Talk:Brazil (1985 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Differences between various versions

The British and American versions of the film have several differences.

Scenes missing in the British cut

These are scenes missing in the UK release of the film and what Americans saw in US theaters. The reasons for excluding these scenes from the UK version and adding them to the US version are unknown.

• Scenes of clouds open and close the film in the American release. Some of the footage was extraneous film from The Never Ending Story. The clouds were in fact present in the original script; Gilliam confesses that he used the opportunity of the American edit to put them back in, because he actually liked it both ways. Furthermore, it gave him the opportunity to play the first bars of the song 'Brazil' as background music, as a reminder to the viewers who had trouble understanding the film's title.
• After watching Mrs. Lowry's first plastic surgery treatment, Sam sarcastically exclaims "My God, it works!"
• Jack says "You look like you've seen a ghost, Sam..." to Sam at the entrance of the Ministry of Records when Sam sees Jill Layton. This scene is also present in the Sheinberg cut of the film.

Scenes missing in the American cut

These are scenes missing in the US release of the film and what British audiences saw in UK cinemas. These scenes were edited for the US release by Terry Gilliam because of Universal's requirement.

• Shortly before the troops storm Mrs. Buttle's home, her daughter says to her "Father Christmas can't come if you haven't got a chimney." Mrs. Buttle replies with "You'll see."
• A brief scene involving Sam and his mother, Ida, entering the restaurant where they meet Mrs. Terrain and Shirley. They have to pass through a metal detector in order to gain entrance, and Ida's present to Sam (one of the "Executive Decision Makers", seen later in the movie) sets off the alarm.
• Part of the beginning of the first "Samurai" dream sequence, where Sam explores through the concrete labyrinth he finds himself in. The American version makes this sequence three separate ones while the UK release is one whole sequence.
• A scene where Sam and Jill lie in bed after the implied consummation of their relationship. Jill has taken off the wig she was wearing in the scene before, and has a pink bow tied around her naked body. She says to Sam: "Something for an executive?" and he unties her.
• The "Interrogation" scene, where Sam is charged with all of the violations of the law he committed throughout the film, including "wasting Ministry time and paper."
• The "Father Christmas" scene where Helpmann visits Sam after his booking, Helpmann is dressed as Santa Claus. Among other things, Helpmann informs Sam that Jill Layton has been killed while resisting arrest. Upon Sam's admission that he falsified her file in order to save her, Helpmann muses that "Yes, it's rather odd...it seemed it happened to her...twice."
• The European release begins abruptly with the "Central Services" advert about ducts, and ends with a held shot of Sam in the cooling tower without clouds present in the American release.

The Sheinberg Edit (Love Conquers All/TV Edit)

The Sheinberg Edit also aired on syndicated TV for time restrictions on some occasions and it pleased Gilliam as it showed how bad the studio cut of the film was.

• When the ministry building is blown up, the piece of paper that is shown is a "deleted" form for Harry Tuttle.
• It is made clear in this version that Tuttle is a terrorist. Examples include the man in the white lab coat in the beginning (who kills the fly that causes the film's events) isn't watching an interview with Helpmann, but an "Arrest and Detainment" show about Tuttle and Sam's fellow employees watching the film without music with gunshots left.
• The scene at the restaurant starts the film with Shirley offering Sam the salt, and the explosion in the restaurant.
• Extended, more romantic dialogue between Sam and Jill is added after Tuttle switches the sewage and air pipes at Sam's flat. This is one of many scenes between Jill and Sam that was cut out of Gilliam's cut and re-added for this one.
• You do not see the inflamed guard when the police vehicle crashes during the chase.
• It is never stated that Buttle is dead, only asked by his wife.
• Lots of curse words were replaced with tamer dialogue.
• The "Something for an executive" scene is intact. However, afterwards, only Sam is captured while Jill is not killed.
• The film ends with a brief sequence where Jill wakes Sam in their country hideaway. Sam says "I don't dream any more", looks at a picture on the wall of himself wearing the dream-sequence wings, and the film ends with them flying up into the heavens. Jack Lint and Mr. Helpmann do not interrupt the ending of the fantasy (thereby altering the ending of the film).
• Many of the fantasy sequences are missing, or slightly different, like having an opaque surrounding the scene.
• Extended dialogue between Jill and Sam outside his apartment and while in the truck is added.
• Extended dialogue in the scene where Sam meets Jack at Information Retrieval is added as well, and Jack has his daughter in his office.
• A cut of Casablanca featuring the line "Here's looking at you, kid." right after Sam leaves Kurtzmann's office.
• Jack says "You look like you've seen a ghost, Sam..." to Sam at the entrance of the Ministry of Records when Sam sees Jill Layton. This scene is also in the American cut.

