Introduction
The issues of the cultural relations between the members of the human society are rather diverse and complicated. For example, in the 19th century, the movement of naturalism was on the rise based on the desire displayed by people to return to their close relations with nature. On the other hand, the early 20th century brought serious changes and human beings got the fixed idea of social and technological progress which finally led to the formation of the dystopian society drowned in the bureaucracy waves. The focus of this paper is the comparison of the movie “Brazil” by Terry Gilliam to the “Love Conquers All” version of his film cut by Sheinberg for US broadcasting. These films are reflections of different sides of social life, and their comparison will provide a comprehensive picture of the main issues typical of modern society. Also, the works by Adorno and Eco will be involved in the paper as the sources of information on the topic under discussion.
Main body
To begin with, it is necessary to state the reason why these very films are chosen for the comparative analysis in this paper. First of all, the creative work by Terry Gillian is a remarkable contribution to the development of world cinematography and culture. His works are the movies, music videos, or video advertisements, are subject to close attention by audiences all around the world. Numerous awards, together with the controversial character of his works, have made Terry Gillian into one of the most disputed film directors of today. The work under consideration, the movie “Brazil” is one of the best works by this author, and it can be easily called the bravest critique of contemporary society (Frittz, 2008).
The plot of the film is the story of a man, Sam, who lives in a dark and pessimistic world. It is dominated by the Government that possesses complete informational records over the citizens of this country. Sam is, however, determined to find the girl he sees in his dreams and run away with her despite all the Governmental prohibitions. His life changes drastically after he meets that girl named Jill while working on a Governmental task. The couple then confronts the whole society and Sam is captured while Jill is killed by the Governmental troops. Finally, Sam finds himself released and Jill alive near him, but then he realizes that it all took place only in his imagination (Frittz, 2008).
Drawing from this, the following main ideas of the film by Terry Gillian can be observed. The first, and the most important one, is the idea of the overall criticism of the bureaucracy that dominates modern society. Also, the scenery of the film is all dark and unreal as if creating the impression of the hopelessness and panic in the minds of those who watch the movie: “A glittering conglomeration of elevated transport tubes, smaller square buildings which are merely huge, with, here and there, the comparatively minuscule relics of previous ages of architecture, pavement level awnings suggesting restaurants and shops…” (Frittz, 2008). It can be stated that such an artistic tool was used by the film director to emphasize the negative influence that modern society has on people and their minds by its wrong organization and anti-human nature. Moreover, the film is concerned with the issues of the industrialized society and it’s being bound to decline shortly. The film director is thus convinced that the way people chose to live is not the best one and tries to express his ideas in the film. As a result, the movie becomes a black comedy making use of jokes connected with human deaths and misfortunes: “In fact, killing people – -, killing people – they’d get a lot more out of life.” (Frittz, 2008)
Based on these main ideas, the following opinions about the film under consideration may be formed. First of all, the story by Terry Gillian is a sharp socio-cultural pinch carried out to bring changes to society not by violent protests but by the force of art. For example, in one of his interviews, Mr. Gillian (2008) ponders upon the setting of his film and the main grounds that he had for creating it. The director of “Brazil” enumerates the hopelessness and weird character of the modern society exemplifying it by numerous scenes from the film where strange machinery and not less strange buildings dominate human life as if creating an organism in which people exist without freedom (YouTube, 2008).
Moreover, speaking about the numerous international versions of his film, Mr. Gillian stresses that he had no intention of making it into a love story of the “love conquers all” type (YouTube, 2008). The movie is a socio-cultural comedy that identifies the main drawbacks of society’s industrial and cultural transformations. Life, dependent greatly upon machines and sophisticated apparatuses, becomes an existence that has no aim. Also, the strangeness of such a life is tremendous. Thus, for instance, the process of interviewing is called by Terry Gillian weird as he communicates with a person whom he does not know and who does not know him. All these aspects make the film “Brazil” a valuable source of food for thought for those who are responsible for the future of mankind.
