upstill@ucbvax.UUCP (Steve Upstill) (04/30/84)
Does anyone know anything about Brazil, a new film by Terry (Time Bandits) Gilliam? All I know is that it is supposed to be a semi-political farce with yet another cast of many name comedians, both in and out of the Monty Python school. Personally, I can't wait for any opportunity to spend money on any film by Mr. G. Steve Upstill
sah@ukc.UUCP (S.A.Hill) (04/25/85)
BRAZIL
======
BRAZIL is the latest film to spring from one of the Monty Python
team. In this case Terry Gilliam. Gilliam was responsible for all those
marvelous animations and for the sets in The Life of Brian.
BRAZIL is simply the best film I have seen in years. It blends an
alternative world (all too similar to our own) with a dark sense of humour.
The world created recalls Orwellian images; a place where bureaucracy
has taken over and individuals are forgotten behind the masks of their own
occupations. Great attention has been paid to detail; you see company logos on
equipment and the computers are real computers with all the works visible.
Gilliams humour is never far away and is used to great effect breaking
tension and keeping the audience on its toes. He switches from dream to reality
without warning, but with devastating results. The images he uses are sometimes
nighmarish, often amusing, and always bizarre. The special effects are subtle -
you know they're there but do not notice them at the time, and spectacular - eg.
flying scenes that look real.
BRAZIL? Why BRAZIL - well all I can say is that it comes from the
song of the same name. The theme haunts us through the entire film (and
for some days thereafter). It can be both joyous and full of life or heavy
and depressive.
The film is difficult to classify. It could be SF, but in the
sense that 1984 is. It could be humour, but don't go to see it if you want
to be laughing all the time. It is surreal at times, but all too real at
others.
Well, I shall not attempt to describe the plot - too much happens,
and it is best left for the viewer to interpret when she/he sees it. I
have attempted to put into words what I felt of the film, but it is such an
impressive production laden with abstract ideas and deep emotion that the
only way you will be able to appreciate what I have attempted to describe
is to see the film.
If you go on a Friday it will give you all weekend to recover.
Steve Hill.rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/29/85)
I saw this movie at a preview in Hollywood. I found it to be to uneven and
confusing to give it a good review. You get dangled along for a while and
then find out you were watching someone's dream! I think a lot of the
problems with this movie are that it has an identity crisis - it doesn't
know if it is a comedy or drama. The humor ranges from slapstick to
sophisticated satire. I suspect the average viewer, Joe Q. Public will
not like this one. And the ending will leave you stunned in your seat.
--
Rick Gillespie
rick@ucla-cs
...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick
"She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."tim@fisher.UUCP (Tim Snyder) (02/11/86)
Oh, my heavens, this movie is jumpin'! Highly recommended for those
who enjoy thoughtful movies, movies which generate discussion,
movies which have elaborate scripts and elaborate sets, movies which
allow you to be dropped into yourself fresh (without whatever process
that made you what you are occurring), movies which document life's
pieces accurately yet uniquely, and movies which ENTERTAIN in novel
ways.
It would be very easy to go haywire in a review of this; I'll restrain/
refrain.
"Just full speed and pagan,
Tim Snyderlo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) (02/11/86)
In article <1381@fisher.UUCP>, tim@fisher.UUCP (Tim Snyder) writes: > Oh, my heavens, this movie is jumpin'! Highly recommended for those > who enjoy thoughtful movies, movies which generate discussion, > movies which have elaborate scripts and elaborate sets, movies which > allow you to be dropped into yourself fresh (without whatever process > that made you what you are occurring), movies which document life's > pieces accurately yet uniquely, and movies which ENTERTAIN in novel > ways. I agree that this movie is great to watch and it is certainly extremely entertaining, but for me, it had about as much depth/substance as a video. I'm sure you could discuss all the effects and stunts and crazy use of the camera and editing, but the movie doesn't really have any new or novel ideas to discuss. ::: :::::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :::::: :::
lucius@tardis.UUCP (lucius) (02/13/86)
_
In response to questions as to whether the American release of
"Brazil" has been edited, I cannot say for sure, but judging from the content
(a combination of the humor of Woody Allen with the nightmare of "Nineteen
Eighty-Four" -- an excellent film), it seems not to have been substantially
edited.
I think the screen blank at the point of Sam's capture is 2 things:
1. The bag placed over his head (and probably his passing out very
shortly after).
