Talk:Brazil (1985 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Harnel, Keith (1998). "Modernity and Mise-en-Scene: Terry Gilliam and Brazil". In Rickman, Gregg (ed.). The Science Fiction Film Reader. Limelight Editions. pp. 344–354. ISBN 0879109947.
• Price, David H. (2010). "Governing Fear in the Iron Cage of Rationalism: Terry Gilliam's Brazil through the 9/11 Looking Glass". In Birkenstein, Jeff; Froula, Anna; Randell, Karen (eds.). Reframing 9/11: Film, Popular Culture, and the "War on Terror". Continuum. pp. 167–182. ISBN 1441119051.

Intro

The release dates contradict; differing dates are present for the US release of the movie. Does anyone know which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.85.171 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot

This section (like most of the page) is terribly written. It doesn't even outline the plot fully. Parts of it are ambiguous, irrelevant and unnecessary. 91.105.150.13 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So rewrite it. Be bold. Cop 663 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

• The film was originally called Brazil because the bug that leads to the typo (central to the plot) was originally seen in Brazil in an opening sequence (the rainforest is being cut down and the bug travels to the industrialised world along with its fallen home) — this was later cut. "Brazil"is also the name of the piece of music used as a basis for the film's score: "Aquarela do Brasil" by Ary Barroso. Conceptually, "Brazil" represents escapism.
• An alternative ending to the "love conquers all" version was proposed by the studio, finishing when the Ministry of Information is blown up; Gilliam referred to this with some acerbity as "the Rambo ending".
• Jack's triplets are played by Gilliam's daughter Holly. In one scene, Jack calls her by another triplet's name, to which she replies: "My name's Holly."
• The shadowy smoking figure that stalks Sam at various points in the film is played by an uncredited Terry Gilliam.
• Sam's boss, Mr. Kurtzman, is named after Harvey Kurtzman, the Mad Magazine creator, cartoonist and magazine editor who gave Gilliam his start in publishing by publishing his work in the magazine Help! and serving as Gilliam's mentor.
• Vehicles:
  • Jill's truck is a Scammell S24 tank transporter.

--Rubiksphere 09:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)** Sam's "personal transporter" is a Messerschmitt KR175 with a jet engine attached to the back.

• • The police personnel carrier is a modified Supacat.
• (goof) When Sam forgets to exit the public transport vehicle at "Level 41" and gets trapped in the doors, the one-legged woman standing in the vehicle begins to fall over but is propped up by the other actors in the vehicle.
• The technician at the beginning of the film (whose bug-killing actions cause the death of Mr. Buttle) is played by Ray Cooper, a musician who has worked in six Gilliam films as either a musician or as an actor. In The Adventures of Baron Munchausen he plays Jonathan Pryce's assistant.

• A number of scenes contain action that occurs in the background at the same time as the foreground story is being watched. This occurs notably during the party scene at Sam's mother's apartment, where we watch an argument between Jack Lint and his wife, Ida being chased by a "suitor" and the professional actions of Dr. Jaffee as he appraises people for plastic surgery.
• The Samurai Warrior in Sam's dream sequences is played by Winston Dennis. Dennis had already played the Minotaur that battled Sean Connery in Time Bandits and would later have a major speaking role as Albrecht in Munchausen.
• The Ministry of Information logo is "MOI" printed inside a black rectangle. This logo is seen all over Kurtzman's desk, indicating that the MOI has "official" items that its employees can use. These include tea cups, lamp shades and even Kurtzmann's goldfish bowl.
• Prisoners who are about to be interrogated at Informational Retrieval are called "customers".
• Background propaganda signs are similar to those that were posted around the UK during the Second World War, but with a subtle twist. These signs include:
  • Suspicion breeds confidence
  • Help the Ministry of Information help you
  • Information: The Key to Prosperity
  • -topia Airways (behind Sam and Harry as MOI is blowing up, note the implied ambiguity.)
  • Don't suspect a Friend: Report Him
  • Trust in Haste — Regret at Leisure (with a picture of a man behind bars)
  • Who can you Trust? (with a picture of MOI officials underneath. Seen as Sam says "Trust me Jack")
  • Mind that parcel. Eagle eyes can save a life (regarding terrorist bombs)

Here are all quotations:

Truth is information. Suspicion breeds Confidence Be Safe-Be Suspicious Liberty Equality Fraternity Information Eternal Vigilance is the price of Prosperity Regret Nothing-Report Everything Loose talk is a noose talk. Be a live patriot, not a dead traitor. Be alert. Some terrorists look normal. Is there a suspect in your family? Contact the Ministry of Information, Ring 100000 Trust in Haste. Regret in Leisure. Trust in Leisure. Regret in Haste. Don’t suspect a friend. Report him. Beware before. Beware after. Trust in security.

• At the refinery where Sam and Jill stop the truck, a safety sign in the background indicates "__3 Consecutive Hours without a Time-Loss Accident". Another sign at the refinery says "Merry Xmas to all our Staff".
• The motto for the Ministry of Information is "The truth shall make you free", which can be seen on the statue in the lobby. This is a quote from one of the Gospels: John 8:32 and is the slogan that greets visitors to the real-life CIA. In the context of the film, the MOI's job is to gather information — truth — from society, and by doing this sets society "free".
• A Salvation Army–style marching band is playing in the shopping district. The banner at the front reads "Consumers for Christ", with a picture of a Dollar sign stamped on a Christian cross. The message seems to be getting across: a little girl sits on Santa's knee and asks, for Christmas, for a credit card.
• A poster at Shangri-la towers is an advertisement for "Mellowfields", a holiday destination that appears to be a large and odd-looking ocean liner with a massive swimming pool fed by an artificial waterfall. Around the liner are a number of seaplanes. The words on the poster say "Top Security Holiday Camps. Luxury Without Fear. Fun Without Suspicion. Relax in a panic-free atmosphere."
• At the beginning of the film, the technician who eventually swats the bug is seen attempting to rub a spot off his desk, only to then cover it up with a stapler. Some see this simple gesture as a symbolic microcosm of the entire film that follows.
• The bizarre executive toy that is exchanged several times in the film (it actually appears to be the only gift anyone is giving anyone else) was designed specifically for the film, and was, at one point, considered as a possible piece of merchandise.
• The Elsa Schiaparelli "shoe hat"[1] worn by Sam's mother is based on a 1937 design by Salvador Dalí.

• There is an intertextual link between Monty Python's "the Meaning of Life" and Brazil. The last vignette of "the Meaning of Life" is set in Heaven, where every day is Christmas day. In Brazil, yuletide iconography pervades almost every scene, and as no specific dates are mentioned, it can be inferred that here also the same is true - Heaven on Earth indeed! Jugurtha3 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The title

Does anybody know why the movie is called "Brazil"? I'm Brazilian and don't have a clue about why using the name of my country in this film. Felipe Ventura, at 0:47 (Brasilia time) Feb 12 2004 e-mail: felipe-ventura@ig.com.br

The reason is, I think, now correctly listed in the trivia at the top of this page. Namely, the beetle that causes all the Buttle/Tuttle confusion was originally depicted as flying in from Brazil in an early version of the film. --Quaternion 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that it's named after the title song. But another reason may be the original meaning of the word 'Brazil' before it was given to the country. In medieval legend, 'the island of Brazil' was a mythical place of legend far across the ocean. Gilliam may have chosen the name to be suitable to a film set in a mythical society that never really existed. The Singing Badger 17:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or, the mythical place of legend could be the fantasy world in Sam's head. In any event, the title doesn't refer (at least not directly) to the modern country. —Matt McIrvin 12:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or, the name could actually be a reference to the real country of Brazil which, at the time Gilliam was making this film, was ruled by an extraordinarily powerful military junta which was notorious throughout the entire world for its heavy-handed tactics for taking and keeping power, which including torturing or "disappearing" its opposition.

By 1985, when Gilliam's film finally came out, the irony of a song glamourising Brazil as a paradise for lovers----when the reality was that Brazil was a hellhole of political intrigue, class inequality, and repression----would not have been lost on the educated, freedom-of-expression-loving, Che-Guevara-loving, military-junta-hating, Monte-Python-fan audience that the film attracted. Sam Lowry's society was the Brazilian junta transplanted by Gilliam to a British-based culture: where Machismo was replaced by British sports metaphors; where religious symbols were replaced by executive toys; and where colorful, tasty food was replaced by scoopfuls of monochromatic mush (sorry, not a fan of English meals!).

My mother turned to me after we watched the movie together (her first time), and suggested that it was called Brazil because Brazil's constitution contains a provision disallowing extradition of Brazilian citizens. She said this right after the final scene, which cuts from Sam sitting in the torture chair, clearly in another world (insane/lobotomized), to the clouds as the song "Brazil" plays. Has he escaped to another land, never to be extradited? Probably a little far-fetched, but I thought it was a neat idea. Patrick Grey Anderson 05:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have come to think the title reflects the modernisation project that took place in Brazil during the 20th century, in effect creating an 'artificial' capital and subsequently populating it. Brazil as a title could represent the concept of a mechanised, dehumanised modernity being carried to the extreme level, exhageration being a conceptual recourse often used by the ex-pythons, particularly Gilliam, to make a statement. user: Deva 11 november

I have heard a quote from Gilliam detailing his moment of insperation for the film, seeing a man sitting on a volcanic (black) sand beach, while the song was playing on a radio in the background, and this was the initial inspeation for the Sam character, though doubtless this connection was fleshed out into many things as the story and script was put together.user:fitandhappy

I am not sure this description fits at the end of the title description (futuristic machines, technology and organisations.) nothing futuristic in this movie. as stated before the film is uchronic with a more Steampunk influence. I would call it Mechanicalpunk. With all the reference to mechanical ductwork. MadDogCrog 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Neoliberal societies of Thatcher's Britain and Reagan's US? You'd have to be seriously right-wing to describe these as neo-liberal. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is actually a fairly common term that takes a more classical view of liberalism and conservatism. The modern right-wing is much closer to classical liberalism than to classical conservatism. - SimonP 15:32, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

I stand corrected. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We still probably shouldn't use it because it is somewhat ideological and can cause confusion. - SimonP 16:14, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Only for Americans. --B. Phillips 12:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (an American)

Jill's mysterious reappearance and change of heart

I think Jill's mysterious reappearance and change of heart occurred because she had been turned into an informant by the M.O.I. instead of being tortured and killed after she and Sam were picked up at the department store bombing. That's not to say Jill understood the consequences of turning informant -- both she and Sam were naive about the raw power and cruelty actually practiced by the M.O.I. (many incidents in the movie illustrate this).

