he tried to act like a hero (which he eventually does) he's doomed...and not only is he doomed, he dooms others around him. Bureaucracy's wins.

The difference is that Sam's mind finally collapses under the helplessness of it and he totally escapes into his fantasies. He's not dreaming or daydreaming at the end. His eyes are wide open. That's insanity. He's lost touch with reality, so where before he actually believes he has a chance, that he's different, that he can escape...the end finds him escaping into insanity. Gilliam even confirms this on the commentary.

Also Greg, I don't really see Sam as an artist. He's an everyman. Sure he dreams, but he doesn't really do anything about it. In fact, it's kind of shameful how little he does. Look at how he reacts to delivering the check to the widow. He's fine with the way things are until it effects him and the "love of his dreams."

Well I'm going to have to check out that commentary again, because I really don't remember Gilliam seeing it that way. In fact, that seems uncharacteristically dark of him.

Don't be too eager to see Jabberwocky either.

Watching the Director's Cut right now, and it's still as spectacular as I remember. Maybe even more so. It truly is a remarkable film. I still hold that it looks like a comic adaptation that never was an actual comic. It would have made a great graphic novel.

Tideland is severely underrated.

Anyway, Brazil is a personal favourite here, too. I always found the ending to be some kind of mixture of the theories suggested here, though- you have the fact Sam keeps on dreaming, but it's as much of a black joke as the rest of the film.

But Sam was always smarter than Jack, and more than that he had a rebellious nature Jack didn't. Jack was never smart enough or imaginative enough to question his situation, and Sam, while perhaps not able to put his questions into words (he dreams them) clearly yearned for something more; for a better, freer world. His mistake was thinking he could achieve a sliver of that for himself without putting his own plight in a larger context.

That's my memory of it, anyway. Gilliam's upset that anybody thinks he's dead, so he explains that he's insane. It's right at the very end. I apologize if that's not accurate.

Brazil is in my top five favorite movies, so I appreciate the discussion in general. But I think it's a black hearted beast that is trying to laugh through all the despair.

You don't think that that's empowering in some way? You said it right there-- he escapes.

At the same time, I can easily say that you're not wrong. Sam is defeated in the corporeal world-- he comes *this close* to realizing his fantasy of life with Jill, and has his dream snatched from him in the real world. Where I would disagree is that "the bureaucracy wins", as they've lost a potential star employee. Admittedly, he's nothing but a non-responsive shell because, you know, they tortured him into that state, but I don't see that as a victory for them. Jack and Mr. Helpmann very clearly wanted Sam to be one of them; ultimately they couldn't get him to assimilate, and lost him to his own fantasies. That's hardly a win in their book, though the great machine of bureaucracy will surely trudge on even without Sam Lowry.

So in the face of real world defeat, Sam lapses into the fantasy world that has sustained him throughout much of the preceding picture. And I think that's important. As far as we can see in Brazil, Sam is the only person who can dream, or has dreams beyond being a part of the bureaucratic machine. In fact, all that anyone else wants for him (who belongs to said machine at least) is to improve his personal ranking in the Ministry. It's a testament to his character that he pursues his own dreams and wishes. I would consider that bold and brave, though I will concede that describing him as "heroic" is a bit of a stretch. After all, Sam is established as being a pretty big wiener throughout the bulk of the film. (He can't even stand up to his own mother for fuck's sake!) He is, as you astutely put it, an everyman-- not a hero.

But getting back to the point-- where Sam's victory is won is in his mind, where the Ministry cannot fully strip away the dreams that make him unique amongst members of his society. They can only effect what's tangible, and even in torturing Sam, they can't destroy the dreams that kept him from pursuing a greater career in the Ministry in the first place, and in that respect, they're twice defeated. I would most certainly argue that "dreams conquer all" is the film's thesis, but you and I are coming at this film from two different angles.

I apologize for the somewhat crude reading I've applied to this, as I'm no film scholar and frankly have been denied the pleasure of rich film discussion for a while. Hopefully it makes at least some sense.

I had rather thought the same thing. Sam isn't a go-getter. I tend to agree with Richard that even if Sam had the drive and ambition to rise up through the bureaucratic ranks, he couldn't effect change despite his good nature just because how set in their ways his peers are.

