Talk:Brazil (1985 film)

Template:Assessed

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Brazil (film) → Brazil (1985 film) – This 1985 film was mentioned to me in another discussion. Although this film has long-term impact and greater significance with tremendous longevity than other films, precision on films of similar name overcomes primacy criteria on topics of a similar name. Even the Alfred Hitchcock version, more memorable and significant than the disastrous Gus Van Sant version, recently changed to Psycho (1960 film) because of precision policy; similar thing to Independence Day (1996 film). I even failed to change Titanic (1997 film) and Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 theatrical film) because of precision. I believe that this request is overdue. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: The page move will fully disambiguate the title from Brazil (1944 film). Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - both are cinema release films, which voids the debate on made-for-TV films re WP:NCF and WP:PRECISE, and Brazil (1944 film) featured Roy Rogers and Trigger so evidently notability not in question. No harm to anyone by full disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, needs a precise title. Red Slash 01:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no other other film with which this one will be confused, so further disambiguation is not necessary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support WP:NCF - ambiguous disambiguation should not be used, the current title should become a disambiguation link -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You mean, the current title must redirect to Brazil (disambiguation)? --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. In keeping with precision policy.--JayJasper (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION. Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Support having Brazil (film) redirect to Brazil_(disambiguation)#Film. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support since this film is not the primary topic; Brazil is. A topic that has a disambiguation term is already secondary. This move ensures that films that are secondary topics are disambiguated from each other. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per [[WP:PRECISION and WP:NCF. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Black comedy and Hearfourmewesique's edits

I removed black comedy from the lede again, not merely because it is still a minority view, but also because Hearfourmewesique's edits are an egregious example of bad faith. These are the refs he added:

[[black comedy|dark comedic]]<ref name="stfu1">{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003033-brazil/|title=Brazil (1985) – Movie Info|work=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|accessdate=1 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="stfu2">{{cite web|url=https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/brazil-1985/id647918071|title=Brazil (1985) – Plot Summary|work=[[iTunes]]|accessdate=1 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="stfu3">{{cite book|last=Booker|first=Keith M.|title=Historical Dictionary of American Cinema|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Y04MQEgHbZsC|accessdate=1 July 2013|year=2011|publisher=[[Scarecrow Press]]|location=United States|isbn=0810874598|page=46}}</ref>

Take note of the ref name he used: stfu, or "shut the fuck up." This is how he edits, and this is the attitude he evinces in his edits. He embeds in the article the initials "stfu" as a reminder that he should not be challenged, that what he regards as obvious is simply that, obvious and not even worthy of discussion. This is not the attitude of someone editing in good faith. Furthermore, the RT and iTunes descriptions are not notable sources. The dictionary of cinema clearly is, but I would still argue that it is a minority viewpoint. The subject of black comedy has been discussed previously, but no conclusion was ever reached as to whether it should be mentioned in the lede. We need to sort this out. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So what are you saying here? It's not a black comedy, despite three separate sources using that term, because you don't like a particular editor?

What do you challenge about those sources? They're what's the issue here, not an editor's behaviour (which I agree is confrontational, but that's just not an issue). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another personal attack, Jacobite. Oh, and for the stalking. This is also the third page you remove black comedy from, so I'll pose my "stupid comment" (that's your quote) again: what is it with you and black comedy? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not use RT or iTunes's genre classification for genre classification here. I have no comment on the Dictionary source. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this before. I can't find a good reason to avoid describing the film as a black comedy. - Eureka Lott 19:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RT is constantly used throughout Wikipedia as a legitimate source for citing film and TV critics, therefore their genre classification is a good source. iTunes is as official as anything else and it's not user edited. Finally, Jacobite's personal attacks against me (clumsily disguised as infowars-esque conspiracy theories) are desperate at best, and disruptive at worst. I'm not here to play second grader games. That – and the blatant lie about "no conclusion" in the archived discussion, when in fact a clear consensus based on reason and sources was reached. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As per the above, the genre classifications from RT are often dubious, although if there was a review within the site that called it as such, then that's a better one to use. I personally wouldn't use iTunes - too close to WP:NOTADVERTISING for me. Hearfourmewesique, there was no need for the "stfu" tags: they's way too childish to use, so please drop the confrontational approach and play nice. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Brazil's genre has always been a contentious issue, so I think resolving this is long overdue. Let's look at a what the sources actually say:

