I'm a big fan and liked all his movies. I even went to a lecture he gave on this movie before it was released but I was very disappointed. I couldn't even watch the whole movie. It's just too.. experimental? Too ambitious? I mean, the dvds..books..I think he was expecting too much.
I hope the new movie, whenever comes out, is a return to the Greenaway old style.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I absolutely love Greenaway's films. Prospero's Books is my all time favorite movie. But this was just ... awful. Bad acting, bad music, reasonless editing. The only part of it that was even interesting was that the sets were not as real life, but as they were imagined by the teller. I'd particularly had hopes for this movie bringing together and illuminating the recurring characters of Greenaway's films, such as Cissie Colpits, Tulse Luper, etc. It's almost unfortunate that it somewhat succeeds at this as it does it in such a disappointing way.
shareI agree that this was a little disappointing. On the plus side, it looked beautiful - Greenaway has lost none of is visual flair. On the minus side, it just wasn't that engaging. Given that Greenaway has said many times that he's not interested in narrative cinema, that may seem a bit of a pointless complaint, but on the other hand "The Falls" managed to be consistently entertaining with even less of a narrative than here.
I agree that "Vaux" was better (I've just seen all three films consecutively and I have to say my head hurts), but all three films seem much less clear and much less original than Greenaway's earlier work, despite the overkill of visual trickery and 'cubist' editing.
I attended a talk by PG two days before seeing the film and he talked a lot about wanting to move cinema on to the next stage, respond to the interactive revolution brought about by the internet, reconstruct cinema's vocabulary in a way that goes beyond Godard and so on. Unfortunately the film doesn't really do that, if indeed it's even worth attempting. Cinema is cinema, not the web, and trying to make it do things it can't is a little like trying to make a book more like a film. Cinema, and Greenaway, should know their limitations and play to their strengths I reckon.
Elsewhere presently, David Lynch is really stretching the boundaries of what you can represent on screen. I'm not sure Greenaway is anymore, except in quite a facile, superficial sense.
(qualification - perhaps it's not sensible to make such a harsh judgement on first viewing. there are plenty of images from the films still in my head. we'll see what a second viewing reveals...)
(Oh, and Isabella Rossellini was gorgeous and wonderful).
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
" he talked a lot about wanting to move cinema on to the next stage, respond to the interactive revolution brought about by the internet, reconstruct cinema's vocabulary in a way that goes beyond Godard and so on. Unfortunately the film doesn't really do that. "
Exactly. He intended the films to be post-cinema and anti-narrative, yet they seem to be an amalgam of every cinematic and editing technique all thrown together, almost a retrospective celebration (or some would say wallowing) of modernist cinema.
It's ironic that he claims to no longer be interested in narratives, yet the films feel like narratives which have been inflated to the point of intentionally overwhelming the viewer. I could argue that films like A Zed + Two Noughts and Drowning by Numbers actually contain less narrative structure than the Tulse flicks, which I found entertaining and interesting, but somewhat mind numbing and certainly not as innovative or important as they clearly perceive themselves to be.
I also find it a bit of a disappointing contradiction that he's talked so much about the internet and his intent to redefine how films are distributed and experienced etc, yet, unfortunately at this time, it's nearly impossible for the vast majority of the world to view or legally obtain the films in question. (On a positive note, the fact that they aren't widely distributed means we don't get countless posts on here like "this is pretentious crap" and "what idiot funded this.. blah blah..")
I'm being harsh on Luper because like a lot of Greenaway fans, I had very high hopes for these films. If I had seen them as an art installation or late at night on cable, without knowing who the filmmaker is, I'd probably have been more impressed. I think they're good films, am just not sure they accomplished what Greenaway intended.
--
I think the problem/paradox is that the Tulse Luper "films" were not meant to be seen in traditional finite fixed form via one locked down chronological cut. It seems, I gather (from information on the internet), that they were intended to be seen on multiple screens in a live setting with the artist (Greenaway) freely and spontaneously manipulating each screen and soundtrack from a stockpiled computer stored library of footage/imagery/sounds/ect that he has shot/created/formed/put together for this particular project in question. Thus, impermanence is part of the new form and project itself. This ofcourse violently clashes with the established and practical systems of finite film distribution and presentation; and with our fixed preconceptions of the boundaries and definitions of cinema itself.
