wayne@ada-uts.UUCP (02/03/86)
BRAZIL is an excellent movie - if you haven't seen it, stop reading
this note, and make plans to see it tonight.
The question I have : Is Jill alive or dead? When the stormtroopers
place the bag over Sam's head, the screen is black for a second or
two, and we hear her scream, followed by a burst of machine gun fire.
The first time I saw this, I thought the blackout was the result of
the projectionist. The second time, since it happened again, I thought
this must have been one of the parts edited out of the movie to make
it less depressing for the American release. I remember reading that
Terry Gilliam had argued with the American distributers about
the editing, so they comprimised.
Is she alive or dead?
Wayne Wylupski ...!{ihnp4,ima}!inmet!ada-uts!wayne
"To know no History is to remain a child all one's life." -- Ciceromcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/13/86)
My question, for everyone who saw BRAZIL: was that a happy or a sad ending?
I haven't made up my mind yet.
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"What? That? It was just a filthy demon! It wasn't even from this dimension!"lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) (02/14/86)
In article <10700133@uiucdcs>, mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > My question, for everyone who saw BRAZIL: was that a happy or a sad ending? > I haven't made up my mind yet. > > Scott McEwan > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan It depends how you thought the movie ended and what you think a happy ending is How it ended : 1) The pain of having his hand pierced exceeds the threshold and Sam's mind snaps. He will be a vegetable for "life". 2) He just dreams for the duration of the pain. He will be tortured again. When I watched Brazil, I got the impression that he was a vegetable for "life". I think I made this assumption because that's where the movie ended. If in fact it was only a temporary dream, that means that the movie simply stopped and I hate when that happens. At any rate, if he was a vegetable, then he wouldn't have to "live" in that horrible world anymore. I guess you could call that happy; I wouldn't. If he was only dreaming, then he will be tortured again and experience it. I guess you could call that sad. The movie was so cartoon-like, though, that asking if it had a happy or sad ending would be equivalent to asking if "Bugs Bunny Meets The Tasmanian Devil" had a happy or sad ending. ::: :::::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :::::: :::
wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) (02/14/86)
In article <10700133@uiucdcs> mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > >My question, for everyone who saw BRAZIL: was that a happy or a sad ending? >I haven't made up my mind yet. Spoiler follows: The whole film worked on so many different levels that it would be impossible to classify it as happy or sad. The audience will initially think it is a sad ending because the bad guys win, at least over the hero (can't even remember his name anymore). However Jill gets away (she's dead so far as the world is concerned), and he escapes with her, even if it's only in his fantasies. From his point of view how can you argue that it's sad? I doubt Jill is that concerned about losing him - she wasn't that interested in the first place, so it's probably not that bad for her either. We would like to see good triumph over evil, but it doesn't happen. I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were no terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in the film. Alec Saunders
lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) (02/16/86)
In article <378@watdragon.UUCP>, wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) writes: > I doubt Jill is that concerned about losing him - she wasn't that interested > in the first place, so it's probably not that bad for her either. I doubt she is concerned either since, by my understanding, she's dead. > I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were no > terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using > fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to > anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in > the film. How exactly was the government using the "terrorists" to control the population? Nobody seemed the least bit phased by the bombings, except, of course, for the injured. By the way, to whomever said that the movie was "jumpin'", I would be interested in hearing some of the things you found worth discussing about the movie. As I said, I liked the movie but it seemed that most of the ideas you mention the movie presenting aren't fleshed out enough. They all seemed to be drowned in the style and pace. ::: :::::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :::::: :::
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (M. A. Upmalis) (02/17/86)
In article <718@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes: >> I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were no >> terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using >> fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to >> anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in >> the film. > >How exactly was the government using the "terrorists" to control the >population? Nobody seemed the least bit phased by the bombings, except, >of course, for the injured. There was some suggestionin my mind that in _1984_ the war wasn't really happening, the idea of an external enemy has been used effectively as a means of controlling the populace to draw in and do things to protect themselves (remember the children playing information retrieval games with the one child with the bag over his head?). The posters throughout, the acceptance with things as they were are factilitated by the enemy without/within. Witness the Soviet state (especially Stalinism), witness McCarthyism for similar instances. > >By the way, to whomever said that the movie was "jumpin'", I would be >interested in hearing some of the things you found worth discussing >about the movie. As I said, I liked the movie but it seemed that most >of the ideas you mention the movie presenting aren't fleshed out enough. >They all seemed to be drowned in the style and pace. > The movie was also concenred with Sam's discovery of the state around him. He really didn't understand the workings of it, preferring to be in his own world, the confusion of his experiences distorts our own perception of the reality of the _Brazil_ world. I found it a bit slow a first, but the pace accelerated into the movie. -- 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"
showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) (02/18/86)
In article <378@watdragon.UUCP> wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) writes: > > However Jill gets away (she's dead so far as >the world is concerned), I'm not so sure of that. When the Information Retrieval boys burst into the bedroom, Sam protests, "No, she's dead, this is just a friend of mine" and is hauled off to be tortured. We don't know what's happened to Jill. >From his point of view how can you argue that it's sad? Well, it's sad in that the trauma of being tortured by a man who he thought was his friend has forced him to retreat into his little fantasy world. Also it's not the same fantasy world as his original one, with him as the winged hero and Jill as the long-haired angel in distress--now the dream figures are the same as the real world ones. >We would like to see good triumph over evil, but it doesn't happen. I don't think anybody was "good" or "evil" in this film. Substitute "We would like to see an individual's common sense triumph over bureaucratic blindness". > >I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were >no terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using >fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to >anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in >the film. I think there were terrorists, unless maybe the Philadelphia police depart- ment was involved. Tuttle wasn't a terrorist, just an individual trapped in a mass produced world. Jill wasn't either. Sam suspected her of being a terrorist ("Don't suspect a friend, report him") but she turned out to be just a truck driver (the "bomb" parcel actually had those little guillotine things everybody got for Christmas). "It's only a state of mind" -- Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) (02/18/86)
In article <718@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes: >As I said, I liked the movie but it seemed that most >of the ideas you mention the movie presenting aren't fleshed out enough. >They all seemed to be drowned in the style and pace. > Style and pace. Yuck! Who'd want to see a movie with style and pace????? "It's only a state of mind" -- Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) (02/18/86)
In article <718@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes: >In article <378@watdragon.UUCP>, >wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) writes: > >> I doubt Jill is that concerned about losing him - she wasn't that interested >> in the first place, so it's probably not that bad for her either. > >I doubt she is concerned either since, by my understanding, she's dead. What makes you think she's dead? We know she's dead in the governments eyes because Sam took care of that. There was no reason for the storm troopers to kill her - they were after Sam. Note that they didn't kill Mrs. Buttle. Finally why would the government issue a warrant for a dead person?
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/19/86)
> >My question, for everyone who saw BRAZIL: was that a happy or a sad ending? > >I haven't made up my mind yet. > I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were > no terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using > fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to > anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in > the film. > Alec Saunders My theory was simpler. There are no "terrorists". There are merely Central Services accidents of various flavors, which must be blamed on someone. This view was re-inforced when the (in essence) traffic accident following the running of the roadblock was interpreted by the government as a terrorist bombing (if I'm remembering right). -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (02/22/86)
In article <378@watdragon.UUCP> wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) writes: > However Jill gets away (she's dead so far as the world is concerned) I have been told that in the European version of BRAZIL, there is one additional scene at the end, where the head of Info. Retrieval says "By the way, your friend is dead. Funny thing is, the records show she died twice!", which makes Jill definitely dead. N.B. - I have not personally seen the Euro version, so this might be wrong... -- Mike Farren uucp: {your favorite backbone site}!hplabs!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
moens@ubc-cs.UUCP (Ted Moens) (02/22/86)
In article <718@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes: >In article <378@watdragon.UUCP>, >wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) writes: > >> I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were no >> terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using >> fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to >> anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in >> the film. > >How exactly was the government using the "terrorists" to control the >population? Nobody seemed the least bit phased by the bombings, except, >of course, for the injured. > Jill asks Sam: "Have you ever SEEN a terrorist..." Perhaps the terrorist bombings were arranged by the government in order to justify the need for anti-terrorist resources. In fact, the deputy minister uses the 13 years of "beginner's luck" bombings as a reason for needing more and better information retrieval services. If the government is concerned with perpetuating itself, it would be well equipped with police and information to nip any perceived threat to itself in the bud. To the government, a terrorist would be someone who threatens the status quo, Harry or Jill for instance.... Ted Moens "loose lips are noose lips" as I'm afraid mine will be.