Talk:Brazil (1985 film)

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)

Music section change
Hi guys, I changed the music section, added more information and rearranged the existing info/deleted some stuff too - check for any corrections I need to do. Thanks Ren nkomo (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle for Final Cut
1st para says: a) Gilliam's original cut is 142 minutes long.

2nd para says: a) Gilliam took an ad saying release intended version. b) Studio ran his own ad. c) Gilliam conducted his own screenings (incl local critics). d) Brazil won awards by LA critics. e) Studio agreed to release Gilliam-supervised 132-minute version.

In the Summary box of the article (top-right), it says 143 minute running time.

I admit I didn't study the entire article, skipping to the section I was most interested in and only skimming the rest. However, it seems there are a couple of points about the versions (based on length) that could be clearer.

First. 2.d. (above) should say that the original 142-minute cut is what Gilliam showed critics who then awarded THAT cut the awards. Assuming that's what happened. Hard to tell from the way it's worded. Could've been any cut that he shopped around. And while it says he showed it to "local" critics, one would then have to know where Gilliam was doing this to infer that refers to the local Los Angeles critics mentioned in the following sentence. It's also hard tell which version because the first para says his cut was 142 minutes, while the Summary box says the movie was 143. Not to make a mountain out of a 1-minute mole hill, but again, for clarity, either there's a typo between the first para and the Summary box OR there's a third version that's not clearly documented in the article. And who knows - maybe cutting one critical or irritating, 60-second scene is significant enough to be considered a 3rd version. Less lengthy footage has been edited out of, or into, other films for great effect.

Second. 2.e (above) states that Gilliam supervised the 132-minute version. Yet the article's Summary box says the film's official running time is 143 minutes. So, aside from the possible typo mentioned in my prior comment - the difference between the 142-minute cut Gilliam showed critics, and the 143-minute running time in the Summary box - the new problem is that there is missing content. If Gilliam supervised (and, presumably approved) the 132-minute cut the studio eventually agreed to release, what is this version referred to as? A "director's cut?" If one were to seek it out, one could click the citation and chase the reference and figure it out. But shouldn't the sentence in the article that says such a version exists simply name or title the version?

Thanks and sorry for the ramble. Amazing movie. Though now I'm not sure what version I saw so many years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.250.55 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

small contribution
the film has possible references to the dictatorial state that Brazil was going through in that historical period. Funded by the US, as in much of Latin America, a corporate-military dictatorship with very repression. The film reminds us of what communists, trade unionists and any opponents of the liberal order suffered with Marcatism and the rise of fascism throughout the world.As the opponents, mainly communists, were really watched and persecuted in every corner they could find. In addition to the extermination they were threatened with, they also had the people close to them who could suffer persecution, torture and even death to complete the hunt. That was the real 1984. Across the West,commies suffered persecution and constant surveillance Marxlo (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to cite a source that discusses any of that. DonQuixote (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Somebody research Futurama reference
Hermes character and the central planning he works for, resemble central planning in Brazil in several episodes, like when Hermes goes to the office to retrieve a form, the numbers for everything like forms and agents. 2001:48F8:B007:AAB:3556:3DD8:4A10:B7F7 (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * But don't central planning departments all somewhat resemble one another? no matter the place and time, or the planet, for that matter.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary
I recently made some edits to the plot summary section, only for them to be reverted on the grounds that they were “unsourced”. Nothing in the plot summary section is sourced; the source is, implicitly, the movie itself. (See WP:PLOTSOURCE: “The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary.”) My edits were clarifying a very clear plot point in the movie – namely, that Sam's efforts to delete Jill from the government's systems backfired and he unintentionally issued an order for her to be “deleted” – without which the plot summary feels incoherent and confusing. (Why would the government send stormtroopers in to assassinate Jill if they thought Jill was dead?) It's true that the movie never outright states “Sam accidentally ordered a hit on Jill” (because that fact is already clearly communicated and stating it explicitly would be amateurish and unnecessary handholding), but I don't believe that stating what clearly happens in the film rises to the level of “analysis and interpretation”, at least not to any greater extent than the current version of the summary does. 2601:14D:4E02:1C00:E4F0:5C5D:E71C:95AE (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm taking exception to the phrase based on an amalgamation of the 20th century. Well, based on an amalgamation of the 20th century and what? An amalgamation, by definition, must consist of two or more things. Like, the Third Reich might be said to be an amalgamation of the Ancient Greek polis of Sparta, and the Catholic Church, for example --only with more lederhosen. But, the point being, an amalgamation cannot exist in isolation. Which makes me wonder if the second half of that sentence has been amputated by someone who didn't understand the meaning of amalgamation.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)