Religion and Terrorism in British Comedy film

Over the years, British comedy has managed to explore the controversial issue of religion. Though, the trouble has generally been with the audience reception, with Monty Python and the Life of Brian(1979) being highly blasphemic and offensive to the Christian faith, due to the references to Christ and biblical references.

Though, the role of religion in British comedy film has also been the subject of much criticism, as the terrorist attacks on September 11th and July 7/7 bombings in London sparked a wave of comedy films which mock and respond in fear to terrorism and Islam, with Four Lions (2010) being more controversial. In many ways, the film responds to social concerns, as terrorism has been more recurrent in the news, as the wave of terrorist attacks have resulted in moral panic amongst civilians, as they don't know where the next terrorist attack is going to happen.

In accordance to this, Four Lions gives an alternative representation of suicide bombers, as they are represented as being quite brave, but stupid, as they have not motive, apart from sheer excitement at destruction and killing.

Scene from Four Lions



Initially, Chris Morris ( known for his controversial report on paedophilia on Brass Eye) spent 3 years researching around terrorism and Islam, for the film. Morris recieved advice from terrorism experts, imams, the police , secret service, as well as opinions from ordinary muslims. Morris' intial research was carried out before the July 7/7 bombings, of which sparked enthusiasm from Morris to create a film about terrorism. Though, the film was rejected by Channel 4 and BBC, as it was too controversial and would effect the muslim public.

Four Lions is a low budget British comedy film which revolves around a group of four jihadists, Waj (Kayvan Novak), Omar (Riz Ahmed), Adeel Akhtar (Fassel) and Baryy (Nigel Lindsay), who is a Islamic convert. These men try to push their suicidal dreams of glory to the breaking point, with their motives and dreams clashing, resulting in many awkward situations.

Within this scene, the issue of Islam is raised as being a more controversial issue. In many ways, the director Chris Morris gives a fair representation of the public, as he intends to show moral panic and how people react towards muslims in society . As this scene is shot in a conference hall, the use of medium close up shots of the panel, signify anxiety and shock, as they are subjected to hostile reception by a member of the audience. In effect, the audience member is giving his own opinion on muslims, as they are given negative stereotypes, as being bombers or radical extremists. These negative stereotypes seem to leave an impression of young muslims who revert to terrorism as a means of escape and hatred.

Though, the comical aspect of this scene is when the audience member reveals in a medium shot , that he is carrying armed explosives. The camera quickly zooms out in order to catch the audience's shocked reaction. Whats more, the deranged audience member begins to rap, which comes as a shock, as this shows how young muslims seem to interpret terrorism as a social organisation and seem to think radical terrorism is 'cool'. The scene actually ridicules terrorism, as it shows failed attempts of suicide bombers, as the man's bombs fail to explode, revealing party popper confetti, which seemingly calms audience expectations of the scene.


Critical Reception

Surprisingly, Four Lions received positive reviews in the media and approval from the muslim community. Whats more, the film managed to impress at the Box Office on its opening weekend, generating the highest site average of all the new releases (£5,292) and making a total of £609,000.

In the media, the reviews were generally positive, showing how the film conveyed reality and reaction to moral panic around terrorism. Here are a few critical responses from newspapers

[Chris Morris'] seemed to evoke the claustrophobic mundanity of the Muslims’ lives, and showed their quarrelous banter, their flimsily pick 'n’ mix approach to the Koran all feel painfully, brilliantly real." Daily Mail

Critic Kaleem Aftab responds by saying how Morris ' exposes a myth of terrorist bombers being trained assassins but instead exposes them as being confused young men.' The Independent

However, Nick Fraser believed that the film endorsed homegrown terrorism.

'I wasn't sure how to handle a jihadi who discusses going to heaven with his nine-year-old son,' he wrote. The Observer

'Chris Morris depicts a movement of violent berks and prats. In this film, everyone is stupid. The suicide bombers are stupid; the coppers are stupid; even the clever suicide bomber with the gentle, loving marriage and adoring son is stupid' The Guardian

'The most uncomfortable aspect of Four Lions is the excruciatingly happy, healthy, fulfilled home life of Omar. Just as we have become accustomed to the idea that only idiots or creeps want to kill people by blowing themselves up, Morris coolly presents us with a self-evidently nice, commonsensical guy who loves his family'. The Guardian

'Despite what is happening in the news every day, there is something daring and refreshing about a film that tickles the jihadists in the ribs until fundamentalism becomes farce.' The Times

On the whole, the critics from the UK newspapers cite how the film satirises Islam and shows the normality of the terrorists. Though, the film also shows public paranoia and fear, as the characters are different in their personalities and dreams, with Barry being the egomaniac and Omar being the more sensible yet stupid leader of the bunch.

