|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
1. Of the man,
the artist, and the pretentious fool.
Peter Greenaway is a pretentious twit. His films are pure cinematic
exercises that exceed the limit between being interesting to just being
there because the director has several extremely great ideas based on obscure
trivia and literary knowledge which he will not share with you. They're
injokes meant for one person.
Opinion of films aside, the guy in person is an actual pretentious twit who spouts moronic pseudo-artist poser opinions on cinema that would wet the pants of a drone film student but cause unintended laughter in anyone else. Heck, just watch him in Lumiere and Company.
That aside, he's also an artist. The man is a painter, a novelist, and works as curator for varied museum exhibits. He's the type that want to claim the throne as successor of Igmar Bergman. The way he watches films and processes them in his heads is nothing like any normal person; he observes them as paintings. He doesn't care about telling a story (or perhaps has no talent as a writer to actually come up with one). He cares about talking about ideas, about visual composition, about design, and exploration of the limits of cinema, about innovation. Although his movies most of the time are not good, I can at least recognize them all as "art".
2. Of his characteristics,
his obsessions, his numbers, and his endless lists.
Tradenark characteristics by which to recognize a Greenaway:
1.-characters have strange obsessions.
2.-a lot of mostly unerotic nudity is involved.
3.-a lot of male nudity is involved. I cannot think of anyone
outside of the gay porn film industry that has filmed so many penises.
4.-music by Michael Nyman (Gattaca, The Piano, Ravenous,
The End of the Affair)
5.-from 1987-on, cinematography by octogenerian new waver Sacha Vierny
6.-obsession with lists. In fact, all of his movies could be
summarized beginning with "a list of..."
7.-obsession with numbers, particularly the number 96, and statistics
8.-obsession with patterns, designs, maps, blueprints
9.-obsession with words
10.-obsession with caligraphy
11.-the 5 above listed obsessed things are flashed on screen all the
time, unexpectedly
12.-his movies are broken into chapters, because of his lists.
Before each chapter (which can be of varied length) some form of literature
explaining related in some way to the events about to happen in the chapter.
They're never onscreen enough time to read them well.
13.-detailed concern with framing.
14.-many of his films feature for moments small screens inside of the
large screen.
15.-many references and jokes regarding high culture: art films, paintings,
opera, specific books, stories behind the creators of such.
16.-some obsession with water and birds
17.-some obsession with death.
18.-grouping of people with bizarre common characteristics.
19-concern of the contrast between reality and fiction.
20.-concern of the effects of violence.
21.-he writes all of his own screenplays.
22.-usually someone drowns (in some way or another).
23.-domineering men with big egos are shown to be under the control
of women.
3.- Of his shorts, his long movies, their plots, the people they've starred, and how they rate
Filmography:
(under construction,
will be done through several sequences and a perfect design throughout
many dates)
Several shorts: Tree, Train, Revolution, 5 Postcards from Capital Cities, Intervals, Erosion, H is for House, Windows, Water, Vertical Features Remake, Water Wrackets, Dear Phone, A Walk Through H, 1-1000, Zandra Rhodes, Act of God, Terence Conran, The Sea in their Blood, Four American Composers, Making a Splash, Fear of Drowning, Death on the Siene.
The Cook,
the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover
(1989)
Greenaway's best film, and his bestknown. I'll get to this review later, but basically the wife of a mobster who has taken over a restaurant falls in love with a mild-mannered intelectual, and have their relationship work in reverse order: first they have a lot of casual sex, and then after a long while they talk to each other for the first time and find out who they are. This leads to the revenge of the mobster and the subsequent revenge of the wife, the cook of the restaurant, and his staff. A lot of dark humor is involved.
Bizarreness level: 7 out of 10
Rating: 7 out of 10
8½
Women
(1999)
Starring: John Standing (The Eagle has Landed, Mrs
Dalloway), Matthew Delamere (Shadowlands), Vivian Wu (The
Pillow Book, A Bright Shining Lie, Heaven & Earth),
Toni Colette (The Sixth Sense, Velvet Goldmine, Clockwatchers),
Amanda Plummer (Pulp Fiction, So I Married an Axe Murderer),
Polly Walker (Emma, Patriot Games), Annie Shizuka
Inoh, Kirina Mano, and others.
