To whom it may concern,

Brazil is turning 40 this year! Can you believe it? It seemed it only came out yesterday – kooky kid.

Brazil, where hearts were entertaining June

We stood beneath an amber moon

And softly murmured

“Someday soon” (someday)

Few movies operate entirely in a league of their own; Brazil is one of those movies. To describe it would be an injustice to the film itself. Even 40 years after release, the nightmarish and claustrophobic picture strikes a chord with me and most individuals who watch it now. I first watched it a couple years ago, and while rewatching it in preparation of this piece I had a sickness overcome me. I originally chalked up the ideas of fascist directives to some silly fantasy because “how can something so totally incompetent and ridiculous become this evil force?”

I digress – I mean if we got pushed into fascism, I’m glad it was this stupid version and not the Salo version of it. ANYWAYS anyways (anyways) back to the main point. In the time since Brazil’s release, the line between film and reality has begun to blur. Terry Gilliam created a world that is equally as inventive as it is horrifying. In doing so, he has accurately predicted the state of our world and also the treatment of his own film. Bureaucracy is a fickle thing, and to put it simply – it’s bullshit.

We kissed (we kissed)

And clung together

Then, tomorrow was another day

Ironically, the original release of Brazil was riddled with obnoxious and unnecessary hurdles – like the ones depicted in the film. The ending to the film is bleak, to the point where the air is sucked out of you. When the US release strategy was being determined, the distributor, Universal, fought director Terry Gilliam due to poor test screening reception of the ending. Universal dragged their feet and nearly stonewalled the film from being released. Eventually, in an act of Archibald Tuttle-esque of defiance, Gilliam took out a page in Variety saying – 

“Dear Sid Sheinberg

When are you going to release my film, ‘BRAZIL’?”

At this point Brazil had already released in both France and the United Kingdom – original ending and all. However, stubbornness from American executives and unfounded metrics nearly caused the film to take on a new form entirely. Sure, you shouldn’t walk away from Brazil feeling like you can take on the world; you’re supposed to sit there and sulk for a few moments after the credits roll. But what kind of message is it sending if there’s a happy-go-lucky ending? A broken bone isn’t fixed with a band-aid, and a broken system isn’t fixed with a simple slap on the wrist. 

The morning found me miles away

With still a million things to say

What exactly is ‘Brazil’? Sure, the movie, and the song that it’s so aptly named after, but what does it mean? Stay with me here, have you ever looked outside your office window thinking about what you’d rather be doing? Maybe you see yourself riding the waves with your wife or husband, or maybe you see yourself sculpting pots out of clay. That’s Brazil in the essence of this movie. An escape from the strenuous and obnoxious bureaucracy in which we’re forced to participate.

Disclaimer: Could I have simply said ‘escapism’? Yes, absolutely, but did you see those waves or clay pots when I asked you to envision them? The power of your imagination is escapism, in its own right. Okay, back to the show!

Now, when twilight dims the sky above

Recalling (thrills) of our love

There’s an intoxicating aroma to Brazil. 40 years since release and the love for the film has only grown by each passing year. Without Brazil we wouldn’t have Tim Burton’s Batman, and without Tim Burton’s Batman there would be no modern superhero film (for better or worse). The singular style and look to the film is inimitable and has aged like wine. Its humor, albeit a little sadistic at times (complimentary), has only become funnier. Lastly, its messaging has only become more relevant. An unfortunate reality that only steeps as each day passes until morality becomes as opaque as the individuals running this country of ours.

While films that tackle totalitarianism and capitalism aren’t uncommon, rarely do they marry the two together – almost joined at the hip. In combining the two Terry Gilliam and the rest of the crew create something that is as relevant in 1985 as it is today. The president of the United States in 1985 was Ronald Reagan and the president of the United States today is….yknow, this guy! To sum up, in a swift 40 years we have gained nothing and only lost more – a feeling that’s easy to sink into but hard to dig out of. Hell, Brazil’s idea of society is only removed from our own by its irreverent production design and peppy demeanor.