Sam was the son of the former director of M.O.I and could make a lot of trouble through his society maven mother, so M.O.I couldn't kill or "disappear" Jill without first eliminating or discrediting Sam. To that end, M.O.I. sent Jill, without a scratch on her body (indicating that she had not yet been interrogated by Information Retrieval) to seduce Sam so that M.O.I. could catch him with a "suspected terrorist," thus giving Information Retrieval grounds to arrest him. Jill, who we know recoils at violence, probably was told by M.O.I. that she would go free and Sam would get a slap on the wrist because he was a government employee. Hence her apparentt hate-to-love switch.

That would also explain why Jill looked relatively calm when the stormtroopers first burst in; she expected them! Note that she didn't scream until one of the troopers grabbed Sam. At that point, she realized that Sam, despite his employment with Information Retrieval and family connection to M.O.I., was being treated as Mr. Buttle had been. She screamed in horror at the implications, and was summarily executed.

I think it's likely that Mr. Helpmann was directly involved in turning Jill to get rid of Sam. The evidence is that, just before the troopers burst into the room, Jill wrapped herself up in a huge ribbon as a Christmas present. Then later, when Sam was in a padded cell, Helpmann visited him dressed as Santa Claus.

Helpmann's motive for destroying Sam may have been more personal than patriotic. He traveled in the same social circles as Mrs. Lowry, who was herself very highly connected--perhaps more than himself. He could easily have exhonerated Sam (and Jill) with a nod of his head, but instead he chose to destroy Sam.

Remember, Helpmann's title remained *Deputy* Minister even after he assumed the dead Jeremiah's responsibilities. It appeared as though higher-ups had reservations about appointing Helpmann to head the ministry, and that Helpmann was just keeping the seat warm for the someone else.

Helpmann kept Ida Lowry's portrait on his desk, which indicated some sort of weird connection; perhaps Ida had a great deal of influence, as Jeremiah's widow, in the selection process for the next Minister. (After all, we heard her offer a ministry position to her plastic surgeon, through her social connections.) Also, we know that Ida was ambitious for her son; maybe Helpmann saw Sam as his rival for her political sponsorship. Maybe, if Sam Lowry began to show a little ambition, the powers-that-be would consider the well-connected, blue-blooded Sam to be a more suitable heir to M.O.I.'s throne than Helpmann.

At the end of Sam's torture session, we watch Jack and Helpmann, now codependent partners in crime, move towards us and away from Sam, kind of like the end of Casablanca (a famous anti-fascist political film which figured prominently in the Kurtzmann scenes) when Rick and Renault walked out of the hangar together, but with a bad twist---Sam, playing mirror image hero and villain, had escaped to an imaginary "Brazil," not to the very real non-fascist city of Lisbon, Portugal. (By the way, the Brazilian national language is Portugese, a result of Iberian colonialism. It is incredible how the structure and logic of this film is so tight...)

In one fell swoop, Helpmann destroyed a well-connected potential political rival and Jack destroyed the one person who could derail his career by linking him to Buttle's wrongful death. All they both would have to do to from now on is keep insisting that Sam Lowry was a terrorist.

Just a note: M.O.I. spells "moi" in French, meaning "me." M.O.I. is me, or a societal reflection of me and what I do and the things I support and uphold, kind of like an image in a mirror. Certainly, images in mirrors and lenses is one of the film's leitmotifs.

M.O.I. mirrors society and reflects back it's image -- but if the mirror or lens is imperfect, the image is not accurate, it is distorted like Sam's face in Kurtmann's computer magnifier. Sam looked very different to us from the computer's point of view.

Plus, we all know that a mirror reverses right and left, or, to play more on the French/English translation, adroit vs. gauche. Tuttle the adroit vs. Spoor the gauche?

The M.O.I.= "moi" = "me" relationship is also consistent with one of the central themes of the movie: that we are supporting the very institutions that are destroying us at the same time they claim to help us --- just as Alma Terrain supported the "acid man" who claimed to be helping her but in the end scorched her to death. She was complicit in her own destruction.

["Alma Terrain" = fostering earth (like "alma mater" means fostering mother). Alma's destruction was akin to the destruction of the landscape that we see in the movie behind the endless billboards.]

The complicity of victim and perpetrator is why the (Sam-or-I) warrior's face mirrored Sam's face, and why we wonder whether the constant explosions are due to the incompetence of Central Services, rather than some shadowy terrorist underground. Also, take a look at a closeup of the very "graphic" graphic design of M.O.I.'s logo to see how that organization views it's mandate to the general population---one of the very rare cases where obscenity is used to bolster a larger work of art, rather than just to get attention.

Gilliam did not show us even one sociopathic, dangerous person who was detained by M.O.I. In fact, the only vicious sociopaths we saw were employed by either M.O.I. or Central Services: the maniacal bureaucrat at the beginning of the movie who would not rest until he killed the innocent bug, Spoor and his buddy, Jack Lint, and perhaps Mr. Helpmann.

And Mr. Kurtzmann was no angel either. In order to distance himself from the Buttle incident, he faked hand pain to get Sam to sign Kurtzmann's name on all documents related to Buttle's reimbursement check. It is very common for a boss to ask a trusted assistant to sign his/her name on a routine document. But because this supposed "criminal forgery" was one of M.O.I.'s charges against Sam, we can infer that Kurtzmann turned around and falsly accused Sam of perpetrating an inside job to discredit the Ministry, of which Kurtzmann claimed no prior knowledge. Here's lookin' at you, you little, little man...

Buttle was an innocent worker-bee-family-man destroyed by a mechanical error caused by a maniacal bureaucrat who risked life and limb to kill a harmless bug that innocently flew into his office--- and might just as innocently flown out if it weren't for the bureaucrat's furious, obsessive-compulsive drive to kill it. Note that a human being was completely responsible for the bug's fall into the printer that caused Buttle's misfortune.

Jill was simply seeking justice and the "rights of working men and women," a "working class heroine," oblivious that justice was too much to ask from a decaying system that had all it could do to cover up it's own incompetence and rot.

Sam was a naive, self-absorbed, unambitious dreamer born to wealthy aristocratic (or at least socially prominent) parents; a spoiled man-child who thought nothing of plowing headlong into a group of nuns blocking his bee-line path to work. And, as he tried to "bee-line" his way into Jill's heart, he plowed headlong into the very system that spawned and nurtured him, and that could crush him just as singlemindedly and mercilessly as the maniacal bureaucrat crushed the pesky bug at the beginning of the movie.

I love this film.

That is an interesting idea, though I feel i should mention, in the Europian cut you do hear the shots that execute Jill, so there is no ambiguity about her death in that version. Its was removed from the other two cuts, the "love conquers all" so that it fitted with the new ending plot, and the other because it was one of the elements that the studio saw as being too dark, and would put off the audiance. - user: fitandhappy4th december

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by..."Also, take a look at a closeup of the very "graphic" graphic design of M.O.I.'s logo to see how that organization views it's mandate to the general population---one of the very rare cases where obscenity is used to bolster a larger work of art, rather than just to get attention." I recall the logo being MOI in a rounded rectangle, other than that, I must have missed something.

From a distance the M.O.I.'s logo is interpreted by some to have sexual overtones. From a distance the M can look like a woman's spread legs with the I serving as a male or phallic image and the O serving as one or both of their heads. It's a broad interpretation, but not entirely w/o merit. Plumlogan (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved essay from article

I moved this from the article because it needs NPOVing and to be made more encyclopedic. There is good content here, but it currently reads too much like a personal essay or term paper (especially the first few paragraphs). --Lexor|Talk 09:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Understanding "Brazil" – England as a counter-terrorist state

See "Brazil" first, then see "In the Name of the Father" starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Pete Postlethwaite, and Emma Thompson, and "Brazil" will suddenly make sense. The subject that "In the Name of the Father" deals with in the mode of realistic drama, "Brazil" deals with in dark humor and fantasy.

Many know of the "tactical campaign" of the IRA in Northern Ireland, but the IRA also conducted a strategic campaign of attacks on London, Manchester, and elsewhere in Great Britain. Such attacks have a direct effect in terms of terror upon the civilian population, but they also have an indirect effect in terms of reaction to those attacks and the way that reaction affects not only civil liberties but the overall civility of the culture.

The name "Brazil" is also the name of a Latin-rhythm popular song, called Aquarela do Brasil by Brazilian composer Ari Barroso, not only the theme music of the movie but which also initiates the fantasy sequences of the main character. The movie plainly is about England and not a South American country, but it is suggested that England had been going down the path of the English and U.S. stereotype of a South American country: people have become adapted to the attacks of terrorists (even though this is more like the Spanish-speaking countries of South America rather than Brazil), where the attacks have become so institutionalized that the grievances of the terrorists and perhaps even their identities have become forgotten, and while the authorities fight back against the terrorists, the counter-terrorist program has become institutionalized to the point where it is not clear that it has any effect on the terrorists or even if the original terrorists exist any longer.

The term "information retrieval" is used throughout the film, and one is quite a long way into the film before one figures out that information retrieval is a euphemism for torture. It is quite chilling that such an innocuous and bureaucratic term would be used for something so brutal, and the torture methods depicted in the movie are brutal. Also, the movie begins with a society that is crazy enough to be a fantasy, but the fantasies become so outrageous that at some point the action is taking place inside the mind of the main character. The main character is being tortured, so perhaps the fantasies begin at the start of the movie, but in a way, it doesn't matter.

As to the failure of the film at the box office, "Brazil" can be contrasted with "Dr. Strangelove", directed by Stanley Kubrick. While "Brazil" dealt with the socially corrosive effect of a terrorist war, "Dr. Strangelove" dealt with the equally serious topic of atomic war. "Dr. Strangelove" was a mixture of satire and camp, but the context of that film was more accessible to the movie audience.

For what it's worth, when the film came out, Gilliam gave a "Guardian Lecture" (actually an interview) at the NFT in London, where he stated that the film was about the United States (telling a story that related the decline of Mrs Terrain with something less drastic that happened to his father). I don't know if this is online anywhere, though.Grangousier 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry/Tuttle

Just saw this movie today. It makes the Matric make sense (though I think I actually enjoyed this more to II & III)

Isn't Harry the mysterious Tuttle? The points to consider section says Tuttle doesn't exist, but isn't he De Niro's character?

NVM I think I understand now.--ZayZayEM 23:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also I think a mention should be made that the MOI actually charges people for the service of interrogation to the customer. This is the epitome of the level of consumerism in the society depicted in Brazil.--ZayZayEM 13:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed points to consider

After reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I really don't feel this belongs in the article. I've tried to summarise the main "points" of these points into the Analysis section.

