Peter Greenaway

[flyonthewall2983]

Cinema and its technology has always been evolving, and it's always churned out far more shit than masterpieces. If you're genuinely committed to the form, your job, as always, is to pick through the shit and find the masterpieces, not to wash your hands of the whole messy business.

Amen. Just as far as I'm concerned, every year, the Hollywood system puts out one great film a year, at the most. I know this will raise the ire of the majority of users here, but I still believe that. We're certainly not in a "Golden Age" of film, but there still manages to be interesting work put out there by some mainstream filmmakers.

That's more I can say for something like the music industry, which will soon be in the corporate hotseat if it isn't already.

[HerrSchreck]

and with extremely mixed results in The Tempest and worst of all Pillow Book. Curiously I rewatched this last week and while I had been initially sympathetic to the narrative and symbolic dynamics of the screenplay's ideas the performances were so dreadful I couldn't go on. Even Ewen's nude scenes don't rescue this one for me.

Truly one of the worst films ever made. This film is like a fucking punishment. This film was so bad that it almost makes me want to flip the "I don't want to know anyone who doesn't like COLONEL BLIMP" maxim on it's head... i e "I don't want to know anyone who likes THE PILLOWBOOK." The whole conceptual execution-- and yes, performances-- are so... absurd... it's just friggin agitating.

Ai caramba.

EDIT: to the above post... yes, the situation in the music business is far more precarious owing to the threat played by technology to the concept of selling an album. While downloading a film is not as mass-user-friendly YET to most home users w ho-hom pC's yet, the downloading of songs and albums has all but scrambled the brains of record companies, who still have not figured out the way to respond (which will HAVE to be returning to album driven acts... making the consumer WANT to buy an album by a talented act that will be around for a while. The old 50's-thru 80's model of Having Great Talented Bands Around With Us For Long Brilliant Careers, that has gone by the wayside.)

[malcolm1980]

Cinema and its technology has always been evolving, and it's always churned out far more shit than masterpieces. If you're genuinely committed to the form, your job, as always, is to pick through the shit and find the masterpieces, not to wash your hands of the whole messy business.

I agree 100%. I'm not too fond of Peter Greenaway as a filmmaker. I've only seen about 4 of his films (Drowning By Numbers, Prospero's Books, The Pillow Book and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover) and only managed to like one of them (The last one I mentioned).

[miless]

I truly think that The Falls is Peter Greenaway's best film. It doesn't try to shape his wide-ranging ideas into any sort of (traditional) narrative, and instead just tempts the viewer with vague ideas about an unknown subject.
I like his other films (that I have seen, particularly Z.O.O., The Draughtsman's Contract, cook/thief/wife/lover, Belly of an Architect and his later-early shorts... like Vertical Features Remake and A Walk Through H) but nothing reaches The Falls' heights.

[toiletduck!]

Just an interesting bit of cross-posting. Greenaway may not be able to change things, but someday he'll be earning major points for even trying.

-Toilet Dcuk

[John Cope]

I really don't understand the hate for Pillow Book. It always seemed to me to be one of Greenaway's most approachable pictures.

[Svevan]

I really don't understand the hate for Pillow Book. It always seemed to me to be one of Greenaway's most approachable pictures.

My advice: don't go over to Schrek's for dinner.

[Tommaso]

"The Pillow Book" is badly constructed, with its last 30 min. or so being a rather unnecessary addition after the actual narrative is over, but all in all, certainly not his worst film, and comparatively easy to approach. The 'non-acting' rather has to with Greenaway's usual preference for artificially contrived forms and systems set in a particularly 'theatrical'/ritualistic mode here. In this respect, "The Pillow Book" continues from where "Macon" left off. He even intensified this aspect in " 8 1/2 women", where indeed it doesn't work and ends up in complete bloodlessness and boredom. But "The Pillow Book" has some of the most striking visuals ever commited to film. Bloody Hell, now Schreck won't like me anymore

To the original post now: I'm really surprised that Greenaway still manages to cause a stir with his statements. They are indeed all rather old. There is a CD-ROM from the year 2000 called "The 92 Faces of Peter Greenaway" with an interview at the European Institute of Cinema in Karlsruhe, Germany, where he not only said the same things, but used almost exactly the same phrases, including the bits about Stone and Stallone. It seems it's a well-prepared stage act. The only new bit was the one about German Cinema, and I really can't understand why he singled out Schlöndorff. In my view one of the most unimaginative directors around at the moment. I fully agree with his words about Scorsese, though.

[tavernier]

There is a CD-ROM from the year 2000 called "The 92 Faces of Peter Greenaway" with an interview at the European Institute of Cinema in Karlsruhe, Germany, where he not only said the same things, but used almost exactly the same phrases, including the bits about Stone and Stallone. It seems it's a well-prepared stage act.