}}  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • So which parts are referred to by "Gilliam's original cut of the film is 142 minutes long and ends on a dark note." and "Universal chairman Sid Sheinberg insisted on dramatically re-editing the film to give it a happy ending"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• That's silly. "Differences between versions of Star Wars" gets a pass, but not differences between dramatically-different versions of Brazil? 96.225.221.243 (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it can be used here. There are no sources to discuss these differences so it is original research and unneeded. There needs to be a source to say what are the differences, and more than likely why this changes the film or why they were necessary, to keep this. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lowry

Has it been explicitly stated anywhere that the Pryce character's name is a reference to L. S. Lowry and that Gilliam has used a number of "Lowryesque" city-scapes in the film? Absurdtrousers (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen that mentioned in anything I have ever read about the film, and, in fact, have never heard of that gentleman. It is a very intriguing thought, though. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• Brazil at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fictional Britain?

The plot says that the film is set in a fictional Britain? Where in the film does it ever say that it takes place in Britain? I do not believe the setting is ever identified, which was intentional. The plot should not make claims that cannot be verified in the film. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed this wording to say it is set in an unidentified country. The claim that is set in a fictional, or "fictionalised," Britain is unsubstantiated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I photo'd this from the film:-

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z371/Belnahua/Brazil/IMG_0122.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalavich (talk • contribs) 11:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What that says is "place of birth," with no claim as to current place of residence. This is not adequate proof of where the story is set. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarities to other films

Several new references were added to this section recently, which I think need to be discussed. While I do not doubt the influence of Brazil's visual design on Dark City, I do doubt the reliability of these sources: SPLICEDwire, chud.com, Hayden Reviews, Terminally Incoherent, and Scoopy.com. Add to this the fact that the references are not formatted correctly, which makes viewing them difficult. Two sources that were added look reliable, and that is probably enough to prove the point. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Having received no response in the past nine days, I am going to remove these references. The statements made in the article are well-enough referenced without these citations. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

i'm going to mention that near the end of the film is a reference to the most copied scene in movie history - odessa steps from battleship potemkin - soldiers march down the stairs while a mob chaotically runs up the stairs - at some point a man is shot through the eyeglasses (bonnie and clyde/the godfather) and a mother pushing a baby carriage is shot leaving the carriage to bounce down the stairs (the untouchables/bananas) - in brazil the carriage is replaced by a large floor waxing machine - when the driver is killed, the machine bounces down the stairs, falls over, and explodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6030:3E:61F4:77F7:9AB7:3A2B (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article under Art design. GrindtXX (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What has Orwell to do with it at all?

The film centres on Sam Lowry (Pryce), a man trying to find a woman who appears in his dreams while he is working in a mind-numbing job and living a life in a small apartment, set in a dystopian world in which there is an over-reliance on poorly maintained (and rather whimsical) machines. Brazil's bureaucratic, totalitarian government is reminiscent of the government depicted in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, except that it has a buffoonish, slapstick quality and lacks a 'Big Brother' figure.