The movie starts with a man in a nondescript white box of a room, whose sole job is to blast out arrest warrants. Unfortunately, a bug jams the machine and causes a married man with children, Archibald Buttle, with no relation to the actual suspect, Archibald Tuttle, to be killed by the authoritative government. It is delivered in a way that seems so regimented, as if this death is just commonplace and unavoidable. It is chased by zany visions derived from the depths of low-level government employee, Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce). It’s just an “oh shucks!’ moment and pushed away as each minute of the runtime passes.

An innocent man is senselessly murdered by a system of brutality and policing and is pushed into obscurity as if nothing had happened (hah). The consequences of this event are seen as Sam speaks to the grieving wife regarding a financial refund on her husband’s life due to mix-up. What transpires, while brief, is gutting and filled with enough palpable anguish to fill a funeral chapel. Then, in some type of sick magic, this feeling is washed away and never spoken of again. Much like in our own reality, we are shown atrocities that are committed by people in power and chased with easy distractions such as reality television or sh*tty drink recipes. Brazil’s lasting power isn’t just in its look and humor, but also in its tether to reality.

There’s one thing that I’m certain of

Return, I will, to old Brazil

Lean in for a second, there’s a beautiful cocktail recipe you have to try! The world is getting warmer and the only way to beat the heat is by trying my improvement on the Aperol Spritz (yeah, yeah, how can you ‘improve perfection?’). First things first, you have to have Aperol, of course. Some good Prosecco; the non-vintage Bisol Crede Prosecco Superiore Brut from the Valdobbiadene village in Veneto is damn near delectable! Who cares if it’s ridiculous to spend $30 on Italian sparkling wine as one component of a cocktail – the world won’t turn forever! A little club soda and an orange slice for garnish to make it pop. Now, here’s where we get freaky with it, cut a third of the usual Aperol you’d use and add limoncello instead. Dash in some orange bitters, smother the whole affair with ice, and you’ve got the perfect cocktail to lobotomize those feelings of dread!

But no more of that, as I wish to return to my world of fantasies and delight. What did I accomplish today? Doesn’t matter, for I’ll return to Brazil regardless. Should we be subjugated to the mercy of malignant individuals to ensure corrupt organizations can maintain public favor? All of this junk and moral juxtapositions that we have to live through just so we could afford rent and maybe feed our interests with the pennies and pocket lent we have left. I won’t take up more of your time, tomorrow is a work day!

Best,

Jacob

	Jacob Mauceri | Writer
	InSession Film
	Website: insessionfilm.com

return

(I will) I will

(To old) to old

Brazil

If a recent rumor from Hollywood insider Daniel Richtman is to be believed, then the lambs have not yet stopped screaming. Universal have apparently begun development on a new Hannibal Lecter film. 

On the surface this probably looks unsurprising. No classic property is allowed to remain dormant in the 2020s, and Hannibal Lecter has been absent from the big screen since 2007’s miserable Hannibal Rising. But the prospect becomes a lot more bemusing when you question what the hell the film could actually be. 

The most obvious possibility is a reboot of some sort, with a new actor coming in to be the cannibal for a new generation. But Lecter isn’t Spider-Man, with decades of stories to draw from that allow for endless cinematic configurations. Every Hannibal Lecter adaptation to date has drawn at least in part from the events of author Thomas Harris’ four novels. The only technical exception is the Hannibal-free TV series Clarice, which rivals only Rising as a low point for Harris adaptations. Given how reliant on Harris the good Lecter properties have been, it’s hard to imagine a new film telling a wholly original story. 

But there might not be any other option. The first Lecter novel, Red Dragon, has been adapted for the screen three times. The third, Hannibal, twice. Even Bryan Fuller, creator of the cult TV retelling Hannibal admitted that to faithfully adapt the events of Red Dragon again would make his team ‘assholes.’ Meanwhile, The Silence of the Lambs is such a perfect movie that a straight remake would be a poisoned chalice, while nobody wants to see another take on Rising. Even a reimagined version of the traditional Lecter story would stink of redundancy, given that the TV show’s entire approach was to remix the story elements we thought we knew in a heightened, dreamlike, operatic way. 