2. A feature of the film to leave you wondering for a while before
you finally realize the truth (unfortunately, in theatres with
sound systems that are not the best, it leaves you wondering
probably longer than was intended).
--
-- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP }
"No! It's too gruesome!
. . .but I'll do it!"tim@fisher.UUCP (Tim Snyder) (02/14/86)
Bert says: > In article <1381@fisher.UUCP>, tim@fisher.UUCP (Tim Snyder) writes: > > Oh, my heavens, this movie is jumpin'! Highly recommended for those [more of my babble] > > I agree that this movie is great to watch and it is certainly extremely > entertaining, but for me, it had about as much depth/substance as a video. > I'm sure you could discuss all the effects and stunts and crazy use of the > camera and editing, but the movie doesn't really have any new or novel ideas > to discuss. > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I really disagree with you. I think Brazil paints the picture of 20th- century life in such a fashion that we are able to view it with an omniscience not afforded by "normal" life. As I mentioned before, it is as if you are dropped into your adult brain without any of the preceding training, experience, conditioning, or whatever. Virtually every aspect of life is illustrated in such a way that we can view it for the first time. Furthermore, this illustrates the ways in which reality is perceived by those other than ourself, and, instead of discussing this difference, Brazil allows us to experience it. There are many other subthemes, such as dealing with this (perceived [hence actual]) reality, and the unimportance of events not within its realm. I have barely skimmed the surface here. While I am at it, need we have a debate about the necessity of "new" or "novel" ideas being the criteria for quality art? Behold! Tim Snyder
coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta) (02/15/86)
In article <10140@tardis.UUCP> lucius@tardis.UUCP (lucius) writes: > > I think the screen blank at the point of Sam's capture is 2 things: > 1. The bag placed over his head (and probably his passing out very > shortly after). > 2. A feature of the film to leave you wondering for a while before > you finally realize the truth (unfortunately, in theatres with > sound systems that are not the best, it leaves you wondering > probably longer than was intended). > >-- > -- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP } > "No! It's too gruesome! > . . .but I'll do it!" I have seen the film here in Canada, and am curious as to whether the ending is the same as in the States -- would someone mail me a capsule discription of the ending so I can compare? coatta@utcsri
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (M. A. Upmalis) (02/17/86)
In article <703@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes: >I agree that this movie is great to watch and it is certainly extremely >entertaining, but for me, it had about as much depth/substance as a video. >I'm sure you could discuss all the effects and stunts and crazy use of the >camera and editing, but the movie doesn't really have any new or novel ideas >to discuss. > Oh there is an interesting fundamental lesson, Gilliam and Stoppard have taken the step beyond Orwell. Orwell thought that the evil of a totalitarian government would be a purpose, G and S show that evil and destruction is a byproduct of the bureaucracy that makes up the government. In the visual look of the film is a close correspondence to the ideas that are present in the characters action and words. Gilliam has a movie that in different levels of texture show a close similarity, even a harmony of purpose, and when he wants to show you something the contrast from one minute to the other (the cheers of "we did it, we did it" followed by the shot of the burning policeman, the torturer, played with great depth by Michael Palin, going from the bloody smock to playing with his daughter). I saw Brazil a few days ago and I have to see it again, there is something about this film that is very special, and the flaws that are there come only from the great effort to make this very splendid film. -- Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo> ihnp4!watmath!watarts!mupmalis Chemistry is useful both in Modern Medicine and the treatment of Steel. Mr. Sanderson in "Big Meat Eater"
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (02/22/86)
In article <703@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes: > >I agree that this movie is great to watch and it is certainly extremely >entertaining, but for me, it had about as much depth/substance as a video. >I'm sure you could discuss all the effects and stunts and crazy use of the >camera and editing, but the movie doesn't really have any new or novel ideas >to discuss. > >Bert S.F. Lo (flamboyant and expensive signature line deleted) So name a movie made in the last twenty years that has had "new or novel ideas" in it. (and describe which part you consider new or novel) David Siskel Ebert Richards, III
travis@cucca.UUCP (Travis Lee Winfrey) (03/02/86)