I don't think the film is trying to show how to bring down an oppressive government, or even saying that we should try. The theme is that our imaginations are more powerful than anything that can be thrown at us. Whatever else is taken away from us, that's still there. It ties in with Baron Munchausen, where the Baron basically tells a story that ends a war.

No, I don't think it's healthy. Just I don't think it's healthy how people delude themselves from reality with movies, music, books, drugs, theme parks, whatever. Escapism isn't empowering at all when put in that context.

I'm not sure I even want to know where you're going with that line of logic. Imagining is bad? We should all keep our feet on the ground and our heads out of the clouds, buckle down, apply ourselves, and be the best cog in the machine we can?

Okay, dad.

If that's really your point of view, then this movie isn't even for you.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that Sam achieves no victory, it's pretty clear he does. Case in point, the theme song is a symbol for freedom, Tuttle hums it when he's in Sam's apartment sticking it to the man and Sam hums it at the very end. He's free and we're supposed to see it as a kind of victory, but ultimately it's a heartbreaking one.

I haven't seen this film in years since I checked it out at my university library. It was pretty mind-blowing and have bought the Criterion 3-disc version since.

Because of this film, I often find myself saying "This has not been a recording," whenever I encounter an automated customer service system over the phone.

Also, I kinda skipped through the Love Conquers All version a long time ago. What's insulting about it isn't just how it completely betrays Gilliam's vision, but also how shoddy the technique is. Because it was used for TV broadcast, the editing tricks and shortcuts are all really cheap looking. Jittery still-frames and crossfades and the like. So even if the 'creative changes' were sound (which they aren't), you'd never be able to tell because it just looks like a total hackjob.

I thought I said this before, but there's a big difference between imagination and escapism. And yes, some imagination can be bad.

Also, if you think a story featuring an innocent protagonist getting kidnapped, while his girlfriend is killed (thanks, in part, to him) and is tortured to the point of insanity has a "happy ending" because he believes in the power of imagination, I'm pretty sure this movie isn't even for you.

I will definitely agree with that. His "win" is bittersweet, and I can't blame anyone for focusing on the tragic nature of the ending over Sam's mental victory. It all depends on how you choose to approach the film.

And thanks for bringing up the placement of the song. I think it's incredibly easy to miss how often the theme is used by actual characters in the movie in addition to comprising the entire soundtrack. Part of my discussion on the film with my professor in college (a significant part) revolved around the song, and how it plays into the themes of the rest of the film. I would say you could probably write an entire paper just based on that particular subject, and it'd be length on it's own.

If you can't see how a Terry Gilliam film can have that ending and still have it considered happy, then maybe Terry Gilliam films aren't for you.

Just a thought here - maybe the ending's not meant to be "happy" or "sad"? To be really simplistic, we know what Brazil would look like with a happy ending, and it doesn't end with Sam in a vegetative state. And since we're so concerned with dealing in extremes, I suppose another cut could have featured Sam's fantasies coming to an end with a swift chop to his head.

I don't think Gilliam was trying to make the point that Sam's fate is a positive one, but he's also not downplaying the importance of imagination. "Happy" or "sad"? That just doesn't seem to cover it.

Of course, but I think people will primarily pull one or the other out of the ending primarily. Perhaps I misstepped by ignoring the other, in this case.

I will not disagree about the tragic side of the ending, but I'll still walk away being influenced primarily by the positive.

I've never watched the "Love Conquers All" version without the commentary, I just can't bring myself to do it. Life's too short.

Still, it's fascinating.

The tragedy is that Sam is "gone". But I think Gilliam definitely comes down on the side of it being a happy ending because the machine doesn't get him. His physical body, maybe, but what makes Sam Sam is still free, running around in the dream world in his head. He's refused to be a cog in the machine.

Maybe I'm reading too much from Time Bandits and Munchausen -- both also present imagination as a powerful, positive thing, and Gilliam has said the three films are the dreamer as child, adult, and old man -- but I don't think Gilliam intended us to see the ending negatively.