1. Rotten Tomatoes - Drama, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Comedy
2. ITunes (ineligible promotional link) - Comedy
3. Historical Dictionary of American Cinema, p.46 - "Comic dystopian film"
4. Allmovie - Science-fiction comedy
5. New York Times - Comedy, Drama, Fantasy
6. IMDB (not RS) - Drama, Fantasy, Science-fiction

The most quoted genre is "comedy". Genres quoted more than once are: Drama, science-fiction, fantasy. In this case Rotten Tomatoes does seem to list all the associated genres, but none of them adequately describe the film. However, if if we look further afield, British National Cinema, p.123 describes it as a "fantasy/satire on bureaucratic society" which IMO describes the content of the film far better than any of the above labels. I propose altering the wording to match that of the book and attributing it with an appropriate citation. I would write the lede as follows:

Brazil is a 1985 British film directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam, Charles McKeown, and Tom Stoppard. British National Cinema by Sarah Street describes the film as a "fantasy/satire on bureaucratic society" while John Scalzi's Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies describes it as a "dystopian satire". The film stars Jonathan Pryce and features Robert De Niro, Kim Greist, Michael Palin, Katherine Helmond, Bob Hoskins, and Ian Holm.

Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd happily support the use of the above text, although without the serial commas (just my personal preference!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'm happy with that. I find "dystopian satire" much more specific than the rather vague "black comedy", even though we do (as above) have the sourcing for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I would also be happy with that lede (although I too would vote against the serial commas!). To my mind "dystopian satire" means something fairly similar to "black comedy", while at the same time being a bit more nuanced. However, in the light of this discussion, I think we also need to consider whether we want to re-add the article to Category:British black comedy films. In my opinion we should. GrindtXX (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to add the category. The "Historical Dictionary of American Cinema" quoted above states "American Python member Terry Gilliam went on to direct a series of films that include a considerable amount of black humor, especially in his comic dystopian film Brazil (1985). Other highlights in black comedy in the 1980s include..." Categories exist to categorize content, so the category does seem to be relevant here. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I also support the version offered by Betty Logan, and agree with Andy Dingley that "dystopian satire" is the closest we can get to describing this film, which resists genre classification. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The big question is how this can fit in the opening sentence without violating MOS, since "dystopian satire" is not a recognized movie genre. I'd say perhaps slightly change the genre to something like "dark comedic dystopian fantasy film" and elaborate about dystopian satire afterwards. By the way, there is no justification to label iTunes as a promotional link, since their film synopses have absolutely nothing to do with the product. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is a guideline not a policy so we are not beholden to it when it becomes self-defeating. We don't include the genre for the sake of including the genre, but to enable the reader to have a grasp on what type of film it is at the start of the article. In this particular case genre classfication isn't particularly useful: if the sources agreed about the genre there wouldn't really be a problem, but reeling off a bunch of genres in this case doesn't really inform the reader. The most helpful response here is to simply tell the reader how the film has been described by authoritative sources. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

...which is pretty much how the current lead paragraph describes it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Steampunk

Ran out of room in my last edit summary so it should be noted that the last entry in the "Influence" section does state that it "inspired writers and artists of the steampunk culture" - that does not make this a steampunk film. Nor does it qualify it for the category to be added. That is like saying Aeschylus Oresteia should be added to Category:Broadway plays since it inspired playwrights through the ages. Unless a source can be found applying the term at the time of its release then WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are being violated. MarnetteD | Talk 01:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider these references, especially the last one:

