Greenaway Shorts

[Tommaso]

Better than nothing, I'd say, as any unreleased Greenaway is very welcome these days. This film is very sparse by his standards, just two dancers set in a big baroque hall, and filmed in black and white. But very beautiful to behold. A good way to enter Greenaway's world for those who find his major works too overblown, and I guess the other films in the collection are also worthwhile.

[colinr0380]

In their own way they do and are quite beautiful but in a rougher way. They lack the vividness and visual polish of the later films, but the Water Wrackets for example photographs rivers and lakes quite beautifully.

It's a little hard for me to judge because my views on the cinematography are already tainted by the love I already have of the subject matter. I grew up surrounded by the English countryside, so am quite familiar with some of the sorts of landscapes and subjects he's photographing and they provoke my own mental images and memories as i watch them.

Responding very late, but I loved the short films and agree about the landscapes and subjects feeling familiar and sending me off into my own thoughts while watching and often for a long time afterwards. Dear Phone especially (if unintentionally?) is a beautiful record of the classic telephone box that now seems to have disappeared in the age of mobile phones. The same comforting little cabin in such diverse locations as the centre of a city, next to a river or next to a road running through a barren landscape. Some of the readings that come in between the images of the telephone boxes are very funny too!

The use of language, and development of sentences from one reading to another is also fascinating to watch. Unrelated telephone stories seem to interconnect, although whether that is through the use of vaguely similar names, or just that their position one after each other in the film led me to try and figure out connections that were not actually there, I couldn't say for sure!

That playing around feels like the meaning of the sentences are not as important as the way the language is being used poetically, for the rhythm and sound of the words themselves over whatever meanings or connotations they have (though those add to the experience for the viewer), and also to show some of the absurdities of language. Shown more pointedly in H Is For House with readings of words beginning with H, but whose only connection is that initial letter. I think Greenaway says something in his introduction about being interested in the way indexes use the most simple system of grouping words that can connect 'hysterectomy' and 'happiness' together under their first letter.

I liked the comment from the Greenaway introduction on the BFI disc that Water Wrackets could be see as a micro-budget version of Lord of the Rings, with the narrator talking about mystical worlds, huge battles, royal lineages and political machinations of these water people over beautiful footage of river banks and small streams. Masterful and strangely soothing.

H Is For House, Windows and Intervals are also among my very favourite short films. I'm not as taken with Vertical Features Remake as the clanging sounds of the later remakes can become very annoying! But I still like it very much - I'm afraid I've got the kind of obsessive, anal-retentive personality that likes ordering and numbering things into obscure groupings, so Vertical Features Remake and The Falls (and the later Drowning By Numbers, though I didn't like it as much as the earlier films) really hit a chord with me.

Along with the often beautiful photography, even just of photographs or the camera moving over a page, I think Colin Cantile's narration couldn't be bettered, adding a BBC-style gravitas to bizarre sentences, and I'd kill for a CD of the ambient soundtracks! (Even just of the different dial tones from Dear Phone!)

[Ovader]

I was not sure where to put this information. The Atlantic Film Festival's co-production conference Strategic Partners has let it be known that maverick British/Netherlands filmmaker Peter Greenaway will be giving the Academy Luncheon speech during the AFF's first weekend (Sunday, September 16). Greenaway is best known for hard-core art films such as The Pillow Book and A Zed And Two Noughts; he's an articulate speaker with an unconventional point-of-view. His speech should be one of the highlights of the first few days of the Festival.

[Gropius]

Peter Greenaway will be giving the Academy Luncheon speech during the AFF's first weekend

Expect it to begin with the line: 'Cinema is dead'.

[tavernier]

Peter Greenaway will be giving the Academy Luncheon speech during the AFF's first weekend

Expect it to begin with the line: 'Cinema is dead'.

You've heard him speak before!

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Many years ago after I had just left film school I went for an interview with him and Tom Philips about working on his Dante. The subject turned to the use of humour in his films and film in general. "The last time I laughed at a film was Some like it Hot' he offered.
Jokingly, I aked if that was when it first came out. "Yes" came the reply.

[blindside8zao]

I've just watched a Zed and Two Noughts without ever having really known anything about Greenaway and am really intrigued and impressed. This seems to be one of the few Greenaway threads I've found and I was wondering what I should look to next? The opinions in this thread don't seem to center around any one movie.

[miless]

I've just watched a Zed and Two Noughts without ever having really known anything about Greenaway and am really intrigued and impressed. This seems to be one of the few Greenaway threads I've found and I was wondering what I should look to next? The opinions in this thread don't seem to center around any one movie.