Genre: Comedy
I caught the US premiere of this one at the South by Southwest festival
in Austin, Texas. Now, if you've seen one Peter
Greenaway film (except, perhaps, for The Falls) you probably
now how most will turn out: an odd sexual fantasy/examination
where several taboos are broken, men are shown to believe to be powerful
but be really at the mercy of women, and a lot of
numbers and lists are involved. This is not an exception.
The plot goes something like this: an old rich man (Standing) who
owns several casinos is distraught when his wife suddenly dies.
He never really cared for her, yet depended on her. His son
(Delamere, who looks like an odd mix between Matthew Broderick and
Brendan Fraser), who operates the chain of gambling
parlors in Japan, flies over to his mansion to console him. In
doing so, they get to discover each other a bit more. It turns out
that both are heavy narcisists, particularly the son, Storey, who is
also sex-obsessed. One night, to console his father, Storey
sleeps in the same bed as him, hugging him, only that naked (the only
way he likes to sleep). Storey then takes his father,
Philip, to the movies, where they watch Fellini's 8½,
while they very loudly discuss sex and other aspects of life. While
watching the film over and over again, Philip wonders how did Fellini
get all those beautiful women in his film, and if the only
reason he did the film was to get in bed with all of them. All
of the events result in discussion of Philip's sex life, which had been
very boring, and strictly monogamous. Then Storey takes Philip
to Japan, where, to pay off debts, a group of Japanese men
surrender a young attractive woman named Simato (Inoh) who had been
gambling like crazy in their parlors. Storey takes her
in as a sort of personal hooker, but, following an earthquake that
Storey had conjured and disspelled (unexplicably), Philip,
Simato, and Storey have a 3-way. Then another night, while at
a kabuki play, they pick up a young geisha (Mano) who was
distressed because she didn't feel woman-like. Suddenly father
and son start collecting a group of women to live with them at
their mansion in Italy and satisfy their diverse pleasures. They
wind up collecting: a woman with a neck brace who loved a
horse way too much; a woman who had children all the time just because
she enjoyed it; a nymphomaniac; a hard working
androgenous woman whom Philip transforms into a nun-like being (which
she develops beyond the limit); a woman whom
knew them from a long time ago who dressed in the deceased wife's hats
and which may be trying to poison them; their
extremely efficient secretary from Japan (Wu); and a 1/2 woman, which
I will leave you to figure out who or what it is (its
revealed in the ending). Add to that a horse, a pig, and the
housekeepers. Of course, as things progress, things get stranger,
Philip becomes a sex-maniac, Storey becomes rather jealous of his father,
and eventually it all gets out of wack and the women
carry their roles too far, and it all breaks down.
Pardon me if I cannot remember all of the names or which actress played
which character. In fact, you probably will not
either. Heck, the characters themselves had trouble remembering
which was which (a self-spoof by Greenaway). Not that it
really matters, though. Greenaway was more interested in sexual
confusion, so I guess that was his way of confusing us.
Greenaway also adds some other peculiar touches to the film.
For example, it is broken down into 4 acts, at the beginning of
which are displayed scene descriptions (as those in a script) which
are not on the screen long enough for anyone to be able to
read more than half of it. And a lot of numbers are displayed
here and there, particularly the number 8 ½.
However, beyond being extremely odd, the film is not that entertaining.
Its first 30-40 minutes are, but then it begins to fall
down. Still, there are odd shots here and there that make you
chuckle, and the dialogue is so screwed up that most of the time
it is hilarious. But it all boils down to just being an odd sexual
fantasy with not much to offer. And personally, I was turned off
by the son-father incest themes and images, and the multiple times
that John Standing was completely naked and the
cameraman made sure that it would capture all of him, including his
penis. In a lot of scenes people were nude just for the sake
of being nude, not even for erotic purposes. And you just get
tired of the whole exercise. Quite frankly, most of the latter part
reminded me of European soft-core porno comedy series from the 80s,
only without the eroticism. The only things that will
keep you awake are the odd characters, the odd dialogue, and the odd
twists. Not really worth your time.
Bizarreness level: 8 shots out of 10.
Rating: 5 or 6 out of 10.
The Falls
(1980)
Greenaway's first feature-length film after a zillion shorts. And boy, he sure did seem to be trying to make up the lost time, for this is over 3 hours long! Now, 3 hours might seem alright if you're talking about a consistently engaging movie with a long story that needs to be told slowly to get all the details and feelings. But it doesn't sound so appetizing when you're talking about 3 hours of head shots of people interviewed in a mockumentary who were affected by an appocalyptic event. Yep, 92 small mock interviews. Furthermore, it's loaded with great references... to Greenaway's own shorts, which few people have ever seen. The idea of the movie is that a "Violent Unknown Event (V.U.E.) " happened, destroyed the world, and all chaos is happening. Some people are developing bird-like features, others their own languages, others diseases, others immortality. Some blame the whole thing on the birds.
