The Tulse Luper Suitcases (Peter Greenaway, 2003-2004)

[Tommaso]

Following on from the Venice Film Festival thread:

Yes, it's depressing that Greenaway has effectively been exiled from Britain (particularly after '8 1/2 Women'), since he's arguably one of the few interesting British filmmakers still working today.

Well, I think his exile started already with "Prospero's Books", financed and directed entirely in the Netherlands, as most of his films afterwards were. I don't think that he would describe himself as a British filmmaker, anyway, according tó what I read he completely despises the 'new British cinema' of the 80s and 90s, the likes of Loach and Parker (understandably). The only director he seems to have accepted was Derek Jarman (also understandably, as his work has some similarieties with Jarman's, at least as far as the obsession with painting is concerned). If at all, one must probably describe him now as a Dutch filmmaker. He lives in Amsterdam, is married to a Dutch stage director, and clearly has the most support there.

I've been waiting to see the Tulse Luper films for three years now, but there's no sign of them ever getting even a limited cinematic release.

Then do yourself a favour and get the DVD of Pt.1. At least this one has been released in Spain, Italy and Holland. Try www.dvd.go.com or www.dvd.it. I have the Spanish edition, which looks very good, and has removable subs (via remote control, not via the menu). Absolutely fantastic stuff, light years removed from almost anything else done by other directors (except, perhaps, Matthew Barney in "Drawing Restraint 9", which has some Greenawayish touches).

The problem with the cinematic release (or non-release) of TLS has led him to what seems to me an unwise idea: he cut down the three films to one under the title "A Life in suitcases" in 2005. I haven't seen it, but as I thought even Pt.1 to be too short rather than too long considering the mass of materials he brings into it, I cannot imagine this would work at all. Also, even this shortened version does not seem to have any distribution anywhere.

I can't really imagine him being good in a film role, but then actors are always a secondary concern for Greenaway.

This is what he has always been criticised for, and TLS is no exception. This denial of the whole actor-centred, stardom-based kind of filmmaking and also his refusal of making overt social commentary etc. has clearly led to his dismissal by those influential in the festival circuit (how TLS could not get a price in Cannes where it was in the competition in 2003 is beyond me, really), and following on from this, with distributors and audiences.

[Gropius]

I don't think that he would describe himself as a British filmmaker, anyway, according tó what I read he completely despises the 'new British cinema' of the 80s and 90s, the likes of Loach and Parker (understandably). The only director he seems to have accepted was Derek Jarman (also understandably, as his work has some similarieties with Jarman's, at least as far as the obsession with painting is concerned). If at all, one must probably describe him now as a Dutch filmmaker. He lives in Amsterdam, is married to a Dutch stage director, and clearly has the most support there.

Yeah, you're right about that. Britain has been a pretty dead place for interesting films for some time, maybe with the exception of Mike Leigh. I wonder what it is that makes the Dutch backers so indulgent towards Greenaway, since he can't be making them a profit. I don't really know who Kees Kasander is, but he must have very deep pockets.

Then do yourself a favour and get the DVD of Pt.1. At least this one has been released in Spain, Italy and Holland. Try www.dvd.go.com or www.dvd.it. I have the Spanish edition, which looks very good, and has removable subs (via remote control, not via the menu). Absolutely fantastic stuff, light years removed from almost anything else done by other directors (except, perhaps, Matthew Barney in "Drawing Restraint 9", which has some Greenawayish touches).

I had been holding off getting the DVD on the misguided hope that the film would reach a cinema eventually, but I suppose you're right, the DVD's probably the only way of seeing it. In 2004 I even travelled to an installation exhibition in rural England which displayed all the suitcases, confident that it would hit the screens soon after. Greenaway is certainly in the Barney league of pursuing some sort of Gesamtkunstwerk, but he doesn't have the latter's Guggenheim art-world cred.

