Films set in the "future" which is now our past

[Epona]

No not every one. But 12 monkeys is. As gilliam himself had said many times. And there's a whole lot more going on in la jetee than some time travel and romance.

There's a difference between "inspired by" and "directly lifted from", and I do still wonder whether you have actually watched both films as I have.
Anyway I know you like to get involved in rows with people over often trivial things, but I'm really not in the mood right now so I'll head off and you can find someone else to have a great big barney with

 

[butchersapron]

You seriously wonder if I've seen both films? Why? It seems to me that you've missed the elements of plot structure and the questions and issues that 12 monkeys took directly from la jetee (as gilliam himself had often pointed out). I think you could maybe do with a rewatch.

And you know what, accusing someone of not having seen two films they are discussing then further accusing that person of wanting to start a fight is pretty cheeky.

 

[Santino]

It would be a deadly circus not 'deadly bread and circuses'. The phrase 'bread and circuses' refers to the idea that a regime needs to take care of basic needs (bread) and provide entertainment of some sort (circuses).

I don't think that's how the phrase is meant to be used. It's not that a regime needs to provide entertainment, it's that by providing cheap food and entertainment they can keep the populous satisfied (or distracted) enough not to be bothered about much else. Not quite the same thing.

 

[maomao]

I don't think that's how the phrase is meant to be used. It's not that a regime needs to provide entertainment, it's that by providing cheap food and entertainment they can keep the populous satisfied (or distracted) enough not to be bothered about much else. Not quite the same thing.

Don't see the difference other than you've expanded on what is achieved by doing so, I'll admit my 'needs' was over brief and I didn't define fully. But when someone complains about the Olympics by saying 'it's just bread and circuses' they're wrong because it's just the circus bit, not the bread bit.

 

[Epona]

You seriously wonder if I've seen both films? Why? It seems to me that you've missed the elements of plot structure and the questions and issues that 12 monkeys took directly from la jetee (as gilliam himself had often pointed out). I think you could maybe do with a rewatch.

And you know what, accusing someone of not having seen two films they are discussing then further accusing that person of wanting to start a fight is pretty cheeky.

It's not really cheeky, what you have to appreciate is that not everyone is really interested in getting into a great big barney over something so... minor. It just seems completely trivial to me, yet you seem really worked up about it. In that circumstance (and in the circumstance where sometimes it seems you come at me like a ruddy pit bull no matter what I say in any thread about any subject), backing away from a potentially heated row about something really trivial that I don't really feel would benefit anyone or the world at large to get involved in just seems like the most sensible and mature option. Take care

 

[Santino]

'So, are you looking forward to the World Cup?'

'No, it's just circuses, isn't it?'

'Beg pardon?'

'The World Cup. It's just circuses.'

'Right.'

'As in 'bread and circuses'.'

'Oh, I see.'

 

[maomao]

'So, are you looking forward to the World Cup?'

'No, it's just circuses, isn't it?'

'Beg pardon?'

'The World Cup. It's just circuses.'

'Right.'

'As in 'bread and circuses'.'

'Oh, I see.'

'A' circus, singular.

 

[golightly]

Bladerunner

2019, but a lot can happen in 5 years.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

i think the thing with 1984 was that it was written in 1948, so it was more about turning 48 upside down then a prediction of that particular year...maybe

I think they also alude to the fact that normal proles don't know the real date.

 

[Santino]

'So, are you looking forward to the World Cup?'

'No, it's just a circus, isn't it?'

'Beg pardon?'

'The World Cup. It's just a circus.'

'You mean, it's a situation or event that is very busy, lively, and confusing and that attracts a lot of attention?'

'Well, not just that...

'Is it a suggestive of a circus (as in frenzied activity, sensationalism, theatricality, or razzle-dazzle)?'

'Yes, that too, but I specifically meant to invoke Juvenal's phrase 'bread and circuses' from his tenth Satire.'

'Ah, meaning that the spectacle's chief function is to keep the populous from taking a greater interest in the actual political activities of the ruling class?'

