Sign the form, before you read (Brazil)
Objective Review:
Brazil directed by Terry Gilliam portrays a disturbing environment void of beauty, hope, and purpose, but above all free will. Spontaneity appears nonexistent, and uniqueness conspicuously absent. The technology in the film has surpassed ordinary usage and instead nears absurdity. Three important elements that I noted were:
- The act of gatekeeping of information through convolution and complexity is demonstrated through Jill’s request denied by the Ministry of Information administrator because she doesn’t have the proper stamp from a different department. Throughout the film procedures are followed without common sense and compassion in both government settings and private arenas, such as the need by the server to have Sam state the number of the menu item to place his order in the restaurant.
- The bombing scene in the restaurant was particularly dark, cutting a portrayal of human privilege and disfunction of bureaucracy. Sam’s response of “not my department” to the question of whether he is going to help in the aftermath of the terror attack, displays a hyperbolic separation based on discipline and human compassion. In fact, the table occupants continue in a cringeworthy calm to eat their puréed meal and idly discuss inconsequential topics among the carnage and chaos.
- Visual metaphors, for example:
- Sam Lowrey’s malfunctioning alarm clock and wake up technology system represents the broken system within which he lives. It also begs the question of why we surround ourselves with tools when they fail to be useful.
- The scene with Harry Tuttle reversing the two valves and giving Sam Lowry an opportunity for retribution against Central Services for overpowering him, by filling the workers suits with sewage sparked association with the phrase drowning in this shit. I connected this to general employment dissatisfaction and demoralization.
- Sam’s refusal of his controlled life is exemplified in his fantasies. As the winged hero, he gains both purpose and passion, which are wholly lacking in his day-to-day reality. His rescue and confrontations represent a desire to fight a metaphorical Goliath, being the bureaucracy.
Reaction:
My reaction can probably be summed up in “what the hell did I just watch?” This film is not one I would have ever sought out, nor do I expect to ever choose to watch again. In general, the film felt like some crazy mashup of nonsensical David Bowie inspired fantasies, historical fascism, and intentionally inaccurate futuristic portrayals of modern life with a flair for retro style; combined each element is slightly familiar and they are all bundled together under dark British humor. Visually the film is also bleak, and sterile. For all my negativity, there were scenes that made me laugh, but others that felt wildly uncomfortable. Furthermore, I would like to point out the pace of the movie mirrored the same bureaucratic systems it mocked by being painfully slow.
Interpretation:
Brazil provides a glimpse into an imagined society with an
imbalance of technology and governmental control. Technology is excessive, and
their government extensively present in private life. We see this by following Sam
Lowry through various social systems. For example, we see autonomy and choice
completely removed, when Central Services department demonstrates absolute
control over HVAC systems in Sam’s private residence. Likewise, devices are
present in nearly every scene.
Life is tightly controlled throughout the film, particularly
by the Ministry of Information. Information is collected and confined by
different departments such as the Records Department and Information Retrieval;
access is then dependent on social structures. Even for government employees, an
individuals’ position or rank within government can also affect their access to
certain information. In another act of control, forms are exhaustively needed
to take almost any action. Similarly, the frequent mention and visual inclusion
of receipts being provided and signed for most interactions between two or more
characters demonstrates how information is both used to control citizens and
restrict access to information. Again, to use Central Services as an example, they
demand a receipt for the work done to fix Sam’s HVAC system, in an accusation
of unauthorized service.
Throughout the film, we see that citizens are monitored. We
can assume video surveillance and monitoring, and that this information is being
catalogued by the Ministry of Information. The ubiquitous cameras and security
devices are tightly coupled with documentation to collect and retain information.
Coding, or information that is catalogued in some fashion, is apparent throughout
the film
References
Callen, J. C., & Austin, E. K. (2016).
Deterritorializing Utopia: The Possibility of Techno-Utopias in Societies of
Control. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38(1), 19-36.
doi:10.1080/10841806.2015.1128220
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on Societies of
Control. The MIT Press, 3-7.