What's weird is how much effort (and presumably money) has gone into producing the supplementary web-based material for Tulse Luper, which no-one other than existing Greenaway fans is likely to stumble on by accident. There is now even an online puzzle game, a really quite advanced one (www.tulseluperjourney.com), which they are still developing, in which the player takes on the role of a 'researcher' on Luper's trail, like the narrator of 'Vertical Features Remake'.

Greenaway boasted in interviews that 'the film is really an advertisement for the website', but this seems like a curious idea. He also claimed that there would be 92 sub-DVDs, one for each suitcase, but that was clearly a pipe-dream. Unfortunately there is a gap between his epic ambitions and commercial reality. I think some of his 'cinema is dead' rhetoric may be a way of consoling himself about not getting his films into the cinema.

[Grimfarrow]

I really quite enjoyed Part II - Isabella Rosselini is AMAZING in it - she was so electric whenever she came on screen! And her character is utterly delectable I just wished she had more screentime...

[Gropius]

Again, I've only seen a couple of short clips, but there seem to be many formally innovative ideas in this series, such as dividing up the screen and having several different actors playing the same role at the same time.

Screen sub-division and simultaneous multiple narrative is a concept still in its infancy, but hopefully, with the growth of DV and new editing technologies, will be a growth area for 'art film' in the 21st C. What makes this genuinely radical is that it deliberately sets out to put more information on the screen than can be comprehended or taken in by the single viewer, and also challenges tendencies towards linearity. Two other relatively recent films that use a similar concept are Mike Figgis's 'Timecode' and 'Hotel', both using four sub-screens; I preferred the latter of the two, and his taste for hiring Hollywood actors (David Schwimmer, Salma Hayek) to do improv made them narratively weak and occasionally embarrassing, but certainly some interesting ideas in there (I thought Julian Sands as the tour guide in 'Hotel' one of the best minor roles of recent years, reprising his Cloquet from Cronenberg's 'Naked Lunch').

[Tommaso]

Greenaway boasted in interviews that 'the film is really an advertisement for the website', but this seems like a curious idea. He also claimed that there would be 92 sub-DVDs, one for each suitcase, but that was clearly a pipe-dream. Unfortunately there is a gap between his epic ambitions and commercial reality.

Well, this is not the first time that he outlined large-scale projects of which only some parts were realised. There was to be a ten-part series of exhibitions called "The Stairs" of which only the first two were realised in 1994/5. Same goes for another series called 'Maps to Paradise' in 2000. I guess this is a conceptual-art kind of approach. Just give an outline of a plan, illustrate it with some examples (in the form of exhibitions and books), and leave the rest to the audience's imagination. I would be quite happy if the 92 DVDs would NOT materialize, definitely. No one could ever digest that.

Again, I've only seen a couple of short clips, but there seem to be many formally innovative ideas in this series, such as dividing up the screen and having several different actors playing the same role at the same time.

Exactly, and TLS far surpasses "Prospero's Books" or "The Pillow Book" in this respect. In a way the concept seems to heark back to the ideas of the hypertext and to that of having the audience decide which 'track' to follow in the sense of the 'open work of art'. Every time you re-watch the film you can follow different tracks, so to speak, although you're still bound by the timeline. One of the ideas with those 92 DVDs was that on these you could navigate according to your own desires. Curiously, because of the multiplicity of the images, some of the writings in the film are so small that they would only be readable on the big cinema screen whereas the whole project almost necessarily invites home-viewing.

[Gropius]

This is a 'heads-up' for anyone in the UK (or more realistically, South-East England). The Tulse Luper trilogy is finally getting a belated showing as a triple bill at the National Film Theatre on Sunday 18th March. Part of the Optronica Festival, there will also be a Greenaway 'VJ' performance (of the kind he's been doing in the Netherlands/Belgium) at the BFI IMAX on Friday 16th. Worth getting excited about, perhaps. Better late than never. Further details here.

[tavernier]

When the Tribeca Film Fest in New York showed the trilogy two years ago, I hoped it meant a DVD release was on the way. But--and not for the first time--I was wrong.

[Barmy]

Yeah, I'm certainly not holding my breath for the 92 DVDs.