However, the numerous above-mentioned cuts and versions of the film by Terry Gillian were created for different purposes. One of the most controversial versions of this movie was the so-called “Love Conquers All” version is the most famous among others. This can be explained by the numerous episodes being cut off by the original variant filmed by Terry Gillian and its completely different interpretation. Despite the fact, that the author himself has called the film a social story that has nothing to do with love and romance, the Sheinberg edit of “Brazil” poses love as the dominant and the most powerful force of life that is the central point of the film (Brazil (Love Conquers All Version), 1985).
Consequently, certain changes and modifications to the plot of the film were made by the broadcasting studio for distribution in the United States of America. First of all, the violent scenes and phrases are mainly cut off from the script of the Love Conquers All version. Examples of this are the cutting of the scene of the burning security agents in their car or the hidden fact of Mr. Buttle’s death. Even even though the film states clearly that Harry Tuttle is a terrorist, the overall impression made by this movie is the one that a typical Hollywood love story can make. The film is filled with romantic talks of the main characters and is centered on their affectionate feelings towards each other. For example, the dialogs between the lovers in his apartment and her truck are extended or completely added to this version of the film (Brazil (Love Conquers All Version), 1985).
Consequently, the main ideas and the main ideals this version of “Brazil” promotes are the ideas of love as the moving force of life and human progress. The very second title of the movie, i. e. “Love Conquers All”, manifests its essence. Thus, the social context of the film, which was thought of as the dominant one by the film director himself, was put aside in favor of the more popular and demanded topic of love and its never-ending power. Even though the version under consideration was made out of the same material as the original movie and with the original cast of actors, the additions of the elements cut off by Mr. Gillian and the cutting of the respectively unnecessary scenes of violence and true-to-life bureaucracy of the society transformed the overall impression about the film (Brazil (Love Conquers All Version), 1985).
Accordingly, the following differences and similarities can be observed in the two versions of the film “Brazil” by Terry Gillian. First of all, the two movies differ in their leading ideas and main concepts. While the original movie which was cut by Terry Gillian himself is concerned mainly with the criticism of contemporary society and its sins, the version produced by Sheinberg Edit is the typical love story that was simply put in the context of the social controversy. Moreover, the impact that the versions can have upon human society is different. The original version is the instrument to awaken people’s minds in respect of changes that mankind needs to overcome the bureaucracy of modern times (Frittz, 2008).
On the other hand, the social or cultural impact of the Love Conquers All version can be heavily doubted. The most significant social point of the film is eliminated from it, while the focus of the movie is the abstract notion of love which makes people forget about the actual problems of the day. Drawing from this, the comparative analysis of the two versions of the same film can be concluded as the statement of the strength of the original version, and the weaknesses of the Sheinberg edition (Brazil (Love Conquers All Version), 1985). Nevertheless, certain other resources provide information on the same socio-cultural issues, and among them works by Theodor Adorno and Umberto Eco are of great value.
Thus, the chapter in the book by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer titled “The Culture Industry” is concerned with quite the same problems as the film by Terry Gillian. In other words, the issues of modern society, its cultural and religious ideals and values, the mass production of the modern culture, and its consumer direction are posed as central ones in this chapter (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2001).
To start with, the authors of this chapter ponder on the overall similarity and stereotypy of the cultural artifacts that can be found around the world, especially in authoritarian countries. This, according to Adorno and Horkheimer (2001), is the result of industrial influences upon the cultural heritage of mankind. For instance, the needs of such arts as music, television, cinematography, etc. are much more dependant on the state of the energy industry or oil production than vice versa. In other words, those who pay for the art can offer its forms and numbers.