Stage act indeed: I heard him at the Toronto Film Fest in '91 and '93 barking out the same tropes, as well as the Museum of the Moving Image a few years later after a screening of Macon: he hasn't changed his story at all, so at least he's consistent.

[Svevan]

There is a CD-ROM from the year 2000 called "The 92 Faces of Peter Greenaway" with an interview at the European Institute of Cinema in Karlsruhe, Germany, where he not only said the same things, but used almost exactly the same phrases, including the bits about Stone and Stallone. It seems it's a well-prepared stage act.

Stage act indeed: I heard him at the Toronto Film Fest in '91 and '93 barking out the same tropes, as well as the Museum of the Moving Image a few years later after a screening of Macon: he hasn't changed his story at all, so at least he's consistent.

Or out of touch.

[Petty Bourgeoisie]

To hijack this post away from Peter Greenaway a bit, let me say this- American Cinema is in really bad shape. The US independents nowadays DO suck. One of my main gripes (because I live in a small town) is the programming schedules of Sundance and IFC on satellite. What tripe from what are supposed to be indie/experimental outlets. If I see one more contrived plot about yuppie lesbians and their old, longed for college professors, all the while looking ever so stylish and chic, I'm gonna scream.

The world is going to Neo-Con hell in handbasket. Shouldn't a scary world scenario spark some interesting cinematic contortions. I'm not calling for overtly political works (please no more dime store documentaries about Iraq). But I'm thinking of the way Lang and Rivette have handled themes such as paranoia, secret societies, back-room plotting and the like. Maybe Southland Tales will satiate my perturbed state. Or maybe not and I'll watch Dr Mabuse The Gambler again. Simply put, American Cinema no longer reflects back onto the society that produces it. Maybe it's because of corporate mega-mergers but that's another topic.

[Antoine Doinel]

Simply put, American Cinema no longer reflects back onto the society that produces it.

Did it ever? And since when does cinema have to reflect the society that produces it? And who determines what "society" is?

[Petty Bourgeoisie]

Simply put, American Cinema no longer reflects back onto the society that produces it.

Did it ever? And since when does cinema have to reflect the society that produces it? And who determines what "society" is?

I believe Cinema is always connected to the society that produces it. Sometimes the connection is obvious, sometimes it is tenuous. But I believe in even the most fantastic, reality deprived film, societal comments and subconscious connections are unavoidable. But I majored in Sociology, so my world view is tainted.

[colinr0380]

Not that I care what Greenaway ever has to say but if he didn't want cinema dead he shouldn't have contributed to it by making such crap movies.

I don't agree with the sentiments expressed, but this pithy remark made me laugh!

It might only be a slight difference but I get the impression Greenaway was suggesting that cinema was brain dead rather than dead in a Godard-esque sense. Stale perhaps might have been a better word to use.

I also agree with zedz that this isn't really anything new, either in terms of people saying that mainstream cinema caters to the lowest common denominator, or that cinema hasn't always churned out crap along with its gems. 1939 might have been a golden year for Hollywood films, but I'm sure there were many more terrible films that got churned out and have been lost in the mists of time - it just seems worse now both because we are seeing all the films being released without the chance to sit back and evaluate which were the best and worst of the year until later, and because of the massive marketing and hype that means you can't escape a film. I often find myself keeping away from majorly hyped films until the fuss has died down and I feel I won't be prejudiced by the hype (or hating the film because I haven't been able to escape the hype for it!) - which means I've only just got to Little Miss Sunshine, Inside Man and The Departed in the last few weeks.

I can understand what Greenaway might be getting at with the comments about Stone, Stallone and Scorsese. I agree with the poster who connected the Stone and Stallone comment with their big films of 2006 - those films would fit with the idea Greenaway is trying to express of films being stale and unadventurous. Remakes or sequels to previous successes are a way of playing it safe but don't challenge the audience or the filmmakers at all.

The problem with Greenaway's comments is that they personalise his point too much - it is a general trend, not just a couple of movie stars resting on their laurels, so he has devalued what might have been a good point by turning it into an easy slight/insult (even if it did let us have a joke about The Specialist!)

Having watched The Departed the first time recently I was also left with the impression I had seen a decent, solidly made and very well written piece of work. That doesn't mean I think any less of it, because it did not contain flashy camera work, elliptical editing, convoluted camera trickery etc - in fact I was extremely impressed to see a film actually play straight and leave its complexities to the narrative for a change!