<> [I'm new to usenet. Please don't blowtorch me if I step on some toes.] In article <213@mrstve.UUCP> mark@mrstve.UUCP (Mark Smith) writes: >Has anyone seen the movie, Brazil yet. It showed in this city for just about >6 days. Unfortunately, I was the recipient of a couple of free passes to see >this "movie" (and I use the term loosly). Even though it was free I still >felt that I was robbed. (at least of the 2 hours I had sat there!) You might want to consider leaving early next time you feel this way about a movie. I've walked out of many bad movies. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it; I probably can't persuade you that it was a great movie. After I saw it, I was really excited, and ran around offering unasked-for reviews to many of my friends. (I went to see it again just three days later!) At least three people that heard these raves from me went to see it, and they were not thrilled. More precisely, two of them left the movie horribly depressed and angry at me for having described it as funny; the other person simply said it was "too weird for me." I've been more careful to mention to people since then that 1) it was quite weird, 2) they should at least have "1984" in mind, and 3) after some thought, it really was a happy ending. Also, one of my favorite reviewers just trashed it, which broke my heart, and further proved that "some people just don't get it." > Was this supposed to be a spoof of "1984" or was it supposed to be serious? > Mark Smith, ihnp4!pur-ee!pur-phy!mrstve!mark Terry Gilliam was totally uninterested in making an easily classifiable movie. He mentioned somewhere in "American Film" how difficult this was to do with the Hollywood establishment, which refused to even release the film originally. Everyone wanted a one sentence description, and even he was unable to come up with one that made sense. As near as I could tell, and yes, I realize how ridiculous this sounds, the movie was showing some of the funnier aspects of a repressive, Orwellian society, along with a semi-conventional love story mixed in with lots of action. It is unconventional in that the heroine (Kim Greist) has her act much more together than the hero (Jonathan Pryce) from the very beginning, although he keeps trying to "save" her. I've heard people say that it was just about alienation. Well, it was and it wasn't. The main progression of the plot shows the hero moving from someone who could cheerfully and competently be part of a horrible bureaucracy, the ministry of information, without a single thought as to what he was doing to people's lives. As the restaurant scene stressed, he was a man without dreams or ambitions -- although the audience knows he does have one dream in which he flies above scenic pastures with a lovely, idealized woman. When he has to give the check to the widow, he begins to see the enormity of the evil of the whole system, and his dreams begin to reflect this with the buildings shooting up from the pastures. (Perfect.) The problems he has with his heating system serve to introduce the terrorist heating engineer (De Niro), and to give him another reason to hate the status quo, to make him more of a "terrorist" himself. (He walks in his dreams now in a dark city, unable to fly or to save his love.) Finally, when he meets the real woman of his dreams, he has to confront the worst: *his* system would destroy her, and for no good reason. He is immediately on her side, of course, but only messes things up. From this setup, the balls of the plot ricochet down the stairs until the end. The end does indeed have a depressing appearance to it, unless you consider two things. First, he did achieve the thing which was most important to him, saving his love from the system (competence with a computer is worth something!). Second, although the system did capture him, they couldn't break him as in the ending of 1984. He escaped into his dreams -- the meaning of the song, incidently, if you listen to the words. (and the line on the poster: "Brazil -- it's all in your mind.") You don't have to like the ending, but I don't think I would have believed any other. I think he won as much as he *could*; this wasn't a Rambo movie. One thing which is hard to take at first is the way Gilliam screws around with the line between reality and fantasy. The dreams are never explicitly separated from the flow of "real" events, and this can get very confusing, particularly in the shopping mall and closing scenes. If you see it again, it will make much more sense, especially now that I've 'splained everything to you. :-) I have no problem with considering this a great movie. "Best" is a tricky term that I like to avoid. After a month, it's still gaining popularity in Manhattan -- another theatre just opened with it. [One last note: Jonathan Pryce was the circus leader in "Something Evil This Way Comes" which is worth everyone's time, although it is billed as a children's movie. I've seen it on HBO.] t -- Smile. Arpa: travis@cu20b.columbia.edu, winfrey@cs.columbia.edu Bitnet: travis@cucca, tlwus@cuvma Usenet: ucbvax!mtxinu!ea!okstate!cucca!travis || !seismo!columbia!cucca!travis USMail: 612 W. 115th, #811, NYC 10025 Phone: 212-280-3704
ingrid@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (the Real Swede) (03/05/86)
a line feed offering > > > I would like to know if anyone else saw this movie. What did you think? How > on earth did the L.A. (some newspaper) nominate it for BEST PICTURE? Did any- > one understand it? Would narcotics have helped? Was this supposed to be a > spoof of "1984" or was it supposed to be serious? > Mark Smith Oh yay. FINALLY someone else appears who disliked the movie as much as I. Yes, I think heavy drugs would have helped. Then I at least could have hallucinated some semblance of a plot. I had to go out and ingest multiple beers after the movie in order to wash its terrible memory away. Yuck ick boring stupid blah. This is one of those movies destined to be a cult classic. Kinda reminds me of the children's story, "The Emporor's New Clothes." In that story, the Emporer walks down the street clad only in his birthday suit, but no one says anything. They're all chicken to admit what they believe to be true--because no one else will say the guy's stark naked. I think A LOT of people think this movie sucks, but are afraid to say anything because the movie won the L.A. critics' award. Hell, what do L.A. critics know, anyway....! Feel free to express your opinion--I think there's a lot of folks out there who feel the way you and I do...