Moreover, the film as the instrument of switching the public interests from real-life concerns to the issues that the imaginative world of the movie can offer is rather critically analyzed by the authors. Films are treated in the chapter as means of mass hypnosis that allow imposing certain standards and ideals on great numbers of people. The ways and habits of movie characters substitute religion and any other spiritual food for human beings. This can result in the long-awaited decline of the Western civilization, and the role of the culture industry in it will be one of the greatest (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2001).
So, these are the main points touched upon in the chapter by Adorno and Horkheimer. As it can be observed, however, this chapter displays its own strong and weak points that are important for the chapter’s comprehensive understanding. The strong points are those that make the readers of the chapter believe its authors and agree with them in their opinions. Simultaneously, the weak points show the lack of credibility or theoretical grounds for the ideas expressed.
To start with, the major strong point of the chapter analyzed is its overall character. In other words, the work under consideration is the comprehensive and multisided overview of the most important problems that the human society faces at the current stages of its development. For example, the mass character of culture which makes millions of people consume the cultural production created in favor of those who finance the existence of its producers. Thus, it is more common nowadays to see the uniform buildings erected according to the latest fashion in the suburbs than those old fashioned houses. The latter look obsolete and outdated at present, which allows making the conclusion that people strive for unification. The mankind nowadays is ready to accept what culture industry offers, rather than invent something new (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2001).
On the other hand, the weak point of the chapter by Adorno and Horkheimer is the lack of ways proposed for overcoming these problems in the human society. The chapter only states the issues, names their possible or evident reasons but says nothing about the ways to solve them. For instance, it is said that consumers are deprived of actual freedom of choice, while producers distinguish the kinds of goods themselves. However, there is no indication of how to change this given by the authors (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2001).
On the contrary, the work by Umberto Eco titled “Casablanca,or,The Clichés are Having a Ball” is another attempt to consider the reason for the modern culture success. However, its ways are different, and what is more important, it precisely states what is important and why it is so. In more detail, the essay by Eco is a critical analysis of the “Casablanca” movie which having no reasons for this attracts admiring looks of millions of spectators. Instead of criticizing the issues as Gillian does in “Brazil”, or just stating them like Adorno and Horkheimer, Umberto Eco in his work tries to figure out why these issues occur and have success (Eco, 1994).
Thus, for example, speaking of “Casablanca”, Eco concludes that the main factor of its success was that it incorporated all the best features of other films and literary works. People are attracted to it without even noticing this fact. For instance, there are numerous references to “Hamlet” in “Casablanca” which are implicit and therefore not obvious for the audience. They can be seen in the moral conflicts that Victor, Ilse and Rick face, while references to Hemingway are observed in the fact that Rick was at war in Spain. Other such references and parallels can be observed in the film, and it adds to its success among viewers. Thus, from this Eco concludes that mass culture, or culture industry, is so popular and dominant in the world due to its ability to incorporate all what the mankind have already invented and successfully used in the past (Eco, 1994).
Conclusion
Drawing from this, the conclusion can be made to this paper that the culture of the modern world is rather industrialized and it needs attention from the whole society. “Brazil” by Terry Gillian is a bright example of the artist’s awareness of the socio-cultural processes of today. Compared to it, its “Love Conquers All” version is rather artificial and inverted variant of the film. However, the works by Adorno and Horkheimer, as well as Eco’s essay, develop the topic started by Gillian in their own ways and with their own methods. In any case, all these works are socially-conditioned, and serve the purposes of the social cooperation between human beings.
Works Cited
- Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Routledge, 2001.
- Brazil (Love Conquers All Version). Dir. Terry Gilliam. With Jonathan Pryce, Robert De Niro. RePoPo, 1985. Web.
- Eco, Umberto. “Casablanca,or,The Clichés are Having a Ball.” Signs of Life in the U.S.A.: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Ed. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford Books, 1994. 260- 264.
- Frittz, Trond. Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. 2008. Brazil: Screenplay (Draft).
- YouTube. Dreams: the Terry Gilliam Fanzine. 2008. Gilliam talks about Brazil. Web.