Looks like WP:ORIGINAL. It doesn't resemble 1984 at all except for totalitarianism part. It's rather other way round. Do we really need to bring Orwell up all the time? Mentioning Orwell encourages certain anti-communist connotations, especially for those who didn't read Orwell's essays. These connotations are utterly misplaced here: the film certainly depicts capitalist dystopia (cult of consumerism, big corporations, dominance of ads, even anti-government rebels in Lowry's last dream carry guns, which resemble AK-74). 193.104.170.254 (talk)

It is merely your opinion that it does not resemble 1984, and the fact that you do not see the similarity does not justify removal of a significant part of the lede. All of this blathering about capitalism, anti-communism, AKs, etc., is utterly inane and beside the point. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok whose opinion is that it does resembles 1984? This "blathering" (which I don't place in the article BTW) is not more WP:ORIGINAL than those "numerous comparisons". Whose comparisons? Any source for it? 2.60.254.253 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Orwell influence is cited in the Writing subsection. There is no requirement that it be cited in the lede. I have restored the information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Christmas

I previously added this to Category:Christmas, but this was reverted because "the film has nothing to do with Christmas, and the holiday plays no role in the plot." I dispute this utterly: the entire movie features constant Christmas iconography and imagery, people keep cheerfully giving each other Christmas presents while terrorists bombs go off, Mr. Helpmann is dressed as Father Christmas when he visits Sam towards the end, Jill wraps herself up as a Christmas present, etc. Compare this to other movies in Category:Christmas such as Die Hard, Die Hard 2, Lethal Weapon or Young Sherlock Holmes. Christmas is central to Brazil. It belongs in this category. The only citation needed is to look at the movie and see that there is something related to Christmas in almost every scene. Pearce.duncan (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So just out of curiousity, why did User:MikeWazowski revert my edit where I placed this in Category: Christmas films? I think I made a pretty good case for why it belongs there, and it would have been nice if he'd had the courtesy to address my points. Pearce.duncan (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For some reason Mr. Wazowski does not seem keen to explain why he is so emphatic that Brazil is not a Christmas film, simply saying that he "disagrees with my personal opinion" in his edit summary. If you look through Category:Christmas films you will find many movies, for example Die Hard, Die Hard 2, Black Christmas (1974 film), Black Christmas (2006 film), Lethal Weapon, Gremlins, The Ice Harvest, Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation, etc that seem to be in the category simply because they are set at Christmas but have far less actual Christmas imagery and content than Brazil. Can somebody please explain why they are Christmas films while Brazil is not? And if you're someone who reverted my edit, are you planning on removing those movies from the category as well? Pearce.duncan (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help. BRAZIL has all that Christmas iconology as you put it, because I think it's perpetually stuck in the commercialistic denial scenario that Christmas presents to us.

So I agree: BRAZIL is not a Christmas film. The suggestion is interesting but it is clearly wrong. Opinions are fine, but this article is not for opinions. Write a review on Amazon for opinion expression.76.195.85.160 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Published opinions of reputable critics are an important part of wikipedia film articles. Additionally the opinions of wikipedia editors usually guide both edit deletions and selection of references (especially amidst controversy). My point is that is not so black and white. These are articles and blog entries from NME[1], totalfilm[2] and thefilmcynics[3] which refer to Brazil as a Christmas film, but probably are only marginally reference worthy. - Steve3849^talk 21:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

SF, Fantasy

Ok, I get the SF, though SF is a very heterogeneous genre, and Dystopies are often considered a subgenre.