I don't have a particular preference for a certain style or genre or method of filming (the nearest I get is an irrational hatred for Michael Bay and his ilk-style of incomprehensible hyper-editing to disguise narrative inchoherence!) and I think there should be room for all types of cinema. I get as irritated when I hear people say things like "we want to open out the play for the film version" as I do when someone says "why don't they put the scenes in the correct order rather than jumping about everywhere"! I think it is more the way the material is handled that makes a film great, or poor, than the actual techniques themselves. And Scorsese is a master filmmaker, just not working on the outside fringes of cinema as Greenaway is.

On to Greenaway's films - I think he has made some amazing, powerful films. I love his early works that the BFI released on DVD, find A Zed And Two Noughts, The Draughtman's Contract and The Cook, The Thief fascinating unique works that couldn't have been made by anyone else.

Actually that last comment could be applied to all of his works, even the ones I do find poor - and that is the reason why I wish he would make more. In a perfect world I would want all talents to be recognised and financed - even if the result was some incredibly difficult work that would have a miniscule audience, or turned out to be a film that did not reach the standards of previous work. Greenaway's films are unique and thats what makes them so wonderful, and at the same time so infuriating at times! Yes, even The Pillow Book!

Anyway, with Greenaway not making major films any more what rite of passage will actors have to replace being able to make the comment "I was once naked in a Peter Greenaway film"?

[Eligius]

With Greenaway's films I always have had some love/hate-relationship. Certainly, for me he is one of the most interesting directors but I have to agree that after the late '80's he hasn't made any films really worth while. Especially Nightwatching really disappointed me. I had good hopes for the film, but it turned out to be just the same all over again. When declaring cinema as brain dead, you could easily say that also Greenaway's present films are rather brain dead. At least, I haven't seen much really original ideas coming from Greenaway after Prospero's Books.

On the other hand, the present Peter Greenaway as an artist, I think, makes really marvellous works of contemporary art (and with this I don't mean his films). For example, in autumn 2006 Greenaway had this wonderful exposition in Holland ('Fort Asperen: A Peter Greenaway Flood Warning'), in which he turned an 18th century Dutch military base into an expo on the Exodus' story of the arc of Noah and at the same time focussing on topics such as global warming, while using the iconography of his Tulse Luper series. I thought that expo was most enthralling, and I only wished Peter Greenaway would focus more on these kind of projects instead of delivering 'brainless' pictures such as Nightwatching.

[Cronenfly]

I may be off-base here, but it seems to me that Nightwatching is an at least somewhat conscious return to familiar material for Greenaway, an attempt to raise his stock again after so many years of middling film projects (The Pillow Book, 8 1/2 Women) and more personal explorations (Tulse Luper, his art exhibitions) in other forms that surely haven't made him any money or improved his reputation one iota (quite the opposite in fact: regard for him now [in light of his most recent work] is probably the lowest it has ever been in the eyes if most).

That still doesn't excuse the film being somewhat lacking, but it perhaps provides a rational for his making it: now that PG has made a more conventionally "Greenaway" movie (as opposed to Tulse Luper, which was more an experiment than film proper, if I understand correctly) then perhaps it will make something more unconventional possible (film-, art-, or otherwise). That doesn't seem to be the case, as much of the world distribution for the movie hasn't even been acquired yet, but who knows: things could still pan out for the better.

And if it does lead to a more interesting project, then I could think of worse "placeholder" movies. I agree that Nightwatching does engage in a kind of "brainlessness", a poseur pseudo-intellectual-ness which probably only manages to slide by on PG's strength with regards to visuals. That said, I still enjoyed it, but it was certainly a let down, and made the movie feel more than a bit cynical on PG's part; it expressed a certain contempt for his audience that I've felt in most of his more recent works. Fingers still crossed for a bright future, though.

[David Ehrenstein]

Peter Greenaway is brain dead.

I enjoyed The Belly of an Architect because of the stellar performances by Brian Dennehy, Chloe Webb and Lambert Wilson -- none of which he was responsible for. His idea of directing actors is to move them around the set like chess pieces.

I shall never forget the press screening of Prospero's Books. David Hockney sat next to me. After about twenty minutes he heaved a sigh and bolted for the exit. If you want to see a truly original take on The Tempest go to Derek Jarman and Paul Mazursky.

Greenaway's the British Hollis Frampton -- with more money and less charm.

[Cronenfly]

Peter Greenaway is brain dead.

I enjoyed The Belly of an Architect because of the stellar performances by Brian Dennehy, Chloe Webb and Lambert Wilson -- none of which he was responsible for. His idea of directing actors is to move them around the set like chess pieces.

I shall never forget the press screening of Prospero's Books. David Hockney sat next to me. After about twenty minutes he heaved a sigh and bolted for the exit. If you want to see a truly original take on The Tempest go to Derek Jarman and Paul Mazursky.