Points to consider after several viewings

• When does Sam lose contact with reality? Does he undergo a lobotomy or is his final escapism merely a consequence of severe torture inflicted by a former good friend? Are daydreams good or do they blur the distinction between fantasy and reality for everybody?
• Do the terrorists exist at all, or is it just a coverup for the incompetence of Central Services (et al) when all the technology fails? Perhaps the bombings are staged to justify the information department's existence, or—as in 1984 and certain times and places in history—to keep the public cowed and supportive of its government as a presumed protector?
• Does Tuttle exist at all, or is he just another of Sam's daydream fantasies? In fact, isn't it really Sam himself who tampers with the air conditioning? No one else really meets Tuttle, although he does make an exit when Sam's girlfriend appears.
• Is the hate-to-love transition inconsistent, or is it that Sam struggles a lot to prove himself worthy to her? When this love-transition finally comes, is it not exactly where Sam loses touch with reality completely?
• Notice the society portayed: companies and government are melded together. Their technology level is quite high, but all the wrong things are automated, and they are extremely poorly designed. They put energy into designer ducts, when no one really wants those ducts at all. Computers and telephones are also beautiful examples, half modern, half Victorian. Due to these misdesigns (driven by a central authority), everybody is incompetent at what they do.
• What similarities exist between the movie and the societies of United Kingdom under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979 - 1990) or the United States under President Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1989)? After all, isn't the film contemporary to the IRA bombings in London?
• What is the deeper meaning of all the dream sequences? While some of them are clear, many seem to be confusing to the point that the viewer will dismiss them as "just dreams". It should be noted that due to budget problems Gilliam was unable to shoot many of the dream sequences he had planned.
• Doesn't it seem as if it is perpetually Christmas time? What does the constant presence of the Christmas season say about this society's relationship with consumerism? Also, think about the fact that people are constantly giving each other the same cheap paperweight gift. What does this say about how the film views interpersonal relationships in relation to consumer goods?
• Notice that the security force in the movie are eventually portrayed as regular people just doing their jobs - what does this mean? Compare with Stanley Milgram's 'Obedience to Authority'.
• What is the significance of the very small TV screens and the large magnifying glasses? What does it say about the society in the film?

• Not enough has been made about the fact that Gilliam himself has said that the explosions are merely the shoddy mechnical work failing (he talks about it in an extra in the Criterion box set of the movie). If anything I see the movie as most critical of beuracracy and inefficent government in general. It is inefficiency that causes the explosions and an out of control beuracractic government that fails to recognize them as this and thus goes torturing for answers that don't exsist, perpetuating the broken cycle.

Orwell

From the article:

...in analogy to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four novel, which Orwell himself described as a criticism of communism.

This is a long-standing debate among Orwell critics (though moreso among opportunistic political commentators with little understanding of Orwell, who simply want to see their own ideology in him), some of whom have interpreted in Nineteen Eighty-Four a critique of contemporary socialism, some of English war-time policy and others a combination of the two. Not only is this sentence taking a very contentious position on a hotly debated topic, but it's taking an utterly simplistic position, which virtually no one presently endorses (that 1984 was simply about communism, rather than Stalinism, fascism and war-time policy all combined). Unless the individual who originally posted this can come up with a meaningful reference for Orwell's having held at some to the idea that Nineteen Eighty-Four was just about communism, on the basis of his statements regarding Nineteen Eighty-Four in his letters, I'm going to just remove the text asserting Orwell's position entirely, given that, as it stands, it is incorrect. --Yst 21:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, its just dishonest to further propogate the myth of 1984 as merely "anti-communist". Orwell himself was a socialist and his novel is much more than simply an anti-marxist screed. Atleast, it is a criticism of Stalinism... in addition to a number of other things. --B. Phillips 12:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Gilliam's working title for the movie was 1984½. Terry Gilliam claimed he had not read Nineteen Eighty-Four before making Brazil." How could the title have been 1984 1/2 if Gilliam had never read the book? This interview claims that it was his love of Fellini but even so it seems strange. In this interview Gilliam even admits that he wanted to do what "what 1984 did in 1948." --Hazelorb

yeah Brazil is essentially a remake of 1984.. i'm suprised 1984 isn't mentioned much higher in this article --Frantik 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I probably should watch 1984 (film) before commenting but I believe if it wasn't mentioned that might be because it's not really a remake or even Gilliam was ever reall aware of the first movie. I can tell for sure I'm not aware of every move released today, even the hits... Don't even mention 40 years ago. I do think it's easier to be a coincidence. Subjects such as the ones threated in Brazil are repeated all over many different films in many different ways. --Cacumer 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In Gilliam's commentary on the "Brazil: The Final Cut" DVD release he says that he never read the novel 1984 and later he says the original title for the movie was to be "The Ministry".70.108.64.20 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I have the "Criterion" edition of this fantastic film, and in the notes Terry Gilliam remarks that he was really disppointed most reviewers referred to the film as 'Orwellian'. Shades of '1984' perhaps but with a considerable difference. 'Brazil's' government is -- much more realistically -- bumbling, inefficient, and mistake prone. This doesn't jive with Orwell's '1984' completely. Personally, I think the references made to Orwell and 1984 in this article are too prominent and lengthy considering the great differences in the two governments portrayed. Even the synopsis reads that the film appears to have a strong anti-Orwellian, anti-totalitarian themes. I disagree. I think it's more a generalized criticism of modern government and beauracracy. And certainly the critisms made in the film aim as much at government inefficiency and stupidity as at government control. I'd personally prefer if we simply refer to it -- more accurately -- as a satirization of modern government.Kriskey 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to read Orwell's book to know its themes and significance. Phrases such as Big Brother and Room 101 have entered the language, and the concept of a 1984 society is pretty well-known - even to people (including me!) who haven't read it. Peterwiki 02:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Python's Love Story

A little introduction to put my opinion in perspective. I love Monty Python and all Gilliam's works I've seem so far, which is limited to 3, the third beeing 12 monkeys. I do not share Gilliam's view of the world as a hopeless and never ending vicious cicle where nobody can do nothing to change it. By the way, I'm brazilian.

I've seem the movie in which I believe is the third ending. It shows love conquering it all, but still he dies in the end, as well as his beloved one, all because he forgot to watch his own back and cleaned the trails only of her, "killing" her on the papers.

The movie is a critic to burocracy, of course. But everything is a background to the plot, which is a dreamming person fightning in a real chaotic world (of Brazil) and trying, by himself, just get away of all that to get together with his dream's loving woman. It is a love story, but, from Terry's point of view, he could never have got anything out of such a hardened world fightning alone, and that's why he should die even before getting close to his dream.

Brazil, in reality, is about the same thing as the movie. It is a place ruled by burocracy nearly dictatorial. People who join the politics get corrupted because every human has a dark side, and it's so easy to let it grow. A single person could never fight against such a big machine. Unlike Matrix, where there was a savior, Brazil has none, since all of them just die trying. I think that's what Terry thinks, even while he doesn't let it clear why the movie is called Brazil, the suggestion he makes is that it's just a coincidence because he named it after the song. I believe in him.

So, the movie basically tells me few things:

• watch ourselves even before our loved one, or we will die and drag her (or him) with us, sooner or later.
• that will happen because the world is that bad today, and it will only get worst.
• the good friends will watch for us even when we least expect.
• bad and good feelings are all in our mind, and that's the hardest and only thing we can control.

--Cacumer 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem with trivia item - factual or figurative?

"* At the end of a working day, Kurtzmann speaks to Sam about some important matters before saying "Come on... before they turn the lights out". Obviously the M.O.I. does not allow people to work overtime."

It is not obvious that the lights will actually go out. I take this line as a figurative line meaning "it's late; let's not work any more today."

post-apocalyptic vs. dystopian

The synopsis of the film suggests that 'Brazil' is set in a post-apocalyptic world. I disagree entirely. There's no indication that any apocalypse has taken place. A coherent, organised society exists. I'm removing this line from the article.

ahpook 12:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It does say "almost"! But feel free to remove it. --Guinnog 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Far to many pics

There are way too many pics on here. We should take off around 7 or 8 to even it out at the bottom of the page. --Rubiksphere 09:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to come on here and state the same thing, but I saw that you had already done it. Let's get started on it. Ps. Did you remove the 'o' from 'too' as some kind of joke? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't delete any pictures, but just move them in a gallery section. --69.253.15.246 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:FUC I removed the gallery since they were all fair use images. Some of them of course can be put back in the article but they have to comply with the fair use criteria. Garion96 (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Version question.

On the film ratings website, if one types up Brazil in the search box, results will happen. Note that one of those results reads as follows:

Brazil (1992)

Rating: R

Rating Reason: Rated R for some strong violence

Distributor: Universal Studios, Inc.

Alternate titles: Edited version

Does anybody know what version of Brazil was re-released and re-rated in 1992?

I have decided to answer my own question. Based on sources I've read, it is the European cut for it's limited 1992 re-issue.

Post 9/11 relevance

I'm in the process of watching Brazil for the first time since 9/11 and I'm quite surprised at how many post-9/11 technologies and attitudes are displayed in Brazil, from racial profiling and the implied use of facial recognition technology to everyone having to pass through security terminals to enter their places of work to the more explicit terrorist fears. There's even a bit that touches on the "what counts as torture" argument that has arisen of late. Putting any of this into the article without sources would be an NPOV violation -- so has anyone heard or seen any reviews of the film that make reference to this sort of thing? Yes, I know Brazil has a lot of 1984-isms as well, but some of the ones I mention above aren't all Orwellian. 23skidoo 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is very pertinent. The term "terrorist" is not merely expressed in fears, it is a central term in the script and pre-dates the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security ("Ministry of Information Retrieval") by nearly 2 decades. Additionally, "torture" is recurrent in the film and certainly more than a "bit". "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)", stated President Bush. Ironically, its as if the speech writer for the President had been watching Brazil. There must have been articles by now. Combined with Gilliam's struggle against American studio censorship during the initial release the topic is all that more poignant. - Steve3849 ^talk 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Compare and contrast to V for Vendetta

It is interesting to note the similaraties (and differences, of course) to the V for Vendetta movie and graphic novels. The post-modern world run by the beurocracy. The mysterious figure fighting the standards to place a scenes of the old world back into the new way of thinking. The blowing up of government buildings. The main character being imprisoned in the system.70.108.64.20 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Find some references and I'm down. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 08:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd say the strongest link is the mask used by the torturer, instantly made me think of Vendetta. Ther was probably some influence overall. Caspar esq. (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What part did they write?