1. "...one of the defining films of modern Steampunk" – National Film and Sound Archive
2. "Films with Steampunk appeal include Terry Gilliam's Brazil..., La Cité des Enfants Perdus/The City of Lost Children..., Wild, Wild West..., The Prestige..., and Sherlock Holmes." – Dr Anna Powell, "The Daemons of Unplumbed Space: Mixing the Planes in Hellboy", from Deleuze and Film
3. "How very steampunk it all seems now, how like a scene from Brazil." – Pasadena Star-News
4. "Some works have been retroactively embraced as part of the genre. For example, Terry Gilliam's dystopian satire, "Brazil," is now considered steampunk even though the film was not called steampunk when it was released in 1985." – Ethan Gilsdorf, The Christian Science Monitor

--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you have put in on this. Most of these just reiterate my point that this (wonderful) film is considered an inspiration for steampunk. However, it is still a fact that the term and genre did not come into existence until after this film was made. Thus, it does not merit having the category placed at the bottom of the article. OTOH you might use some of these to turn the sentence in the "Influence" section into a paragraph or two. Just be aware of WP:UNDUE and don't go over the top about it. Also we are just two editors. You might post a notice at the filmproject talk page asking for more input. I don't think we are at a WP:3O or RFC yet though you could ask for them if you feel the need. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the fact that this film preceded the term "steampunk" by a couple of years. For almost all genres, the very earliest examples will precede the identification of and common acceptance for the genre. "Film noir" as a Hollywood genre was not identified until 1946 and did not find wide acceptance until later. Does this mean that Double Indemnity (1944) and The Maltese Falcon (1941) should be removed from the film noir category? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already given my example of that problem above. An expansion of the one sentence would actually give readers information of some value. A category designation does not. I suggest, once again, that you get more input as I have laid out my objections. MarnetteD | Talk 20:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Your example? That no one calls Oresteia a Broadway play? Nor do they call Oresteia "steampunk". But they do call Brazil steampunk; some even assume this fact to be self-evident. Could you clarify: if it were up to you, would you remove The Maltese Falcon from the film noir category? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Well, just because many people call a thing this or that doesn't automatically make it such. Most of the references above obviously define steampunk as "anything dark with rusty metal in it" or "anything dark and retro-futuristic", which is not the official definition of the genre. Going by genre definitions (as in, what era is recalled or alluded to), Brazil is much closer to dieselpunk aka decodence rather than steampunk, and Brazil is mentioned as a seminal influence on dieselpunk in our WP article on the genre. Sorry for just having tried using a source for that in our Brazil article here that as a source seems to have a long history of being valid enough for the dieselpunk article. I didn't see that the source wasn't discussing Brazil to begin with, even though our dieselpunk article is using it to call Brazil a seminal influence on the genre. How about [1] as a source for Brazil as dieselpunk? It discusses Brazil several times more or less at length as an important ancestor to the dieselpunk genre. It's a source our article dieselpunk cites at least 8 or 9 times, and its author Nick Ottens is obviously authoritative enough that our article dieselpunk uses his name for a frickin' official sub-genre called Ottensian dieselpunk (which, by definition, obviously emphasizes technological aspects, whereas its counterpart Piecraftian dieselpunkt emphasizes political aspects, and both have a "hopeful" and a "dystopian" side, making for what seems a matrix of four different types of dieselpunk fiction).

I may cringe at Ottens's babbling pseudo-intellectual use of the words "post-modern" when he means "(retro-)futuristic", "poststructuralist" when he means "single author", and "counterculture" when he means "mostly apolitical, recreational nostalgic subculture", but other than that, he does discuss Brazil as a seminal forerunner to the dieselpunk genre, goes to great theoretical depths, and is obviously authoritative enough for us to warrant using his name for an own sub-genre of dieselpunk fiction. Plus, it's a simple fact that Brazil is much closer to the official definition of dieselpunk aka decodence because its world is much closer to the dieselpunk era and style (c. 1920s-1950s) than the steampunk era and style (c. 1790s-1914), even moreso when Ottens and other sources on dieselpunk specifically mention it. All the art deco, German expressionist, and film noir references in Brazil's style, lighting, wardrobe fashion, and overall production design basically *SCREAM* decodence.