[Tommaso]

I think the 92 DVDs were more or less a 'concept' rather than something ever to become reality. Greenaway often develops concepts of series of 10 events for exhibitions, for example, of which only one or two are actually realised to demonstrate the 'concept'. Examples would be his "The Stairs" series, only the first two parts of which were actually realised in Geneva and Munich, or his "Maps to Paradise", of which only the first part came to fruition in Ljubljana. Likewise, of the 92 Luper dvds just one part was realised under the title "Gold" (a dvd made by some art school in Leipzig, I think).
But still, as the three Luper FILMS actually exist, they should finally come out on dvd. Problem is probably rather the absolute disinterest of the critics and the public in that project. On the other hand, the same was true for his "8 1/2 women" film, and that is available in several countries on dvd nevertheless, although it's really not good and in any case far less interesting than TLS. I guess we can only hope that Greenaway finally decides to take the dvd production of TLS in his own hands and release it perhaps only 'privately' as a pure mail-order release. But it seems he's far too busy for something like this currently, with more exhibitions and the upcoming theatrical release (hopefully!) of his Rembrandt film, "Nightwatching".

[Oedipax]

It's been a real disappointment to me that more in the whole TLS project hasn't emerged - I thought The Moab Story was interesting enough, if not necessarily what I see (or would like to see) as the "future of cinema," but it had enough going on to at least warrant seeing the other two installments. And from what I've heard, the second installment, Vaux to the Sea, is the real keeper at any rate. Intriguingly, there's a few excerpts from Vaux up on YouTube, with Spanish dubbing (here & here). As far as I know, there hasn't been a DVD release, however it certainly could exist, as I also haven't seen much mention of the release of Greenaway's 4 American Composers films on DVD in Germany. Does anyone have that one? They can be viewed on the web at the supercool Ubuweb site here.

[Tommaso]

Intriguingly, there's a few excerpts from Vaux up on YouTube, with Spanish dubbing (here & here). As far as I know, there hasn't been a DVD release, however it certainly could exist,

Yes, "Vaux" had a very brief run in Spain, but I think they gave up after this. There's definitely no dvd release of it anywhere, though I hoped it would come from Spain, as they were the first to release Pt.1.

as I also haven't seen much mention of the release of Greenaway's 4 American Composers films on DVD in Germany. Does anyone have that one?

Yep, I have it, and it's plain fantastic, at least if you happen to like these musicians as much as I do. Very unusual portraits, no 'commentary', only the artists speaking for themselves with Greenaway sometimes setting up interview sets and intertitles in his usual manner. I was blown away by the Meredith Monk portrait in particular, as it showcases some of her FILMS as well, and these looked very, very interesting! No dvd of these out there apparently....

The quality of the source materials of the portraits in general isn't great, I suspect 16mm or even analogue video here, so it's pretty grainy and unsharp in places, but I suppose it was the best that could be done. The back of the cover has the bfi logo, btw, so I guess it will come from them as well soo. But as subs are removable, no need to wait!

[Tommaso]

There is a short piece about a Greenaway talk at Berlin in the German newspaper "Der Tagesspiegel" here. Not much news, but the final comment of the writer that some excerpts shown from TLS and "Nightwatching" looked like "animated graphics from the Atari age" is ridiculous, considering the well-made visual splendours of TLS Pt.1 at least. Of course it's not WETA digital, but clearly Greenaway doesn't intend it to be 'naturalistic'. I see that article as pretty typical for the current all-too-easy dismissal of Greenaway's ideas and visions, a clear attempt at denigrating ideas about cinematic art that are unfashionable with the mainstream.

[Gropius]

So I finally got a chance to see all three films, screened in one rather exhausting lump by the BFI. Having waited so many years, I'm afraid to say that as a trilogy, The Tulse Luper Suitcases is somewhat anticlimactic, but even so it is still probably one of the most brilliant failures of modern cinema. My brief verdict: Part One is very good, Part Two probably the masterpiece of the set, but the project runs out of steam in Part Three.