Fantasy, no way. There simply is nothing about the movie that would make it a fantasy movie. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Sam's dream sequences, dressed in shimmering armour, and fighting a giant samurai, are certainly fantasy. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Spellbound (1945 film) --193.254.155.48 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That response proves nothing. As you have now been reverted multiple times, by multiple editors, it is clear that you are in the minority. Stop changing the genres until you have a consensus for your view. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The "They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?" list has Brazil as science fiction-fantasy, and there are some straightforward science fiction entries (e.g., Forbidden Planet) on the list. I'm fine with that juxtaposition but am not sure about "black comedy". I don't want to stuff too many genres in the lead sentence. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned here [4] "Following Time Bandits, Gilliam would go on to co-write and direct Brazil (1985) and The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen (1988), two films that also explored the idea of the power of imagination" Combine that with any one of dozens of dictionary definitions including this one [5] and you have, at the very least, a good starting point of backup to why this film fits into the fantasy genre. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult film to pigeonhole. IMDB has it down as drama/fantasy/sci-fi, Allrovi goes for sci-fi/comedy, and the NY Times goes for comedy/drama/fantasy. So basically some sources agree that it is a fantasy, while none of the sources completely agree on any genre. In that sense, it is just as legitimate to label it a fantasy as labeling it a sci-fi. The idea of including genres is to give the reader an implicit understanding, and I wonder if listing genres in this case falls short of that. It's basically a satire set in a dystopian future, so I'm wondering if it would not be better to actually just say that? Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

-1 on the "satire set in a dystopian future"! --193.254.155.48 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The more labels you can apply, the less reason you have to apply a particular one. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop changing the genres, the majority of editors disagree with you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Tuttle/Hush-a-Phone

An anonymous user added the following to the article:

The character Harry Tuttle is a likely reference to Hush-A-Phone v. United States.

In my edit summary, when I reverted him, I said "'Likely' ain't gonna cut it; the ref. makes no such claim." In fact, the source, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires by Tim Wu, does make that claim. It offers no evidence, though, simply makes the claim in a rather off-hand manner, as though it was obvious. This is little more than the author's opinion, and I do not think it is adequate as a source for such a strong claim. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've re-added (twice) with the proper quote, please stop reverting without properly looking at what you revert. 216.36.86.169 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Another point to consider: Wikipedia:Reliable sources encourages us to rely on secondary sources, and the book is exactly that. Your disagreement with the author, on the other hand, is not a policy nor is it a reliable source for skewing references in such manner. 216.36.86.169 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So... why is this being reverted without any contributions to this discussion? 216.36.86.169 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