Crime and Deviance in British comedy film

Within British comedy film , the issue of crime and deviance has been explored in depth, with the earlier dark comedies exploring serious issues. Though, British comedy tends to reflect crime in a lighthearted way. Notably, films such as The Lady Killers (1955) focus on crime which involves conmen trying to exploit old women, though with comical results. As well as this, modern comedies on crime such as Parole Officer (2001), Hot Fuzz (2007), Home Alone (1990) seemingly satirise social issues, and policing in particular. Interestingly, these films relfect the incapability of the police to control issues, with Hot Fuzz being a prime example, as some of the officers are constructed as being more laid back, unfit and carefree.

Though, comedy has managed to give a more accurate stereotype of the comical, haphazard police and secret agents, who manage to mess things up, but are still touted as the 'Proppian hero', as evident with Rowan Atkinson in Johnny English (2003).

Scene from Hot Fuzz (2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uPlNKWWsgY

Hot Fuzz revolves around the life of Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg), a proud, dedicated police officer, working in London's Metropolitan Police Service. Angel excels in every area of his work and is commended for his numerous achievements, making him better than his colleagues. Due to his hard work, he is promoted by his superiors and is transferred to a rural village called Sandford (Gloucestershire), where he meets a group of laid back, care free police officers such as Danny Butterman (Nick Frost).

In many ways, Hot Fuzz (2007) is an example of films which reflect current social issues. In response to the July 7/7 terrorist attacks in London, police had to be more resolute and attentive over threats to the country. However, the accidental assassination of a suspected Brazilian electrician Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell Station on 22nd July 2005, resulted in a moral panic over policing. As a result, this mistake signified how the police intelligence was misleading and how inadequate the police was at handling situations which gradually led to the Chief Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to resign over fears of disorganisation and poor government intelligence.

This article from the Guardian looks at how police are unable or in many ways incompetent at handling situations such as terrorist alerts, as their is usually mis communication with the Metropolitan Police and police officers on patrol. The article mocks the police for thier incompete and follow up in the investigation, as they have made a huge cock up.

De Menezes shooting investigation 'like an episode of Fawlty Towers', says Brian Paddick

By SARAH OLIVER and MARTIN SMITH

Last updated at 12:14 05 August 2007

One of Britain's most prominent ex-lawmen has likened scenes that unfolded in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of an innocent Brazilian at Stockwell Underground station to 'an episode of Fawlty Towers'.

Brian Paddick, who recently resigned as a Deputy Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard, said the sequence of events that followed the tragic shooting by police marksmen of Jean Charles de Menezes starkly exposed weaknesses at the top of the Metropolitan Police.

As a one-time member of Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair's inner circle, Paddick reveals the confusion at the heart of Scotland Yard during the height of the Al Qaeda threat and how an extraordinary confrontation with the Commissioner presaged the end of his own high-flying police career.

Paddick spoke out following the publication last week of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report into whether Scotland Yard told the truth in the hours after officers shot the wrong man.

The report found that Sir Ian had not known for 24 hours that De Menezes was innocent because his senior command had failed to tell him.


Forced out: Paddick feels his honesty cost him his career

In an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Paddick:

• Questions how Sir Ian found himself in a position where he had to explain that his high command kept him in the dark.

• Reveals that he feared there would be a cover-up by the Metropolitan Police.

• Claims that he felt sidelined and forced out of his job after he challenged the official line on who-knew-what about the shooting.

Paddick's story starts on Thursday, July 21, 2005, when a gang launched a wave of failed terror attacks on the London transport system. It was a mere fortnight since the 7/7 bombings had killed 52 people and injured another 800 on London's public transport network.

Shortly after 10am the following day, Friday, July 22, 2005, De Menezes, 27, was shot dead by anti-terror officers who believed that they had failed- bomber Hussain Osman in their sights.