See, that's exactly what I walk away with whenever I watch the film, and that's exactly why I have the cover image tattooed on my arm-- I find Sam's struggle inspiring. I don't strictly disagree with Parker's take on the ending, but your concise interpretation here is exactly what I believe we are intended to take away from viewing the film, and that's what speaks to me as a person. Maybe I'm letting that dilute my vision of the film. Somehow, I don't think so.

Gilliam also doesn't seem to be the sort to end on such an incredibly nihilistic note, especially taken in context with Bandits and Munchausen (the "Trilogy of the Imagination"). Much of Gilliam's oeuvre hails and celebrates human imagination, and Brazil is no different, darkness and all.

I understand why people are reading "happiness" into the ending because Gilliam clearly emphasizes with Sam, clearly wants a part of him to be "OK" despite what's happened. I get that, too. The difference between the ending of Brazil and say...1984 is that Sam doesn't give in, he doesn't say "I love you" to the machine, to big brother. But if the only answer against not letting that happen is either A) letting your dreams completely overwhelm your sense of reality or B) going completely insane doesn't equate a protagonist triumph at all. I think Dave's got it nailed, it's more complex then "happy ending" or "sad ending," which is one of the reasons it's such an incredible movie and why we're continuing to discuss it.

Really? Considering Brazil the second part of Gilliam's "dream" trilogy (starting with Time Bandits), the only one I'd say that has a "happy" ending is Munchausen. I mean, the kids parents blow up at the end of Time Bandits. And what about 12 Monkeys? Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? He does often celebrate human imagination, but he also criticizes human behavior, even to point out the dangers of human imagination (someone had to invent all those ducts in Brazil, after all, and Las Vegas in Fear and Loathing, and the disease that kills everyone in 12 Monkeys, etc). I've always thought of Gilliam as a cynical dreamer, which is one of the reasons I love his work so much. I believe I have a similar world view.

The same thing occurred to me when I read agracru's post (especially the ending to Time Bandits).

I don't think Gilliam's truly a cup half-full or a cup half-empty kind of guy. If anything, he illustrates that cynicism and idealism are just two sides of the same coin. The bleaker the situation, the more one is forced to retreat into dreams and imagination; or, in reverse, the idealist may be the one who's going to be most observant of life's imperfections.

You've got me on Time Bandits, but if I were to go into the extremes of "happy" versus "sad" ending, I would still consider two-thirds of the trilogy to have "happy" endings, and not the kind Ken Jenkins gets from his masseuse. While we haven't at all exhausted discussion of both aspects of Brazil's ending, I want to respond primarily to this:

Let me just say, I fucking love this idea. Combining this with Dave's comment of idealism and cynicism being two sides of the same coin would actually make for a brilliant essay, something I may start hammering out when I have the luxury of time to do so.

This is what I come to these boards for.

Well, considering Kevin's parents largely ignored him and sort of stifled him, you could look at them getting blown up as a sort of figurative release for him.

I knew someone was going to say that. I think that's kind of a shallow way of looking at it. It fulfills a childlike fantasy to be rid of your unfair parents, but the execution doesn't suggest that Kevin's happy about it in the least.

The whole film is a childlike fantasy. To make an exception for the ending is kind of an odd thing to do.

Isn't it true that Gilliam's entire cinematic output, barring perhaps Jabberwocky, is entirely devoted to exploring dreams and imagination versus reality? And he comes down on the side of imagination every single time. Imagination saves the world in Time Bandits and Munchausen, and sort of saves Sam Lowry. The Fisher King takes place in the real world where the fantasies are distinctly false, and yet still greater and of more worth than reality. Twelve Monkeys is trickier, but it at least seems to prefer the fantastic solution most of the time. And Fear and Loathing is, I think, about fashioning the world to your own psyche, which is what the film's version of Hunter is all about. Even Grimm (underrated) and Tideland (fuck Tideland) are pretty much all about just this theme. Gilliam has always had a stronger and more insistant cinematic point of view than just about everyone else.

By which I mean, I think the end of Brazil is positive to people with enough imagination. The reality of the ending is dark, but if you look at it like Gilliam does, it's tone is upbeat. But then, I think Children of Men and Into the Wild have happy endings, so I'm weird like that.