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/05/86)
BRAZIL
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: This is the best science fiction film
of 1985. But catch this story of an Orwellian future quickly
--it won't be around for long.
1984 never came. At least, not the way that George Orwell pictured it
in 1984. The book was his prediction from the viewing point of 1948 of what
the next 36 years could bring. It is a moot point how accurate his
prediction was, but the book is still a valuable yardstick for measuring our
current world. It has been a valuable yardstick for years. BRAZIL is a new
film. It does not have the track record of having been useful for years.
However, it also seems to be a prediction from the viewpoint of 1948 of how
the world could have turned out and today it is no less valuable than 1984
as a yardstick for measuring today's society.
In the world of BRAZIL technology has stagnated. The lords of creation
are a megalithic bureaucracy and, apparently, the people who make heating
ducts. All the technology in the world is refinements of inventions that
were around at the end of World War II. (One exception, I think, is the
Fresnel lens, but for society to have changed so much and for only one
invention to come along is a rather telling indictment of this political
system.) This is a paper-bound society in which the path to getting the
smallest thing done has the form in a triangle. The greatest public enemy
is a man who does repairs without red tape.
In this world one minor official, one Sam Lowry, has abstract dreams of
escaping the dingy crush of government world and flying free with his ideal
woman. These fantasies have sapped Lowry's will to get ahead at the dismal
Ministry of Information. When he finds that the woman he has been dreaming
of really exists, he starts fighting the mournful inertia of the society to
try to find her.
Terry Gilliam seems to have for some time wanted to do in live action
the sort of things he did in animation for MONTY PYTHON. He nearly
succeeded in TIME BANDITS, but the script of that film was extremely uneven.
This time he co-authored the script with Tom Stoppard, considered to be one
of the greatest living playwrights. And the choice of Stoppard paid off.
For the first time in his career, Gilliam was not just making people laugh,
he was telling a story of substance. Instead of just joking about the
meaning of life, Gilliam is now actually saying something about it.
Jonathan Pryce, who oozed malevolence in SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY
COMES, carries the film as San Lowry. Also on hand are familiar faces like
Robert De Niro, Ian Holm, Katherine Helmond, and Michael Palin. This film
gets a +2 for pleasure, but on the -4 to +4 scale it can get nothing less
than a +3 for artistic achievement. This was the best science fiction film
of 1985. A recent FILM COMMENT takes Universal to task for releasing STICK,
JAMES JOYCE'S WOMEN, CREATOR, MORONS FROM OUTER SPACE, DREAM CHILD, WILD
GEESE II, and HOLOCAUST COVENANT in 1985, while deciding BRAZIL was
unreleasable. Universal is absolutely right. A film this good probably
will not attract enough of the teenage audience to make it profitable. It
will play at your local art theater a week and then disappear, like SMILE or
STUNT MAN. And just like these films, people will be rediscovering BRAZIL
for years to come.
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leepertino@hou2f.UUCP (A.TINO) (03/06/86)
>Oh yay. FINALLY someone else appears who disliked the movie as much as I. Yes, >I think heavy drugs would have helped. Then I at least could have hallucinated >some semblance of a plot. I had to go out and ingest multiple beers after the >movie in order to wash its terrible memory away. Yuck ick boring stupid blah. > >This is one of those movies destined to be a cult classic. Kinda reminds me of >the children's story, "The Emporor's New Clothes." In that story, the Emporer >walks down the street clad only in his birthday suit, but no one says anything. >They're all chicken to admit what they believe to be true--because no one else >will say the guy's stark naked. I think A LOT of people think this movie >sucks, but are afraid to say anything because the movie won the L.A. critics' >award. Hell, what do L.A. critics know, anyway....! Feel free to express your >opinion--I think there's a lot of folks out there who feel the way you and I >do... _______ You're not alone. I also found Brazil extremely tedious viewing. True, some of the sets and props were very clever, but even the most convoluted duct system in the world wasn't enough to save this dog.
