‘BRAZIL’: TOO MUCH MOVIE FOR AMERICA

“It’s a knockout . . . fascinating, witty, perceptive and it has something very important to say,” said film critic Judith Crist.

“Brilliant and original,” said Playboy’s Bruce Williamson.

“It’s one of the 10 best pictures of the year--without question,” said ABC-TV’s Joel Siegel.

These are not quotes in a movie ad. They are taken from telephone interviews with a handful of U.S. critics who have seen Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil,” a $15-million satirical social drama starring Jonathan Pryce and Robert De Niro that won’t be shown commercially in the United States until next year. And we may never see the version that prompted the raves above.

“It’s very simple,” said MCA President Sidney Sheinberg, explaining why Universal Pictures yanked “Brazil” from its fall schedule this week. “We’re going to do further work on the movie, then examine which version to release.”

Shades of “Mask” and “Once Upon a Time in America.” Gilliam (“Time Bandits”) apparently refused to trim the film to agreed-upon length, and the studio is going to make the adjustment itself.

Sheinberg would not discuss contract details, but he acknowledged that Gilliam’s version is too long and that the director is not involved in the current editing.

A 2-hour and 22-minute version of “Brazil” has been playing in foreign markets for more than three months (to good reviews and business, according to 20th Century Fox International), and critics who’ve seen it say it is a potential Oscar nominee in several categories. But Sheinberg said Tuesday the movie will not be released this year, even for the one week it takes to qualify it for 1985 Oscars.

“Our responsibility is not to please critics or academy voters,” Sheinberg said, “but to please audiences and (to enhance) the commercial viability of the film.”

If “Brazil” producer Arnan Milchan has his way, a few more American critics will soon have a look at Gilliam’s version. Milchan says he will pay all expenses for any serious American journalist willing to go outside the United States to see it.

“My contract with (Universal) does not allow me to show the movie to the press in the U.S.,” Milchan said, in a telephone interview from Italy, where another of his films--”Legend”--is opening the Venice Film Festival. “All I can do is appeal to anybody who’ll accept a ticket to see the movie.”

Milchan is even considering renting a theater in Mexico and inviting critics down for a look.

“They (critics) can kill it afterward if that’s how they feel,” Milchan said. “I just want them to see it.”

Milchan was careful not to criticize Universal for its handling of “Brazil.” He says his contract prevents him from commenting negatively (“I’m only allowed to say that I’m not allowed to say anything”). But the critics, and others in the industry who’ve seen “Brazil,” say it’s an offbeat film that’s apt to be damaged by dispassionate studio editing.

“Universal is on a self-destruct course if it tries to doctor the film into something other than what it is,” Williamson said. “It may be a hard movie to market, but films that are original are harder to market.”

Crist, who was shown the film by Gilliam, said “Brazil” is unique, but still accessible to audiences with demands higher than those of the industry’s coveted 12-year-olds.

“My feeling is that if George Orwell were alive today, and he was a brilliant film maker like Terry Gilliam, this would have been his ‘1985,’ ” Crist said by phone Tuesday. “It’s a film that requires special treatment, but the studio should be willing to take that risk. If not, the intelligent filmgoer will be deprived.”

Ironically, say the critics, the film is about creative suppression and bureaucratic abuse. The title comes from the upbeat Xavier Cugat song, which is played over those sequences where the film’s main character (Pryce, playing a numb mid-level administrator) takes refuge in his dreams.

Milchan has not had much luck with his U.S. distributors, even though his movies have featured strong American themes and stars. “King of Comedy,” which starred Robert De Niro and Jerry Lewis, was treated like a drunk uncle by 20th Century Fox three years ago (only to become something of a cult hit on cable later). And last year’s “Once Upon a Time in America” was DOA at the box office, after being edited with garden shears by Warner Bros.

Milchan’s troubles don’t end with “Brazil.” Universal has also decided to postpone release of “Legend,” a $30-million fairy tale directed by Ridley Scott (“Alien”). Sheinberg said “Legend,” which stars Tom Cruise, is not ready for release--at least not in this country.

With “Brazil” and “Legend” both scratched, Universal now sports one of the least imposing fall schedules in Hollywood. Its releases include “Creator,” an offbeat science-fiction comedy with Peter O’Toole and Mariel Hemingway; a stereo reissue of 1952’s “The Glenn Miller Story,” and two pickups from England’s Thorn EMI--”Wild Geese II” and “Morons From Outer Space.”

WHO PAYS?: Richard Attenborough’s “A Chorus Line” will be released in Los Angeles, New York and several other major cities this Christmas by Columbia Pictures, but whether it will be marketed by Columbia or Embassy Pictures is still undecided.

“A Chorus Line” was retained by Norman Lear and Jerry Perenchio when they sold their Embassy Communications and Tandem Productions to the Coca-Cola Co. Sources said Lear and Perenchio will pay Columbia a distribution fee, and will also put up the money for advertising and publicity. The only question is who will spend the money?

Both marketing departments are eager to work on it. Columbia’s Christmas schedule got lighter this week when Blake Edwards’ “A Fine Mess” was moved to Memorial Day Weekend. And Embassy has no other movies to release.

CHORUS LINE P.S.: In fact, the biggest question about “A Chorus Line” this summer has not been who’s going to distribute it, but whether Pepsi Cola would have a presence in a film that might be distributed by a studio owned by Coca-Cola.

Apparently, there was a Pepsi presence on the “Chorus Line” set--a vending machine backstage, a couple of cans strewn about, or in the clutches of guzzling cast members.

A surprising number of people dodged this seemingly innocuous question during the past few weeks. Spokespersons for both soft-drink companies and both studios declined to comment, a few crew members contacted claimed they didn’t realize there was even a Pepsi-Coke crisis here, while the one outside person we found who had actually seen the film said he didn’t notice.

Well, the case is finally solved . . . sort of.

“There were only a couple of scenes with Pepsi in them,” said a source close to the production asking for anonymity. “They’re not there now, but Coke had nothing to do with it. They were just in scenes that happened to get cut.”

Hmmmm.