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.

Acceptance - A Question.

On reviewing my completion of my Art course, I've felt confused as to the reception of my work.
On the one hand I received praise for my exhibition, from both friends and the general public - yet I feel somewhat panned by the professional artists. I have no bones with anyones opinions - I'll make that clear - but it has made me consider the importance of acceptance. Should we worry about the endorsement of our contemporaries if what we're doing brings enjoyment to the intended audience?

Ignoring ones contemporaries is: A - lonelier and B - riskier. While it can fuel uniqueness and purity of vision (remember the saying: a horse designed by committee would be a camel?), it can lead to producing indulgent and 'rudderless' work. Take Vincent Van Gogh, only sold one painting in his lifetime. Think how awful it would have been if he'd have given in to the trend and cast the sunflowers aside. And yet, there is always the fear of becoming the other - an American sitcom writer*. Churning out the same generic material thinking that you're writing Seinfeld when you're actually writing the 23rd season of Will and Grace. But the ratings are too good for you to realise its bile.

The crux of the negativity seemed to come from a feeling that I didn't make it abundantly clear to the viewer exactly what I wanted them to think. Interestingly, something along these lines came up in a Coen Brothers related discussion I had recently. I am the sort of person that likes to find meaning in things - in this case, the use of circles and a hat in The Hudsucker Proxy and Miller's Crossing, respectively. My friend, who has seen more Coen Brothers than I, has come to the conclusion that the Coen Brothers include apparently loaded symbols that aren't actually loaded at all. They mean nothing. But then I suppose that means everything. These signs that lead to nowhere could be their reflection of their belief in the unpredictability of the universe. Things happen because of random chain of events. A man keeps dropping his hat in Miller's Crossing. Is a a symbolic representation of his true self being temporarily exposed, or is it because his hat doesn't have a handy bit of elastic on it? Who knows. But more importantly: who cares?

Does what the artist intended the viewer to think mean anything, so long as their work provokes them to think something? To the Coen brothers, the circles in The Hudsucker Proxy could have had the most in-depth, symbolic subtext imaginable; or they could have meant nothing. Does either intention malign the, possibly contrary, meaning I took from them - I would say, no.

I have had the belief for some time that what I think about something is secondary to the fact that it made me think. I believe this is why I was not so desperate to funnel viewers into one outcome of experience. I even included a feedback board as part of the exhibition because I felt strongly that what a viewer thinks of something is as important as the thing itself. Will this make my work weak and transient: maybe, but not definitely. I think perhaps my real intention was to make people think and find their own meaning. It's not an original intention. Its a dangerously broad intention. But perhaps its a more exciting one than knowing the outcome of people seeing your work before you've even started.

I'm not sure what I think. What do you think?

*The 'American-ness' is referring to the sitcom. I have nothing against American writers.

QUESTION TIME!!!!

I challenge you!!!!!

Tell me what this is made out of!

(Unless your one of the people on my course who also made things using this material)