Does anybody know what part of the script Gilliam wrote? The same goes for co-writers McKeown and Stoppard. I don't wish to put it in the article; I just wish to know...sounds like interesting trivia. --69.253.15.246 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the credit on the IMDb, their names are listed with ampersands in-between. This means that they worked together or on the same draft of the screenplay. So, it's essentially impossible to know. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

I have decided to expand the plot synopsis section of this article. Trouble is, it is rather confusing even as I try to write it while while watching the DVD. I'll do my best not to make it too long or pedantic. Maybe later I'll do a few other jobs. Please make any corrections and leave any suggestions here.--ChrisJMoor 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have erased nearly all of that plot synopsis, I'm afraid, and replaced it with my own interpretation. I've tried to not spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it. Tell me what you think, or feel free to expand upon it or make other changes. 100DashSix 06:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't touched the section yet, and no need to apologise anyway. I don't think you should have deleted the section describing Sam - I thought it was very good as it was. Personally, I think your new section is a bit too 'interpretive' - for example: 'The movie appears to have strong anti-totalitarian themes'. Fair comment, but the 'plot synopsis' section should be a summary of the plot and not an interpretation of it. Then we can have an 'analysis and themes' section below for people to read about the meaning of it all while referring to the well-detailed plot section above. I take note of your concerns over ruining the movie with too much detail but for this we have the standard spoiler warning (which seems to have disappeared...I'll put it back now).

Otherwise, thanks for making a start on this - I've tried several times but found it a very difficult film to summarise well.--ChrisJMoor 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally feel the movie is anti-Orwellian. Seems to be an interpretation. See "Orwell" above. Kriskey 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It has similarities to 1984; but 1984 was not as relevant to the west as this film. Brazil is just plain better in any case.--Kelt65 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Admittedly, I hadn't seen that Orwell talk section above, and suppose that the arguments against calling it "Orwellian" in any form make sense. "Anti-totalitarian" carries the meaning just as well. 100DashSix 20:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis section is mostly not about the plot. Shouldn't some of it be moved to "Themes" or something? Jibjibjib 06:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. How about just "synopsis?" 100DashSix 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"...crushed beetle..."

Recently added: "...(the scripted beginning, cut for budget reasons showed the crushed beetle coming from Brazil)..."

Is this actually relevant? Furthermore, it is placed at the very beginning of the article--would a reader of this article actually be concerned about this factoid? I propose removing it, or at least placing it near the bottom. (I don't even remember seeing a crushed beetle in the movie.)

100DashSix 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, look at the entirety of the first section. The first sentence announces that it's a film, and then it isn't until the last sentence of the second paragraph that we get any information regarding what the film is actually about. It's a segway into the main content of the article, yes, but at this point in reading do we really need to know that: a. It isn't about Brazil the country, b. But the director says it's a documentary about a justice system (which only confuses things further, because it isn't a documentary), c. It potentially represents someone's interpretation of some song from 1939?

To be used as guidelines for rewriting this section: a. It is a film in a particular satirical style. It was made by these people. These people starred in it. It came out at this point in time.

b. Briefly, the main drive of this movie is this: ______. It appears to attempt to state _____ and does so largely through the use of _____.

The rest are details that should be relegated to some section in the article, in my opinion. I can rewrite this if there is some interest.

100DashSix 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ending

The article seems to suggest that Sam was rescued from his torture yet the version I saw ends with him going mad during the torture and imagining being rescued. I heard from someone that the ending was cut in some versions. --Phoenix Hacker 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right. He DOES go mad via torture. The papers eating tuttle for example to me is an allegory showing that the paperwork ruined his carrer forcing him to be a missing person, a freelancer. Or it could mean that the buerocracy finaly caught up with him and dealt with him. He was having another fantasy during then, but this one is his.. hehe... "Final" Fantasy.... hmm I wonder if implies to the game....

It depends... I can easily see why some buerocratic/socialist countries wouldnt want the real ending though... or the movie whatsoever... Its confusing. Ah well. For discussion purposes all Im gonna say is: In the Amrecian Versoion (Comcast On Demand) has him have a fantasy, then it shows him still there being tortured and it goes into credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.249.209 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I think the Simpsons' references deserve some mention, as does the Federal Express ad that parodied the scene in which clerks trail Mr. Warrenn as he zooms through the filing cabinets in Information Retrieval.

--Editing (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, because i have never seen the add nor i watch the simpsons, but add it. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, please DON'T add it. The category is "References" in Popular Culture, not "Similiarities" in Popular culture. Unless you can cite an author/producer who says that she/he was intentionally referencing Brazil in her/his work, then it is NOT a reference no matter how similiar it may be. Why there is an uncited "reference" to Futurama in this section is beyond comprehension.

DVD question?

I was wondering, has the original unaltered 142-minute version of this been released on DVD yet? I keep thinking I probably saw an edited version: Tuttle drives away into the countryside in the giant truck, and we see a shot of it in a peaceful field/forested area, and it abruptly cuts to a pair of doctors stairing at Tuttle, who is catatonic and strapped to a gurney, humming to himself, in a giant room with concrete walls. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean Sam Lowry? That's the ending that's on the director approved Criterion release of the movie. The love conquers all edit represents the peaceful forested area as real and not as an illusion thought up by the now insane Sam. Davhorn (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I mean Sam, sorry my bad. :P So the unaltered 142-minute version is the Love Conquers All edit? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the Love Conquers All edit is 94 minutes long. The one you saw is the original unaltered 142-minute version. Davhorn (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reuse of Music in other things

I think its worth noting that parts of the Michael Kamen score have been re-used significantly since the films release for trailers and various other movies. Especially throughout the 90s. It used to seem like every time I turned around I heard the music being used somewhere. Does anyone else think that should be mentioned and how? -- Suso (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Release and Plot sections

The article still does not delineate exactly which versions are in each release. This is a crucial topic as there was a release problem regarding the American studio cut with distinct changes in the story line. For instance, is the single-disc criterion release the American "studio cut"? Also, does the the criterion 3-disc issued in 2006 again have the original American "studio release", or the modified European release. It appears the original European release may no longer be available?

Also, information regarding the different story endings is not delineated in the synopsis section. Isn't this a glaring omission? - Steve3849 ^talk 07:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be clearer. At the London BFI screening of Brazil in September 2008,introduced by Gilliam, he said he didn't know what cut was to be screened. What followed was, I thought, the unaltered 142-min version. However, it didn't include the scene in which Jill is naked but for a large ribbon. SO what cut was that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.210.158 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brazil song

I removed this from the "overview" and bring it here for discussion:

Brazil evokes the melancholy, dreamlike quality of its theme song, an English translation of a 1939 Brazilian song, "Aquarela do Brasil," featured in Disney's Saludos Amigos (1942). In that escapist film, Brazil is represented as a romantic, fantasy location that is the opposite of gloomy, northern countries. Gilliam was inspired by this song to create the fictional totalitarian government and the overall dystopian mood of the film.

This reads like OR to me, and even if referenced, I do not see the relevance. This is just someone's opinion. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed this from the article, as well, from the "pop culture references," and do not know where, if anywhere at all, it should go:

In an interview with MTV, Terry Gilliam said that at the end of nine months of filming he lost all feeling in his legs and entered a catatonic state for a week.<ref>{{cite news | last = Carroll | first = Larry | title = Terry Gilliam Tilts At Hollywood Yet Again | work = MTV Movie News | publisher = | date = 2006-10-16 | url = http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1543143/10132006/story.jhtml | format = | accessdate = 2008-03-10}}</ref>

I honestly cannot think of where this might be relevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this grouped with "based on 1984"?

Brazil might paint a similarly bleak picture of the future, but it is most certainly not based on 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.204.220 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on no but heavily influenced by yes, clearly. Caspar esq. (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Laurel

Is Pryce's resemblance to Stan Laurel intentionally emphasized in a few scenes in which his voice becomes high–pitched when he gets over–excited?Lestrade (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Sept. 10

This film has a decidedly 9/10 attitude with which the terrorists are the good guys who are anti–establishment, anti–authoritarian types. The romantic '68er attitude, glamorized by the entertainment industry (therefore by this film), is prevalent.Lestrade (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

What is your point? Anyway, I disagree, Sam Lowry never met a terrorist in his life, except himself because of his own unplanned actions born of paranoia. The film does not celebrate his errors. Harry Tuttle is an air conditioning specialist. Sam only dreams during his torture that Tuttle assists with blowing up a building. Jill Layton's only suspicious behavior prior to being Sam's unwilling accomplice was over-interest in her neighbor, Buttle's false arrest. There are anonymous terrorist acts which are not celebrated. Explosions have become so commonplace in Brazil's dystopia that Sam's mother continues dining with her friends right though an explosion in the restaurant. The movie is far passed 9/11 in this regard. The terrorist acts and government bombing campaigns have been going on for years according to the introductory televised broadcast. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bumbling and incompetent government bureaucrats, romantic revolutionary terrorists, car bombings and explosions that are mere inconveniences: these are characteristics of the "September 10 attitude". By the way, to say "Brazil's dystopia" is to misunderstand the significance of Brazil in this film. Brazil is the song that takes Sam to another place. Brazil and South America have long been the antidote to dystopic European life. This can be seen in the frequent references that were made in films before and during World War II. Especially the Germanswanted to escape to places like Brazil.Lestrade (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Again I disagree. It was John Kerry that had the "September 10 attitude"[2] ...and as far as misunderstanding the significance of the film: we were not discussing "Brazil" the song we were discussing Brazil the movie. It is a dystopia. Also, it is a moot point whether terror is romanticized in the film. - Steve3849 ^talk 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) The song Brazil is an important part of the movie. If you discuss the movie, it is acceptable to discuss the song. (2) "Moot" means debatable, doubtful, or subject to argument. Therefore, whether the movie romanticizes terrorists is, according to you, subject to discussion.Lestrade (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

re:(1) You were describing a quote of mine as a misunderstanding. My original statement was not a misunderstanding. If you wish to discuss the song and how its referenced that is fine, but not in the context of both replying to and disregarding the content of my previous post. re:(2) You have yet to reply to my explanation of how terrorism is not romanticized in the film. By saying it is a "moot point" I was suggesting that you haven't yet debated. Anyway, talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the topic. If you genuinely want to introduce "romanticized terrorism" and pre-9/11 as a part of the article we need to find supporting reviews. So far, I have not found any. Here are 3 that state that it is Orwelian ("and beyond" as one puts it).[3][4][5] and here is one that states that the film reflects a post 9/11 environment in its similarity to possible consequences of the Patriot Act.[6]. - Steve3849 ^talk 01:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Somehow it should be noted in the article that the film glamorizes terrorists, trivializes terror, and portrays the government as a collection of stupid incompetents.Lestrade (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

No, it shouldn't. Unless, that is, you can find a relevant and reliable source that says so. Otherwise, forget it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalist?

The dystopian society portrayed in the film is described as "capitalist, rather than socialist", this really seems unfounded as on of the main themes of the movie is the dysfunctional bureaucracy, and there is no mention of any private sector. If anything is is contradictory to the rest of the article. Various other motifs, such as technology and industry may be often associated with capitalism and perhaps caused some sort of confusion, but it seems like there needs to be at least a citation, maybe even more clarification. Johnnyeagleisrocker (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references to other works

Harry Lime from Orson Welles' (The Third Man) = Harvey Lime. I'm no expert, but...--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Retro-futuristic

I think that term was added to describe the setting, not the film. I think it was a good edit. There are lots of sources that have described Brazil this way. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The sources ascribe the "retro-futuristic" phrase to even Terry Gilliam himself. Surely, our personal judgement (or User:RepublicanJacobite's) is not the criterion for inclusion? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my "personal judgement" (sic), this has to do with the definition of Retro-futurism in the Wikipedia article:

Retrofuturistic design is a return to, and an enthusiasm for, the depictions of the future produced in the past (most often the 1920s through 1960s), both in science fiction and in nonfiction futurism of the time, which often seem dated by modern standards.

