Gilliam's "Brazil" is still my favorite film of all time. If you haven't seen it, you should. Note that there are multiple versions of this film floating around. Comparing them makes a very interesting study in film editing. The story of the making of "Brazil" is almost as interesting and fraught as Don Quixote.
When watching Brazil it's important to keep in mind that it was made in 1985, before 9-11, before the internet, before ubiquitous surveillance. It is one of the most prescient films ever made.
> It is one of the most prescient films ever made.
"People think I am a prophet and that Brazil described the world we’re living in now a few years ago. But we were living in that world then; people just weren’t paying attention the way they do now."
Interesting. I'm not sure I agree though. I was in my early 20s in 1985 and so I can tell you from personal experience that things were really very different back then than now. In 1985 it was possible to escape surveillance without to much difficulty. Nowadays it's nearly impossible.
Also, in 1985 the stock villains weren't terrorists, they were Russians.
There's an interview with Noam Chomsky somewhere in which he talks about his surprise at having his phone (tapped/found can't remember) after attending a protest in the 60s or 70s.
I don't remember the exact details but I remember thinking "wow it really wasn't all that different then" when I saw it.
There were terrorists in 1985. In fact, there was more terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s than in recent decades. It's just that today the fear of terrorism is more exploited for political gain than it was back then.
I think that the plot devices involving terrorism were the most prescient.
When I first saw the film as a young teenager in the 80s, I was fascinated that the terrorists philosophy or demands were never clearly defined beyond "anti-government". Terrorism was portrayed as a regrettable but normal part of life.
Perhaps people who lived through actual terrorist bombing campaigns in British cities can relate to this more, but for me it was a crazy idea that this sort of thing could be normalized to any extent.
I thought this scene made it pretty clear that the terrorist attacks in the film were false-flag operations carried out by the government:
JILL
Who is this war against, Sam?
SAM
Well, terrorists of course.
JILL
How many terrorists have you met?
Actual terrorists?
SAM
Actual. terrorists? Well... it's
only my first day.
> Also, in 1985 the stock villains weren't terrorists
Libyan Terrorists were stock villains in a lot of 1980s entertainment (especially on TV like the A-Team and MacGuyver), including perhaps most notably their very clear presence in 1985 in Back to the Future.
I think it was, it was just a lot more "diverse" on the radar. Terrorism wasn't (and really shouldn't be) considered "one thing", but a spectrum from hijackers to bombers to arsonists, from nationalists to separatists to religious extremists. When people in the 70s/80s used to speak of terrorism there were often more adjectives and synonyms involved.
Jingoism has a hard time with nuance and diversity, so the "War on Terror" (sigh) mentality that terrorists are some how a coordinated force, and "mostly" religious extremists, and who cares what methods they use to promote terror just lump it all together.
Which is to say in metaphor terms, I don't think the number of terrorism "bogeys" on the radar changed, so much as the "friend or foe" system just started using the same color and tag for all of them, instead of somewhat more individual labels. It looks like "more on the radar" because it's easier to spot clusters, but they were there before.
Most of the technology that makes surveillance easy today (cell phones, the internet, electronic processing of credit card transactions) didn't exist in 1985. The government certainly could have spied on me but it would have been expensive and they would have had no reason to target me. I was nobody. Nowadays surveillance is cheap enough to do it indiscriminately, but it wasn't then.
Are you going to forget your credit cards and ATM cards too? Give up on flying? Driving new cars? Driving in non-rural areas? And good luck finding a job nowadays without a cell phone or an internet connection.
In 1985 I could fly without showing ID to anyone, including the person I bought the ticket from (back then airplane tickets were printed on paper). I could drive anywhere without my license plate being tracked by default and without having to worry about the GPS in my car (because there was no GPS). And I had a reasonable expectation of privacy, enshrined in law, in my phone calls and snail mail correspondence (there was no email). Today all of that is gone.
It's great. It's semi-adaptation of 1984 without directly taking the story it feels very similar in spirit. The soul crushing effects of malicious beurcracy, someone seeing past the facade and going though a lot of pain while trying to escape it. The movie equivalent of calling to cancel Comcast, where the feeling of knowing the experience is going to be so bad it puts you off doing it.
Great movie. When you watch it, you need to pay attention to every little thing. For example, the movie opens with an advertisement for government services. The dittie is hysterical, but its easy to miss. That theme gets expanded quite a bit in the film culminating in a fantastic scene with Robert De Niro as a rogue heating engineer.
Completely missed that on previous watches of the film. 27b-6 is a reference to George Orwell's address; Apartment 6, 27B Canonbury Square, Islington London.
It's also the website of David Thorne, who is always amusing if you're looking for some vicious sarcasm: http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html
It's one of my all-time favourites too. The Criterion Collection edition I believe contains the final directors cut. The ending is superb, it beggars belief that Hollywood tried to butcher it.
There was a release, perhaps the lazerdisk box set not sure, that had both the theatrical cut and a (I believe) BBC tv edit. Although the BBC tv version could be characterized as more up beat, the commentary and inclusion in the box showed it great respect. They discuss the editing choices that needed to be made to reframe the story as if it had been conceived that way from the beginning.
It's one of the most educational discussions of cinematic storytelling and editorial technique. It is absolutely worth seeing both versions and listening to the commentary if you can find them.
Ah. The reason I ask is that the ending I saw could be interpreted either way, but I saw the 'happy' ending as obvious satire/irony. I'm just worried that I saw the wrong ending and over-interpreted it.
It sounds like you saw the "Love Conquers All" version, but saw through the illusion. It's actually part of the original ending, but with all the framing of the scene removed.
Definitely check out the director's cut.
Fantastic and fantastical yet so so so bleak. I find the bleakness beautiful in a weird way, but I think it's a film that presupposes a certain mental fortitude.
When watching Brazil it's important to keep in mind that it was made in 1985, before 9-11, before the internet, before ubiquitous surveillance. It is one of the most prescient films ever made.