This is certainly the most well known of Peter Greenaway's films (which include A Zed and Two Noughts, The Draughtsman's Contract, Drowning by Numbers, The Belly of an Architect, The Pillow Book, Prospero's Books, 8 1/2 Women, and others).
I'd like to see some more discussion happening on this blog! Remember this counts towards your participation grade. No need to wait for me to start a discussion or post; anyone can initiate their own at any time.
So: since we didn't have time to discuss this film much after the screening, here is the place to weigh and share your thoughts and get a conversation happening.
ETA: (a comment it won't let me post for some reason)
The visual excess of the film is certainly an aspect that makes it overwhelming to view the first time, especially when the narrative, though simple, is not always straightforward. I think this is one of those films that certainly benefits from repeated viewing, if only to be able to fully absorb its visual and aural complexity.
Michael Gambon has made a career playing very difficult roles; not long before this film he tackled a very demanding and much acclaimed role in Dennis Potter's The Singing Detective (extended mini-seriea amde for BBC TV). More recently, he performed one of the farmer's voices in Fantastic Mr. Fox.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNever have I wanted to go out to eat so much as I did after watching this film. The graphic display of rotting food and the passion, that deep red projects on anyone; the feeling of power and pure disgust derived from the hatred shown for this man was even more president in his own restaurant when he feels he is king over everyone who presides in his "kingdom". I do however feel a little taken back by the wife’s need to cheat on her husband, who she had left and gotten back with only to get beaten. I LOVE the idea of killing a man by feeding him his favorite book ripped apart page by page. All and all this film made me want to be a bad guy again, but I’m not a cannibal!
ReplyDeleteI feel really silly saying this, but the scenery and general feel of this movie reminded me of the way Gotham City is depicted in Batman movies. Like Gotham City, there are madmen and crooks running around without police intervention. There was also a general sense of darkness/a lack of light in a lot of sets, just like in Gotham City. The brightest scenes were in the dinning room and bathroom. Also, the greenish light used in the kitchen and the parking lot also reminded me of Gotham city...And like many superhero stories, the antagonist in this film was a bit over-the-top, a little bit too evil to be real...I don't think guests would stay at a restaurant where the owner stabbed a woman in the face or had weekly fits of rage and violence in dinning room full of patrons. Albert's insanity made him seem untouchable, in the same way Batman villains could never be detained by the police, only Batman could stop them.
ReplyDeleteI'm done comparing this amazing movie to Batman now...
I think there was a lot of symbolism used in this movie, particularly through the use of nudity. In the first scene, a tortured man is stripped naked as an additional sign of degradation and shame. When Georgina and Michael are naked it represents love, lust, comfort and intimacy, that is, until they run for their lives from Albert, completely unclothed. Suddenly their nakedness is no longer a symbol of peace and comfort, but instead makes the lovers appear degraded, humiliated and vulnerable.
I think the comparison to Batman is apt, really; the art direction in many of those films is inspired by Gothic architecture and any film based on a comic tends to be somewhat over the top in terms of color and design elements. Greenaway is known for a very dramatic sense of visual design.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure I was cringing during the entire film. I found it utterly disturbing but so beautiful I couldn't stop watching it. The visual similarity to Baroque paintings along with modern dramatic commercial fashion photography was amazing. Honestly it's my favorite part of the film. Everything seems symbolic, though as of yet I'm not familiar with the meanings. The way objects, light and color were so purposefully placed to me made everything more intense and passionate. And I LOVE that women's dresses changed color as they entered the restroom.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I'd be able to watch this film on a small screen, it'd detract from all the detail and be overwhelmed by the darkness of many of the scenes.
After reading the article on Greenaway and his training in the visual arts before directing I spent most of the film trying to compare the compositions of some scenes to the compositions of famous paintings. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with art history to recognize the references but I get that twinge and I know "this scene is important." I thought I recognized The Last Supper towards the end of the film, when Michell sits to the left of Albert in the center and the goons are standing as still as possible in the appropriate apostle positions. I also felt that the lover's last rendezvous in the kitchen was a reference to something but again I'm not well trained enough to say what Greenaway was alluding to there. Maybe I'll do some research and come back to it.
ReplyDeleteI loved this film. It was vibrant and dramatic and very well put together in visual, musical and textual terms. Helen Mirren is an amazing actress and although it was a while ago before,I can't believe Michael Gambon went from a wife beater to an all-powerful Dumbledore in Harry Potter. I love how theatrical everyone's performance was, and even the way the sets were designed were reminiscent of many plays I've seen...especially ones that utilize the fog machine.