Gilliam, T. (Director). (1985). Brazil [Motion
Picture].
Goold, B. J. (2002). Privacy rights and public spaces: CCTV and the problem of the "unobservable observer". Criminal Justice Ethics, 21(1), 21-27. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/privacy-rights-public-spaces-cctv-proble.
Hi Tracy, an interesting read! I agree that systems like CCTV, although "closed", couples well with the bureaucracy portrayed throughout the film and the ever-present surveillance society that it represents (cameras, etc.).
ReplyDeleteAll I would add to your analysis is the fact that CCTV is almost an outdated mode of surveillance. You mentioned geotagging and how corporations use it for advertisements - at what point do the photos and videos we take cease to remain private or free from scrutiny? It seems that most incidents or scandals these days are captured on a private person's cell phone. I doubt that the surveillance state will stop at anything to gain unfettered access to all of our digital data (assuming they haven't already gained it).... What does this mean for our autonomy, privacy, and fifth amendment rights?
Tracy, I really enjoyed reading your review. The first comment that really struck me was why do we continue to surround ourselves with technology that does not always serve its purpose. An example in my life I thought of is how often my alarm on my phone does not go off like it is supposed to, and why I haven't gotten an alarm clock to take its place. I also think that it is important to note that I have the freedom to go get a clock or to have my phone fixed, while in the movie they did not. The line between violating privacy and violating freedom in this film is also notable. As you mention, the government is in essentially every aspect of personal life and citizens have practically no privacy. However, this is really only a limitation of freedom when a citizen does something the government does not want them to do. Take Sam's mother, for example, the technology available to her is only increasing her freedom, not decreasing it because everything she seems to desire is permitted by the government. However, the case of Sam is more realistic and connects to Austin and Callen's theory that technology both increases and decreases freedom- Sam was able to use the computer after his promotion to find out more about Jill (increasing his freedom though also decreasing her privacy) yet he was being so closely monitored by the government that after something as small and Harry fixing his pipes, they knew. The over-reliance of technology in this society proved to be extremely harmful in the end, and restricted the privacy, and often freedom, of the citizens.
ReplyDeleteInteresting essay Tracy! Your description of paperwork made me think of receipts as a motif throughout everyday lives. This motif demonstrates Deluze's idea of society of control; it is present throughout and thus blurs the lines between spaces of life (1992). This is shown when the wife of Buttle is made to sign a receipt. This act is bizarre which exemplifies the idea that bureaucracy is present throughout life. Though the society itself is closed, shown by when Sam and Jill leave the city, the systems within the city are open and influence each other. There is nepotism, so the line between family and work is blurred. There is invasion, so the line between home and government is blurred. I argue, however, that the system lacks a form of feedback. The terrorists are not successful in their work, as the only response to the bombings is terrorism on the part of the government. If there were alternative forms of feedback in this utopia, could change be inacted?
ReplyDeleteHi Tracy, I really enjoyed your review! Me and you had really similar reactions to this film, I will be honest, I was not a huge fan of the film and just like you I will probably never watch it again. I really enjoyed your interpretation of the film. I do however would just like to point out that yeah we choice to surround ourselves with technology but the important part of that is that we choice to do so. You questioned why we do so and I simply think we do it because it makes our life's easier and because it is a social norm to do so. I choice to take notes on my computer instead of in a notebook because it is easier to do so.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I like (and find disturbing) about Gilliam's work is the "what the hell did I just watch" experience. There is something almost Lacanian about his films in that I think they have to marinate in our unconscious for a while before something "clicks". More intellectually and theoretically, I also think that his films, and Brazil most especially, push elements of the experience of postmodernism that we all have some familiarity with to their logical extremes. In doing so, I think he "blows up" capacity of the human mind to find and make sense of patterns, like the dual chalice/faces image such that we have to confront the fact that maybe whatever patterns are there are actually more complicated.
ReplyDelete