jcw@loral.UUCP (What's all this, then?) (03/06/86)
In article <1705@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > > BRAZIL > A film review by Mark R. Leeper > > Capsule review: This is the best science fiction film > of 1985. But catch this story of an Orwellian future quickly > --it won't be around for long. > >This was the best science fiction film of 1985. It will play at your local >art theater a week and then disappear... Well, I hope you're wrong!!! I agree with everything you said. But here in San Diego and in Los Angeles, _Brazil_ has been playing for over a month. When I saw it, there was only about 25-30 people in attendance, and most of them didn't seem to enjoy it. But as in the case with real art, the masses can not appreciate talent! 8{) My recommendation: If y'all liked films/movies like Videodrome, Liquid Sky, and Teenage Coed in Heat, 8{) you'll enjoy Brazil. Go see it, while you can!!! -Film critic in hiding, Cary DiWhay
msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (03/06/86)
> > BRAZIL > A film review by Mark R. Leeper > <text deleted> > > ducts. All the technology in the world is refinements of inventions that > were around at the end of World War II. (One exception, I think, is the > Fresnel lens, but for society to have changed so much and for only one > invention to come along is a rather telling indictment of this political > system.) Umm -- the fresnel lens was invented by a Frenchman named (surprise surprise) Fresnel, some time in the 19th century (it may have been even earlier). He designed it for use in lighthouses. I know, I know this isn't relevant to net.movies. Let's see...Ah ha, here's a tie-in. Any movie ever made with artificial lighting has used lamps fitted with fresnel lenses. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.uucp, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc "Boards are long and hard and made of wood"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/07/86)
Mark Leeper writes: > [Brazil] was the best science fiction film >of 1985. A recent FILM COMMENT takes Universal to task for releasing STICK, >JAMES JOYCE'S WOMEN, CREATOR, MORONS FROM OUTER SPACE, DREAM CHILD, WILD >GEESE II, and HOLOCAUST COVENANT in 1985, while deciding BRAZIL was >unreleasable. Universal is absolutely right. A film this good probably >will not attract enough of the teenage audience to make it profitable. It >will play at your local art theater a week and then disappear, like SMILE or >STUNT MAN. And just like these films, people will be rediscovering BRAZIL >for years to come. In fact Mark's prediction has proven quite wrong, at least in this area. Brazil has been playing for over a month now in general release here, and shows no signs of disappearing anytime soon. In contrast, CREATOR and MORONS didn't last but a few weeks (MORONS died in a week), and I never even saw an ad for any of the others listed (except DREAMCHILD, which if I remeber correctly has only shown up recently). Mark seems to forget that teenagers all over America tune into video shows and MTV all the time, where they show things as weird and grotesque as one cares to imagine. Of course, maybe this says something about Washingtonians.... C G W
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (03/07/86)
A tiny and minor correction: Augustin Jean Fresnel died in 1827, and invented his lens somewhat before that. It was just hard to make one until they could press one in plastic. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
norman@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Norman Ramsey) (03/07/86)
In article <1705@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: >ducts. All the technology in the world is refinements of inventions that >were around at the end of World War II. (One exception, I think, is the >Fresnel lens, but for society to have changed so much and for only one >invention to come along is a rather telling indictment of this political >system.) This is a paper-bound society in which the path to getting the Actually, the Fresnel lens was invented by Augustin(?) Fresnel in the nineteenth century, when he started working for the government on the problems of optics in lighthouses. He was one of the few nineteenth-century students of optics whose work can still be read as physics today (the other one perhaps being Thomas Young). He is probably most famous for his theory of diffraction, which stunned the scientific world by predicting (correctly) the appearance of a bright spot in the center of a shadow cast by a circular disk. Of course, this has nothing to do with sf-lovers, except to point out that there were NO technological innovations since WWII. Besides, I thought you might like to know. -- Norman Ramsey norman@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Pianist at Large
ph@wucec2.UUCP (03/08/86)