Personally, I can't give an honest rating to this, as I've never had the time to watch the full thing. What I watched was somewhat entertaining, though. Most people who sit through the whole thing enjoy it.
Prospero's Books
(1991)
Starring: John Gielgud
Supposedly, this is an adaptation of The Tempest. Heck, if I tell you the basic information, that John Gielgud narrates and stars in it, and that every word in the movie is taken from Shakespeare's play, you'd just think it's another generic Shakespeare adaptation. However, once you watch it you realize that you're seeing a bunch of naked people dancing around and several people too old to be dancing naked that are dressed in costumes from a fruitty version of Alice in Wonderland. Then Greenaway did something to the film itself to make the movie look as if it were shot in the early 70s. And the sound is awful.
So basically this movie is just 2 hours of the late John Gielgud (R.I.P.) mumbling almost the entire play himself while whining about books in a lot of extremely lavish sets. Meanwhile, Greenaway starts throwing in his artistic touches sevenfold, so you get one shot after another of small screens inside bigger screens, lists, and a lot of books flash before our eyes before we get a chance to read them properly. Drawings and words pop up on the screen, out of the blue. A little kid jumps in and out of a pool, and pees in it for a long time. Several women people sing in operatic voices. More books pop up and Gielgud mumbles more things. A bunch of penises appear onscreen. And so on... It all builds up to an ending where they destroy all the books they were talking about, the last one which is a copy of The Tempest.
There is no plot. You can only identify a sort of plot if you are pretty familiar with The Tempest. Otherwise, the only REAL plot going on is a comparison between Shakespeare, his play, the character he supposedly based the play on, and the writings of such character (some say Magus Thomas Harriot). If you are a severe Shakespeare buff, you will get all those references, and MAY be amused. But basically this was a joke between Gielgud and Greenaway.
The only way to enjoy this film is to
1) get seriously drunk or altered by some powerful hallucinogen,
2) turn the lights off,
3) turn the sound off,
4) play whatever music you consider deep (NIN, Pink Floyd, Radiohead,
classical, the Beatles - if you have no taste, or whatever),
5) watch the movie.
Why? Because this movie only succeeds as a visual masterpiece. You will be bedazzled by all the cinematic techniques employed by Greenaway, the sets, the costumes, the composition, the break-up of the imagery and its subsequent recomposition, the long pans, the odd editing, and the fascinating camerawork. However, there's only so much one can take of that without being completely relaxed. It's all extremely repetitive, and only fascinating for about 5 minutes at a time (roughly the average attention span, coincidentially). Still, worth a brief watch.
Bizarreness level: 9 shots out of 10.
Rating: 6 out of 10.
The Belly of an Architect
(1987)
Starring: Brian Dennehy, Chloe Webb (Sid and Nancy, China Beach, Twins, Queen's Logic)
The plot: Brian Dennehy is an American architect in Rome to curate an exposition who goes nuts. A bunch of images of Roman architecture (buildings or blueprints) of the Empire and the fascist eras follow as he has stomach problems, believes his wife is poisoning him as he compares himself with Augustus (the sculpture of whom is the main work of Boulee, the artist who's the focus of the exhibition), runs into a guy who cuts off noses of statues, and starts sending postcards to a dead hero of his. Dennehy looks like he's going to commit suicide at any moment. All in all, it's a study of people going out of track because they believe they fall into a design which they have no control over. Idolatry comes in as a subplot. Being Greenaway, this all goes through several perfect stages, the metaphors of which are the architectural styles.
Some die-hard fans say that this is not a typical Greenaway movie, that it's too commercial, and other such nonsense. Please. The only things that make this one different are that: buildings and blueprints are used instead of forms of literature, an American actor plays the lead (and at the peak of his career at that), and Wim Mertens of Kraftwerk does the score instead of Michael Nyman. That aside, it has all the characteristics of a movie only Greenaway could (and would) make, which would horrorize any mainstream crowd (by the way, the flick only made $287 725 in the US).
PS: yet another strange name in a Greenaway flick. Dennehy's character is called Stourley Kracklite.
Bizarreness level: 7 shots out of 10.
Rating: 6 out of 10.