'Indubitably.'

'I agree. And allow me to congratulate you on not implying that the World Cup is in any way bread-like, in the strict sense of cheap food (or in the case of the ancient Roman custom of distributing corn, actually free) - which is of course the other half of the 'bread and circuses' formula for discouraging popular scrutiny of the workings of government.'

'I'm glad you noticed.'

 

[maomao]

'So, are you looking forward to the World Cup?'

'No, it's just a circus, isn't it?'

'Beg pardon?'

'The World Cup. It's just a circus.'

'You mean, it's a situation or event that is very busy, lively, and confusing and that attracts a lot of attention?'

'Well, not just that...

'Is it a suggestive of a circus (as in frenzied activity, sensationalism, theatricality, or razzle-dazzle)?'

'Yes, that too, but I specifically meant to invoke Juvenal's phrase 'bread and circuses' from his tenth Satire.'

'Ah, meaning that the spectacle's chief function is to keep the populous from taking a greater interest in the actual political activities of the ruling class?'

'Indubitably.'

'I agree. And allow me to congratulate you on not implying that the World Cup is in any way bread-like, in the strict sense of cheap food (or in the case of the ancient Roman custom of distributing corn, actually free) - which is of course the other half of the 'bread and circuses' formula for discouraging popular scrutiny of the workings of government.'

'I'm glad you noticed.'

Or just find another way of saying it.

 

[maya]

Brazil is one of my all-time favourite films, I don't think the year it was set in is ever specified, but it was made in 1985 and I think was intended to look like the near future

AFAIK one of Gilliam's working titles for Brazil was "1984 ½", a direct Orwell reference... So it's probably "his" version of a similar dystopia, and if so probably set around 1984. Which suits the retrofuturistic theme for the film (mock art deco/1930s-1940s vibes, the omnipresent low tech ducts running through every room, etc.) well, as it was already in the past during the production of the film... (The only reason they chose "Brazil" was because of the wistful escapist title tune Brazil)

 

[DotCommunist]

ITV aired Brazil once, killing the dramatic tension with adverts and bizzarely trailing it as a De Niro based film even tho he's in it for all of five mins max

 

[ska invita]

8.49pm...somewhere in the 20th Century...

 

[maya]

And the ending... it's one of the best endings ever. So bleak. So hopeless. Sums up so perfectly how I view and feel about the world... Everything and everyone will always betray you, always fuck you over- the little glimpses of human decency and hope you get will get stomped on again and again and greed and evil is the nature of human beings and the world... It doesn't matter what you do, you will lose. Again and again. And they'll always get you in the end. Existence is pain.

I said it better on here many years ago, so found the quote from the 'Favourite Film Endings' thread...

when the camera zooms back on his lifeless figure in the chair, then the massive walls surrounding him from the atom reactor, the camera goes up, up, up-

then the totally bizarre and joyful samba music starts, an eerie contrast to the sinister ending... love it

 

[seventh bullet]

We're a bit early on this one as it was set in 2018, but the original Rollerball (1975) is an interesting film because a fair bit of its story, which was Science Fiction at the time, is now already Science Fact

- Corporations controlling sports teams and being more powerful than governments
- The increase in speed and violence to be used as entertainment
- Multiple camera angles and big screen replays
- Population held in check via drugs and mass media
- The use of the collective to smother the individual (which I'm sure happened back then as well to be fair)
- A single searchable database that holds all the information ever written

There's others because its actually quite a subtle film that comments on a future whereby we have no real control over our actions; only those that we are allowed to make within the confines of advertising etc.

I've even bored myself, but its well worth getting hold of a copy to watch

There's ideal-type 'totalitarian' cliches, but it is fun.

 

[Sweet FA]

It's not really cheeky

It really is And fwiw the rest of your post is the most projecting post ever projected

 

[NoXion]

And the ending... it's one of the best endings ever. So bleak. So hopeless. Sums up so perfectly how I view and feel about the world... Everything and everyone will always betray you, always fuck you over- the little glimpses of human decency and hope you get will get stomped on again and again and greed and evil is the nature of human beings and the world... It doesn't matter what you do, you will lose. Again and again. And they'll always get you in the end. Existence is pain.