Nobody would suggest Hollywood is above creatively bankrupt redundancy, but given the Lecter franchise was already seen as played out before the TV show revitalized it, it’s hard to imagine that anyone at Universal is especially enamoured of telling the same stories for potentially a fourth time. 

But an original story comes with major risks. Assuming that Thomas Harris isn’t secretly writing a new Lecter book, the lack of source material would invite enormous skepticism going in. Lecter, even in his more controversial outings, tends to be among the more sophisticated horror icons. There is no reliable Lecter ‘formula’ you can resort to like there is with Freddy or Jason – the four Harris novels form a complete saga with a clear ending. Which means if you’re not retreading old ground you’re essentially left with the option of a prequel, which historically has not worked for Hannibal, or a sequel, which presents problems of its own. 

In theory, it’s not impossible to bring Anthony Hopkins back for a last hurrah. Legacy sequels, after all, are mostly popular. But apart from the question of how credible a threat the 87-year-old Hopkins could be, the historical compromises this franchise has made might have cauterized the potential for further installments featuring the most famous actor to ever wear the mask. 

Even if Thomas Harris wrote a book picking up from the controversial ending of Hannibal, it would be nearly impossible to adapt given how the film version famously rewrote the ending in an attempt to appease Jodie Foster, who passed regardless. On which; the only way to really make this a legacy sequel that might win over audiences would be to bring back Foster, which would mean ignoring Julianne Moore and probably the entirety of Hannibal. And even if that was the direction the film chose, Hopkins is still 87 and without Hopkins, any movie even somewhat in the original continuity has an uphill battle to be taken seriously. Just ask Hannibal Rising. 

There is precisely one logical direction for a new Hannibal Lecter screen outing, and that new direction means bringing back an old one. Bryan Fuller’s TV series might have been cancelled due to low ratings, but its cult following and critical acclaim has only grown in the decade since. Fuller has never given up trying to get a revival off the ground. Meanwhile, a decade of franchise exposure means that Mads Mikkelsen is now a highly credible big screen Lecter even for viewers unfamiliar with the TV show. And given Fuller’s take on the material was all about reinterpretation, any film version he was involved in would be true to Harris while also finding new and surprising ways to tell stories we might assume we knew. Universal deciding to bring Fuller and Mikkelsen on board to make a film that doubles as a continuation to a beloved show as well as a standalone Lecter film starring a popular Hollywood villain is not only a smart commercial choice, but it’s the only creatively worthwhile way to return to the Lecter well. 

Fuller and Mikkelsen already proved once that Hannibal Lecter still had plenty of life left in him. It’s time to let them do it again. 

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: a remote reserve full of genetically engineered dinosaurs descends into chaos when scientific hubris unleashes the creatures on visitors. You have, three times? Okay, then how about this; a ragtag group travels to an abandoned dinosaur reserve for an important mission only for everything to go catastrophically wrong. Three times as well? Then let’s go with a plot about scientists creating a hybrid dinosaur only for it to escape and wreak havoc. Twice? 

It has been over thirty years since the first Jurassic Park became an instant classic. In that time, there have been six movies, with a seventh just around the corner. And each of those six movies has relied on at least one of the above plots. Often two. Even films that promised something new, like Fallen Kingdom or most egregiously Dominion, largely play out the same beats again. And all indications point to a similar result for this year’s Rebirth, which centerson a ragtag team travelling to an abandoned dinosaur reserve for an important mission only for everything to go catastrophically wrong, this time due to another hybrid dinosaur. Essentially we’re being sold the plot of The Lost World, Jurassic Park III and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Again. 

It’s not news that Hollywood likes to play it safe when it comes to legacy sequels. The Force Awakens was mostly a beat for beat mirror of A New Hope, and after The Last Jedi’s mild subversions to the formula kickstarted a ceaseless culture war, The Rise of Skywalker was overhauled to just be Return of the Jedi, but stupider. Is it any surprise that after a mostly disliked last film Universal would go back to familiar territory? 

You can’t entirely blame executives for being cautious. Long established franchises come with entrenched fanbases who often hate the formula being messed with. But the problem here is that a new Jurassic World movie can no longer be considered a ‘legacy sequel’. Rebirth will be the fourth new movie in a decade. The franchise has brought back all the old favorites. It has retraced the plots of the first two films several times over. It’s indulged in every tribute and callback imaginable. Surely it’s time, now, to try something else? 