To concentrate here on Part Three and its shortcomings, an IMDB review speculates that there was little time/money left to make the final film. Not sure about the specifics, but all of the characters who have been built up throughout the first two films suddenly disappear, including the younger Luper, and it is left to the talking head narrators to clear most things up. We slip across the thin line, I think, from good Greenaway to bad Greenaway, with endless scenes of Holocaust victims and Russian border guards on barren sets engaged in supposedly witty dialogue. There are fewer visual pyrotechnics and less attention to detail. Interestingly, there is quite a bit of footage of the public exhibition of the suitcases which was staged in an English country house, which means the film must have been completed quite late in 2004, long after the main shooting had wrapped up.

Anyone who has seen the first film (I know some of you have the Spanish DVD) will realise that one of the major themes of the sequence is Greenaway's pseudo-autobiographical self-referencing of his own back catalogue (e.g. ‘Luper's script was later made into a film, entitled…'), also cross-referencing the suitcase items with the opera ‘100 Objects to Represent the World'. This seems ingenious at its best moments, solipsistic at its weakest. However, although the trilogy ends with a whimper, ‘Vaux to the Sea' (Part Two), which features the radiant Isabella Rossellini smashing china dogs, undoubtedly ranks with the best of his work, resuscitating the spirit of The Draughtsman's Contract and A Zed and Two Noughts. The second half of Part One (once we move from Utah to wartime Antwerp) is also of a similar standard. The third film unfortunately adds little to these high points, and is arguably superfluous.

I will be interested to see whether Nightwatching makes use of any of the new directions explored in Luper, or if it is a return to more straightforward territory.

[tavernier]

The words "straightforward" and "Greenaway" will most likely never be uttered in the same sentence.

[Gropius]

The words "straightforward" and "Greenaway" will most likely never be uttered in the same sentence.

Hah. I only meant that in the sense of 'not having multiple split-screens/boxes within boxes'.

P.S. Just searched and found that there is already a Nightwatching promo up on YouTube, and yes, it seems comparatively 'straight'. And yes, Martin Freeman does his 'Tim from The Office' voice. Not that I watched more than a minute of it (don't like seeing excerpts out of context).

[Tommaso]

Thanks for your account of TLS, even if Pt.3 is sub-standard, it still sounds highly fascinating. Have just watched that "Nightwatching" trailer, and indeed it looks relatively 'straightforward', no split frames or texts in the images, but a beautiful recapturing of typical Rembrandt colours. The end of the trailer even has some Michael-Nyman-style pseudo-baroque music to it. Well, probably really something like "Draughtsman's Contract Pt.2", but I doubt it will be as witty as that film.

[Barmy]

I thought the Tulse pix declined in quality from Ep. 1 to Ep. 2 to Ep. 3. I still liked them, however.

I'd be quite happy to see PG drop the boxes within boxes style.

[Tommaso]

I'd be quite happy to see PG drop the boxes within boxes style.

Yes, but he has to replace it with something different but as exciting. When I think of "8 1/2 women", where he relied very much on dialogue and a comparatively sparse visual style, I'm not so sure whether "Nightwatching" is able to 'lift off'.

[Gropius]

Yes, but he has to replace it with something different but as exciting. When I think of "8 1/2 women", where he relied very much on dialogue and a comparatively sparse visual style, I'm not so sure whether "Nightwatching" is able to 'lift off'.

Yes; I find it strange that Greenaway talks about escaping 'the tyranny of the script' when his films are in fact so 'talky'. From Draughstman onwards, there is always a concentration on innuendo- and pun-laden dialogue - unsentimental, objectifying, witty - which is similar in style to a Restoration play. Obviously it can be entertaining to an extent, but I think it is less important than the ingenious visual compositions. Where the latter are lacking, the film suffers, particularly as he recycles the same type of dialogue later in his career.