Paddick claims that at 3.15pm on that Friday he was told by two of Sir Ian's closest aides, Chief Superintendent Moir Stewart and Chief of Staff Caroline Murdoch, that the dead man was a 'Brazilian tourist'.

Both officers later disputed that they had used that expression.

However, Paddick claims the conversation went thus: 'You'll never believe what we've done now,' said Chief Supt Stewart. 'We've shot a Brazilian tourist.'

'You're joking,' replied Paddick.

'I'm not,' said Stewart.

'No,' added Murdoch. 'We've found a Brazilian driving licence in his back pocket.'

Minutes later, said Paddick, Sir Ian told a Press conference that the shooting was directly linked to the operation to catch the failed bombers ? a statement that Paddick felt did not tell the whole truth.

At about 4pm, a knot of senior officers, including Paddick, met in Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown's office and were given the Brazilian's name.

Then, at 5pm, a meeting chaired by Sir Ian was held in Room 806 of New Scotland Yard. Paddick was there. Another Assistant Commissioner, Andy Hayman, said that the police would need DNA evidence to confirm the dead man's identity.

'By this time I was concerned there was some sort of cover-up,' said Paddick. 'But I was bound by my loyalty to my Commissioner and the fact that I was outranked by Alan Brown and Andy Hayman.

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell Underground station

I did think people would have understood if the Met had confessed promptly to shooting an innocent man ? the Press and the public were talking about a war-time situation that summer.'

Paddick is adamant that the calamity was common knowledge among Sir Ian's aides.

'The information available was good enough for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be told on the day of the shooting,' he said.

'What if the Brazilian Ambassador had telephoned the Commissioner personally to discuss the killing of one of his nationals?

'If it was correct that senior officers such as Assistant Commissioners Andy Hayman and Alan Brown had not told him, Ian Blair would have run the risk of looking stupid and out of control of his own force.


'Detective Chief Superintendent Maxine de Brunner, staff officer to Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson, was asked by Blair at 6.30pm if they had an ID on the victim yet. She said no. Yet her boss's secretary Laura Holford gave evidence to the IPCC that she [Holford] knew by 4pm the man was an innocent Brazilian.

'By 7pm on the day of the shooting the Muslim Safety Forum, a community liaison group, was told the victim was not a Muslim but was South American, possibly Brazilian. They are civilians ? and yet they know ahead of the Commissioner?

'It's taking on shades of an episode of Fawlty Towers where a guest dies and Basil hides the body under the bed. You had the Commissioner arriving at meetings where people were being briefed, someone was frantically hiding the metaphorical body under the desk and shouting, ?Don't mention the Brazilian.?

The farce, said Paddick, didn't stop there. He questions why Sir Ian ? on this of all days ? left his office in the early evening.

'And then the Commissioner went home at 7.15pm. What did he do? Listen to the radio, put his feet up, have a cup of cocoa and turn in, a man reassured his best people were on the case?

'By 9pm that night anti-terror officers had handed the investigation over to the Department of Professional Standards, they'd washed their hands of it because they knew they'd got the wrong man. Is it credible to suggest it would have been impolite to have called the Commissioner then to tell him?'

Paddick reconciled his desire for transparency with the overarching requirements of the anti-terror operation and kept silent for a month.

Then came a development he considered to be a legal and moral bombshell.

On August 21, 2005, Sir Ian gave an interview to a Sunday tabloid newspaper in which he claimed that neither he, nor his senior command, had known that De Menezes was innocent for 24 hours after the shooting.

Paddick said: 'Blair said that he and everyone who advised him believed the dead man to have been a suicide bomber for 24 hours after his death. It was quite clear to me this was not true. I didn't know what to do. I found the dilemma between loyalty and personal integrity almost unbearable.'

Paddick felt compelled to speak to his boss and made an appointment to see him at 5.15pm the following day. He said: 'I have been given various labels down the years, but the most fearless, bravest, most macho man in the Met is not one of them. So how come it was down to me a month after the Stockwell shooting to go to Ian Blair and put him straight?'

Jean Charles de Menezes


The body of Jean Charles de Menezes after the shooting

Paddick tried to make his loyalty clear. 'Since the time of your appointment, I have called you Commissioner. Today, I'm going to call you Ian,' he said, determined that Sir Ian should know he was addressing him as a trusted friend.