And the reason you haven't killed yourself yet is... ?

That's what I find most annoying about people who go on about how shit and awful life is; despite their protestations, they seem determined to cling on to their so-called miserable lives just as much as the rest of us...

 

[maya]

And the reason you haven't killed yourself yet is... ?

That's what I find most annoying about people who go on about how shit and awful life is; despite their protestations, they seem determined to cling on to their so-called miserable lives just as much as the rest of us...

I'm sorry that my clinical depression annoys you, I agree that my outburst last night wasn't very entertaining, though. It was off-topic and too navel-gazing, but anyway that was last night... Let's get back on topic.

 

[NoXion]

I'm sorry that my clinical depression annoys you, I agree that my outburst last night wasn't very entertaining, though. It was off-topic and too navel-gazing, but anyway that was last night... Let's get back on topic.

Well in that case, I hope you get better soon. I'm sorry for lumping you in the same category as those self-regarding twats who take up things like ennui and misanthropy as some sort of philosophical fashion statement.

 

[8den]

Brazil's working title was "1984 & 1/2". And a Clockwork Orange was either set in a alternative 1970s or some time after 1995.

 

[laptop]

Oh god almighty. OK, in that case pretty much every film that has ever featured someone jumping briefly in time to have a romance with someone has lifted the concept entirely from La Jetée (a 10 minute long obscure French early '60s short). Discuss.

"Obscure" != "I've not seen it".

 

[billy_bob]

It's interesting to look at 80's films to see how wrong we got it. Bladerunner and it's Japanese dominated future.

I know it's meant to be Japanese-dominated, but the film itself's a bit illiterate about the difference between Japanese and Chinese. If it'd gone for the latter it'd look fairly prescient now.

 

[8den]

I know it's meant to be Japanese-dominated, but the film itself's a bit illiterate about the difference between Japanese and Chinese. If it'd gone for the latter it'd look fairly prescient now.

Yes Bladerunner looks fairly prescient. True we don't have humanoid robots, cloned animals, flying cars, giant cities with exploding flame towers, interplantary travel, offworld colonies, or arcologies, but other than the language it's totally prescient.

 

[DotCommunist]

we do have cloned animals. They just don't live very long

 

[8den]

And they're not cheaper than real animals. Ala the Snake.

 

[billy_bob]

Yes Bladerunner looks fairly prescient. True we don't have humanoid robots, cloned animals, flying cars, giant cities with exploding flame towers, interplantary travel, offworld colonies, or arcologies, but other than the language it's totally prescient.

Neither I, nor Belushi as I understand his post, were talking just about language.

 

[8den]

Neither I, nor Belushi as I understand his post, were talking just about language.

It was a joke. FFS this thread is way too serious.

"Obscure" != "I've not seen it".

It's a 50 year old b&w french short film made nearly entirely from still photographs. By most people's yardsticks that relatively obscure.

 

[butchersapron]

It was a joke. FFS this thread is way too serious.



It's a 50 year old b&w french short film made nearly entirely from still photographs. By most people's yardsticks that relatively obscure.

It's the best known film by a globally recognised major film maker. A massively successful mainstream film was based on it. It may have been obscure in 1990 - no longer.

 

[8den]

It's the best known film by a globally recognised major film maker.

Do you mean Chris Marker or Terry Gilliam?

A massively successful mainstream film was based on it. It may have been obscure in 1990 - no longer.

I'd think we're getting into pedantry here. I'd think if asked the average cinefile they'd be able to tell you about it, people who know Gilliam's career etc....

Obscure would be "not common knowledge". I think if you asked 10 random people. Some would have seen 12 monkeys, a few of them would know it's based on a short film, and a handful of them would have seen it. Much in the same way that some people could tell you "Reservoir Dogs" is a thinly veiled remake of a foreign film. Some people could tell you it's based on "city on fire" and a few of them may actually have seen it.