[Tommaso]

Yes; I find it strange that Greenaway talks about escaping 'the tyranny of the script' when his films are in fact so 'talky'. From Draughstman onwards, there is always a concentration on innuendo- and pun-laden dialogue - unsentimental, objectifying, witty - which is similar in style to a Restoration play.

The trick, in "Draughtsman" at least, is that the dialogue itself only purposefully distracts from the clues to the mystery which are exclusively given via the images. Once you start to work out the visual strategy with its play objects, numbers and black and white coats the film becomes relatively 'clear'. I found it funny how Greenaway in his audio commentary on the bfi disc of "Draughtsman" talks about school education in the 17th century (or something similarly unimportant) in the passage where we see that central clue, the painted Newton allegory, and thus is again playing with the spectator. Surely an ironic way to demonstrate the unimportance of speech.

Obviously it can be entertaining to an extent, but I think it is less important than the ingenious visual compositions.

Precisely, and I still find it funny that even Michael Powell could detest "Draughtsman" because he thought it was too dialogue-laden. Well, I guess Greenaway's blurring strategies are working quite well....

But I agree, the dialogue became increasingly recycled or sometimes even banal with the years. The few bits from "Nightwatching" didn't sound particularly sparkling, too. But perhaps he's desparately trying to get a wider audience after the commercial disaster of TLS. In any case, the theme of "Nightwatching" should be interesting to many 'mainstream' viewers.

[John Cope]

Here's a piece from The Guardian's film blog which some of you might want to respond to.

[Gropius]

Here's a piece from The Guardian's film blog which some of you might want to respond to.

The article is good, but there really are some creeps lurking in the Guardian user comment section. How could one so utterly mischaracterise Greenaway's work (with such political ignorance) as the following:

As novelty status symbols for the aspirant nouveau riche of Thatcher's burgeoning spiv culture, Greenaway's civil service filing system approach to cinema provided a benign and superficially accessible topic for dinner party smalltalk. His early work is cultural beaujolais nouveau or nouvelle cuisine. Fruity, obsessively arranged, intricate but insubstantial.

Yes, I'm sure there were hundreds of Thatcherites queuing up to watch The Falls, applauding the BFI funding structure which their ideology subsequently crushed out of existence.

[Tommaso]

Good article indeed, although it breaks off when I expected an answer to why PG has become so unfashionable. But good to read a critical view that not immediately enters into the Greenaway-bashing that has become so common in the last years.
As to the Thatcherite point: it's pretty strange, especially in the light that "The Cook..." has been very much interpreted as a political, anti-Thatcherite film when it came out (although I'm not sure whether PG would agree with such an interpretation).

One of the commentators writes: "It's audiences who have gone out of fashion, not Greenaway." Well, yes, there's certainly much less interest in the more experimental forms of 'art cinema' nowadays than in the 80s. But as others point out, it also has to do with lack of actual screening of his films. I'm sure he could attract a larger audience if only those who are now in their early twenties had ever heard his name. Only some good dvd releases on a label like Criterion or MoC might help.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

As to the Thatcherite point: it's pretty strange, especially in the light that "The Cook..." has been very much interpreted as a political, anti-Thatcherite film when it came out (although I'm not sure whether PG would agree with such an interpretation).

Greenaway himself has conceded there's some substance to that:

No, if you think my films are political, then you enter into the same sort of naivety as seeing a political statement in wearing a black shirt. My cinema is a long, long away from Mike Leigh. It is not a socialist propaganda or advocating any particular way of life. I don't intend to change political opinions. Maybe the only political film I ever made was "The Cook And Thief", which started as a kind of diatribe against Thatcherite Britain, but my interest is asthetics, not politics. Some French philosophers would say now, that ethics is close to aesthetics, and politics is close to ethics, but it's not my point of view.

Incidentally, Greenaway described his own politics as "socialist" in a 1990 NYT profile.

[tavernier]

Incidentally, Greenaway described his own politics as "socialist" in a 1990 NYT profile.

Damn....if PG's a Commie, then he must also be on Barmy's shit list, along with Loach, Clooney, and God knows whom.