Gilliam's "Brazil" is still my favorite film of all time. If you haven't seen it, you should. Note that there are multiple versions of this film floating around. Comparing them makes a very interesting study in film editing. The story of the making of "Brazil" is almost as interesting and fraught as Don Quixote.
When watching Brazil it's important to keep in mind that it was made in 1985, before 9-11, before the internet, before ubiquitous surveillance. It is one of the most prescient films ever made.
Interesting. I'm not sure I agree though. I was in my early 20s in 1985 and so I can tell you from personal experience that things were really very different back then than now. In 1985 it was possible to escape surveillance without to much difficulty. Nowadays it's nearly impossible.
Also, in 1985 the stock villains weren't terrorists, they were Russians.
There were terrorists in 1985. In fact, there was more terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s than in recent decades. It's just that today the fear of terrorism is more exploited for political gain than it was back then.
I think that the plot devices involving terrorism were the most prescient.
When I first saw the film as a young teenager in the 80s, I was fascinated that the terrorists philosophy or demands were never clearly defined beyond "anti-government". Terrorism was portrayed as a regrettable but normal part of life.
Perhaps people who lived through actual terrorist bombing campaigns in British cities can relate to this more, but for me it was a crazy idea that this sort of thing could be normalized to any extent.
> Also, in 1985 the stock villains weren't terrorists
Libyan Terrorists were stock villains in a lot of 1980s entertainment (especially on TV like the A-Team and MacGuyver), including perhaps most notably their very clear presence in 1985 in Back to the Future.
I think it was, it was just a lot more "diverse" on the radar. Terrorism wasn't (and really shouldn't be) considered "one thing", but a spectrum from hijackers to bombers to arsonists, from nationalists to separatists to religious extremists. When people in the 70s/80s used to speak of terrorism there were often more adjectives and synonyms involved.
Jingoism has a hard time with nuance and diversity, so the "War on Terror" (sigh) mentality that terrorists are some how a coordinated force, and "mostly" religious extremists, and who cares what methods they use to promote terror just lump it all together.
Which is to say in metaphor terms, I don't think the number of terrorism "bogeys" on the radar changed, so much as the "friend or foe" system just started using the same color and tag for all of them, instead of somewhat more individual labels. It looks like "more on the radar" because it's easier to spot clusters, but they were there before.
Most of the technology that makes surveillance easy today (cell phones, the internet, electronic processing of credit card transactions) didn't exist in 1985. The government certainly could have spied on me but it would have been expensive and they would have had no reason to target me. I was nobody. Nowadays surveillance is cheap enough to do it indiscriminately, but it wasn't then.
Are you going to forget your credit cards and ATM cards too? Give up on flying? Driving new cars? Driving in non-rural areas? And good luck finding a job nowadays without a cell phone or an internet connection.
In 1985 I could fly without showing ID to anyone, including the person I bought the ticket from (back then airplane tickets were printed on paper). I could drive anywhere without my license plate being tracked by default and without having to worry about the GPS in my car (because there was no GPS). And I had a reasonable expectation of privacy, enshrined in law, in my phone calls and snail mail correspondence (there was no email). Today all of that is gone.
It's great. It's semi-adaptation of 1984 without directly taking the story it feels very similar in spirit. The soul crushing effects of malicious beurcracy, someone seeing past the facade and going though a lot of pain while trying to escape it. The movie equivalent of calling to cancel Comcast, where the feeling of knowing the experience is going to be so bad it puts you off doing it.
Great movie. When you watch it, you need to pay attention to every little thing. For example, the movie opens with an advertisement for government services. The dittie is hysterical, but its easy to miss. That theme gets expanded quite a bit in the film culminating in a fantastic scene with Robert De Niro as a rogue heating engineer.