By this definiton, Brazil is not retro-futuristic. There is no clear statement of the time period in which the events of the film take place, so we have no idea if it takes place in some far-off future, or some strange, alternative vision of the past. Most of the architecture and clothing in the film looks like the 1940s, while the uniforms and weapons of the security forces are appropriate to the period in which the film was made. There is a great deal of anachronism in the film, but that does not make it "retro-futurist." Now, to the references provided. The TIME magazine and World in chaos links make passing references to "retro-futuristic" design, but give no definition of what they mean by that. The book claims the film actually takes place in a "futuristic Brazil," which is not at all accurate, so that gives one pause in considering the value of that source. It is telling that Gilliam himself said he "wanted the film to look retro-futuristic," and we should definitely say so in the article. But, the film does not meet the definition, as I have already said, of the retro-futurism article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does not agree with the definition given on Wikipedia's page for retrofuturism. However, we must remember at all times that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (We can unlink the term in the article if we think it's misleading.) The word "retro-futuristic" is used in many ways, and in any given context it means exactly what it is used to mean, even if that does not fit one definition. :-) As far as I can tell, almost always, the word is used to describe specific elements, and does not imply that the plot is set in any time period. Nor is it necessary that all elements of the film be retro-futuristic for it to be thus considered: if the architecture and clothing looks like the 1940s, but the uniforms and weapons do not, it does not matter. (Aside: may I wonder about the [sic] above? "Judgement" is standard English spelling, and it can be either by an individual or group; thus "personal judgement" is not necessarily pleonastic.) Shreevatsa (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite does have a good point. We can see a lot of retro but not a lot of futuro. More like an alternative way things could have gone up to 1985. Hmmmmm. Tricky. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's more like an extrapolation of London circa 1940 straight to 1985. We should mention, certainly, that Gilliam's stated intention was a "retro-futurist" look, even if that does not comply with standard sci-fi definitions of the term. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Shreevatsa, that is true. So, I searched the word on the net and it seems self-explanatory. The word futuristic when used in the term means some considerable time ahead of where we are right now. Those sources, external to Wikipedia, seem to have found consensus on the meaning. I would love to hear others' views.

Also, is it possible to move your last comment down so it fits the sequence of the discussion? Cheers and good will! --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

October

The word has been removed again. :-) The contention is that talk-page consensus has not been reached. But among the (just) three editors who discussed it, only RepublicanJacobite seems to disagree with the sources, based on an understanding of the definition present in the Wikipedia article. As I explained above, and as Anna Frodesiak seems to agree though RepublicanJacobite did not reply, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the word does seem to have a different meaning outside Wikipedia. So then... should we reinstate the word? Keep it away based on our judgement, "personal" or not? :-) Mention it in a different way? Seeking consensus again, Shreevatsa (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it should be mentioned in the plot at all. It should be discussed in the production section, in which the one decent source should be quoted to say "retro-futurism" was Gilliam's intent. But, we should not link to the Wikipedia article, which clearly contradicts the film's design. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok for now. Meanwhile, it would be good to fix the clearly very bad Wikipedia article on retrofuturism, since it deals solely with a strange and uncommon definition. Any suggestions on how to go about this? Shreevatsa (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Steampunk

The Category:Steampunk was recently removed with the rationale that "Brazil is not steampunk". Searching +steampunk +brazil turns up non-blog entries referencing Brazil as an "inspiration for steampunk".

• New York Times
• Boston Globe
• Newsweek
  

Although being something and being an inspiration for that something could be two separate things the category seems worthy of placement to me. - Steve3849 ^talk 16:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Read the Wikipedia steampunk article and tell me that there is anything steampunk about this movie. There is no steam power, which is the central element, and the time period is wrong. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't usually make my final decisions based on other wikipedia articles unless they are well referenced -- which it looks like that one actually is. Secondly, that article does actually have descriptive parameters that includes Brazil:

Other examples of steampunk contain alternate history-style presentations of "the path not taken" of such technology as dirigibles, analog computers, or digital mechanical computers (such as Charles Babbage's Analytical engine); these frequently are presented in an idealized light, or with a presumption of functionality.

However, now that I've made the edit to the influences section I no longer am pushing for category placement. - Steve3849 ^talk 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Differences between versions section

I've removed this section from the article on grounds of sourcing and over-detail: {{hide|click "show" to view|

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Brazil (film) → Brazil (1985 film) – This 1985 film was mentioned to me in another discussion. Although this film has long-term impact and greater significance with tremendous longevity than other films, precision on films of similar name overcomes primacy criteria on topics of a similar name. Even the Alfred Hitchcock version, more memorable and significant than the disastrous Gus Van Sant version, recently changed to Psycho (1960 film) because of precision policy; similar thing to Independence Day (1996 film). I even failed to change Titanic (1997 film) and Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 theatrical film) because of precision. I believe that this request is overdue. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: The page move will fully disambiguate the title from Brazil (1944 film). Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - both are cinema release films, which voids the debate on made-for-TV films re WP:NCF and WP:PRECISE, and Brazil (1944 film) featured Roy Rogers and Trigger so evidently notability not in question. No harm to anyone by full disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, needs a precise title. Red Slash 01:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no other other film with which this one will be confused, so further disambiguation is not necessary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support WP:NCF - ambiguous disambiguation should not be used, the current title should become a disambiguation link -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You mean, the current title must redirect to Brazil (disambiguation)? --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. In keeping with precision policy.--JayJasper (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION. Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Support having Brazil (film) redirect to Brazil_(disambiguation)#Film. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support since this film is not the primary topic; Brazil is. A topic that has a disambiguation term is already secondary. This move ensures that films that are secondary topics are disambiguated from each other. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per [[WP:PRECISION and WP:NCF. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Black comedy and Hearfourmewesique's edits

I removed black comedy from the lede again, not merely because it is still a minority view, but also because Hearfourmewesique's edits are an egregious example of bad faith. These are the refs he added:

[[black comedy|dark comedic]]<ref name="stfu1">{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003033-brazil/|title=Brazil (1985) – Movie Info|work=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|accessdate=1 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="stfu2">{{cite web|url=https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/brazil-1985/id647918071|title=Brazil (1985) – Plot Summary|work=[[iTunes]]|accessdate=1 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="stfu3">{{cite book|last=Booker|first=Keith M.|title=Historical Dictionary of American Cinema|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Y04MQEgHbZsC|accessdate=1 July 2013|year=2011|publisher=[[Scarecrow Press]]|location=United States|isbn=0810874598|page=46}}</ref>

Take note of the ref name he used: stfu, or "shut the fuck up." This is how he edits, and this is the attitude he evinces in his edits. He embeds in the article the initials "stfu" as a reminder that he should not be challenged, that what he regards as obvious is simply that, obvious and not even worthy of discussion. This is not the attitude of someone editing in good faith. Furthermore, the RT and iTunes descriptions are not notable sources. The dictionary of cinema clearly is, but I would still argue that it is a minority viewpoint. The subject of black comedy has been discussed previously, but no conclusion was ever reached as to whether it should be mentioned in the lede. We need to sort this out. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So what are you saying here? It's not a black comedy, despite three separate sources using that term, because you don't like a particular editor?

What do you challenge about those sources? They're what's the issue here, not an editor's behaviour (which I agree is confrontational, but that's just not an issue). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another personal attack, Jacobite. Oh, and for the stalking. This is also the third page you remove black comedy from, so I'll pose my "stupid comment" (that's your quote) again: what is it with you and black comedy? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not use RT or iTunes's genre classification for genre classification here. I have no comment on the Dictionary source. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this before. I can't find a good reason to avoid describing the film as a black comedy. - Eureka Lott 19:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RT is constantly used throughout Wikipedia as a legitimate source for citing film and TV critics, therefore their genre classification is a good source. iTunes is as official as anything else and it's not user edited. Finally, Jacobite's personal attacks against me (clumsily disguised as infowars-esque conspiracy theories) are desperate at best, and disruptive at worst. I'm not here to play second grader games. That – and the blatant lie about "no conclusion" in the archived discussion, when in fact a clear consensus based on reason and sources was reached. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As per the above, the genre classifications from RT are often dubious, although if there was a review within the site that called it as such, then that's a better one to use. I personally wouldn't use iTunes - too close to WP:NOTADVERTISING for me. Hearfourmewesique, there was no need for the "stfu" tags: they's way too childish to use, so please drop the confrontational approach and play nice. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Brazil's genre has always been a contentious issue, so I think resolving this is long overdue. Let's look at a what the sources actually say:

1. Rotten Tomatoes - Drama, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Comedy
2. ITunes (ineligible promotional link) - Comedy
3. Historical Dictionary of American Cinema, p.46 - "Comic dystopian film"
4. Allmovie - Science-fiction comedy
5. New York Times - Comedy, Drama, Fantasy
6. IMDB (not RS) - Drama, Fantasy, Science-fiction

The most quoted genre is "comedy". Genres quoted more than once are: Drama, science-fiction, fantasy. In this case Rotten Tomatoes does seem to list all the associated genres, but none of them adequately describe the film. However, if if we look further afield, British National Cinema, p.123 describes it as a "fantasy/satire on bureaucratic society" which IMO describes the content of the film far better than any of the above labels. I propose altering the wording to match that of the book and attributing it with an appropriate citation. I would write the lede as follows:

Brazil is a 1985 British film directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam, Charles McKeown, and Tom Stoppard. British National Cinema by Sarah Street describes the film as a "fantasy/satire on bureaucratic society" while John Scalzi's Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies describes it as a "dystopian satire". The film stars Jonathan Pryce and features Robert De Niro, Kim Greist, Michael Palin, Katherine Helmond, Bob Hoskins, and Ian Holm.

Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd happily support the use of the above text, although without the serial commas (just my personal preference!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'm happy with that. I find "dystopian satire" much more specific than the rather vague "black comedy", even though we do (as above) have the sourcing for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I would also be happy with that lede (although I too would vote against the serial commas!). To my mind "dystopian satire" means something fairly similar to "black comedy", while at the same time being a bit more nuanced. However, in the light of this discussion, I think we also need to consider whether we want to re-add the article to Category:British black comedy films. In my opinion we should. GrindtXX (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to add the category. The "Historical Dictionary of American Cinema" quoted above states "American Python member Terry Gilliam went on to direct a series of films that include a considerable amount of black humor, especially in his comic dystopian film Brazil (1985). Other highlights in black comedy in the 1980s include..." Categories exist to categorize content, so the category does seem to be relevant here. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I also support the version offered by Betty Logan, and agree with Andy Dingley that "dystopian satire" is the closest we can get to describing this film, which resists genre classification. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The big question is how this can fit in the opening sentence without violating MOS, since "dystopian satire" is not a recognized movie genre. I'd say perhaps slightly change the genre to something like "dark comedic dystopian fantasy film" and elaborate about dystopian satire afterwards. By the way, there is no justification to label iTunes as a promotional link, since their film synopses have absolutely nothing to do with the product. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is a guideline not a policy so we are not beholden to it when it becomes self-defeating. We don't include the genre for the sake of including the genre, but to enable the reader to have a grasp on what type of film it is at the start of the article. In this particular case genre classfication isn't particularly useful: if the sources agreed about the genre there wouldn't really be a problem, but reeling off a bunch of genres in this case doesn't really inform the reader. The most helpful response here is to simply tell the reader how the film has been described by authoritative sources. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

...which is pretty much how the current lead paragraph describes it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

Before removing the Monthly Film Bulletin source, please do not remove it. That is a violation of WP:RS and is considered page blanking. @Beyers31: Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Per your edit here, the Monthly Film Bulletin is hardly an esoteric source. It's published by the British Film Institute. As stated above, we have found several different sources stating different coutries of production. It's not a simple issue of finding the source that matches IMDb or any other database. Discuss it first please @Beyers31:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The production companies are not obvious. These are vague bullet point sources that don't specifically state who produced it. They are also vague sources aren't stating what is being placed. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, we should not use these. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Country of production

Just to add some research to this:

• British Film Institute describes the film as both a product of the United Kingdom and the United States source

The other two do back this up, and if it were an American production, the American Film Institute doesn't seem to want to include it in the infobox. This may be one of those films that has some company which is recognized as American funding, but didn't officially sign on as a co-production. I think there is a similar case with The Terminator. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember too that there are (at least) two controversially different versions of this film: the original 142 minute version released in the UK and Europe (with the "purple neon and flying Sam" poster) and Sheinberg's US 132 minute happy ending (the "exploding head" poster). The first has very little to do with the US, the second much more so (by geographical release area, anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear-cut that the film is of joint production, why is this a full blown war? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at WP:ANEW. The IP editor's edit history consists almost entirely of adding "American" to a range of films, including such distinctively British films as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no axe (or even ax) to grind here, and no particular desire to support a clearly obsessive and chauvinist editor, but the film did have significant American input (production, funding, distribution, US-born director, 2 US stars among the leading 8 roles). There has been previous debate on this page about whether the setting is a dystopian version of Britain, and consensus was that (despite the accents, and obvious cultural references) it isn't. In view of the BFI description (above), would it really be such a bad thing to describe it as a "British/American" production? GrindtXX (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I sort of miss the the old BFI site, as it had more detail on production to be fair. It would go into detail about about how things were co-productions and whatnot. It doesn't really matter who does or does not star in these films as films around the world film in various locations and have stars of various ethnicity. I mean, Dr.No doesn't become a Jamaican picture just because it was filmed there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that WP:FILMLEAD says to avoid putting nationality in the opening sentence if it is not straightforward (one country). Here, we can take out any nationality mention from the opening sentence and instead use a term like "US-UK production" in the second or third sentences. It's not a good idea to put that pairing upfront because it is false equivalence in a space that causes too much culture-based debating. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is a case that while I'd call the film British personally, encyclopedically its better to omit any nationality as there is a clear lack of such attributed to this, and as suggested, call it a joint US-UK production. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, except that I'd prefer to see it as "UK-US". The bottom line would appear to be that whereas most of the money was American, most of the creative input was British, and I think that should be given priority. Also, once we've settled this, we'll need to do something about the categories, four of which currently start "British ...". GrindtXX (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to go back to this again. I was looking at the Monthly Film Bulletin's review of the film, and they strictly designate it as a British Production with the only production company being "Brazil Productions". Where does "Embassy International Pictures N.V." come from? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

On even further research, there are several books easily viewed from google books that refer to the film as both UK, US and a combination of the two. Since the film has a very complicated production history, I think we have to wait for the information to be dug out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Before any other googling happens to dismiss the Brazil Productions production company, outside the Monthly Film Bulletin, there is are various other sources backing this up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Conservative content

I've reverted the edit detailing a conservative interpretation of the film for several reasons. The edit indeed gives undue weight to a specific viewpoint. (It also ignores the Salon rebuttal and the source says no such thing on behalf of the left-wing). While alternative viewpoints and interpretations are allowed, they also have to be presented accurately and given proportional weight compared to mainstream views. (This is determined by coverage in sources, not the size of a population) IMDB, Breitbart, and the National Review blog are not reliable sources. The edit also includes synthesis of an unrelated speech. Lastly this has nothing to do with "Critical Response"; it could be fit for a "Themes/Analysis" section but scholarly sources are preferred there as well as subject experts. All of these issues point to serious neutrality problems with the content. Please do not add it back without discussing and establishing consensus for your changes. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Steampunk

Ran out of room in my last edit summary so it should be noted that the last entry in the "Influence" section does state that it "inspired writers and artists of the steampunk culture" - that does not make this a steampunk film. Nor does it qualify it for the category to be added. That is like saying Aeschylus Oresteia should be added to Category:Broadway plays since it inspired playwrights through the ages. Unless a source can be found applying the term at the time of its release then WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are being violated. MarnetteD | Talk 01:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider these references, especially the last one:

1. "...one of the defining films of modern Steampunk" – National Film and Sound Archive
2. "Films with Steampunk appeal include Terry Gilliam's Brazil..., La Cité des Enfants Perdus/The City of Lost Children..., Wild, Wild West..., The Prestige..., and Sherlock Holmes." – Dr Anna Powell, "The Daemons of Unplumbed Space: Mixing the Planes in Hellboy", from Deleuze and Film
3. "How very steampunk it all seems now, how like a scene from Brazil." – Pasadena Star-News
4. "Some works have been retroactively embraced as part of the genre. For example, Terry Gilliam's dystopian satire, "Brazil," is now considered steampunk even though the film was not called steampunk when it was released in 1985." – Ethan Gilsdorf, The Christian Science Monitor

--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you have put in on this. Most of these just reiterate my point that this (wonderful) film is considered an inspiration for steampunk. However, it is still a fact that the term and genre did not come into existence until after this film was made. Thus, it does not merit having the category placed at the bottom of the article. OTOH you might use some of these to turn the sentence in the "Influence" section into a paragraph or two. Just be aware of WP:UNDUE and don't go over the top about it. Also we are just two editors. You might post a notice at the filmproject talk page asking for more input. I don't think we are at a WP:3O or RFC yet though you could ask for them if you feel the need. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the fact that this film preceded the term "steampunk" by a couple of years. For almost all genres, the very earliest examples will precede the identification of and common acceptance for the genre. "Film noir" as a Hollywood genre was not identified until 1946 and did not find wide acceptance until later. Does this mean that Double Indemnity (1944) and The Maltese Falcon (1941) should be removed from the film noir category? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already given my example of that problem above. An expansion of the one sentence would actually give readers information of some value. A category designation does not. I suggest, once again, that you get more input as I have laid out my objections. MarnetteD | Talk 20:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Your example? That no one calls Oresteia a Broadway play? Nor do they call Oresteia "steampunk". But they do call Brazil steampunk; some even assume this fact to be self-evident. Could you clarify: if it were up to you, would you remove The Maltese Falcon from the film noir category? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Well, just because many people call a thing this or that doesn't automatically make it such. Most of the references above obviously define steampunk as "anything dark with rusty metal in it" or "anything dark and retro-futuristic", which is not the official definition of the genre. Going by genre definitions (as in, what era is recalled or alluded to), Brazil is much closer to dieselpunk aka decodence rather than steampunk, and Brazil is mentioned as a seminal influence on dieselpunk in our WP article on the genre. Sorry for just having tried using a source for that in our Brazil article here that as a source seems to have a long history of being valid enough for the dieselpunk article. I didn't see that the source wasn't discussing Brazil to begin with, even though our dieselpunk article is using it to call Brazil a seminal influence on the genre. How about [7] as a source for Brazil as dieselpunk? It discusses Brazil several times more or less at length as an important ancestor to the dieselpunk genre. It's a source our article dieselpunk cites at least 8 or 9 times, and its author Nick Ottens is obviously authoritative enough that our article dieselpunk uses his name for a frickin' official sub-genre called Ottensian dieselpunk (which, by definition, obviously emphasizes technological aspects, whereas its counterpart Piecraftian dieselpunkt emphasizes political aspects, and both have a "hopeful" and a "dystopian" side, making for what seems a matrix of four different types of dieselpunk fiction).

I may cringe at Ottens's babbling pseudo-intellectual use of the words "post-modern" when he means "(retro-)futuristic", "poststructuralist" when he means "single author", and "counterculture" when he means "mostly apolitical, recreational nostalgic subculture", but other than that, he does discuss Brazil as a seminal forerunner to the dieselpunk genre, goes to great theoretical depths, and is obviously authoritative enough for us to warrant using his name for an own sub-genre of dieselpunk fiction. Plus, it's a simple fact that Brazil is much closer to the official definition of dieselpunk aka decodence because its world is much closer to the dieselpunk era and style (c. 1920s-1950s) than the steampunk era and style (c. 1790s-1914), even moreso when Ottens and other sources on dieselpunk specifically mention it. All the art deco, German expressionist, and film noir references in Brazil's style, lighting, wardrobe fashion, and overall production design basically *SCREAM* decodence.

I'm not saying that we should remove the fact that many people call Brazil steampunk, after all WP is not to judge stupidity. But what I'm saying is that we should also point out that dieselpunk theorists also point to it as seminal to their genre, and that Brazil is much closer to the official definition of dieselpunk aka decodence than steampunk. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"However, it is still a fact that the term and genre did not come into existence until after this film was made." So, nobody was diabetic before the medical world classified diabetes?

"... which is not the official definition of the genre." As put forth by the Steampunk Institute, a not-for-profit institution recognized by the International Standards Organization? At least, that's the sort of thing that "official" connotes to me. Otherwise, in what sense is there an "official" definition as opposed to the word's meaning covering a range of various people's good-faith understandings of what it means?

There's a book all about Terry Gilliam in which the entire first chapter is devoted to the steampunk nature of his films: this, beginning at page 16. How many people writing about film have to understand steampunk to comprise a particular set of characteristics and to say that Terry Gilliam's films have those characteristics before one concedes that Terry Gilliam's films—Brazil and Time Bandits, at least—are steampunk? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the first mention of the word steampunk in the book you linked is within an interview with Terry where he's pretty much subtly telling the book's author that the autor doesn't know what steampunk means, as he's obviously confusing it with cyberpunk (which is yet another genre). Still, the guy didn't get the hint and just kept using it in the wrong way. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Showing any RS that describes it as steampunk would be a start.