I'm not saying that we should remove the fact that many people call Brazil steampunk, after all WP is not to judge stupidity. But what I'm saying is that we should also point out that dieselpunk theorists also point to it as seminal to their genre, and that Brazil is much closer to the official definition of dieselpunk aka decodence than steampunk. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"However, it is still a fact that the term and genre did not come into existence until after this film was made." So, nobody was diabetic before the medical world classified diabetes?

"... which is not the official definition of the genre." As put forth by the Steampunk Institute, a not-for-profit institution recognized by the International Standards Organization? At least, that's the sort of thing that "official" connotes to me. Otherwise, in what sense is there an "official" definition as opposed to the word's meaning covering a range of various people's good-faith understandings of what it means?

There's a book all about Terry Gilliam in which the entire first chapter is devoted to the steampunk nature of his films: this, beginning at page 16. How many people writing about film have to understand steampunk to comprise a particular set of characteristics and to say that Terry Gilliam's films have those characteristics before one concedes that Terry Gilliam's films—Brazil and Time Bandits, at least—are steampunk? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the first mention of the word steampunk in the book you linked is within an interview with Terry where he's pretty much subtly telling the book's author that the autor doesn't know what steampunk means, as he's obviously confusing it with cyberpunk (which is yet another genre). Still, the guy didn't get the hint and just kept using it in the wrong way. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Showing any RS that describes it as steampunk would be a start.

Brazil is very firmly set in the dieselpunk era (I wouldn't go so far as to call it dieselpunk, but the timeline fits). It's simply a few decades too late for steampunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your definition of RS for this purpose? Your choice to omit any mention of the source I gave you isn't giving me a good feeling about the quality of the faith in which you responded.

How can you tell me that "it's simply a few decades too late for steampunk" when, above, the argument given was that the concept of "steampunk" hadn't been developed yet, i.e., it was too early?

The era is irrelevant. If a film's style is steampunk, or art deco, or film noir, or cinéma vérité, it is so regardless of whether it was filmed in 1940 or 2015. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to most of the -punk genres, era doesn't refer to when the film was filmed, it's about what era is evoked by the film's designs, wardrobe fashions, etc. And in that regard, Brazil is most solidly dieselpunk aka decodence. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The closest the source you gave seems to get would be "he has yet to describe his production design as steampunk", which doesn't exactly support it.

Steampunk (in a real world timeline, not a no-WWI timeline) is the pre-Modern era, i.e. ended by WWI. There is little agreement over much about steampunk, but being pre-Modern is one thing that is. The setting of Brazil is clearly after this.

The invention date of steampunk as a genre has no relevance. There's no problem in including Verne or Wells, despite them being considerably earlier than the "invention" date (whatever that is). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"The closest the source you gave seems to get would be "he has yet to describe his production design as steampunk": This is true only if you read every sentence—indeed, every phrase—as though it weren't in the context of all the sentences surrounding it. "However, Gilliam's steampunk vision has inspired ... (Rich Nagy), who credits Brazil ...": in other words, he credits Gilliam's steampunk vision as conveyed in Brazil.

I don't know if this is a reliable source, but here's a whole monograph on it. I also find [2], [3], [4].

As for "the setting of Brazil is clearly after this", I guess the writer of the first source I cited, who uses the words "Victorian" and "Victorianism" over and over again, disagrees with you as to the nature of the film's setting, given that the Victorian era ended thirteen years before World War I began. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Other sources that found Brazil "Victorian": [5], [6], [7], [8]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are seriously abusing those sources there, let alone over-estimating the significance of Google's ability to find proximate matches for pairs of unconnected words. "Correlation is not causation" is entirely apposite here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to be making any effort to come across as though you're saying anything other than "I'm going to snub any source that disagrees with my personal opinion/preconceived notion". —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion began with your edit summary, when you removed the category, "Rm "steampunk", per many past discussions." Can you show me where these "many" past discussions are? I see this one and an archived one. The latter was between two people, one of whom made the same argument as you about the time period, which I've addressed.