Paddick then told Sir Ian that his closest advisers had known the shooting was a fatal mistake on the day it happened. If they had not told their boss of the emerging evidence, then they should have done, certainly before Blair had given the Press conference.

Sir Ian, he claims, disagreed. 'He suggested it was me who had the wrong day and the wrong time,' said Paddick. 'Then he realised that I was definite about being told on the Friday and he asked me what I wanted him to do. I said it was up to him what he did. I was just there to tell him what I knew. He was still my friend as well as my colleague and I was torn. I wasn't there to confront him, I wanted to help him.' The men parted with a handshake. But it was also a farewell to their friendship. From that point on, Paddick claims, he felt sidelined.

In his evidence to the IPCC, Sir Ian would later dismiss his meeting with Paddick as lasting no more than a minute. He admitted making no notes, unlike the ever-meticulous Paddick, who wrote an aide memoire stretching to two A4 pages and took the trouble to telephone two senior colleagues, the clerk to the Police Authority and the IPCC to inform them of the exchange.

Paddick claimed: 'These are just a few of what I consider to be a series of significant anomalies. But the IPCC accepts he's telling the truth and therefore so must we.'

He is profoundly unimpressed with the IPCC report. Paddick said: 'The idea this report is a professional and thorough investigation is a conclusion only Inspector Clouseau could reach.

'Either the IPCC has been incompetent or political pressure has been put on it not to look too deeply into what happened.

'You can follow the cock-up or the conspiracy theory, but I believe a more extensive investigation may have come to a different conclusion.'

And he has huge sympathy for the only person to be censured by the report, Britain's most senior anti-terror officer, Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman.

Paddick said: 'All I can say is that it wasn't just the Met which shot the wrong man ? the IPCC has too. Andy Hayman and I have clashed many times in the past, I would not describe him as a friend or a supportive colleague, but I think it grossly unfair for him to have been singled out by a flawed investigation.'

The bottom line is that, like the IPCC report, Sir Ian himself and his senior command, Paddick can't explain why the Commissioner simply wasn't told that De Menezes was innocent for 24 hours.

It is a personal sadness for Paddick because, prior to Stockwell, he and Sir Ian had been professionally close. Lunching at Tate Britain prior to his appointment, Sir Ian had asked Paddick which job he coveted if Sir Ian became Commissioner. (Paddick said that he would like to run the internal affairs department.)

The junior officer had also helped the would-be Commissioner with his application form, offering three pages of feedback, and polished the speech that Sir Ian delivered to Scotland Yard staff upon his appointment.

This was not a particularly altruistic act. Sir Ian was familiar with Paddick's super-sensitive antennae, both social and political, and, of course, Paddick's private life ? he was Britain's highest-ranking gay officer ? suited Sir Ian's commitment to diversity across the Metropolitan Police.

However, the men's differences following Stockwell would prove irreconcilable.

Media leaks about subsequent police operations were blamed on Paddick. He was summoned to see the Commissioner and told that he was being moved from the powerful department of Territorial Policing, where he enjoyed day-to-day control over 20,000 officers, to Information Management, a tiny unit which Paddick described as 'staffed by people on defaulters parade'.

It was a career cul-de-sac for a man who had been told his promotion to assistant commissioner was a case of 'when, not if'.

After being told that he was being moved, Paddick turned and told the Commissioner: 'Ian, our mutual enemies will be celebrating today.'

Paddick's well-tuned antennae recognised that his quest for accountability over Stockwell was putting both of their careers and reputations on the line. Until this point, their clash had been a near- private affair.

What happened next turned it into a public tempest that dominated the airwaves and newspaper headlines for weeks. The BBC learned an officer had made a statement contradicting Blair's 24-hour claim to the IPCC. Paddick's name was in wide circulation.

The Metropolitan Police's Press operation issued a statement saying 'whatever his [the officer's] motives, it is simply untrue'. In effect, it was calling Paddick a liar.

By then in his late 40s, isolated within the Yard and with his life's ambition of achieving the rank of commissioner comprehensively dashed, Paddick had finally had enough. He threatened to sue his employer for libel, forcing the Met into a humiliating climbdown.

On that point at least, Paddick was victorious.