I think that this is one of the reasons why we have seen a significant lack of DVD/traditional theatrical releases of the Tulse Luper film(s) anywhere in the world; because it is that system of distribution and product which Greenaway has to step beyond in order to achieve his goals in challenging the uses of the cinematic form. That traditional (albeit practical) system of distribution and presentation requires a finite, finalized, fixed and unchanging product; whether it's for screenings in theaters in multiple locations or the more personalized packaged product of a DVD/home video to be taken home by the individual and watched at his discretion. But by stepping outside the boundaries of conventional, popular and practical uses for cinema it becomes necessary to also step outside the boundaries of conventional, popular and practical forms of presentation and distribution as well. Presentation, digestion and distribution are inextricably linked to the form they serve and cinema is no different. I fantastically admire Greenaway for insatiably challenging and boldly bucking the entropy of cinematic usage. Why should the cinematic form be used exclusively in the service of one method which has become so indoctrinated into our subconscious that we find it difficult to even drum it up to address it, expand it or amend it. There is a place in the world for traditional and popular narrative usage of cinema, but there is also a place for countless hitherto uncharted realms of use. Any member and/or number of which could be called "entertainment" or "of interest" or "useful" for those seeking to categorize need, purpose and meaning of the creation of things in this world.
There have been ofcourse a few scattered DVD releases throughout the world and a TV screening on the Sundance Channel here in the US (so I've read) of "all"(?) three films, so no doubt fixed/finalized cuts do certainly exist; but whether their creation was an obligation to financers of the project to try and recuperate or make some profit in the traditional way/system/venues, or simply a choice/concession by Greenaway to the practical problems of making his film available to those who seek its like and who otherwise would not get a chance to see it in its intended format and presentation, I don't know. Anyone know anything about this? I've only seen the 1st Tulse Luper film "The Moab Story" in its finalized/fixed/chronological Spainish DVD release version and loved it! I wish I was able to see one of the live-manipulated versions. You can see clips of Greenaway "VJ-ing" at some of his screenings on YouTube to get an idea of the idea of it all.
In regards to opinions about Greenaway; with such a mission of challenge and with such entrenched opposition it's hard not to see why Greenaway has to be so fierce and immovable in his stance; and why he sparks such strong opinions in both directions in others. Any forward-(or sideways for that matter)-thinking individual trying to change people's minds in areas of psycho-historically established popular beliefs is always held to intense scrutiny and must be unwavering in his/her campaign and display unshakable confidence in his ideas/opinions/methods in order to subvert-ly use the vertical integrated system of human psychology and turn perceived confidence into respect into feelings of serious consideration and possible truth on the part of others. At any rate, I think it's all part of his wonderfully playful polemic personality anyway and personally I like the damn rascal! I think he's one of the true few greats, and in my opinion a genius. The way the man is able to manifest his imagination from multiple dissociative levels of cognitive processes, play in the scope of the whole of the collective input like a boy in a sandbox, and draw up endlessly ironic, absurd, poignant, playful, entertaining and meaningful/less parallels, creations, ideas, images, ect with an unfathomable and envious dexterity of imagination is absolutely staggering!!! It endlessly tickles my brain, and my existence has sure been made more fun with Peter Greenaway having existed in the world.
I actually saw Greenaway do the live VJ mix thing at the BFI IMAX here in London. I thought that worked even less well than watching the three films in standard format, which were shown the following week at the BFI (just two screenings each).
Like I said, Greenaway sounds superficially convincing when he talks about all this stuff, but it tends not to match the reality. He complains about films starting from the word not the image but his films are some of the wordiest of all. People have actually been doing non-narrative film based on image not word from the start of cinema (the Lumiere brothers for example, or "Un Chien Andalou"). "Koyaanisquatsi" is a more recent example that springs to mind. And I think David Lynch in INLAND EMPIRE may actually be doing what Greenaway says he wants to do but seems unable to.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
I liked it though I thought the first half (the one in Moab) was better that the latter half (the one in Antwerp). I actually did not like the Antwerp story very much but I thought the Moab story was a masterpiece.
- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -
I've only seen clips of this film, but from what I've seen, I don't really like them. There is too much information cluttering up the frame. There are multiple screens with characters appearing in the bottom of the frames talking over the main characters in the main composition. And a lot of the audio/dialogue is overlapping as well. It becomes confusing and tedious. It's a shame, because it ruins Greenaway's amazing talent for composition.
shareIt was interesting, but I had to stop when he was in 'Utah' and the Americans accents where so horribly done I couldn't stand to listen to them. Couldn't he find American actors?
I know I'm replying to a nine year old post, but yeah, I have to say, I felt kind of embarrassed for Greenaway, and I would consider myself a fan: I love Cook Thief, Prosperos Books, Draughtsman's Contract, The Falls, Vertical Features, and Baby of Macon; but Tulse Luper was just not in the same league, and I really wanted to like it.
share