His other argument involved the question of the presence of actual steam in the film, which is a painfully narrow interpretation of the style. Steam power exemplifies it, is the factor around which it was conceived, but, gee, is Show Boat a steampunk film? Of course not. The style is a whole conglomeration of stylistic elements. It's hardly credible that if, of two films, one contains 10 stylistic elements commonly associated with steampunk, but not steam, and one contains all of the same elements and steam, then the latter is steampunk and the former isn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue of the sources, not to start sniping at other editors.

It is, as always, very easy to Google quickly for Brazil+steampunk and return a bunch of hits. The two words occurring near to each other do not constitute any proof as to what the film is. There are also some quite weak sources picked up by that net. Of course, many careless sources have lumped Brazil in as steampunk, but that doesn't makes them WP:RS. Many (as included here) also describe Brazil as "an influence on Steampunk" and that is no indication that it is Steampunk. Some of the greatest influences on Steampunk are Norah Waugh's works on fashion and Brunel's engineering designs, yet no-one would describe either of those as steampunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. Unlike most Wikipedia editors, who carry around thousands of bibliographic entries, already carefully curated, in their heads so they can whip them out exactly when appropriate, I've made the mistake of using Google to find sources. This is extremely unusual behavior, I now understand.

I looked carefully through the hits I received and didn't include ones that, for example, used the word "steampunk" in reference to the film once in a personal blog entry without explaining why the use of the term was apt. I have given sources that explain the association.

"The two words occurring near to each other do not constitute any proof as to what the film is." I addressed this the first time you said that that's as far as the sources go.

"Careless sources": in other words, you disagree with them. You could earn your own credentials as a writer on film style and publish analyses discrediting them. Then someone else can use them as a justification here to refute those sources.

"Some of the greatest influences on Steampunk are Norah Waugh's works on fashion and Brunel's engineering designs, yet no-one would describe either of those as steampunk." OK, if there are no sources describing Waugh's and Brunel's works as steampunk, then I won't assert on the respective articles that they are steampunk. In contrast, I have demonstrated to you that quite a few people do describe Brazil as steampunk, so the disposition of works that no one would describe as steampunk is irrelevant. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

From a standpoint of describing the genre within the article (eg lede or infobox) I would say neither "steampunk" nor "dieselpunk" should be used since at that time those weren't genres, nor an intent of Gilliam it seems. I would definitely agree a section describing how this film crafted both genres later is 100% appropriate. I would also say that because of sources crediting it to both genres (and given that dieselpunk was birthed from steampunk) that it should also be in both genre catagories - that is, both are completely fair ways to classify the film from the standpoint of our categorization system. I do think that we should not be trying to hard-define this as one or the other simply based on the definition of both terms (that becomes OR), as again, sources seem to support both with the acknowledgement that dieselpunk is a newer genre; hence why I would not try to use either classification in the lede. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you see Verne as steampunk? I refute the idea that something can't be "steampunk" if it was made prior to the popularisation of the genre. Yet to be steampunk it does have to incorporate steampunk themes, which is what Brazil lacks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If multiple RSes call Verne's work "steampunk" we should mention that, but that I wouldn't necessary classify all of Verne's works as steampunk and be careful to use that as an overall descriptor, similar to here. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• What is steampunk? It is the inclusion of at least one of these themes:

• A deliberate anachronism to aspects of the pre-Modern era, i.e. prior to the end of WWI
• A focus on pre-electricity technology
• An appropriation of upper class, or officer-class military, cultural mores of the late Victorian period

Not all steampunk does more than one of these. There is plenty of electrical gadgetry in steampunk. Yet without any of these three, in what way is something "steampunk"?

