Monday, 11 June 2012

Brazil & Pippin: Optimism vs Pesimism

Summary

I had and impromptu film night with some friends earlier this week. They hadn't seen Brazil or finished watching a recording of the stage show Pippin. So one evening we settled down to watch these two, apparently, completely unrelated pieces. Little did we know their themes were surprisingly parallel and we couldn't have picked a more complementary yet eclectic couple of DVDs if we'd tried. 

Brazil is a fantasy comedy/drama made by Terry Giliam. If you don't know, Gilliam was a member of the Monty Python team and after having watched Brazil you will realise who was responsible for the wackier moments in Python. We also watched Pippin - a musical written by Stephen Swartz, though Pippin is pretty far removed from what you'd expect from the man now famous for writing Wicked. Indeed, if my friend hadn't pointed out they were written by the same person I doubt I would have ever made the connection - well, without the help of Wikipedia at least.  

What I mean is, Pippin was very Brechtian i.e. often breaking the fourth wall, referring to the fact the people on stage were actors, abstract sets and costume etc. This was not only unlike the style of Wicked, but also unlike what one would expect from a Broadway musical - possibly this is why it wasn't a Broadway musical for very long. A shame, I feel, as it was an exciting and innovative piece. Though I must admit I have no problem with Brechtian storytelling whereas some people find it alienating (which is actually a Brechtian technique, but not everyones cup of tea). 

Brazil, on the other hand, does not break the fourth wall however prepare to suspend your disbelief: a lot. Conceptually, I love it. An industrial future blended with a look of the 1940s. I think this helps make the audience feel more at ease in this bizarre world as although it is set in a strange future, we can still see knitted jumpers and painted billboards that make us feel at home. And as for the cast; just think of every actor who's amazing and British then add Robert DeNiro and you won't be far wrong. 

Both well worth watching and I liked them very much.


The Icarus Factor*

SPOILERS!!!

We all felt both pieces were very ambiguous as to whether they were optimistic or pessimistic; as both portray arguments for both. It would seem the question they pose is: 

Is it better to burn brighter for a short time than to burn dimly for a long time?

In Brazil the protagonist, Sam Lowry, has dreams about a mysterious woman who he imagines himself slaying embodiments of 'the system' to be with. He discovers she is in fact a real woman, and gives up everything to be with her leaving destruction in his wake. He ultimately only gets to be with her for one night before everything collapses around them. 

Pippin, I would say, is more ambiguous. Whereas Brazil has other tangents, Pippin focuses entirely on the question of extraordinary vs. ordinary and the pros and cons of each. The protagonist, Pippin, sets out to find meaning in his life. He is torn between conformity and what he supposes to be freedom - which is embodied by the (awesomely fabulous!) Leading Player who encourages Pippin in bouts of self expression and rebellion. While Pippin's life is fast and exciting when pursuing brilliance he reports to still feel empty. This begs him to ask the question: can I feel freedom without being tied down to something? A good, if not scary, question. 


The conclusion I drew from Brazil is that Gilliam favours the route of freedom. Of letting go and pursuing the dream. However, he still gives the viewer ample chance to consider both sides as he does portray the repercussions of pursuing the unbridled lifestyle pretty horribly. Sam got his dream woman; but only for one night then he was left with nothing. Pippin abandoned his dream, now compromised he has found some solace but we are left feeling he is still unfulfilled.

I suppose they are asking us: is it worth it? And I think the answer to that can only come from the viewer. 

There was one optimist among us who felt that Pippin, in particular, showed that being 'normal' didn't mean failure and we can all find happiness regardless of whether we are conforming or chasing our dream. Us pessimists thought that they both showed that in the end, most of us have to give up our dreams to avoid self destruction - and that is sad. 

Devotion is admirable but history teaches us that it is not sustainable. Even is this is the life we would wish for, are any of us actually brave enough to choose it? But does our not choosing it lead to un-fulfilment, or is there more to life than being extraordinary?


What do you think?





Update! 

Just watched Phantom of the Opera which is about the same subject! I think my brain is subliminally seeking out this theme after writing this post. 

Christine, the leading lady has rival love interests. Raoul represents conformity and stability whereas the Phantom represents artistic freedom and passion. As I adore the stage show for the understandable struggle Christine goes through, choosing between these two equal yet contrasting men/life choices, I am therefore not sure about the 2004 film. The Phantom is turned into a physically attractive and much less twisted character which, I think, diminishes from the originally more personality and ideals based struggle. Plus the Christine in that film is so bland I don't think strength and inner turmoil comes through at all. 

Stick to the stage show. The debate is better.

*If you know where I got "The Icarus Factor" from then you are awesome! And you win this fun and appropriate fact: Ben Vereen plays the lead in Pippin but you call also see him playing Geordi La Forge's dad in ST: The Next Generation.

2 comments:

  1. It occurred to me that the recent London revival's addition of the temptation of Pippin's adoptive son when Pippin himself decides to compromise at the end supports the more pessimistic reading. Not only do we see Pippin give up his dreams, it is also implied by showing us this incipient cycle, that everyone thinks that they are special and eventually has to conform. Pippin wasn't a special person that had compromise forced on him, he, like everyone else, was just a normal person who had to accept his normality - just as his son will have to accept it too. It almost suggests the pointlessness of having dreams at all...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmm, that is depressing.

    I suppose one could look at it from the point of view that something we've done or someone we influence will eventually lead to something great; Pippin couldn't do it but maybe his son will. We have to accept that we might not be the ones getting the glory but be reminded to take comfort in the fact that we will have contributed to something great somehow. I think however, you're interpretation is most likely the one intended. Perhaps I just don't like to admit to reality sometimes!

    I'll tell you what positivity did come from Pippin though: I totally learnt the dance the three women do at Pippin in 'With You'.

    ReplyDelete