In article <274@pilchuckDataio.UUCP> ingrid@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (the Real Swede) writes: >> I would like to know if anyone else saw this movie. What did >> you think? How on earth did the L.A. (some newspaper) nominate >> it for BEST PICTURE? Did anyone understand it? Would narcotics >> have helped? Was this supposed to be a spoof of "1984" or was >> it supposed to be serious? > > Oh yay. FINALLY someone else appears who disliked the movie as > much as I. Yes, I think heavy drugs would have helped. Then I at > least could have hallucinated some semblance of a plot. I had to > go out and ingest multiple beers after the movie in order to > wash its terrible memory away. Yuck ick boring stupid blah. > > This is one of those movies destined to be a cult classic. Kinda > reminds me of the children's story, "The Emporor's New Clothes." > In that story, the Emporer walks down the street clad only in > his birthday suit, but no one says anything. They're all > chicken to admit what they believe to be true--because no one > else will say the guy's stark naked. I think A LOT of people > think this movie sucks, but are afraid to say anything because > the movie won the L.A. critics' award. Hell, what do L.A. > critics know, anyway....! Feel free to express your opinion--I > think there's a lot of folks out there who feel the way you and > I do... Well, I can understand your not liking it; as previous posters have said, BRAZIL is not for everyone. But some of your comments disturb me a little. There IS a plot, a moderately involved and eventful one as I recall, for example. And while the EmpEror's new clothes were fairly easily demonstrated to be fanciful, I don't think it's quite fair to imply that it's just as easy to see that this is a bad movie, if only one would stop letting the L.A. critics pull the wool over one's eyes. After all, there must be SOMETHING there that them durn critics like; would it be so difficult to simply admit that whatever it was wasn't for you? I think once again, as was recently the case in net.sf-lovers during the debate over Gene Wolfe's BOOK OF THE NEW SUN, it is time for us all to remember that we all have different likes and dislikes, and to try not to be so hasty to condemn as absolutely bad something we don't happen to like. At least without anything particularly concrete to back up our opinion. --pH /* * "Care for a little necrophilia?" */ P.S. Why use drugs to try to produce a sensation the movie is already giving you?
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/09/86)
It appears that the Fresnal lens has been around longer than I realized. I should have thought that it was used in lighthouses for many years. I was thinking of Fresnel lenses as being only the plastic ones we started seeing in overhead projectors in the 60's. Thanks for all who corrected me in e-mail and on the net. I guess my point that the society in BRAZIL had stagnated is made even stronger by this. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
wutka@gitpyr.UUCP (Mark Wutka) (03/10/86)
I have a couple observatios/questions about _Brazil_:
First, to whoever compared it to "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", that
is quite an interesting comparison that does seem to make alot of sense.
I hadn't thought to compare those two. I did notice one short scene that
reminded me of the early Russian film "Battleship Potamkin." The scene
with the troops marching down the steps with their machine guns looks exactly
like the scene in "Potamkin" where the Czarist troops are marching down the
stairs firing at the revolting crowd...any ideas ?
Also, my impression of the antiquated computer terminals and such was
that Gilliam was trying to envision "1984" the way Orwell did. If I am
not mistaken, "1984" was written in the late 40's ? I think the fact that
they had computers yet still relied heavily on men with tons of paper
and such adds to this since in those days, no one had any conception of the
vast amount of paperwork that could be saved by the computer. I seem to
remember that when one machine came out, I think it was an early UNIVAC (groan),
many people said that only 12 of them would be necessary to do all the computing
for the rest of time.
Another thing - do you think he meant to set the story around Christmas or
that he meant to imply that they had made Christmas perpetual. The reason I
ask is that I kept thinking it had gone past Christmas in the story yet it
hadn't. Since it was obviously a mass consumption society, wouldn't it make
sense that they would try to keep everything up to the level of the period
of the year that marks the highest amount of consumption ?? George Lucas
suggested something along this line with the consumption quotas in "THX-1138."
Enough rambling...any thoughts ??
--
Mark Wutka
Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Ga.