How does Brazil fit into this? What is it doing that is at all "steampunk"? The computer screens are electrical and electronic era (they're largely Teleprinter 7s, which are late enough that I worked on them myself) The pneumatic tubes are an old concept, but these are made of flexible plastic ducts (a key plot device) so post-Steampunk era in materials. The executive toy is anodised aluminium and post-Bauhaus in design. Jill's very large diesel truck is perhaps just a shade Dieselpunk? Personal transporters are as smog-burningly Dieselpunk as Dennis Hopper in Waterworld. Culturally it's a 1930s film noir with big suits and Hollywood glamour. So just where is the "steampunk" in Brazil? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Which way do we go, folks? Do we go with what numerous reliable sources say about the film, or do we go with the original research, synthesis, personal analysis above? For which of these does Wikipedia show a marked preference, consistently, throughout its guidelines and in the outcomes of specific content discussions? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have confused WP:RS with, "the words Brazil and steampunk appear on the same page". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have confused sources that do more than that with sources that do only that. Blatantly. To the extent of dismissing an entire book chapter that's about this very topic. Given this, your reference to "many" discussions that don't exist, and your insistence that there are no pre-WWI elements in Brazil when numerous others describe it as "Victorian", can you explain how you are to be taken seriously on this topic? I ask this sincerely, because it seems to me that if you were standing on two solid legs on this question, you wouldn't be resorting to specious diversions like these. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your discussion goes somewhat beyond the realm of science fiction. By all means, add a section regarding the topic of the film's genre and influence. But since when is the use of steam-power technology and a Victorian era setting incompatible with "electricity technology"?. On the contrary, the 19th century revolutionized the use of electricity:

• The voltaic pile, the first electrical battery, was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta.
• An early version of the electrical telegraph was invented in 1809 by Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring. Improvements on his idea were developed by Francis Ronalds in 1816, Pavel Schilling in 1832, Carl Friedrich Gauss and Wilhelm Eduard Weber in 1833, David Alter in 1836, William Fothergill Cooke and Charles Wheatstone in 1837, and Samuel Morse in 1838. The first commercial use of the telegraph was introduced in 1837 and telegraph networks soon started developing. By 1861, the American network was vast enough to transfer messages from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast of the United States.
• The first galvanometer, an instrument for detecting electric currents, was invented in 1820 by Johann Schweigger. Several inventors improved on his idea and design in the following decades, putting it into practical use.
• The first electromagnet, a type of magnet in which the magnetic field is produced by an electric current, was invented in 1825 by William Sturgeon. Other inventors improved on his idea and popularized its use.
• The Daniell cell, an electrochemical cell, was invented in 1836 by John Frederic Daniell. Variants of the gravity cell created by Golding Bird and John Benjamin Dancer by the late 1830s opened new roads in the medical uses of electricity and electrochemistry, and the Microphotograph. An 1860s variant was widely used for the electrical telegraph.
• The printing telegraph was invented in 1846 by Royal Earl House. House is also credited as the earliest inventor of the teleprinter, an electromechanical typewriter that that can be send and receive typed messages, though he shares credit with several other inventors who improved on his idea.
• The submarine communications cable was developed in the 1840s and first used in 1850 to establish telegraphic communications between France and England.
• The transatlantic telegraph cable started being developed in 1856 and was completed and stabilized by 1866. Allowing electric telegraphic communication across the Atlantic Ocean. Further submarine networks of communication went into development, though they would not cover messages across the Pacific Ocean until 1902.
• The lead–acid battery, the first rechargeable battery, was invented in 1859 by Gaston Planté. An improved variant of his invention eventually went into mass production.
• And so on. Electricity and electrical devices were one of the major fields of study and invention of the 19th century. Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Country of production

Just to add some research to this:

• British Film Institute describes the film as both a product of the United Kingdom and the United States source