Today, there will be many in Scotland Yard who believe that in speaking out Paddick is doing from civvy street what he once did within the force: dividing loyalties and opinion while promoting his own agenda and profile.

A maverick and a loner, he had few friends among the senior echelons of the force, and it's fair to say he has even fewer now. But they shouldn't forget he was always a formidable operator.

He said: 'My career from my first night duty as a constable to the reason why I had to leave was about being open and honest.

'The outcome of Stockwell was never going to be about the truth, it was about politics and power ? and I was clearly never going to be reconciled with the Commissioner so I had to leave.'

Paddick broke with police tradition and had his leaving party away from the Yard.

The number of members of Sir Ian's top team were outnumbered by the cooks and waitresses from New Scotland Yard's canteen ? and there were only three of them ? who joined Paddick's driver and secretary and 70 other guests in wishing him well.

He extended an invitation to the Commissioner 'because I thought I ought to', but the chief declined, saying he would be out of the country.

Oddly,' claimed Paddick, 'he was not.'

Last night, in response to Paddick's allegations, Scotland Yard said in a statement: 'Brian Paddick has his own recollection of events. The IPCC has independently scrutinised relevant issues in relation to Stockwell and has taken evidence from both police and non-police witnesses.

'They have not upheld any complaints against the Commissioner, and as the Commissioner has made clear, he did not lie.

'Mr Paddick's reasons for leaving the MPS are entirely a matter for him.

'However, the MPS wants to make it clear that the reasons for his move from an operational to a non-operational post 12 months ago are well known to Mr Paddick, and were wholly unrelated to the events of Stockwell.'

Exploration of Technology within British comedy film

During the mid 1960s, there was a gradual interest into technology, as it made lives much easier. Since the introduction of colour television, more people began buying television, due its practicality and range of programmes. This invention sparked a range of consumer spending, as many people had white goods, such as a refrigerator, washing machines, cookers and other domestic appliances. Alongside this, the 60s was a time of growth, as many people had access to tape recorders, where music could be listened to on the go and touch tone phones which made communication easier. In addition,'live trans-Atlantic satellite television was made possible in 1962, which enabled people to watch a programmes from the USA.

However, the emergence of technologies such as mobiles , computers and domestic appliances in the 1980s , resulted in comedy films to convey the futility of some of the machines and people's ability ot use complicated manchinery, as signfiied in the 1985 film 'Brazil'.

Though, in regards to British comedy, technology was conveyed in a positive way, with films such as 'Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines', advocating the early form of aviation and had a nostalgic feel.

Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines (1965)



In this particular scene, much of the humour is generated from the fact that most of the men are from the upper class. Moreover, the accent of the men actually connotes how they are more posh and civil. The film is a parody of previous aviation related films and shows the futility of early aircraft.

In regards to context, the film cites the early problems with technology and aviation in particular, as the competitors seem to be involved in trial and error in the practice. As well as this, the presence of physical comedy and trouble is signified, as the planes pail to take off, which connotes how man was getting acquainted with the latest technology of the time.

Though, the humour is generated when the competitors are trying to practice running their aircraft. Funnily enough, their shoddy aircrafts end up becoming broken and frail. The use of facial expressions actually induces comedy, as the panellists are shocked at seeing how the aircraft have engineering problems, as evident with the white aircraft in a long shot, which has weight problems. As the race heats up , there is a evident competition between two nations, as the binary opposition of England and Germany is shown to be more competitive, as they are preparing for a conflict, as signified with the guns. Though, this scene is more comical and reflective of earlier technologies, as the English man in the hot air balloon is competing with a more, rough, older German army general. With the use of sound effect, the humour is generated, as the audience acknowledge how disaster is about to unfold and how the English man with the gun is about to something very rash.

Alongside the conflict in the balloons, the two men in the boat are quarrelling , which escalates to both men arguing and falling over, which shows how they are more eager and excited, which causes laughter. In the balloon, the man tries to aim for the other balloon which he tries to obliterate, as he is trying to cheat. Though he manages to misfire at a man in a plane, which results in the plane crashing , clumsily down in to the water. On the contrary, he does not know that his balloon has bursted from a gun shot, but still smirks at seeing the plane's pilot in the water. Much of the comedy is associated with disaster, as the English man slowly plummets into the water.Therefore, the action codes in this scene relates to slapstick, with physical comedy used to create humour.