...for the third time? 206.188.135.140 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence helps the reader understand the symbolic connection between the two Harry Tuttles. The two sources are credible scientific studies, conducted by two well-respected university professors. Have you even seen the movie? That aside, isn't "a maverick repairman who does unauthorized repairs and leads a resistance movement against a totalitarian state" enough of a description for you to understand the justification of the second sentence, which is followed by a third party source only to strengthen the point? 206.188.135.140 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, neither of the sources provided proves the point. The first merely offers an opinion with no evidence at all to support it. The second source doesn't support the claim at all. The average reader certainly is not going to see the connection between a duct repairman in the film, and a company that made phone attachments. You have not proved the point, I am afraid. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Show me a quote from Gilliam where he makes the connection, and you might have a point. As it is, why do we care what this Tim Wu thinks? He didn't work on the film, didn't write or direct it - his speculation is just that, speculation, and does not belong in the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this is placed in "Critical response" now - why do we care what the critics think if they didn't participate in creating the movie? This is an example of the movie's IRL impact, as is so valiantly sought on Wikipedia. The opinion is of a professor, who found it credible enough to mention in his book, drawing a direct comparison between the real life Harry Tuttle, who conducted the first legal victory over government monopoly (which happened to be in the telecommunications industry), and the fictional Harry Tuttle, who led the fight over government monopoly (which happened to be in the plumbing industry). The second book, also written by a university professor, helps illustrate the real-life Tuttle's side in it, while Wu's book does that as well, also drawing the comparison. Wikipedia encourages us to show how works of fiction influence real life events, doesn't it? 206.188.135.140 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of undue weight on one specific viewpoint. The connection that there is between Tuttle and the Hush-a-Phone case is nowhere near obvious, so needs a clear secondary source. This does not appear to be it; it seems a tenacious connection that, having not read the books but reading the quotes used from it in the refs, simply to show an example of cinema where the case could have gone. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote, the connection is overcoming government monopoly, and to me it was obvious right away. "Simply to show an example"... no, he actually calls it a "great cultural reference" and then proceeds to explain why he thinks so, in a detailed manner. What's undue exactly? 206.188.135.140 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Critical response" doesn't seem the right place for this, as the source's author isn't a "film critic" as far as I know, and the material doesn't seem to be "criticism". But I don't see a problem with presenting this type of opinion/commentary in a section devoted to interpretation of the film from various sources, such as was done in 2001:ASO, and I stress from various sources, ideally including some associated with the film's production . Having only this one opinion/interpretation by itself, though, would not be very useful. Shirtwaist ☎ 08:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to add a vote for reinstating/retaining this reference. Whatever else it is, this isn't some cranky fringe theory, but is inherently plausible: given the rarity of the surname Tuttle, the combination with the forename Harry, and the fact that the historic Harry Tuttle was a maverick engineer-entrepreneur whose claim to fame is that he battled against a corporate monopoly, the odds against Gilliam having picked the name by chance are considerable. Secondly, the fact that the putative connection has been made in a reputable published text means that it's clearly in the public domain. To my mind it offers an interesting potential insight into Gilliam's inspiration (more so, for example, than the claim that form 27B-6 may be an allusion to Orwell's London flat), and is worth at least a brief mention. The objections of RepublicanJacobite and MarnetteD appear to rest on the fact that the connection hasn't been mentioned (to their knowledge) by Gilliam in interviews, or elsewhere in the mainstream literature on the film: but one of the strengths of Wikipedia at its best is that it does allow information coming from different directions to be pooled. I don't think anyone will deny that Brazil is a complex text with multiple layers of meaning, and I'm sure not all its allusions have been picked up yet. However, I agree with Shirtwaist that "Critical response" is the wrong place for this: I'd suggest creating a new section called "Cultural allusions" or similar, to contain this and some of the Orwell/1984 references as well. GrindtXX (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If no source affirms that "Gilliam named Tuttle after the Hush-a-Phone case", then no, we cannot make the assumption that even an RS may jump at that this is true. It is improper synthesis to use sources that don't state that fact explicitly, but otherwise call the allusion between the two elements, and come to the conclusion that Gilliam had to have named the character from the case.

