A great film but only for intellectuals. For the local Friday/Saturday night crowd at the Odeon this film was a total turn off! What is the point of making films that only pander to the university/intellectual set? Surely films should have a universal appeal? I admire the acting and the sets but there are plenty of parts that repulse: the torture scenes and the plastic surgery disaster. Ugh!
shareYes, torture and plastic surgery are exclusively for intellectuals.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Well excuse me! But I rightly remember the film being, on it's release, a flop. Guess the great unwashed had better things to do on a Saturday night.
shareYou mean like washing?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Who says Art has to please everyone?
shareCinema is not true art and you should make films that will reach as wide an audience as possible. What is wrong with making films that please the public? It was this kind of extravagance ($15 million budget and $10 million box office returns) that brought Hollywood to its knees.
shareBrazil has more than made up its budget since it's such a well known film and has been for decades. And cinema is indeed an art form. Vertigo didn't make a lot of money upon initial release either. Or Blade Runner.
share"Cinema is not true". Well that's just ignorant.
Cinema is pure art, now not all movies are pure art, some are just for entertainment. Like pop songs, pulp novels, Sunday comics, and Andy Worhal.
Cinema is the complex biological system of art, composed of every form of art to make it work. Photography, direction, acting, writing, music, fashion, illustration, interior & exterior design, architecture, sculpture, choreography.
My ever-growing film Collection http://daytrip.dvdaf.com/owned
"Cinema is not true art..."
Aaaaaand you lost me.
Idiot.
The OP is so wrong on so many levels.
1) "films should have universal appeal" - name one film that has universal appeal, because I simply don't believe that such a thing exists. Some films may have a bigger market than others, but not one film even made in the 100+ years of cinema has ever appealed to everyone.
2) It's a flop - well, the box office figures here seem to be just from the US, so no reckoning of box office around the world, nor of VHS/DVD sales (which incidentally are still selling) nor of revenue from sales to broadcasters around the world. It's still getting fairly regular screenings on TV, I watched it last night. All this shows that it is still a revenue generator. How many films from 1985 are still doing that I wonder?
3) Following from point 2) The idea that quality is judged by box office return is really really shaky ground to argue from. Let's think about another film from 1985, oh I don't know, how about .... Desperately Seeking Susan. Production cost $4.5mill, box office $27mill. Who now thinks that is a good film, let alone better than Brazil.
4) "Cinema is not true art" - wtf?! Just don't know where to begin with this. It's art - sometimes it's really really bad art, sometimes it touches the core of my being, and speaks to me about the way people are, the values of life and so on. Even when I hate what I've watched, it's an art.
5) "Hollywood brought to it's knees" - last year Warner Bros had over $5bill revenues, Disney exceeded $3bill... I can't be bothered to go on.
Bottom line is the OP didn't like this film, which is fine. As much as it's wrong for people to criticise other film fans for 'not getting' a movie that they don't like, it's wrong for the OP to pretend that it's bad because it's pretentious (although s/he didn't actually use that word, that is in effect what was said).
For me, I loved this when it came out - I was 14, I went to the cinema a couple of times, I bought the VHS a couple of times (worn out) and still make time for it when it's screened on TV now. I don't expect everyone to love it, and can see why it doesn't have 'universal appeal' but I don't understand why my love for this film should be dismissed as being somehow intellectually elitist.
I disagree. OP seemed to enjoy the film quite a bit.
sharejohnny wrong
shareAs Andrei Tarkovsky, a man who had much more faith than you in the true artistic capability of cinema, once noted, the original sin of the medium was its genesis in the marketplace.
sharePicture the scene snook...you're a young and talented new director about to make your first feature film!
How exciting is that, but one day you get called into the producers office, it's bad news I'm afraid when he tells you they are cancelling your film. But why you ask, it was "good to go". He tells you that Terry Gillam's new film didn't do too well at the box office and came in vastly over-budget. The box office receipts were terrible and if its any consolation yours isn't the only project that has been cancelled and the backers who could ill afford to lose money have lost a lot.
But nevermind eh, look on the bright side he tells you, there is a bright side you say, Yes! At least Terry got his film made, he got his vision on screen! Surely that is what matters.
If that does not put a smile on your kisser I don't know what will.
Alright, alright, I see your point.
(Still, there's a scene in this film that hit so close to home for me the first time I saw it that I could never bear to dismiss it all as a hyperintellectual exercise. As a foster child with a court-enforced non-relationship with his mother, I had to pause the tape and sob when he kept shouting for his Griest-ified mother at her friend's funeral.)
Actually, the movie wasn’t going to be released without an extensive recut that gave it the “Hollywood” happy ending, but Gilliam refused because that would defeat the entire point of the film. Universal finally agreed when Gilliam showed the movie illegally and it was awarded a best film of the year award by the LA Film Critics Association. Universal was so annoyed, though, that they pulled essentially all marketing from the movie and no one saw it. Since then it has been nominated for 2 Oscars, nominated for and won a bunch of other awards, added to the Criterion film collection, and is considered one of the finest satires of cinema. I think its box-office success isn’t all that important, and can be explained in large part by the studio’s actions, not the content of the movie itself.
share[deleted]
Terry Gilliam had already gained fame through his association with Monty Python, and that long beginning sequence of "Meaning of Life" was directed by him. Since that film was essentially the Pythons' swan song, it was probably the most logical time for solo projects by the members. And even if it lost a bit of money, there are movies made before this one that lost even more. "Heavens Gate" comes to mind. And there are plenty of us who were glad this movie was made, and will treasure it always! :P
shareWhile I have the same gripe with the film, i.e. it's not exactly for people who like to be entertained from their films, as opposed to sit there scratching their heads yawning and at the end, shrug and say "well, that was pointless" ... I also disagree with you.