Issues in British Comedy film

Over the years, British comedy has intentionally reflected serious issues such as crime, religion in a more comical way. By doing this, British comedy is able to satirise issues in order to attract a larger demographic. However, comedy films in general, seemingly respond to issues out of fear, as films such as Monty Python: Life of Brian and Four Lions have been very controversial, in terms of their plots and directors.

Mostly British comedy reflects issues which have been present within a decade, as the rise in islamaphobia and terrorism has resulted in a wave of films which look at particular secular faiths such as Islam, but in a comical way. Therefore, I will analyse particular issues in comedy and will link this to the context of the time.

Focus on societal ills in British film comedy

In rpesonse to the feedback from my supervisor, I have decided to focus on issues, such as crime/ deviance, family life in British comedy, and how they try to give thier opinion on issues. By doing this, I intend to make my research more concise, as before I had to research into context, which was too broad. However, researching deeper into specific issues , will be more sufficient and wil relate to the hypothesis,' How does Britsh comedy film reflect public opinion?'

Scene Analysis from Water (1985)

Analysis of scene from 1.10 to 4.05

Water (1985) is another British comedy film which was directed by Dick Clement and produced by Ian La Frenais and Denis O' Brien. The film was officially distributed by Atlantic Studios and grossed $510,136 on its opening weekend. The film features farcical and physical humour.

Generally, the film appeals to an older audience, comprised of a B/C/D socio economic group and strugglers, reformers and aspirers, as the film features drug references and concerns a plot which revolves around money and business prospects. Throughout the film, there are various stereotypes and accurate representations of people in society, such as Rastafarians and posh Downing Street ministers.

The film revolves is situated in the fictional Caribbean British colony of Cascara. This blissful colony is secretly out of the media gaze. Though the peace is disturbed when an American drilling company begin to know about an oil rig delivering fresh mineral water. Therefore, the water proves to be lucrative prospect,with different parties, including Downing Street, the Cascara Liberation Front, the White House and the Cubans taking an interest, which threatens to destroy the inhabitants' lives.

Within this clip, the theme of colonisation is referenced, with the long shot of the British flag being raised in a Caribbean island. Interestingly, the two black servants are subservient to their white master, as signified in a medium shot as they refer to their master as the 'Guv'nor' and are signified with a tray and a which contains tea and fruit. The protagonist, Michael Caine is introduced in a medium shot smoking a cigarette, which connotes his laid back lifestyle. Though, the binary opposition between the servants and the protagonist is clear as they follow his command, and could be racist as black people are stereotyped as the' slaves'. Funnily the servant's dialect is posh, though they still are laid back, as signified in a medium shot where one of the servant's smokes a joint. The other's servants response is comical, as he says ' This is a heavy duty herbs boss', this connotes how black people are stereotyped as being drug addicts.

The use of cuts show introduce different character, with the priest and the guerrillas introduced in a medium and high angle shot. Though the use of the zoom focuses out to signify the Rastafarian DJ who's use of English is more formal, as he refers to himself as a BBC correspondent which is comical and strange. The comical aspect is when he looks out of the window, and refers to the weather as being 'hot', which is ironic, as Caribbean countries are usually baking hot. Though the weather becomes more windy. The camera shifts to signify Billy Connolly in a long shot, as he progresses up the ladder. Though, as he parasials down the rope, the parallel sound of the Caribbean music is subtle, as the diegitic sound of him screaming and acrobatically movements connote how he is over the top. As a result, Connolly crashes through the ceiling, in comical circumstances, which connotes how he is a buffoon.

Scene Analysis in Brazil (1985)

Analysis of De Niro scene from 0:10 to 3:40

'Brazil' (1985) is a British science fiction comedy, which was directed by Terry Gilliam (known for writing the Monty Python:Life of Brian and other Python films). It was distributed by 20th Century Fox in Europe and generated $30,099 on its opening weekend. The film intentionally cast Robert De Niro due to financial relationsips with America and to raise global awareness.

The film revolves around the protagonist, Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce), an ordinary man, who is trying to find a woman who appears in his dreams , while working in a boring day job and living in a small apartment. Brazil is set in a 'dystopian' world, where there is an over-reliance on poorly maintained machines. In some way, this film was reflective of the British Government, as Gilliam intentionally tries to show how the government is trying to be controlling, like enforcing cuts in the public sector,however not successfully.