I would go with some of his middle era works, such as The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover and The Belly Of An Architect...
then I would back-track to The Falls (an obsessively interesting film) and his early shorts (especially Vertical Features Remake and A Walk Through H) before venturing forth to his later works (particularly exemplified with Prospero's Books). If you're hooked, then fill in the blanks... If you're not, than you've sampled many of Greenaway's different stylistic periods and thus have a basis for dismissal (of which I can assure you, there is none).

[zedz]

Opinions on Greenaway diverge wildly, so take this with a grain of salt. My favourite period is his early shorts (A Walk through H is by far my favourite film of his), and I like his 80s features, but from Prospero's Books on it's drastically diminishing returns, with many of his later things verging on the unwatchable.

If you liked ZOO, I'd suggest working backwards and forwards in time from there (Draughtsman's Contract, The Falls, the shorts; Belly of an Architect, Drowning by Numbers, Cook / Thief / Wife / Lover), pausing for breath if and when you reach your saturation point or end up in territory you really don't like.

[Tommaso]

Blindside8zao, it would be interesting to know what it was precisely that you liked about "ZOO", especially as this is certainly one of PG's more 'uncommercial' works. Was it the witty dialogue? Then go straight to "The Draughtsman's Contract". If it was the obsession with structures, go to the short films. If it was the visual imagery and painterly references, "Prospero's Books" is mindblowing in that respect. And if you want to see something you've never seen before, don't be afraid of "Tulse Luper Suitcases", which I find quite entertaining (judging from Part 1 only), even though zedz says his later works verge on the unwatchable. On my part, I don't really agree. Some of them are simply rather boring, "Macon" and "8 1/2 women" for example, but not "The Pillow Book" (which you should avoid because all existing dvds of it make nonsense of the intricate original aspect ratio changes). In any case, PG is rather an acquired taste, and if you like one of his films, chances are good that you will like most of the others as well. And most of them get better with repeated viewings.

And while we are discussing PG: has anyone got any news about "Nightwatching"? Is it already released theatrically somewhere? I need to see some new Greenaway from time to time, and the last years were extremely scant on releases on dvd...

[Oedipax]

And while we are discussing PG: has anyone got any news about "Nightwatching"? Is it already released theatrically somewhere? I need to see some new Greenaway from time to time, and the last years were extremely scant on releases on dvd...

No release yet that I know of, but it's an official selection of the Venice Film Festival which starts in a couple weeks. Do check out YouTube if you haven't already for a lengthy Nightwatching teaser, it looks like it could turn out pretty well.

[Tommaso]

Thanks, Oedipax, I've already watched the trailer and actually quite liked what I saw (it even looked a little 'mainstream' to me...), but I didn't know about the Venice Festival. Fingers crossed it will be a success there, otherwise I fear we won't get to see this in the cinemas again.

[Gropius]

I've just watched a Zed and Two Noughts without ever having really known anything about Greenaway and am really intrigued and impressed. This seems to be one of the few Greenaway threads I've found and I was wondering what I should look to next? The opinions in this thread don't seem to center around any one movie.

As far as I'm concerned, with the possible exception of 8 1/2 Women, Greenaway has never really made a bad film. If you like A Zed..., it is highly likely that you will find something to enjoy in most of the others. If you like the baroque/grotesque elements, these are more exaggerated in The Cook, the Thief... and The Baby of Macon. The formal compositions and brilliant Vierny cinematography are fairly ubiquitous throughout his post-1982 career.

If you become a Greenaway enthusiast, you ought to investigate the character of Tulse Luper, who is first mentioned in A Walk Through H, Vertical Features Remake, and The Falls, and crops up again over twenty years later in the semi-doomed Suitcases project. One of the pleasures to be found in this work are the intertextual thematic connections to be made: for instance, the Dutch zookeeper Van Hoyten - a character in A Zed... - returns as a fascist in Antwerp in the first part of The Tulse Luper Suitcases.

Like Tommaso, I think the new Nightwatching looks a bit tepid, but that may be because I can't bring myself to think of its lead actor as anything other than 'Tim from The Office'. It's possible that Greenaway's best days are behind him, but I like to think he will pull at least one more masterpiece out of his hat.

[Tommaso]

Like Tommaso, I think the new Nightwatching looks a bit tepid, but that may be because I can't bring myself to think of its lead actor as anything other than 'Tim from The Office'.

