HE SAID
Brazil was by far one of the most interesting movies I've seen all year. But that doesn't mean it's a great movie. Let me explain:
A film being simply interesting isn't always enough. For a timely example, let's take Christmas decorations. During the holidays there are always new things to see and enjoy....things you only see once a year...and it's fun to look at them. But when you get right down to it, they're just decorations. If the same decorations were up all year, would they mean anything? Probably not. And this is my problem with Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Other than being a different sort of film, does it have anything else going for it? I'd like to say yes, but I can't quite convince myself.
I'll start with the positives: First and foremost the camera work and direction was great. There was a weird combination of Lynchian and film noir elements that prevailed throughout. Gilliam shot in such a realistic style, that the film seemed almost surreal...as if everything and everyone were too perfect on screen. And this is what gave Brazil its underlying creepiness. Also, like Lynch, Gilliam used vibrant background colors, as well as crisp angles and cut shots to set the mood. But the element I was perhaps the most impressed with was Gilliam's vision of a future world that seemed to be falling apart at the mercy of its own technology and bureaucracy. The gaudy futuristic gadgets and vehicles were amazingly creative; funny yet somehow believable all at the same time. Also, the setting was very well realized with amazing detail. All in all, the special effects were nothing short of incredible, especially for a film made in 1985.
So, all of the above elements I mentioned are definitely positive, but they share a common thread. The film looked and felt great...it was tightly shot, beautifully imagined, and cleverly directed. But let's dig a little deeper:
The story itself is supposed to be a sort of dark comedy. And, in that sense I believe it succeeded. But there was an underlying British humor throughout the film that got on my nerves a bit. Some of the acting seemed over the top at times, though due to the nature of this film, it was forgivable. But nothing bothers me more while watching a film than to be completely annoyed by a character... especially if it is the main character. Such is the case with Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce). His nervous, almost pathological behavior just didn't sit well with me, even though I think it was an intentional contrast to the largely dry delivery of the supporting cast. Also, as I stated before, the story Gilliam is telling with this film is a good one, but it simply went on too long. This is a 1.5 hour story stretched into a 2.5 hour film. I don't want to point to editing as the culprit here, because I don't think that's really the problem. The problem, I believe, is that Gilliam had the opportunity with Brazil to finally make a movie his way, and crammed in a lot of thoughts and ideas that, though interesting, didn't really drive the story. They just felt like something he had always wanted to do, and Brazil was his opportunity to finally accomplish it on film.
He said: Brazil is a surprisingly great movie if you go into it knowing that it is a director's manifesto....the film he always wanted to do...and now that he has the chance he isn't holding anything back. That's great for writer/director Terry Gilliam, and I can appreciate his enthusiasm, but the overall film suffers for it. Brazil is pretty to look at and and engaging to watch, but it goes on too long. By the last quarter of the movie I think even the actors were wondering if the story would ever end. I give it a recommend with an astrix (kind of like Barry Bonds). This movie is definitely not for everyone.
SHE SAID
I had the honor of kicking off the first HeSaid SheSaid holiday season and picking our first X(mas) factor movie (nontraditional Christmas movies). When I was in grad school as a literature major (many moons ago), I took film classes for a break from books now and then. Brazil was one of the movies I watched in one of those classes, and I remembered just enough to know it was set around Christmas. And after re-watching the movie, I think I still have the same opinion of it almost 20 years later: It's an interesting movie that's about an hour too long.
Terry Gilliam, Brazil's director, and Sidney Sheinberg, who was the head of Universal studios at the time, fought about the length of the movie (among many other things about the film, including the title, the theme, and the ending). Sidney wanted it cut to 132 minutes from 142 minutes, but 10 minutes just wouldn't be enough.
The film was nominated for two Oscars - Best Writing and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration. And one thing I didn't realize when I watched it in grad school was that Tom Stoppard, who wrote Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (one of the many plays I was studying at the time), was one of the screenwriters. (Stoppard later wrote the screenplays for Billy Bathgate and Shakespeare In Love too.) The writing was good, but the set decorations were very impressive. They accurately capture the Big Brother-feel Gilliam wanted the movie to have. (They even make the duct work itself feel like a character.)
Gilliam claimed that he wanted to call the film 1984 1/2 because his inspiration for the film was a mixture of Fellini's 8 1/2 and George Orwell's 1984 (which he admitted he never read). Gilliam is quoted as saying the film is about the fear of love, but, if so, it seems to concentrate more on the dehumanizing effect of technology and bureaucracy - the two entities in the film so big they seem to become almost characters themselves.
A computer bug (literally) causes the incarceration of a Mr. Harry Buttle (Brian Miller) instead of the known "freelance subversive," Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro). This one mistake causes a chain of events which lead to the eventual demise of the main character, Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce), who was a predictable bureaucratic yes-man before meeting his dream girl (literally), Jill Layton (Kim Greist).
The movie became too long when Gilliam overplayed his Orwellian vision. The set design was sufficient. We got it. But he seemed to overemphasize again and again the despair and darkness, from the commercialization of the zombie-like Christmas to the terrorists we never actually see or understand. And, besides the obvious play on the importance of appearances in a bureaucracy, I never got the many scenes focusing on Lowry's mother and her friends, who were all plastic surgery addicts.
She Said: It's a clever film. But as the proverb says, it's good to be clever but not to show it. And this film tries a bit too hard to show its cleverness. Regardless, it's worth watching for the art direction and set decoration alone. (Watch with the sound off even if you want.)
THEY SAID
After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Brazil audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film the Eskimo picked to review next.)
Recent Comments