Brazil is very firmly set in the dieselpunk era (I wouldn't go so far as to call it dieselpunk, but the timeline fits). It's simply a few decades too late for steampunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your definition of RS for this purpose? Your choice to omit any mention of the source I gave you isn't giving me a good feeling about the quality of the faith in which you responded.

How can you tell me that "it's simply a few decades too late for steampunk" when, above, the argument given was that the concept of "steampunk" hadn't been developed yet, i.e., it was too early?

The era is irrelevant. If a film's style is steampunk, or art deco, or film noir, or cinéma vérité, it is so regardless of whether it was filmed in 1940 or 2015. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to most of the -punk genres, era doesn't refer to when the film was filmed, it's about what era is evoked by the film's designs, wardrobe fashions, etc. And in that regard, Brazil is most solidly dieselpunk aka decodence. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The closest the source you gave seems to get would be "he has yet to describe his production design as steampunk", which doesn't exactly support it.

Steampunk (in a real world timeline, not a no-WWI timeline) is the pre-Modern era, i.e. ended by WWI. There is little agreement over much about steampunk, but being pre-Modern is one thing that is. The setting of Brazil is clearly after this.

The invention date of steampunk as a genre has no relevance. There's no problem in including Verne or Wells, despite them being considerably earlier than the "invention" date (whatever that is). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"The closest the source you gave seems to get would be "he has yet to describe his production design as steampunk": This is true only if you read every sentence—indeed, every phrase—as though it weren't in the context of all the sentences surrounding it. "However, Gilliam's steampunk vision has inspired ... (Rich Nagy), who credits Brazil ...": in other words, he credits Gilliam's steampunk vision as conveyed in Brazil.

I don't know if this is a reliable source, but here's [http://www.amazon.com/Alternate-History-Steampunk-Verk%C3%BCnder-Weltansicht-ebook/dp/B0073F6RIE a whole monograph on it]. I also find [8], [9], [10].

As for "the setting of Brazil is clearly after this", I guess the writer of the first source I cited, who uses the words "Victorian" and "Victorianism" over and over again, disagrees with you as to the nature of the film's setting, given that the Victorian era ended thirteen years before World War I began. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Other sources that found Brazil "Victorian": [11], [12], [13], [14]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are seriously abusing those sources there, let alone over-estimating the significance of Google's ability to find proximate matches for pairs of unconnected words. "Correlation is not causation" is entirely apposite here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to be making any effort to come across as though you're saying anything other than "I'm going to snub any source that disagrees with my personal opinion/preconceived notion". —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion began with your edit summary, when you removed the category, "Rm "steampunk", per many past discussions." Can you show me where these "many" past discussions are? I see this one and an archived one. The latter was between two people, one of whom made the same argument as you about the time period, which I've addressed.

His other argument involved the question of the presence of actual steam in the film, which is a painfully narrow interpretation of the style. Steam power exemplifies it, is the factor around which it was conceived, but, gee, is Show Boat a steampunk film? Of course not. The style is a whole conglomeration of stylistic elements. It's hardly credible that if, of two films, one contains 10 stylistic elements commonly associated with steampunk, but not steam, and one contains all of the same elements and steam, then the latter is steampunk and the former isn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue of the sources, not to start sniping at other editors.

It is, as always, very easy to Google quickly for Brazil+steampunk and return a bunch of hits. The two words occurring near to each other do not constitute any proof as to what the film is. There are also some quite weak sources picked up by that net. Of course, many careless sources have lumped Brazil in as steampunk, but that doesn't makes them WP:RS. Many (as included here) also describe Brazil as "an influence on Steampunk" and that is no indication that it is Steampunk. Some of the greatest influences on Steampunk are Norah Waugh's works on fashion and Brunel's engineering designs, yet no-one would describe either of those as steampunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. Unlike most Wikipedia editors, who carry around thousands of bibliographic entries, already carefully curated, in their heads so they can whip them out exactly when appropriate, I've made the mistake of using Google to find sources. This is extremely unusual behavior, I now understand.

I looked carefully through the hits I received and didn't include ones that, for example, used the word "steampunk" in reference to the film once in a personal blog entry without explaining why the use of the term was apt. I have given sources that explain the association.

"The two words occurring near to each other do not constitute any proof as to what the film is." I addressed this the first time you said that that's as far as the sources go.

"Careless sources": in other words, you disagree with them. You could earn your own credentials as a writer on film style and publish analyses discrediting them. Then someone else can use them as a justification here to refute those sources.

"Some of the greatest influences on Steampunk are Norah Waugh's works on fashion and Brunel's engineering designs, yet no-one would describe either of those as steampunk." OK, if there are no sources describing Waugh's and Brunel's works as steampunk, then I won't assert on the respective articles that they are steampunk. In contrast, I have demonstrated to you that quite a few people do describe Brazil as steampunk, so the disposition of works that no one would describe as steampunk is irrelevant. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

From a standpoint of describing the genre within the article (eg lede or infobox) I would say neither "steampunk" nor "dieselpunk" should be used since at that time those weren't genres, nor an intent of Gilliam it seems. I would definitely agree a section describing how this film crafted both genres later is 100% appropriate. I would also say that because of sources crediting it to both genres (and given that dieselpunk was birthed from steampunk) that it should also be in both genre catagories - that is, both are completely fair ways to classify the film from the standpoint of our categorization system. I do think that we should not be trying to hard-define this as one or the other simply based on the definition of both terms (that becomes OR), as again, sources seem to support both with the acknowledgement that dieselpunk is a newer genre; hence why I would not try to use either classification in the lede. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you see Verne as steampunk? I refute the idea that something can't be "steampunk" if it was made prior to the popularisation of the genre. Yet to be steampunk it does have to incorporate steampunk themes, which is what Brazil lacks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If multiple RSes call Verne's work "steampunk" we should mention that, but that I wouldn't necessary classify all of Verne's works as steampunk and be careful to use that as an overall descriptor, similar to here. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• What is steampunk? It is the inclusion of at least one of these themes:

• A deliberate anachronism to aspects of the pre-Modern era, i.e. prior to the end of WWI
• A focus on pre-electricity technology
• An appropriation of upper class, or officer-class military, cultural mores of the late Victorian period

Not all steampunk does more than one of these. There is plenty of electrical gadgetry in steampunk. Yet without any of these three, in what way is something "steampunk"?

How does Brazil fit into this? What is it doing that is at all "steampunk"? The computer screens are electrical and electronic era (they're largely Teleprinter 7s, which are late enough that I worked on them myself) The pneumatic tubes are an old concept, but these are made of flexible plastic ducts (a key plot device) so post-Steampunk era in materials. The executive toy is anodised aluminium and post-Bauhaus in design. Jill's very large diesel truck is perhaps just a shade Dieselpunk? Personal transporters are as smog-burningly Dieselpunk as Dennis Hopper in Waterworld. Culturally it's a 1930s film noir with big suits and Hollywood glamour. So just where is the "steampunk" in Brazil? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Which way do we go, folks? Do we go with what numerous reliable sources say about the film, or do we go with the original research, synthesis, personal analysis above? For which of these does Wikipedia show a marked preference, consistently, throughout its guidelines and in the outcomes of specific content discussions? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have confused WP:RS with, "the words Brazil and steampunk appear on the same page". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have confused sources that do more than that with sources that do only that. Blatantly. To the extent of dismissing an entire book chapter that's about this very topic. Given this, your reference to "many" discussions that don't exist, and your insistence that there are no pre-WWI elements in Brazil when numerous others describe it as "Victorian", can you explain how you are to be taken seriously on this topic? I ask this sincerely, because it seems to me that if you were standing on two solid legs on this question, you wouldn't be resorting to specious diversions like these. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your discussion goes somewhat beyond the realm of science fiction. By all means, add a section regarding the topic of the film's genre and influence. But since when is the use of steam-power technology and a Victorian era setting incompatible with "electricity technology"?. On the contrary, the 19th century revolutionized the use of electricity:

• The voltaic pile, the first electrical battery, was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta.
• An early version of the electrical telegraph was invented in 1809 by Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring. Improvements on his idea were developed by Francis Ronalds in 1816, Pavel Schilling in 1832, Carl Friedrich Gauss and Wilhelm Eduard Weber in 1833, David Alter in 1836, William Fothergill Cooke and Charles Wheatstone in 1837, and Samuel Morse in 1838. The first commercial use of the telegraph was introduced in 1837 and telegraph networks soon started developing. By 1861, the American network was vast enough to transfer messages from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast of the United States.
• The first galvanometer, an instrument for detecting electric currents, was invented in 1820 by Johann Schweigger. Several inventors improved on his idea and design in the following decades, putting it into practical use.
• The first electromagnet, a type of magnet in which the magnetic field is produced by an electric current, was invented in 1825 by William Sturgeon. Other inventors improved on his idea and popularized its use.
• The Daniell cell, an electrochemical cell, was invented in 1836 by John Frederic Daniell. Variants of the gravity cell created by Golding Bird and John Benjamin Dancer by the late 1830s opened new roads in the medical uses of electricity and electrochemistry, and the Microphotograph. An 1860s variant was widely used for the electrical telegraph.
• The printing telegraph was invented in 1846 by Royal Earl House. House is also credited as the earliest inventor of the teleprinter, an electromechanical typewriter that that can be send and receive typed messages, though he shares credit with several other inventors who improved on his idea.
• The submarine communications cable was developed in the 1840s and first used in 1850 to establish telegraphic communications between France and England.
• The transatlantic telegraph cable started being developed in 1856 and was completed and stabilized by 1866. Allowing electric telegraphic communication across the Atlantic Ocean. Further submarine networks of communication went into development, though they would not cover messages across the Pacific Ocean until 1902.
• The lead–acid battery, the first rechargeable battery, was invented in 1859 by Gaston Planté. An improved variant of his invention eventually went into mass production.
• And so on. Electricity and electrical devices were one of the major fields of study and invention of the 19th century. Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

While electricity was around by the 19th century, it was a hardly common power source at the time, and the genre of steampunk reflects its unusualness by representing it as something utopian and mystical, whereas in Brazil, electricity is already the norm, obviously along with gas aka petrol. Both features place it solidly in the dieselpunk aka decodence genre, but what most settles this question are the overall applied design and wardrobes, which are most obviously dieselpunk by referencing the 1920s-1950s era. Another trademark of dieselpunk is that Gilliam heavily references film noir in cinematography and lighting, and even moreso German expressionism.