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!wutka
...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!wutka
Official member of NERDS (NERDS Existing in a Recursively Defined System)gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (03/10/86)
In article <1526@gitpyr.UUCP> wutka@gitpyr.UUCP (Mark Wutka) writes: >I did notice one short scene that >reminded me of the early Russian film "Battleship Potamkin." The scene >with the troops marching down the steps with their machine guns looks exactly >like the scene in "Potemkin" where the Czarist troops are marching down the >stairs firing at the revolting crowd... The bit with the vacuum cleaner bumping down the stairs unattended (cf the baby carriage shot from Eisenstein) was so blatant a quote that even the preppie gropefest in the seats in front of us untangled long enough to remark (in not so dulcet a tone) on it. Of course, they called him "sergie einstein".....
grady@cad.UUCP (Steven Grady) (03/10/86)
> Also, my impression of the antiquated computer terminals and such was >that Gilliam was trying to envision "1984" the way Orwell did. If I am >not mistaken, "1984" was written in the late 40's ? I think the fact that >they had computers yet still relied heavily on men with tons of paper >and such adds to this since in those days, no one had any conception of the >vast amount of paperwork that could be saved by the computer. I seem to >remember that when one machine came out, I think it was an early UNIVAC (groan), >many people said that only 12 of them would be necessary to do all the computing >for the rest of time. Something which I hadn't thought of, but which seemed obvious after Gillim mentioned it after a showing here at which he spoke, was that the idea was that, as it says in the beginning, the movie is set "somewhere in the 20th century" (was that the quote?). Thus there is a potpourri of technology from every time, and the movie is not supposed to be set at any one era. There is 50's type technology (manual typewriters, vacuum tubes, air tubes) along with 80's (crt's everywhere, etc). There is clothing and decor from the 40's and 50's, etc. etc. I felt like an idiot when I realized I hadn't noticed what he meant, but it appears that many people haven't realized it either. Steven ucbvax!grady
MW9@PSUVM.BITNET (03/10/86)
In article <180@cucca.UUCP>, travis@cucca.UUCP (Travis Lee Winfrey) says: >... The end does indeed have a depressing appearance to it, >unless you consider two things. First, he did achieve the thing which >was most important to him, saving his love from the system (competence >with a computer is worth something!). Sorry, but I believe that the girl died. As do most of the people that I've talked to. When the cops break into the bedroom he tries to tell them that this isn't the girl they want, but they obviously don't believe him. I only saw it once, and I may be wrong, but didn't they have a gun to her head before they put the bag over his head? We can't believe he saved her later because remember that every scene after he's in the torture chair is fantasy. You also complained about the indistinguishable lines Gilliam draws between fantasy and reality. This is one of the main points of the film! And he accomplishes it brilliantly. I loved this movie. Everything about it. ------- "That's our opinion. What's yours? We'd like to know." -WPIX editorial ending Michael S. Weiss The Pennsylvania State University MW9@PSUVM.BITNET <* The opinions expressed by me do not reflect those held *> <* by my school nor those of my employer. (If I had one.) *>
lucius@tardis.UUCP (lucius) (03/11/86)
_
Well, I wouldn't say that Brazil has lasted only a week, considering
that it has been here for well over a month and is still going strong at
Harvard Square Theater and many other theaters that I saw on the road from
Boston to Washington, D. C. and back.
--
-- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP }
"Don't tug on that. You never know what that might be attached to."citrin@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Wayne Citrin) (03/11/86)
In article <1526@gitpyr.UUCP> wutka@gitpyr.UUCP (Mark Wutka) writes: >I did notice one short scene that >reminded me of the early Russian film "Battleship Potamkin." The scene >with the troops marching down the steps with their machine guns looks exactly >like the scene in "Potamkin" where the Czarist troops are marching down the >stairs firing at the revolting crowd...any ideas ? It's a closer parody than that. The shots of the cleaning woman with the bullet through her glasses and eye, and the vacuum cleaner rolling down the stairs, parallels a very similar scene in "Potemkin" involving a baby carriage. Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/11/86)
> It appears that the Fresnal lens has been around longer than I > realized. I should have thought that it was used in lighthouses for > many years. I was thinking of Fresnel lenses as being only the plastic > ones we started seeing in overhead projectors in the 60's. Thanks for > all who corrected me in e-mail and on the net. I guess my point that > the society in BRAZIL had stagnated is made even stronger by this. > > Mark Leeper > ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper Those of you who saw the most recent (and best) remake of _1984_ will recall that all the devices in that film are minor innovations on 1940s technology -- the use of pneumatic tubes, for example. It's tempting to see this as the art director's attempt to portray the world of _1984_ in terms that Orwell would be familiar with, but in fact, if you read the book, you will recall that he makes the point that the system stifles innovation and creativity, and that the only real improvements in technology are the implements of war. Advances in the sciences have to be connected to implements of war, or they were discouraged by the repressive atmosphere.