But the other factor is that we are talking about one person making a non-obvious connection. This starts to get into what WP:FRINGE concerns itself with. If multiple sources made the claim of allusion, sure, as a cultural reference it would make sense. But its not that as best as it appears at the present. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you quote policies with little or no support to your claim. WP:FRINGE refers mainly to scientific claims, not interpretations of works of fiction; a fringe theory specifically goes against established views, a-la conspiracy theory. I strongly endorse Shirtwaist and GrindtXX's suggestion to create a new section and include this observation. Finally - Masem, have you read the last edit I made? It says that the character was interpreted as an allusion to the founder of Hush-A-Phone, where did I synthesize anything? Please double check edits before you accuse me of violating rules. And well... if you refuse to read my explanations as for why it is as obvious as the day is bright (GrindtXX explained it very nicely as well), then it might be a case of Wikipedia:Point. 71.166.26.205 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The synthesis comment was made to GrindtXX's statement, where he said that the synthesis would be acceptable; that it is not. FRINGE, while it applies mostly to scientific theories, holds for any extreme minority viewpoint that is otherwise difficult to prove wrong otherwise (in this case, if Gilliam specifically intended Tuttle to be an allusion to that case). If you work off the idea that it is just an allusion recognized by a third-party but not one necessarily made by Gilliam, then there's a stronger case for inclusion, but again, if only one person has made that connection, it would seem highly tenuous, and would give undue weight to a single viewpoint. Perhaps the connection is better made on the article about the lawsuit, than here. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Which synthesis? If a reliable source makes an observation, it is OK for us to report that observation, as long as we state it is an observation. An "extreme minority viewpoint" that obviously clashes with the general viewpoint presented by mainstream scholars is a fringe theory; however, this is NOT the case. And yes, thank you for finally reading responses - I AM working off the idea that it is an allusion recognized by a third party. Do you still not realize how strong the connection is? 71.166.18.83 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To make sure it is clear, there are two statements that could be said that have risen up in this discussion: "Tuttle is an allusion to the Hush-a-Phone case", and "Gilliam named Tuttle after the Hush-a-Phone case". The former is not synthesis as quoted from your source. The latter is synthesis since there is no direct claim of this, and this is the statement, that were it included, would fail WP:SYNTH; no collection of sources could ever be combined to make that statement acceptable on WP. That latter statement is what GrindtXX's statements seem to be putting forth, and why I'm pointing out the synthesis issue. The first statement, specifically on the purported allusion as what you are trying to back, has no such problems with synthesis, and the question remains if it is a significant statement to be made considering UNDUE weight on the viewpoint of one person. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is trying to insert the second statement. Undue weight (as well as a fringe theory) would only apply if there were a mainstream view that significantly differs from the view in question, but then again - this is a work of fiction, and if it is mentioned in a book written by a university professor it is the kind of cultural reference that is actually welcome on Wikipedia. 71.166.18.83 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the commentors above have suggested the second statement can be included, but that's absolutely not true. But as for what is currently trying to be added, the statement about the allusion without including anything about Gilliam, we're still at the point of what "expert" does this person serve in regards to the film? Given that he is a telecommunications professor and not a professor of art, that doesn't qualify him to make assumptions about the film. The reference to Tuttle makes sense on Hush-A-Phone_v._United_States where he would be the expert on such issues, but not here on the film. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if the source was a "film expert", including his opinion in the article without any other such interpretation about "Harry Tuttle" or anything else about the film would seem to me to fail WP:UNDUE, as one entry does not an "Interpretations" section (or whatever you call it) make. In any case, the statement "The character Harry Tuttle is a likely reference to Hush-A-Phone v. United States" is in no way supported by the source, which says this, and only this about the film's "Harry Tuttle": Hush-A-Phone's valiant founder died sometime in the 1970s, to be forgotten, apart from one great cultural reference. In the 1985 film Brazil, Robert De Niro plays a maverick repairman who does unauthorized repairs and leads a resistance movement against a totalitarian state. The hero and hope of that dystopia is named Harry Tuttle. All this alludes to is the author's unsubstantiated belief that the film's "Harry Tuttle" is a cultural reference to the real Harry Tuttle. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement is "The character Harry Tuttle has been interpreted by Tim Wu as an allusion to Harry C. Tuttle, the founder of Hush-A-Phone." The interpretation clearly explains the obviousness of the case, as did my multiple comments, as did GrindtXX's last comment. Where on Wikipedia does it say that interpretations of artworks have no place in an encyclopedia? 64.237.183.192 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote to keep such information off of wikipedia pages unless it's directly sourced from someone involved with the film. Writings on film, and art in general, are full of expert's opinions on what things could be referencing, or what different things could mean, and the job of a Wikipedia article is not to report different analyses or opinions on what the various experts might speculate. If the reader is looking for art critique, or art analyses, there are more appropriate sources. If there is a consensus among experts, then speculation can be included with caution. Wikipedia articles on films could be full of this kind of speculation if just one or two experts were enough info to throw on a page. Maybe I could find a credible expert (or two) that states Citizen Kane is a Nazi propaganda film. That doesn't make it encyclopedic information to state, regardless of how well it's specified that it's someone's opinion. Dancindazed (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternate history cat.