You don't know how lucky I feel not knowing about 'Tim from The Office'!
What I meant with 'a little mainstream' was rather the absence of any obvious visual experimentation (no texts scribbled, no multi-frames as far as I remember) and a look somewhat reminiscent of a more 'conventional' artist movie. But reading the synopsis, I'm pretty sure it will be another of his over-the-top conspiracy theories set to images. And that's precisely what I want!

It's possible that Greenaway's best days are behind him, but I like to think he will pull at least one more masterpiece out of his hat.

Though I fully agree with your words about "8 1/2 women", I'm not so sure about the first half of the quoted sentence, judging from TLS Pt.1 alone. For me this is one of his strongest efforts, just a notch below "Prospero" and "Draughtsman" (my all time favourite Greenaways, excepting the shorts). As far as I was able to follow it, his exhibition work in recent years also looked quite interesting (I love the book about "Map to Paradise from Ljubljana", for example). The only thing that annoys me - like others here, apparently - is his constant "cinema is dead" stance and his ramblings against what he calls "cinema as 110 years of illustrated text". I know where he comes from here, and actually sympathize with it, but I think he's simply unfair against so many great directors that went before him. I must assume he's never seen any Paradjanov or Jodorowsky....

[Gropius]

Though I fully agree with your words about "8 1/2 women", I'm not so sure about the first half of the quoted sentence, judging from TLS Pt.1 alone.

Oh, I agree with your praise of The TLS (as I said earlier this year when I saw the trilogy, I think parts one and two are masterpieces of sorts): what I meant was that the commercial failure of that project may prevent him from being so experimental again, although his Dutch producers seem to have very deep pockets (I wonder if Kees Kasander is some millionaire financier who bankrolls films in order to get tax breaks), so we shall see.

[John Cope]

It's possible that Greenaway's best days are behind him, but I like to think he will pull at least one more masterpiece out of his hat.

Though I fully agree with your words about "8 1/2 women", I'm not so sure about the first half of the quoted sentence, judging from TLS Pt.1 alone. For me this is one of his strongest efforts, just a notch below "Prospero" and "Draughtsman" (my all time favourite Greenaways, excepting the shorts).

I wish I could be as enthusiastic about TLS Pt. 1. It is aggressive in its style but I'm not sure how innovative it really is. Obviously it's derivative of earlier formal experiments but I'd much rather watch something like A TV Dante again than this. Possibly I was too overwhelmed but I can't really bring myself to go back through it. It comes across as the ultimate arch and sarcastic post-modern piece, gutted of narrative convention in order to..do what exactly? Have us reflect upon how images and notions of history are constructs? Okay. Well, what of it? What he is unwilling to address is "Are they good ones?" God forbid he pass a moral judgement. I know, I know. His "irony" prevents him from any definitive stance; then, why not provide us with some developed responses within the text? The answer can only be that this is not his intention. Fair enough, I guess. But he seems unduly lost in his own private intellectual geometrics; I simply can't find this exhausting fixation on aesthetic deconstruction inherently fascinating.

I've recently been looking at Leos Carax again and I have similar problems there, despite their obviously different intentions. I think I get where these artists are going, yet it amazes me that such assaultive and relentless technique could produce such monotonous and tedious work. Still, I give Greenaway the edge if only for a lack of oppressive sentiment.

My own favorite Greenaway remains The Baby of Macon, which in my mind resides infinitely beyond even his other greatest achievements (Prospero, Draughtsman). Because here everything comes together--all his occasionally belabored noodling with form and space and design is put to service behind a narrative thematically rich and profound in its impact. I have never seen another film more powerful in making an impassioned though always multi-tiered argument. His formal style merges with his thematic concerns and provides a larger canvas, implicating us all on a multitude of levels. The collapse of dramatic distance and empathetic remove reveals the secret sadism at the heart of much movie sex and violence. He has never produced a more devastating critique of power and desire.

Because here he is not adverse to encoding his themes through narrative the whole piece registers on a deeper level. His meta-textual approach does not actively deconstruct or dissipate dramatic power but adds immeasurably to it. Of course, part of the reason that Macon is neglected may be due to the fact that there are no sympathetic figures in this piece and it is, perhaps, Greenaway's most anti-human, genuinely misanthropic film. He shatters all illusions here--there is no manufactured hope, humans are depicted for what they must be, barely conscious, hardly articulate and having learned only to wear clothes, if that. The bitterness is palpable and is not leavened by humor (the auction scene makes the best and most succinct point of this). It's not a philosophy I share but I don't have to share it; the work is thoroughly realized enough as to disarm all critique based on opposed perception. He makes his case convincing by being willing to be absorbed in his own thematics; he does not seem to think, in this instance at least, that intellectual acumen is proven by stubborn resistance to dramatic or emotional imaginative investment.