Surely the academics, film critics and intellectuals should have some films to enjoy as well? ;) That parts of the film are repulsive, well, a lot of films have scenes that repulse someone. Isn't that the whole point of the "SAW" franchise, for instance? ("SAW" lack universal appeal too, as it happens.)
At least "Brazil" can fuel discussions. Is it superb? Is it supremely dull? Perhaps therein lies the alleged genius of the film ... not what happens on screen, but what the director has managed to accomplish in the audience. Or something. Personally, I'd prefer watching "Back to the Future".
^^ May contain ramblings of an easily over-excited fangirl # http://www.thesqueee.co.uk
So I guess we are to assume from the OP's idiotic rant that intellectuals are not allowed to have movies made that cater to their superior intelligence; unlike the idiotic herd that populates most theaters, that believe the latest Transformers series was the greatest thing ever.
Citizen Kane, RIP.
THANK GOD we have box office totals to let us know which movies are best!!!
Only having films that have a universal appeal would be an absolute nightmare. I like living in a world where there are different movies for different tastes. It means I can see stuff that I like (including this movie) and other people can watch romantic comedies, and we never really have to have any human contact barring a fender bender on the way to/from the cinema.
Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.
You mean films like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, the Maltese Falcon, A Night at the Opera, Sons of the Desert & The Bride of Frankenstein.
Nightmare films that all had universal appeal.
I imagine that is what people were saying as they left the cinema at the end of these films. If only these films didnt have universal appeal...
Still I suppose you need the odd flop for the intellectuals out there.
I suggest you take a look at Citizen Kane´s message board and see for yerself how "universal" its appeal is.
The rest of your anti-intellectual ranting makes as little sense as before, though. You haven´t improved one bit.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Well sure, it's not a film that was created to be a box office block buster but why's that wrong? There should be all sorts of films out there to meet all audiences.
That's like saying just because McDonald's is the most popular restaurant in the world then no other restaurants should exist except hamburger restaurants.
George Clooney fansite, news & gossip updated daily: www.clooneysopenhouse.com
[deleted]
This film is ART, and I'm smarter for knowing this.
share[deleted]
But the film has nothing to do with the country, so why is aptly titled?
share[deleted]
If you don't know, it's because of the song "Aqualrela do Brazil", which features prominently in the film. Heck, the score is basically a bunch of variations on it. Michael Kamen got a lot of mileage out of that track.
shareThis film gives highbrow a bad name.How in the hell would you know! hehehehehehe
What is the point of making films that only pander to the university/intellectual set?Because screw the rest of you, muhuha!
Surely films should have a universal appeal?https://youtu.be/C7R_emYOchc?t=40s share
Sorry...but I can't hold it anymore...
I think people like you should be genocided :^)
I think part of the problem with the initial box office take was the bad timing of the movie release. My interpretation of the movie is the same as that on the wiki of the film: "Jack Mathews, a film critic and the author of The Battle of Brazil (1987), described the film as "satirizing the bureaucratic, largely dysfunctional industrial world that had been driving Gilliam crazy all his life."
As I think this suggests, Gilliam was not just commenting on (and expressing his annoyance with) government bureaucracy but with all kinds of institutions.
For those familiar with the 1970s and early 1980s, had this film come out anytime in the period leading up to President Jimmy Carter's 'malaise' speech up to the Spring of 1983 when the prior closest time to the 'Great Recession' ended, I think Americans would have identified with the film much more and it would have been a much greater commercial success.
As it was though, not only was it 'morning again in America' by the time the film came out, but the celebrated personal success of Steve Jobs (along with Steve Wozniak) and his Apple Computers suggested, that contrary to Gilliam's view, an individual with a vision could still succeed despite bureaucratic annoyances and inertia.
As evidence of timing being a major cause for the poor initial domestic box office, according to boxofficemojo, the similarly highbrow (though nowhere near as strange as Brazil) movie Network was an enormous success with a domestic (U.S and Canada) box office take of nearly $23.7 million on a budget of $3.8 million. (Both in 1976 $)
Network is the movie with the line "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." So, I think you can see Network comments on similar themes, though I don't think many people consider Brazil and Network to be in the same genre beyond them both being satires.
The difference between the two: Brazil came out when it was 'Morning Again in America', Network came out at a time of inflation, when American made cars were referred to as 'rustbuckets' and shortly after Vietnam and Nixon's resignation. Timing isn't necessarily everything, but it's close.
To add: 'It's Morning Again in America' was President Reagan's 1984 reelection slogan. Whether I personally agree with that assessment or not doesn't matter, as what matters is he was reelected with nearly 60% of the popular vote. (with roughly 60% turnout.) The greater than 54 million votes he received in that 1984 election, was the highest vote total for a U.S Presidential candidate until the 2004 election.