The other two do back this up, and if it were an American production, the American Film Institute doesn't seem to want to include it in the infobox. This may be one of those films that has some company which is recognized as American funding, but didn't officially sign on as a co-production. I think there is a similar case with The Terminator. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember too that there are (at least) two controversially different versions of this film: the original 142 minute version released in the UK and Europe (with the "purple neon and flying Sam" poster) and Sheinberg's US 132 minute happy ending (the "exploding head" poster). The first has very little to do with the US, the second much more so (by geographical release area, anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear-cut that the film is of joint production, why is this a full blown war? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at WP:ANEW. The IP editor's edit history consists almost entirely of adding "American" to a range of films, including such distinctively British films as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no axe (or even ax) to grind here, and no particular desire to support a clearly obsessive and chauvinist editor, but the film did have significant American input (production, funding, distribution, US-born director, 2 US stars among the leading 8 roles). There has been previous debate on this page about whether the setting is a dystopian version of Britain, and consensus was that (despite the accents, and obvious cultural references) it isn't. In view of the BFI description (above), would it really be such a bad thing to describe it as a "British/American" production? GrindtXX (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I sort of miss the the old BFI site, as it had more detail on production to be fair. It would go into detail about about how things were co-productions and whatnot. It doesn't really matter who does or does not star in these films as films around the world film in various locations and have stars of various ethnicity. I mean, Dr.No doesn't become a Jamaican picture just because it was filmed there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that WP:FILMLEAD says to avoid putting nationality in the opening sentence if it is not straightforward (one country). Here, we can take out any nationality mention from the opening sentence and instead use a term like "US-UK production" in the second or third sentences. It's not a good idea to put that pairing upfront because it is false equivalence in a space that causes too much culture-based debating. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is a case that while I'd call the film British personally, encyclopedically its better to omit any nationality as there is a clear lack of such attributed to this, and as suggested, call it a joint US-UK production. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, except that I'd prefer to see it as "UK-US". The bottom line would appear to be that whereas most of the money was American, most of the creative input was British, and I think that should be given priority. Also, once we've settled this, we'll need to do something about the categories, four of which currently start "British ...". GrindtXX (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to go back to this again. I was looking at the Monthly Film Bulletin's review of the film, and they strictly designate it as a British Production with the only production company being "Brazil Productions". Where does "Embassy International Pictures N.V." come from? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

On even further research, there are several books easily viewed from google books that refer to the film as both UK, US and a combination of the two. Since the film has a very complicated production history, I think we have to wait for the information to be dug out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Before any other googling happens to dismiss the Brazil Productions production company, outside the Monthly Film Bulletin, there is are various other sources backing this up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content

Before removing the Monthly Film Bulletin source, please do not remove it. That is a violation of WP:RS and is considered page blanking. @Beyers31: Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Per your edit here, the Monthly Film Bulletin is hardly an esoteric source. It's published by the British Film Institute. As stated above, we have found several different sources stating different coutries of production. It's not a simple issue of finding the source that matches IMDb or any other database. Discuss it first please @Beyers31:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The production companies are not obvious. These are vague bullet point sources that don't specifically state who produced it. They are also vague sources aren't stating what is being placed. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, we should not use these. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Conservative content

I've reverted the edit detailing a conservative interpretation of the film for several reasons. The edit indeed gives undue weight to a specific viewpoint. (It also ignores the Salon rebuttal and the source says no such thing on behalf of the left-wing). While alternative viewpoints and interpretations are allowed, they also have to be presented accurately and given proportional weight compared to mainstream views. (This is determined by coverage in sources, not the size of a population) IMDB, Breitbart, and the National Review blog are not reliable sources. The edit also includes synthesis of an unrelated speech. Lastly this has nothing to do with "Critical Response"; it could be fit for a "Themes/Analysis" section but scholarly sources are preferred there as well as subject experts. All of these issues point to serious neutrality problems with the content. Please do not add it back without discussing and establishing consensus for your changes. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Conservative content

Why have you removed reference to one of the writers of the screenplays describing his own political views as conservative? This is a fact cited by Wikipedia and seems at least as relevant to the given paragraph as the views of Terry Gilliam. I included these facts in the existent paragraph as a bolster to the paragraph's claim that the film is "a favourite film of the far right in America."

I'm having difficulty understanding how you conclude the content I posted both "ignores the Salon rebuttal" and simultaneously misrepresents the Salon rebuttal. The excised paragraph was:

 "In contrast, proponents of left-wing politics see the film confirming their critiques of Reaganism, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the War on Terror."

