साधारण लोग अपने व्यक्तित्व पर रहने की कोशिश करते हैं और अयोग्य नौकरशाही द्वारा शासित एक शानदार भविष्य में मानव बने रहतें है जहाँ राजकीय अशुद्धियों ने जीवन को नष्ट कर दिया और और आतंकवादियों न... सभी पढ़ेंसाधारण लोग अपने व्यक्तित्व पर रहने की कोशिश करते हैं और अयोग्य नौकरशाही द्वारा शासित एक शानदार भविष्य में मानव बने रहतें है जहाँ राजकीय अशुद्धियों ने जीवन को नष्ट कर दिया और और आतंकवादियों ने दंड-मुक्ति के साथ हमला किया।साधारण लोग अपने व्यक्तित्व पर रहने की कोशिश करते हैं और अयोग्य नौकरशाही द्वारा शासित एक शानदार भविष्य में मानव बने रहतें है जहाँ राजकीय अशुद्धियों ने जीवन को नष्ट कर दिया और और आतंकवादियों ने दंड-मुक्ति के साथ हमला किया।
- 2 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 9 जीत और कुल 6 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
The whole design of Brazil's crazy world is unlike anything I've ever seen in other movies (with the exception perhaps of those made by the same filmmaker). Where films with similar themes typically go for a futuristic look that is defined by all the technological advancements the writers and filmmakers can dream of, Terry Gilliam chooses the complete opposite direction. In his film, technology seems to have made no progress since somewhere around the forties or fifties, and what technology there is doesn't exactly look very reliable. And unlike other dystopian films, it's not primarily the bleak aspects of a totalitarian society Gilliam wants to explore; in his film, he wants to show how hilariously insane, inept and ridiculous many of the mechanisms and instruments of oppression truly are. In that sense, Brazil is mainly a satire (at least that's how I perceive it), and it is often either darkly funny or downright hilarious.
There is simply not a dull moment in the film: it's a wild ride that never lets up and almost every image on the screen practically bursts with clever (often hilarious) details; from the way food is served in restaurants to how the benefits of plastic surgery are presented, Gilliam's imagination can only be marveled at. His vision of a bureaucracy gone mad is probably the most entertaining nightmare ever put on film (I'm talking about the director's cut, of course). A masterpiece that gets even better after repeat viewings: 10 stars out of 10.
Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/
Lesser-Known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/
Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/
Terry Gilliam once again seems to have spared no expense in making sure every visual element of the world adds up to a cohesive whole which makes you feel as if you're really experiencing the characters' surroundings. And, of course, it is a world rendered realistically enough to feel feasible, and yet surrealistically enough to leave an unforgettable impression on you.
Despite the simplicity of the main plot, the movie is full of subtexts and images which carry a message even though you may not see them on the first viewing. In one scene, a man is buying "clean air" from a vending machine along the street. The sides of the highways are walls of billboards which hide the barren environment beyond. A group of people carry a banner that announces "Consumers for Christ" in a store decorated for the holidays as a small child tells Santa she wants a credit card for Christmas. Actually, therein lies one of the things that may turn some people off to this movie. It seems Gilliam had so many things to say about the state of society today that some people may find the movie lacks a coherent message once it's done. The ending will no doubt come as a shock to many people as well, but it was refreshing to me to see something well outside the Hollywood conventions for a change.
My only real complaint was that Robert De Niro's character was so enjoyable, but saw so little use. Other than that, however, I thought it was a film which presents some compelling things which deserve serious thought, even though most people probably won't be able to get past the trademark Gilliam visual quirkiness to see what he is saying. Eight and a half out of ten from me.
(That's why I hated Titanic, well, partially. Rose is breaking out of her supposedly constricted life. It's propaganda. It makes it appear that the "freedoms" we have now are exactly what we need in order to escape from the restriction of prejudices and ignorance. Rose tied herself into the ever-growing strait-jacket of modern political myths. But in order to glorify those myths Cameron had to denigrate our past and all that it stood for, making its adherents look like chauvinistic fools. The person I know who liked Titanic the most liked it for that reason - she wanted to escape from her own life and envied Rose. But such people always stop there. They live in their fantasies and never stop to investigate why they feel their lives must be escaped from.)
Another note about the samurai he fights is that it continued to suddenly disappear. Lowry initially didn't know what he was fighting, for one. There really is no definitive enemy to fight. We are boxing shadows. It is a system which has no heart or kill point. That's part of the frustration, particularly for those who can't think abstractly. Most of them lash out at "the media." They can't locate who they're fighting, and so they accept the lies.
Listen to the opening interview on the television. The terrorists are refusing to "play the game." The assumption is that they are simply jealous because someone else is "winning the game." Why play at all? Any hope of that is over though. The 60s was the last gasp of opposition and it got swallowed up. Now the nostalgia for protest is a marketing tool. Consumption is a replacement for thought. When you feel angst you go shopping. We've been convinced that our anxiety is caused by something other than what it really is. Commercials are not about self-gratification, but self-doubt.
I read an interview with Gilliam in which he said the reason he could no longer live in America is that there was an unwillingness to think about anything. In the end, you are fighting the conditioning you have received from your entire culture, in essence, fighting yourself and struggling to regain control of your own mind. Parallels between Lowry seeing his own face and Skywalker seeing the same in Return of the Jedi are illuminating.
The point that Gilliam makes in the end is that the enemy is ubiquitous yet intangible. Lowry wanted to run from it, go "far away," never realizing that you can't escape. We still think in terms of a locus of power. But Gilliam, throughout the last part of the film, continually crushed our naive hopes that somehow we can act out the fantasy that many of us may have, to get away, find the girl of our dreams and live in a trailer in a beautiful setting.
Because we have no fear of physical control, we assume that we are free. Some Americans still believe in the myth of rugged individualism. The system is built on lies and that's what Gilliam was showing. It's a "State of mind." You can't escape. The only place that you can be free is in your head. "He got away from us," as they say at the end. That's really the only hope we have left.
On a lighter note, I derive so much glee from watching Lowry's mother walk around with a boot on her head.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाRobert De Niro wanted to play the role of Jack Lint, but Terry Gilliam had already promised this to Sir Michael Palin. De Niro still wanted to be in this movie, so he was cast as Harry Tuttle instead.
- गूफ़When Harry Tuttle escapes from Sam Lowry's flat, he is wearing a hood covering his head. When Harry starts to zip-line off the precipice, he is replaced by a stunt double wearing a baseball cap.
- भाव
Sam Lowry: [showing her deleted file, freeing her] I've killed you! Jill Layton is dead.
Jill Layton: Care for a little necrophilia? Hmmm?
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe only credits at the start of the film were the preliminary studio credits, a credit for Gilliam, and the title. All other credits are at the end. (Although commonplace today, the lack of full opening credits was still unusual in 1985). All versions of the film, including the "Love Conquers All" edit follow this format.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThere are at least three different versions of Brazil. The original 142 minutes European release, a shorter 132-minutes prepared by Gilliam for the American release and another different version, nicknamed the Sheinberg Edit or 'Love Conquers All' version, from Universal's then boss Sid Sheinberg, against whom Terry Gilliam had to fight to have his version released.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in What Is Brazil? (1985)
- साउंडट्रैकHava Nagila
(played after the restaurant bombing)
टॉप पसंद
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Brazil
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,50,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $99,29,135
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $30,099
- 22 दिस॰ 1985
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $99,52,602
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 12 मि(132 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1