Home | FAQ Contents | Next |
Brazil is a film rich in depth -- the plot does not focus on
just one subject, but instead many different themes which weave
together. The film follows the character of Sam
Lowry, a clerk in the records department of a huge government
bureaucracy, the Ministry of Information. Sam's perception of the
world alternates between being trapped as a mere "cog in the machine"
in a grim world of paperwork and escaping from his grim existence by
becoming a hero in his own elaborate dreams. His life and these
dreams begin to merge together... his dreams become more realized as
his life tears apart. Eventually, the government imprisons him,
finding him guilty of none other than "wasting the Ministry's time and
paper" after
Sam embarks on a messy pursuit of the girl he sees in both his dreams
and in real life - who was unrightly wanted by the Ministry as a
suspected terrorist.
Still don't get it? You probably won't, not until you've seen
the film multiple times. The structure of Brazil often uses peripheral
devices: interviews heard in the background, lines of conversation
running over action and posters seen on walls, to give the viewer cues
as to what's going on in the film. It seems nearly impossible that
a single viewing of Brazil could possibly supply the viewer with all
of the information needed to fully digest what's happening in the film.
Brazil is a film which rolls up many of the problems of the
century into one big plot: industrialization, terrorism, government
control and bureaucracy (from both capitalist and socialized countries),
technology gone wrong, inept repair people, plastic surgery, love, and
even modern filmmaking. Especially love.
Gilliam has claimed that the film is about the fear of love: The
consequences of the Sam Lowry character pursuing his dream girl are
steep. However, if the film can be said to focus on a single topic,
it would have to be described as the dehumanizing effect of technology
and bureaucracy on today's society -- although the film is much more
than that. In the world of Brazil, set "8:49 p.m., somewhere in the 20th century",
fantasy is the only escape, and the happy ending is that
of a man going insane. The film certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea,
shifting abruptly from comedy to despair, something Gilliam has described
in interviews as cinematic rape. Gilliam approaches the style of the
film with his trademark wit and stunning visuals, both honed during his
years as the animator for Monty Python's Flying Circus and during the
production of his film Time Bandits.
Words from Gilliam himself,
part of an interview for The South Bank Show, filmed 6/29/91:
"Brazil was a film that sat around for some years, I mean like
10 years I'd been sort of thinking about this thing. I mean on a very
simple level it's just its just very cathartic for me. It's all about
my own frustrations and my seeming inability to achieve what I wanted
to achieve and my inability to affect a system that is clearly
wrong. The fears of Brazil are not so much that the world is
spinning out of control because of the system, because the system is
us. What Brazil is really about is that the system isn't great
leaders, great machinating people controlling it all. It's each person
performing their job as one little cog in this thing and Sam chooses
to stay a little cog and ultimately he pays the price for that."
"Now on the other hand I also felt that there's the ideal that if we
all do our bit the world will become better. Then there's the
pessimistic side that says enough of this 'do our bit, ain't gonna
make a blind bit of difference as we're all gunna, lemming like, go
over the abyss'. And so then there was 'how do you escape from that
world?' and Sam escapes by going insane. I actually started this film
with that idea of 'can one make a film where the happy ending is a man
going insane?'"
Keep in mind, however, that Gilliam has been quoted as saying "Because
I dislike being quoted I lie almost constantly when talking about my work."
Home | FAQ Contents | Next
Brazil FAQ Copyright © 1994 - 1998 David S. Cowen.