There was a release, perhaps the lazerdisk box set not sure, that had both the theatrical cut and a (I believe) BBC tv edit. Although the BBC tv version could be characterized as more up beat, the commentary and inclusion in the box showed it great respect. They discuss the editing choices that needed to be made to reframe the story as if it had been conceived that way from the beginning.
It's one of the most educational discussions of cinematic storytelling and editorial technique. It is absolutely worth seeing both versions and listening to the commentary if you can find them.
Ah. The reason I ask is that the ending I saw could be interpreted either way, but I saw the 'happy' ending as obvious satire/irony. I'm just worried that I saw the wrong ending and over-interpreted it.
It sounds like you saw the "Love Conquers All" version, but saw through the illusion. It's actually part of the original ending, but with all the framing of the scene removed.
Definitely check out the director's cut.
I loved this film. Its quirky and scattered in all of the right ways.
I really admire Gilliam's persistence over the years -- and I'm thankful that he was willing to allow not one, but two documentaries to be filmed about the struggle to be made.
Critics have been a little lukewarm to the film, but everybody I know who has seen it has loved it. It has definitely lived up to the hype. Its a shame I wasn't able to catch it with a proper theatrical release. Its beautifully shot, like a lot of his films.
I love Gilliam films, and I'll watch anything he does, but I think this a stretch: he's _very_ patchy. No-one ever accuses him of not being interesting, of not being full of ideas, not having a unique vision. It's just that those ideas are so rarely fully realised, and his films tend to ramble. They often feel incomplete, more surface than depth, gossamer.
As I say, I love his films and I'd happily watch almost anything he's done, but I don't know how much of that is down to me being enamoured of what he obviously tries to achieve. I just can't see how the critics are wrong most of the time w/r/t his films, and to me those bad reviews have generally come across as respectfully disappointed more than anything else.
There was a lot of bad blood over the US studio's reedit of Brazil to give it a happy ending (which was atrocious). Following that Baron Munchausen was a flop (and while I like it, def not his best work to be fair). After that he was sort of written off from the establishment as it were (including the critics who know to pay the piper). But while that would have killed off the careers of most directors, Terry Gilliam has this ineffable quality about him that's allowed him to keep getting independent funding, keep getting very good actors, and keep making great movies. It's one thing if your independent and the system hasn't noticed you yet, but the system turned it's back on him and somehow he's still out there killing it. The system out of spite acts out against him wherever it can.
You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever if you were to go off the critics reviews.
> After [Munchausen] he was sort of written off ... including the critics who know to pay the piper
Do the facts even support this? The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys followed Munchausen and were well reviewed critically. Instead of inventing a cabal of critics out to get Gilliam, let’s just acknowledge that he’s made a number of divisive films. Michael Palin’s comments to Gilliam about Tideland encapsulate this:
I don't like the movie, I'm afraid I have to say, to be honest. But it's now the next day and there are images that I still cannot shake, that I can't get rid off. Either this is the best movie you've made, or your worst!
> You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever if you were to go off the critics reviews.
The problem is, critics are usually right, and the audience usually isn't. This is because critics have studied film, often went to film school, and can point out just exactly how a film fails.
That being said, Gilliam is the rare exception, and I do believe it is because of that ineffable quality about him and his directorial style. Maybe it's because I grew up with it, but "Time Bandits" is still one of my favorite films of all time. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" was not really very well made, but it's still distinctly Gilliamesque, and it actually works around the death of Heath Ledger very adroitly. "Zero Theroem" was also a bit disappointing, but it's still at least different, not your usual Hollywood schlock.
"Brazil" was Gilliam par excellence; I am hopeful his take on Quixote is good, but even if it isn't, it will almost definitely be interesting.
Also, Tideland is a weird example to use because it is so intentionally awful. It's on the list of films such as Requiem for a Dream that I'm glad I watched but somehow doubt I will ever watch a second time. A lot of the critics are right about Tideland that it is an awful, miserable experience to watch but many of those low "number" reviews also suggest seeing it or experiencing it for yourself, because that's also the art to it, the subjective experience. (Which is why review scores are useless metrics because art is subjective and averaging a bunch of subjective numbers together doesn't do anything but give you a random number. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are interesting random numbers, but they can't actually tell you if the art was good or not.)