Fallen Kingdom doesn’t tend to be highly ranked among Jurassic films, but in 2018 there was a palpable sense of excitement at the final scenes, which promised the chaos and excitement and danger of a world overrun with dinosaurs. It felt like the long overdue fulfilment of Ian Malcolm’s warning in the first film: “Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution, have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?”

And after Fallen Kingdom, it really did seem like we might not have the slightest idea of what to expect. With dinosaurs out in the world, the next film could not be another park or secret mission. It had no choice but to do something new. There was a real sense of possibility. 

You almost have to admire Dominion’s complete unwillingness to give audiences what they wanted. Trailers teased a world overrun with dinosaurs. But in the film itself, that’s not really the case. In fact, the dinosaurs aren’t nearly as much of a concern as the locusts who, bafflingly, take up much of the first half’s focus. 

The second involves the characters converging on another dinosaur park only for everything to go wrong. Again. 

Dominion was more than a disappointment; it was an act of audience contempt. You can almost feel the nervous hovering executives warning the creative team not to blow up the status quo too much, just in case this film is badly received and they have to pump out a more ‘traditional’ Jurassic movie in a couple of years. Which obviously is what happened, but it would seem to bespeak a gigantic misunderstanding of why Dominion was so derided; it didn’t do what it promised. And now, rather than offer a mea culpa film that does, Universal are again reverting to the same old formula and, according to the synopsis, they’ve functionally walked back the events of Fallen Kingdom and Dominion by explaining that dinosaurs mostly can’t survive in modern earth’s environment and so now only exist in small, remote, tropical locations. Like, say, secret islands. 

If we’re being charitable then we have to acknowledge a couple of things. It does make sense that dinosaurs would be more suited to hotter environments; it’s the whole reason they were on Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna in the first place. And during the press tour for Dominion, director Colin Trevorrow regularly warned that we wouldn’t be seeing a dinosaur takeover of the planet because it wasn’t really credible that could happen, with Trevorrow likening your chances of encountering a dinosaur as being roughly on par with your chances of encountering a bear or some other dangerous predator. And look, that would be fair enough – if we were talking about a franchise that cared much about credibility. 

Once upon a time, yes it did. Among the many reasons Jurassic Park struck such a chord is because it didn’t feel a million miles removed from something that could actually happen. But with each new film that relative grounding has slipped away, whether it was the ‘raptor whistle’ in Jurassic Park III or Chris Pratt’s apparently superhuman ability to withstand temperature when he’s lying inches away from molten lava. As such it feels egregious to pick and choose when you want to abide by the rules of reality, especially when said abiding is your excuse for not making the all out chaos movie about dinosaur dominion (actually, this time) that the franchise has arguably been leading towards since the very start. 

Is there anyone who would rather watch another movie about characters sneaking onto a dinosaur island over a film where pockets of surviving humans eke out an agrarian existence in a world where a T-rex could appear any second? There is nothing stopping these films from jumping forward several decades to get there, apart from the evident fears that doing so might cross a line this lucrative money machine cannot come back from. 

It’s true that a Jurassic film blowing things up to such a degree would indeed be difficult to retcon if poorly received. Once the franchise has moved from dinosaur islands to a genuine dinosaur world, it can’t really go back unless the hard reboot button is pressed. 

It’s only fair to note that without having seen Rebirth we don’t know what tricks it might have up its sleeve. And there is a precedent for that; Fallen Kingdom gave us half a film of the standard mission to dinosaur island before pivoting into gothic horror in the second half – still the closest the later films have come to something genuinely fresh. But so far we are not being sold anything close to a radical reinvention. Rebirth has a strong creative team and there’s every chance it will be well written, exciting and fun, but unless the marketing is hiding something massive, it’s nearly impossible to imagine the film getting away with its own familiarity. We’ve just seen this story too many times already. 

Changing the Jurassic formula would be a risk. But after so much repetition, not doing so is an even bigger one.