Fair enough: however, Greenaway's strong suit has never been directing actors (as can be seen in the awkwardness of so many of his films), which is surely enough to write him off in most people's minds. I admit to having a shallow, mostly aesthetically-based enjoyment of his films- even his best are more or less just intellectual exercises/games (ZOO, Draughtsman's Contract, Cook) and his worst just messes. I approach Greenaway like a(n occasionally very good) crossword puzzle maker: I enjoy working out his films, and find the best of them very rewatchable in the face if this (though that could just be my love of '80s Michael Nyman talking). Open to arguments on his worth as a more complex artist: I just find looking for simpler pleasures in his work to be a more rewarding endeavour for myself.

[Gropius]

Greenaway's the British Hollis Frampton

That sounds like a pretty major compliment to me.

[David Ehrenstein]

You don't know me very well, Gropius.

[Jun-Dai]

I agree with Greenaway in that there is probably more exploration of the possibilities of the medium going on in people's video-blogs and on YouTube than there are at the film festivals, which is what I take his statements to mean. That doesn't mean that good films aren't being made, it's just that the boundaries of cinema are being pushed less and less, and the films that are pushing them are getting less and less attention. Of course that's easy to say, since he came into filmmaking at the most exciting time possible (excepting maybe the late twenties), when people were probably surprised if your independent film wasn't pushing the boundaries of cinema in some way.

Nowadays people will fall over themselves to lavish praise on an independent film just because it has a neat gimmick and/or manages to seem to have the production values of a film with 10 or 100 times the budget. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just a very different set of priorities.

This is kind of like Donald Richie's comment that Kitano, Miike, Iwai, and all of the rest of the current generation of respectable Japanese auteurs are fine, it's just that it would be nice if they decided to do something new for a change (that was paraphrase). He, of course, is comparing him to what happened to Japanese filmmaking in the sixties and seventies when everything exploded with creativity, and the people making and watching films today just don't have those sorts of priorities.

Having said all that, I think that what people 300 years from now choose to cherish from the cinema at the end of the 20th century is going to say more about them and their values than it is about us and our films. For all we know, they may decide that the true masterworks of the time were our cliffhanger TV shows like Heroes and Battlestar Galactica.

[Tommaso]

Fair enough: however, Greenaway's strong suit has never been directing actors (as can be seen in the awkwardness of so many of his films), which is surely enough to write him off in most people's minds..

That is certainly true, but on the other hand it is just an expression of his own personal approach. In other words, he doesn't want an actor based cinema. He isn't interested in things usually taken for granted like 'believable narratives', 'convincing' or 'natural' acting and so on. The comparison of his films to crossword puzzles is quite to the point, but it's something I think he consciously intends. So, it's certainly allright not to like this style, but it's somewhat unfair to blame him for not doing what he doesn't want to do.

And apparently, he isn't too afraid to face the consequences of non-distribution and low public esteem. But there's hardly been anything more daring recently than the Tulse Luper Trilogy (judging from Part 1 alone), and I really can't see that he should be unable to make great films anymore and has lost his grip after "Prospero". Though I truly believe that "8 1/2 women" is bad. I haven't seen "Nightwatching" yet (and wonder whether I will ever get the chance to), and if it's a return to more conventional filmmaking, be it so.

[David Ehrenstein]

Bresson didn't want an actor-based cinema either -- and what he offered in its place was far superior to anything Greenaway has come up with.

And considering he supposedly doesn't want an actor-based cinema why does Greenaway hire the likes of Juilia Ormond and Ewan McGregor (to name but a few)?

He's just a sour crank.

[Gropius]

But there's hardly been anything more daring recently than the Tulse Luper Trilogy (judging from Part 1 alone), and I really can't see that he should be unable to make great films anymore and has lost his grip after "Prospero".

Agreed. It's very common to try and impose 'decline' narratives on directors' careers ("Oh, his earlier stuff was good, but then he lost it."). I would rank The Baby of Macon and the earlier parts of Tulse Luper alongside the best of his 70s/80s work.

And considering he supposedly doesn't want an actor-based cinema why does Greenaway hire the likes of Juilia Ormond and Ewan McGregor (to name but a few)?

McGregor was practically an unknown when he made The Pillow Book; the fame snowball of Trainspotting (released earlier in the same year) had not yet taken off. Ditto Julia Ormond, who only had a few TV credits to her name in 1993.

[David Ehrenstein]

Brian Dennehy, Chloe Webb and Lambert Wilson weren't nobodies when they made The Belly of an Architect. Likewise Andrea Ferreol and Helen Mirren in their respective Greenaways.