In this scene, the camera zooms out to a medium shot of the protagonist, Sam, who is stereotyped as being quite lazy, untidy and stupid. He is dressed in pyjamas and has a tired expression, which denotes he is laid back lifestyle.

As he bangs his head on the inside of the fridge, the diegitic sound of the telephone rings. This type of shot enables the audience to identify with the protagonist, as they , like Sam are unaware of who is calling and are left in suspense. The use of low key lighting and filler light from the fridge connotes isolation and fear, as Sam awakens to answer the phone but fondles around with machines, which denotes that he is a man who is unfamiliar with the latest technology, which older audiences can identify with.

Brazil's concept of over reliance of machines seemingly responds to how British society was getting familiarised with new technology such as mobile phones and computers. In many ways, the audience identify and have negotiated readings with Sam, throughout the film; as he, like the audience is getting used to the wave of new technology around him.

As Sam answers the phone, the parallel sound of a mysterious man grows louder. Unaware that Tuttle is behind him, Sam blindly reacts to his voice with ease and confidence. With the phone disconnected, the camera tilts up convey the figure a man dressed in a black balaclava, black waistcoat and army attire. Reacting to the man's call to put his hands up, the camera focuses on the two characters in a medium shot. Slowly, the camera tracks around Sam, so that the audience can identify with the man.

The camera's panning and focus on the man in a medium shot, seemingly quells Sam's fears, as he checks the wall mysteriously. The comical aspect is when the man looks at the wall then quickly at Sam, in a puzzled expression, as if to say ' Are you serious?' As the man puts his 'gun' in its holster, he removes his balaclava in a long shot and identifies himself to Sam and the audience as 'Harry Tuttle'.

Being a heating engineer, Tuttle looks around the room for an object in a frantic way. In a surprised fashion, Sam responds in a dumbfounded way, 'Tuttle?' and like the audience, Sam is unaware of who this stranger is. In some way, much of the humour is generated from inquisition and doubt, as Sam naturally asks, where the stranger is from , 'Are you from Central Services?" and gets a rather unexpected and sarcastic response, from Tuttle.

As Tuttle removes the device connected to the wall, a wall tile becomes unattached and scares Sam. Tuttle's carefree expression, surprises Sam who is told by Tuttle that he is working illegally, as central services are busy. Tuttle's sense of humour is expressed, as he does not want to work for central services due to the paperwork.

The use of the close up shot of Tuttle from the inside of the wall enables the audience to identify with him, as his glasses and expressions are comical. Also, the belching paralell sound of the pipes and machine generate humour, as the chaos in Sam's room coupled with his unawareness add to the comical effect. Whats more, physical humour is conveyed, as Tuttle's attempts to pluck out a component is funny, as the non deigtic sound of a pop is heard. This in turn, results in Sam becoming suspicious of Tuttle.

Social context and issues in Britain from 1985 to 1995

In 1980s Britain, many comedy films explored societal, such as drugs and addiction, sex and relationships amongst many other issues. Notably, films such as Brazil(1985) gave audiences an insight into the over reliance of machines and objection of an unstable government, all of which were common themes in British society.

Britain in 1980s

In 1980s Britain, 'Yuppy Culture' was influential; where the stereotypical smart suit, glasses and formal appearance was prominent. Though, the influence of music seemed to effect teenagers entirely, as the emergence of shoulder pads and skinny ties appeared to give women a more masculine style. However, film made an impact on fashion, with polo neck jumpers, khakhis and loafers creating a sophisticated look. The launch of sportswear and brands such as Adidas also generated a new fashion trend.

In terms of politics, it was the time of the Conservative government , where the rich and elite dominated and the ability of trade unions to protect employees was destroyed and the idea of collective spirit was ignored.

Many people became 'hard line' professionals who were competing in business and across academic life. Following the death of actor, Rock Hudson, AIDs was made a widespread cause of concern. Celebrities, famous icons and ordinary people began campaigning about the need to raise global awareness of the disease and ways to prevent it from spreading, with the music concerts such as Live Aid, which toured in Philadelphia and London , and on 13th July, raised over £50 million for famine relief in Ethiopia.