As for Largo's constant insisting on his sources above (while I agree with his assertion that there *WERE* people with diabetes before there was a name for it, and genres can have roots and ancestors before there's a name for them), Andy is right in that two words appearing in the same work is not a good source. The GRIN source is self-published, which makes it ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia, in his first source it's obvious (and slightly hinted at by Terry himself in the linked interview) that the author uses the term steampunk wrong by simply applying it to every -punk genre under the sun, even cyberpunk set in the future. Finally, it's not surprising to find the word Victorian in any work describing Terry's career in depth, as that mostly refers to the 19th century photos he used to plunder and massacre for his animations back in the Python days, whereas there's nothing, I repeat: nothing, in Brazil to suggest any relation to the Victorian era. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Conservative content

Why have you removed reference to one of the writers of the screenplays describing his own political views as conservative? This is a fact cited by Wikipedia and seems at least as relevant to the given paragraph as the views of Terry Gilliam. I included these facts in the existent paragraph as a bolster to the paragraph's claim that the film is "a favourite film of the far right in America."

I'm having difficulty understanding how you conclude the content I posted both "ignores the Salon rebuttal" and simultaneously misrepresents the Salon rebuttal. The excised paragraph was:

 "In contrast, proponents of left-wing politics see the film confirming their critiques of Reaganism, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the War on Terror."

The paragraph includes citation of a Salon piece which explicitly backs this statement, except with regard to Reaganism which in retrospect I believe I found within DemocraticUnderground forums. Regardless, the referenced piece quotes Terry Gilliam drawing attention to the activity of Bush and Cheney specifically as proof that the film is not supportive of right-wing politics; it describes National Review's piece as "delusional" and "ironic" because NR critiques "Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate." - the implication being that National Review (and the right) are supportive of these ideas while the film is against them. National Review is widely regarded as a right-wing publication, whereas Salon is understood to be more left-wing. Salon certainly gives the impression that they believe the film to be against the right at the very least, if not explicitly pro-left. All of this discussion, however, only strengthens the claim that the political right does indeed identify with this film.

Why have you removed reference to the objective fact that the film is often cited in lists of top conservative films? IMDB, Breitbart, and the National Review blog may not be reliable sources for scholarly information, but they are not presented here as such. Citing two such lists is provided as definitive proof that these lists exist, they are examples not authorities. The lists aren't being cited as evidence that this interpretation is correct, merely that it is prevalent. Is it impossible for Wikipedia to make reference to the prevalence of a phenomenon if a scholarly paper is not written about said phenomenon? Is it not proof enough for Wikipedia to cite actual examples of the phenomenon being referenced? Would the content be improved by citing more examples of such lists?

The fact remains that there is a widespread view of the film among conservatives and libertarians that it accurately portrays right-wing viewpoints regarding bureaucracy, occupational licensing, and the nature of government in general; which is the sole reason I added the content. This isn't advocacy of a position, it's description of a position; a widespread and mainstream view taken by a significant political philosophy. Salon and others certainly disagree with this interpretation (as noted), others have their own view of the film, but that doesn't mean the conservative view doesn't exist. The conservative view seems to be a particularly strong and widespread interpretation (as evidenced by the aforementioned lists).

I also object to the idea that this is anything but a mainstream interpretation of the film. There's no reason to assume the right's is "alternative". Quite the contrary, conservatives and libertarians cite the film as an example of their political beliefs with far greater frequency than other political identities. It seems worthy of note at the very least, completely excising the references to conservative beliefs when they are widespread and well documented gives undue weight to the idea they are irrelevant and "wrong" in their interpretation. The film is widely understood to be critical of bureaucracy, critical of technocratic experts, critical of occupational licensing and critical of government restrictions on individual freedom. The American political right is similarly understood to be critical of these exact things in distinction to the American political left which (in general) supports occupational licensing, bureaucratic regulation, and restrictions on the behavior of private business. The film is also widely understood to be critical of the use of torture, justifying enhanced government power with pleas to "security" or "anti-terrorism", and critical of invasive surveillance. Similarly, more libertarian members of the political right have been at least as critical of the War on Terror, use of torture, and invasive surveillance procedures as anyone. I don't see what part of this interpretation is controversial or outside the mainstream.

I've attempted to provide "balance", but there is a bit of a false equivalence there, which is why the last paragraph I added is so short. There is no similar glut of content from the left; Brazil isn't included in lists of the "top liberal films" or what-have-you. The only examples I could find were lists of top films in general (e.g. AFI, BFI which are already referenced), but nothing that specifically espouses Brazil as an endorsement of left-wing political theory; other than as rebuttals to conservative claims (e.g. Salon [which, again, was included]). This is a phenomenon seemingly unique to the right, and that in-and-of itself seems relevant. Most often the film is cited with reference to 1984 and other dystopian works; and often interpreted specifically as a critique of socialism, which again returns to the prevalence of right-wing (anti-socialist) claims. If a political group strongly attaches itself to a piece of art it seems silly to omit description of this practice because other groups don't provide alternative interpretation with the same regularity or intensity.

I don't understand the objection to including description of a popular, widespread, mainstream, critical interpretation of the film.

As to having "nothing to do with "Critical Response""; I'd be happy to include the content under a Themes/Analysis portion, or a "political meaning of the film" section, or another more appropriate title; but interpretation of the meaning and quality of a film is, to my understanding, precisely what "critical response" is all about.

76.119.167.214 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the article used to have a fully sourced Themes section about 5-10 paragraphs long, but over time some ignorant brutes cut it back bit by bit, always with the same two arsinine justifications: Either they personally didn't like what reliable sources said and couldn't find any other sources to counter them, or they felt that WP articles don't need such a thing as "Themes" or "Analysis" and that the article would be much too long even without it than "such a shitty little movie" would deserve. What little remained of the original Themes section was eventually incorporated into sections Writing and Art design. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazil (1985 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/500/1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703202009/http://www.dga.org/news/dgaq_1006/9-beg_shot2remember-1006.php3 to http://www.dga.org/news/dgaq_1006/9-beg_shot2remember-1006.php3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed update to plot section

The current plot section is at times confusing, inaccurate or overdetailed. It had been improved, but has recently been reverted. I propose the following revision (trying to improve on the reverted version, which did indeed need further work). Please discuss.

The movie is set in a fictional urban world, ruled by a “Ministry of Information”. Sam Lowry is an intelligent, but unambitious, low-level government clerk who frequently daydreams of saving a damsel in distress. His wealthy and well-connected mother Ida is obsessed with plastic surgery.

When a fly gets jammed in a printer, resulting in the accidental incarceration and death-during-torture of the innocent Archibald Buttle (instead of renegade Archibald Tuttle), Sam is assigned the task of rectifying the error and visiting Buttle's widow. There Sam encounters Jill Layton, a neighbour who - although having different hair, clothes and a gruff and walled off demeanor - is the woman from his daydreams. Jill trys to help Mrs. Buttle to determine what happened to her husband, but her efforts are obstructed by an infuriating bureaucracy. She is soon considered a terrorist accomplice for attempting to report a mistake to a government which would rather dispose of evidence and witnesses than admit its error. Sam finds Jill and declares his love for her. However, a wary Jill tells him that no one touches her and repeatedly throws him off her big rig truck.

Archibald Tuttle, who once worked for Central Services but left due to his dislike for paperwork, now works as an illegal renegade air conditioning specialist. He encounters Sam when unconventionally repairing his air conditioning. Later, two regular Central Services workers, Spoor and Dowser, demolish Sam's ducts and seize his apartment as a retaliation for the illegal repairs.

Meanwhile, Sam discovers that the only way to access Jill's classified records is to get transferred to Information Retrieval. Having previously turned down a promotion arranged by his mother, Sam speaks with family friend, Deputy Minister Mr. Helpmann, at one of his mother's parties and gets transferred. Obtaining Jill's records, Sam tracks her down and falsifies her records to fake her death, allowing her to escape pursuit. The two share one romantic night together but are soon apprehended by soldiers at gunpoint. Imprisoned, Helpmann tells him that there's nothing he can do for him and that Jill was killed resisting arrest. Charged with treason for abusing his new position, Sam is restrained to a chair and is about to be tortured for a confession by his old friend, Jack Lint.

Suddenly Tuttle and other rebels raid the Ministry, killing Jack, rescuing Sam, and blowing up the Ministry building. Sam and Tuttle flee together, but Tuttle disappears amid a mass of scraps of paperwork from the destroyed building. Sam stumbles into the funeral for a friend of his mother, whose body liquefied due to excessive cosmetic surgery. Finding his mother rejuvenated with the face of Jill, Sam falls into the open casket and through a black void. He lands in a street from his daydreams, where he escapes police and monsters by opening a door, finding himself in a shipping-container-size prefabricated house, sitting on a trailer pulled by Jill's truck. The two escape the dingy city for a bucolic countryside, living in their little house. However, in reality Sam is still strapped to the torture chair. Jack and Mr. Helpmann declare him a lost cause, completely dissociated from reality. Sam remains in the chair, smiling and humming the song "Aquarela do Brasil".

--Vigilius (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Film Noir

Proposed editing

Brazil is an example of a utopian film noir, a genre known as Future Noir or Tech Noir. //ref: http://www.ranker.com/list/best-future-noir-movies-all-time/reference

is contended by TheOldJacobite arguing "No reason to mention irrelevant tech noir" and "Brazil is neither utopian nor tech noir; please make your case on the talk page".

Tech noir is not "irrelevant", or WP page should be deleted. No argument is given why Brazil is not tech noir. I maintain it fits the definition of tech noir well. The ref given above is not high quality, but documents as a voting list that a reasonable number of people concur with Brazil (rank 3 in the list) belonging to that category.

--Vigilius (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use "Ranker". It's simple user-generated content and not a reliable source for anything. Kuru (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

UK (or Non-North American) Box Office Results

I've been searching but I cannot find any credible sources for Brasil's box office takings that are not North American. In other words, I cannot find it's takings that made it, as the introduction puts it, a UK success. Having said that, I don't normally look this up so someone with more experience might want to take this on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpka (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Queen Mary University of London education project

Hello, we are Queen Mary University Film students. We will be working on this article as part of a project and making some edits in the coming weeks. These are a list of our usernames: shaniabiju, alfiehill, thorntonjessica, ren_nkomo, Myrtoec, Samuelryu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren nkomo (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ren nkomo. Great that you've introduced yourselves here! It's important that your group uses the markup language correctly so that your usernames are linked to your user pages and talk pages. You can do this by following the training provided on the Wikipedia dashboard. DO try to do this so that you can be in contact with other users. And good luck with the assignment - time is getting on so it's important that your group introduces the changes you'd like to make on the Talk page for this article soon! DrJennyCee (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing the influence section

I've made the sub-sections, film and technology to just help us as a framework to put the additional info we've found. May have to edit how the info is going to be organised Ren nkomo (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)