The paragraph includes citation of a Salon piece which explicitly backs this statement, except with regard to Reaganism which in retrospect I believe I found within DemocraticUnderground forums. Regardless, the referenced piece quotes Terry Gilliam drawing attention to the activity of Bush and Cheney specifically as proof that the film is not supportive of right-wing politics; it describes National Review's piece as "delusional" and "ironic" because NR critiques "Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate." - the implication being that National Review (and the right) are supportive of these ideas while the film is against them. National Review is widely regarded as a right-wing publication, whereas Salon is understood to be more left-wing. Salon certainly gives the impression that they believe the film to be against the right at the very least, if not explicitly pro-left. All of this discussion, however, only strengthens the claim that the political right does indeed identify with this film.

Why have you removed reference to the objective fact that the film is often cited in lists of top conservative films? IMDB, Breitbart, and the National Review blog may not be reliable sources for scholarly information, but they are not presented here as such. Citing two such lists is provided as definitive proof that these lists exist, they are examples not authorities. The lists aren't being cited as evidence that this interpretation is correct, merely that it is prevalent. Is it impossible for Wikipedia to make reference to the prevalence of a phenomenon if a scholarly paper is not written about said phenomenon? Is it not proof enough for Wikipedia to cite actual examples of the phenomenon being referenced? Would the content be improved by citing more examples of such lists?

The fact remains that there is a widespread view of the film among conservatives and libertarians that it accurately portrays right-wing viewpoints regarding bureaucracy, occupational licensing, and the nature of government in general; which is the sole reason I added the content. This isn't advocacy of a position, it's description of a position; a widespread and mainstream view taken by a significant political philosophy. Salon and others certainly disagree with this interpretation (as noted), others have their own view of the film, but that doesn't mean the conservative view doesn't exist. The conservative view seems to be a particularly strong and widespread interpretation (as evidenced by the aforementioned lists).

I also object to the idea that this is anything but a mainstream interpretation of the film. There's no reason to assume the right's is "alternative". Quite the contrary, conservatives and libertarians cite the film as an example of their political beliefs with far greater frequency than other political identities. It seems worthy of note at the very least, completely excising the references to conservative beliefs when they are widespread and well documented gives undue weight to the idea they are irrelevant and "wrong" in their interpretation. The film is widely understood to be critical of bureaucracy, critical of technocratic experts, critical of occupational licensing and critical of government restrictions on individual freedom. The American political right is similarly understood to be critical of these exact things in distinction to the American political left which (in general) supports occupational licensing, bureaucratic regulation, and restrictions on the behavior of private business. The film is also widely understood to be critical of the use of torture, justifying enhanced government power with pleas to "security" or "anti-terrorism", and critical of invasive surveillance. Similarly, more libertarian members of the political right have been at least as critical of the War on Terror, use of torture, and invasive surveillance procedures as anyone. I don't see what part of this interpretation is controversial or outside the mainstream.

I've attempted to provide "balance", but there is a bit of a false equivalence there, which is why the last paragraph I added is so short. There is no similar glut of content from the left; Brazil isn't included in lists of the "top liberal films" or what-have-you. The only examples I could find were lists of top films in general (e.g. AFI, BFI which are already referenced), but nothing that specifically espouses Brazil as an endorsement of left-wing political theory; other than as rebuttals to conservative claims (e.g. Salon [which, again, was included]). This is a phenomenon seemingly unique to the right, and that in-and-of itself seems relevant. Most often the film is cited with reference to 1984 and other dystopian works; and often interpreted specifically as a critique of socialism, which again returns to the prevalence of right-wing (anti-socialist) claims. If a political group strongly attaches itself to a piece of art it seems silly to omit description of this practice because other groups don't provide alternative interpretation with the same regularity or intensity.

I don't understand the objection to including description of a popular, widespread, mainstream, critical interpretation of the film.

As to having "nothing to do with "Critical Response""; I'd be happy to include the content under a Themes/Analysis portion, or a "political meaning of the film" section, or another more appropriate title; but interpretation of the meaning and quality of a film is, to my understanding, precisely what "critical response" is all about.

76.119.167.214 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)