Gilliam commented on this notion in an interview. He said Hollywood does not carry grudges because Hollywood doesn't have any memory. After the debacle of Brazil and the economical disaster of Münchhausen, many wondered if he would ever be able to make a movie again. But Hollywood didn't care one bit about all that as long as it seemed like the next movie would make a profit, as was the case with Fisher King and 12 Monkeys.
The mixed reviews is not surprising for a director who is highly original but not so strong in (or doesn't care about) traditional storytelling virtues like dramatic curve and relatable characters. His movies are divisive.
You really think reviewers are afraid to give a Gilliam movie a positive review? Maybe they just don't like them all that much.
I'm a big Gilliam fan, but in my opinion his movies have gotten worse and worse since Time Bandits, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and The Fisher King.
There's something of his charming sensibility in even the worst of his films, and they're worth watching for die-hard Gilliam fans like myself, but even the best of his later films (like the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus) are a pale shadow of the brilliance of his early output.
Yes. But wait, it gets worse! Here in the US, the theatrical run was exactly one day long, and they didn't spend any money to promote it. So I, a huge Gilliam fan, didn't even know it was happening until days later when stories like this showed up.
gilliam made it all the way through shooting in the 90s with johnny depp and the movie was canceled very late in production. the version we're discussing now is a complete reboot. it was shown at cannes and had a limited theatrical release in france.
a release in the US was planned for the same time, and in fact the movie was very briefly streaming on amazon in the US, but ultimately got locked up because one of the producers of the original version took gilliam to court.
I caught an interview with Gilliam on the Big Think podcast, on which he was charming. He speaks very highly of Jonathan Pryce in the lead, but I'm even more interested in seeing Adam Driver.
I haven't really enjoyed Driver's work in the past, not because he's bad at his job but because he's typecast as the broody annoying guy. To hear Gilliam describe it, he seems to start that way, but then gets to exercise comic chops that I haven't seen him hit before. I'd love to think Driver has more range than I've seen so far.
Adam Driver in "The BlacKKKlansman" was really great, and is him in a different role than usual. He comes from a really fascinating background (military) compared to other actors which makes him incredibly unique.
I had to make sure to be in NY for it. Last time I saw him live (at IFC for The Zero Theorem), he mentioned that he can only spend 29 days per year in the United States after giving up his American citizenship. His days are counted, in a way...
I wish they were doing a wider release in the USA. It only played for one night in LA last week and it's going to play again for one night this week in a tiny theater. I'm a big Gilliam fan and have been waiting to watch this film, but it's difficult to see.
I want to see it but at the same time I don't. Gilliam's Don Quixote had long surged to the pinnacle of "the best picture never made", the clearest manifestation of the genius-destroying hardships of moviemaking. It had become the embodiment of an aristotelian category.
Now it's just another film. Like Duke Nukem Forever, its release has inevitably declassed it.
I'm hardly familiar with all the trouble this movie went through to get made, I'm really, really happy with the main actors that finally got to see it through. Jonathan Pryce and Adam Driver have such great interactions in the small scenes of this movie, and those really made it for me despite the legitimate problems this article brings up.
i would characterize chaos, loss of agency, and delusion/delirium as the common themes that tie together all of gilliam's major works. i love the experience of watching the narratives unravel as the characters lose touch with reality -- but rather than becoming isolated from the world, we see a perspective where the entire world seems to descend into madness in the character's footsteps.
i felt differently about this movie. the same themes are here, but much more explicit. in this film, the character becomes more and more isolated, the world becomes smaller and smaller, and the delusions are unilateral. it doesn't allow me to follow the main character into the spiral and i'm left feeling like an observer rather than a participant.