The only thing that annoys me - like others here, apparently - is his constant "cinema is dead" stance and his ramblings against what he calls "cinema as 110 years of illustrated text". I know where he comes from here, and actually sympathize with it, but I think he's simply unfair against so many great directors that went before him. I must assume he's never seen any Paradjanov or Jodorowsky....

I absolutely agree. I hear this kind of thing a lot from people who want to believe they are moving away from antiquated forms and "innovating", but, as I indicated earlier, innovation for its own sake rings hollow. What is it at the service of? And it's always at the service of something.

Also, when Greenaway says these things it's more than a little eye roll inducing as it suggests a blanket dismissal of all approaches which do not coincide with his own. Only this can be a legitimate direction, apparently. I would love to know what his opinion would be of a film like Oliveira's Doomed Love or The Satin Slipper. The approach here is subtle and often subdued, yet the very real effect of challenging conventional methods of textual presentation is bracing and the consideration of how to go about this is always done with the utmost seriousness.

[blindside8zao]

I really enjoyed sort of the structural aspects of ZOO, such as the recurring pair and single that pop up in so many places. Also, I can't imagine that too many people would dislike him too much, as I found his editing style quick and snappy, quite catchy when you add the score actually. It really reminded me of a Wes Anderson movie in this respect. I also found the narrative to be very satisfying. It was, of course, just as visually catchy as rhythmically.

Belly of an architect and draughtsman queued up. There doesn't appear to be too much of his stuff available on DVD, though. I suppose if I like these two I'll take a shot at the shorts set.

[Tommaso]

(I wonder if Kees Kasander is some millionaire financier who bankrolls films in order to get tax breaks),

I remember Greenaway telling somewhere that Kasander approached him sometime in the mid 80s saying that he would want to finance his next film(s) regardless of what Greenaway wanted to do. Greenaway apaprently thought at first that Kasander was some sort of madman, because he didn't have any experience in producing films then and also because he was a very young man then. But it all seems to have worked out perfectly since then, and Kasander indeed must be some millionaire heir or something. Good luck for PG, as no-one else probably would have been willing to finance anything he made after "Prospero"...

I wish I could be as enthusiastic about TLS Pt. 1. It is aggressive in its style but I'm not sure how innovative it really is. Obviously it's derivative of earlier formal experiments but I'd much rather watch something like A TV Dante again than this. Possibly I was too overwhelmed but I can't really bring myself to go back through it. It comes across as the ultimate arch and sarcastic post-modern piece, gutted of narrative convention in order to..do what exactly? Have us reflect upon how images and notions of history are constructs? Okay. Well, what of it?

I agree with your praise for "TV Dante" (where's the damn dvd of this?!), but as always with Greenaway, I can only say, give TLS a second chance. I'm certainly as annoyed as you with the 'post-modernist' stance of it, and the rather fruitless (and not at all new) reflection/deconstruction of media interaction etc. I like it on a quite different level, though. I simply think it's very funny for the most part, a return to the wittiness of his 80s films (the Utah scenes most of all, but also a lot of what is in the third episode), and to the absurd structural principles that govern the film. And it simply has some breathtakingly beautiful images. That's why I don't find it tedious and monotonous at all, but curiously, I would use precisely these terms to describe "Macon". Yes, there's is a good an well-thought out narrative idea in "Macon", but the handling is very heavy, there's absolutely nothing that pushes the narrative forward. Perhaps that is intentional, but it doesn't do it for me. And as for criticizing the Catholic Church and its abusive methods of power, I'd rather go for Bunuel any time.

But it's fascinating to see how people apparently cannot really come to a shared opinion on which Greenaway films are artistic successes and which are not (apart from the shorts, praised by everyone, and "8 1/2 women", which no one seems to like). I'd take it as an indication that there is perhaps more to them than first meets the eye (though I've already given "Macon" a fourth and fifth chance, to no avail).

[DigitalClassics]

Digital Classics Download & DVD has now made Peter Greenaway's 'A TV Dante' available for download (as the full Greenaway half of the show or in individual cantos - starting at 0.79p) Available for worldwide download.

This has already proved quite popular on download, but if you would like to see it released on DVD, please drop us a line at [email protected], and if there is enough interest we will give it a proper DVD release.

Thanks
Digital Classics