ReplyDelete"The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover," was an absolute pleasure to watch. What an outstanding performance by Michael Gambon (Albert Spica) (@ meggdoak: Can’t believe he was Dumbledore in Harry Potter...). The theatrical style and format of the film were demonstrated through the opening and closing of the curtains, the way the movie begins each scene with the menu, and the transitions between sets. The way the camera moved and tracked through the walls provided the viewer with a fixed audience point-of-view, emphasizing its theatrical stage-like format. The saturated scenes, with its blatant complimentary colors and its effect on Georgina’s outfit, parallel the film’s ever-changing and conflicting emotions. The imagery of sex juxtaposed with the preparation of food was noteworthy; Close-up shots of the chefs cutting vegetables continuously intercut between shots of the two lovers stripping. In some cultures the splitting of a ripe fruit symbolized the lost of virginity. Perhaps, the intercutting was used to emphasize the point of no return, change, exposing oneself, or maybe revealing secrets? When Michael and Georgina were walking through the book depository, Georgina jokingly asks Michael why there were so many books, “you can’t eat them.” This is a foreshadowing of Michael's death.
ReplyDeleteNot surprisingly I found this film to be the most visually stuning out of all the films we have seen. With the set design, the dance like movement and the play like performance that the actors gave this film became a totally different world. I found the set design to be one of the most incredible bits of this film. THe kitchen with its exaggerated spaces only helped engulf the characters in their tiny world. My favorite piece of the set was the doors leading to and from the kitchen into the dining room. They must have been at least 20 feet tall and each time Albert burst through them it was as if satan was slowly entering the room. The actors movements and how dance like it was only helped reinforce the scene. The scene where Albert and is chasing Georgina out to the car through the kitchen it was as if it was a slow dance between them, each movement creates a reaction between the two characters.
ReplyDeletei guess i will be the first person to post that i was not so into the movie. a lot of it had to deal with the style of the movie, how it was theater on film. i do know the things that did put me off were intended like the heavy theatricality, and the choice of lighting with the overly saturated washes of colour, and even what seem to be a conversation between the imagery of the painting in the background and the movie [so much that the Spica appeared to be a balding heavy set figure highlighted in the painting]... but all of these things were so heavy handed it just became too much for me to enjoy. The one choice that i did enjoy in regards to the shooting of the movie were those fluid panoramas from one part of the set to the next. I enjoyed how it kept the fluidity through the events that took place, and sometime between multiple events that overlapped. There was a beauty in the choreography in some of these moments.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't able to see the movie becuase i was sick last week, but i should be able to rent it or find it on the internet. I've heard a lot of good things about this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised the score hasn't come up yet. I thought it was so beautiful and made certain scenes especially poignant (including every scene with the boy soprano). I think that's what was most memorable for me.
ReplyDeleteTotally skipped lunch after this movie. Definitely captures the horrific elements that are in the art work. The importance of color i get, but some times the way it is represented left me feeling as if it was being stuffed down my throat. I suppose appropriate to the movie's theme.
ReplyDeleteI felt that it was graphic with out being overly explicit. you know she's sucking dick but you never see her actually put it in her mouth. All the beatings and rape is horrifying even if you never actually witness it. colors plus visuals left me drowning
Disturbing.
ReplyDeleteI could not read the menus clearly, but from what I was able to gather I wasn't a huge fan of them. I did not enjoy how they were shot and the duration for which they were shown. It was not long enough to understand what they were about but long enough to act more as barriers between scenes rather than transitional marks. Perhaps it will take another few times through of watching it but as a first time watcher they just really didn't do it for me.
I was a fan of some of the color scenes. I loved the white bathroom and the pink hue that was cast into it by opening the door to the red room. I thought it was really funny that a color which I most associate with purity was used in a bathroom. I just found the red room to be absolutely garish. However, I do see the reaction in which it instigated in me, and it was directly related to that scumbag of a husband. I think my favorite of all was the green love scenes and I would love to learn more about the relation of color to theme in this film.
I can't speak highly enough about that ending though! That tension in waiting, is he going to eat the human flesh? Is he not? And the gun being pointed directly in his face all the while, will she kill him anyway? The tension reminded me a lot of the ending to Reservoir Dogs. I was especially happy with how empowered the wife became by the end, although it was totally disgusting to think of making her husband eat her dead lovers flesh. I was completely turned around as far as how I felt about this film by the end, I really did not enjoy the first half but when it took off it really took off running.
Just watched the whole movie on youtube and I got to say I really like this movie! I absolutely loved the set design. The immensity of the spaces mixed with the dramatic lighting colors. Everything about this movie was aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The dialouge was equally amusing. It was funny how Albert Spica talked in such a vulgure, but intellectual manner. Totally crude, but with the best vocabulary. I almost could stand his horrible personality and was waiting to see how he would eventually be taken out. A pretty creative, but classic kill. A shot to the head, just after he eats his wives lover. GREAT!
ReplyDelete