In the 1980s, the British pound (£) sank to a record low $US1.11,which severely affected the economy, society and politics, as Conservatism was blamed for creating a 'mess'. In many ways, the political climate in Britain was made worse, following the resignation of Clive Ponting from the Ministry of Defence as he ignored the Official Secrets Act , concerning the leaking of documents relating to the sinking of the Argentinian battle cruiser, 'The Belgrano'. On 16th May, scientists researching from the British Antarctic Survey discovered the ozone hole, which resulted in many people getting used to the fear of climate change. Near the end of 1985,racial riots between Blacks and Asians took place in Handsworth,Birmingham, as blacks were angered by the rise in Asian businesses and poor social conditions such as housing.

1990s

In the 1990s, Britain was in a new technological age; with the invention of mobile phone, making lives easier. As well as this, there was a rise in white goods, as most people had a washing machine, TVs and DVDs which replaced the traditional VHS.

Though, the implementation of the World Wide Web in society was most influential, as this enabled people to buy products online, do all forms of work, as well as for leisure purposes. This resulted in the sales of computers increasing.

In regards to music, there were a range of successful bands and artists , such as Oasis, Massive Attack, MC Hammer which encouraged new trends and fashion, such as puffer jackets

Historical Context of British comedy films in 1980s

British cinema went through a difficult phase during the 1980s, due to domestic problems such as the miners strike, where many men working in coal mines in the Midlands and areas across Britain were made redundant, due to lack of profit and were closed without investigation.

In regards to British film, Margaret Thatcher made cuts in support for arts institutions, which resulted in lack of funding for many film and arts companies. It was clear that the Conservative government wanted the film industry to be treated like any other business. Tax increases meant that investment in film was risky. Many film finaancing companies such as NFFC(The National Film Finance Corporation), were privatised, which resulted in films being more expensive to produce.

Despite a government seemingly opposed towards film, the late 80's still saw a steady increase in British film production.

Leonard Quart, in The Religion of the Market, says 'despite the Thatcher government's unwillingness to aid the film industry, it did establish a general mood that encouraged economic risk-taking and experimentation with new and more innovative business practices'. One of these was Channel Four's Film on Four project, which was one of main source of investment in British production during the 80's. It was in some way television repaying its debt to the film industry. Film on Four financed or co-financed many of the great films of the decade such as My Beautiful Laundrette(1984)

Most importantly, comedy films also began to become more prominent during the late 80's. Notably, some major British comedy films relied on financial assistance from America and some were joint produced by American and Britsh directors, such as 'American Werewolf in London' (1981). As well as this, directors and producers in British comedy film intentionally chose to cast American actors and actresses, as seen in A Fish Called Wanda (1988) and High Spirits (1988). Therefore, British comedy films would be able to sustain financial relationships with America. Due to poor public support for the British product,Britsh comedies were joint produced and contain American actors, which was effective, as these films would raise cultural identity and Britishness, whilst at the same time would appeal to an international market.

British Comedy Film Introduction

Over the years, Britain has had success, when it comes down to film. With the success of radio and the wit of Spike Milligan and 'The Goon Show', accompanied by notable comedians such as Peter Sellers and Harry Secombe, British comedy in general has managed to not only be a recognised and longest running genre, but has managed to make people laugh over the years.

Notably, British comedy itself has had monumental success, with the ludicrous antics of the Monty Python team, depicting common day antics and side splitting jokes. The genre has had plenty of inspiration to draw on over the years. With the origins of the genre stemming from Ealing comedies in the 1950s, British film has generally adapted and become more permissive. In many ways, the arrival of Monty Python actually broke societal boundaries , with the exposure of sex and blasphemy, as seen in 'Monty Python's Life of Brian and 'The Holy Grail'. Following the success of Monty Python, John Cleese, Micheal Palin and Eric Idle became infamous household names.

Following the success of 'The Life of Brian and 'The Holy Grail', it was a tough task to create another Python film which would live up to the reputation of the other successful films. However, they managed to produce ' The Meaning of Life' in 1983 which focuses on John Cleese as a school teacher, who has the awkward task of teaching children about sex, whilst not getting it right.

Despite the film's previous successors, 'The Meaning of Life' did not live up to its reputation and resulted in the character separating to pursue other projects. Though , some of the actors such as Cleese and Palin had cameo appearances and writing stints, but nothing as successful as the Python films.