I just removed the alternate history category. There is no certainty as to when this film takes place, whether some alternate version of the past, or a strange future with a lot of retro elements. So, we cannot claim that this is an alternate history. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but to correct something, the film does start by stating it's sometime in the 20th century. But I would call it pure fantasy and/or satire, not alternate history, nonetheless. Dancindazed (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But, at the time of filming, "sometime in the 20th century" could have been an alternate version of the past, or a strange future. There is still no way of knowing. But, the larger point, as you say, is that this is pure fantasy. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Naming: Brazil (country) or Hy Brasil (British magical island)

On the commentary on my DVD, Gilliam does not say the movie is named after Aquarela do Brasil, but that the song is chosen to match his vision, which is that Brazil is foreign to a Brit, and over time is imbued with magical qualities as an exotic foreign locale that people dream of visiting and thus keep working. Kinda' like James Taylor's Mexico, which is about the magical paradise those of us who have been to Mexico know doesn't in any way reflect reality. Recently I was directed to the wikipedia article for Hy Brasil, which argues that "Brasil" in Ireland doesn't mean "Brazil." It is the term for a magical Brigadoon island that appears for one night every seven years. In other words, it's exactly what Gilliam was describing, and makes me wonder (without having watched the DVD extras again) whether, as a Brit, when he said the movie was named after the magical and unattainable retirement location called Brazil, he was in fact referring to having named the movie after Brasil / Hy Brasil / Uí Breasail. Thoughts? and/or will someone comb their DVD extras for his answer on how he named it (and definitely confirm that it's not named after Aquarela do Brasil?) --Mrcolj (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention about the controversial edits?

One of the biggest issues with this film was Terry Gilliam's very public battle with the studio over editing. This was no mere battle over commercial vs. artistic versions, but a brawl that has become part of the film's history. I see in the talk section the various mentions of the differences between the American vs. British version of the film. a brief mention about the TV cut, but this doesn't appear in the article itself although other articles (cough...Star Wars...cough!) wax on and on about the various releases of the film and differences between the various scenes and script.

There's absolutely no mention in either the article or the talk section of the controversy surrounding the edits and the battle over them despite all of this being well documented by both the studio and Gilliam. Considering that this is probably one of the main reasons someone would look for the Wikipedia article on this topic, it's completely missing. Certainly, there's plenty of material that covers this controversy that would be satisfactory for Wikipedia's strict policy on sources and neutral voice.

Without this information, this article is a mere synopsis of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.70.32 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits, and the dispute surrounding them, are discussed (albeit briefly) and referenced in the Releases section. GrindtXX (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Black comedy?

Earlier today, I removed the black comedy claim from the lede, as well as the category, as having no basis. The genre was added by an anonymous editor more than a year-and-a-half ago, and there has been, as far as I can tell, no discussion of it. None of the critics quoted in the article call it a black comedy. Unless and until a source is provided that indicates someone reputable has called it a black comedy, that assertion needs to remain out. The genre as currently stated is accurate. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to call it a black comedy. Here are a couple examples of reviewers using the term. AllMovie describes it as employing Gilliam's "trademark, Monty Python-esque, jet black British humor". Netflix also uses the term. That's what I found after spending about two minutes with Google. I'm sure there are many other examples. - Eureka Lott 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there were no examples. I simply said that, when it was added, no attempt was made to justify that genre/categorization, and no attempt has been made since then. Frankly, the anon. should have been reverted on the spot. Instead, here we are more than 18 months later, finally having this discussion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the anonymous contributor's actions, there are so many examples of reviewers using the term (here's a Google News archive search for you), I think it's clear that the statement should be put back in the article. - Eureka Lott 01:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Where would you suggest it be put? I have no objection to it, but I would rather not overburden the lede with refs. A mention in the lede, and then a more expansive discussion in the critical reception section might work. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The lede already contains John Scalzi's description of the film (not specifically referenced, incidentally) as "dystopian satire", which to my mind is a fancy near-synonym for "black comedy". The film undoubtedly, and as the body of the article makes clear, (a) deals with dark and disturbing themes, and (b) does so in a humorous manner: it is not undue synthesis to combine those under the shorthand heading "black comedy", as many commentators have previously done. I therefore vote firmly for restoring the Category. Whether you restore the specific phrase to the lede is a matter of indifference to me, but I do think the uninformed newcomer is entitled to an early indication of the film's general tone, which is completely absent from the description "science fiction fantasy". GrindtXX (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)