I saw it when it was first released, and there was a lot of controversy about this film and a couple of others that were pushing the envelopes of sex and violence onscreen, and I left the theatre wondering what everyone was so upset about: the film could surely only disturb people who’ve only seen THE SOUND OF MUSIC. I’ve only seen the film once since then on VHS, and that was a long time ago. I’ve only felt the occasional bit of interest in revisting it, mainly to see the sublime Helen Mirren and the great Michael Gambon. I remember really loving the scene where Gambon shoves paper down Alan Howard’s throat.
Certainly well made, designed, and acted, of course. But I have to say that I found Chuck Jones’ short film CHOW HOUND to be a far more interesting (to say nothing of entertaining) exploration of the themes of power, exploitation, food and ultimate revenge than Greenaway’s film, and Jones spares us the sight of Alan Howard dry-humping Helen Mirren.
SPOILER: beware:
I remember finding the big Revenge scene at the end to be bogus and contrived. It seemed to me that Michael Gambon’s Thief, when presented with the roasted body of his wife’s lover by a gang of gun-wielding servants, would have gleefully chowed down on the corpse rather than getting all puky over it.
I agree with you on the ending as well. I do find the entire sequence in the book warehouse to be a thing of beauty. I do want to see The Draughtsman’s Contract as well, it seems a bit different from this film.
To me, once the film left the restaurant, it lost it’s luster. I understand it’s necessity, but I would have preferred the entire film to stay in that one locale.
I didn’t know what to expect going into this film, and while “Shocking Cinema” doesn’t usually…umm…shock me, I did leave the film a little disturbed. In addition, I read the film’s allegory to Thatcherism, and that made the film wholly more interesting. The film is disturbing, and The Thief’s antics can feel over-the-top many a times, and annoying, but I left the film satisfied.
It helps that the film is gorgeous!
It’s not surprising the thief takes up so much screen time with the 80s age of barbarism, the love of money devouring culture and community. I was reminded of the Elton John video of I Don’t Wanna Go on with You Like That, with the camera gliding from one coloured room to another. Greenaway was influenced by Last Year at Marienbad, with its great cinematographer Vierny, and 17th century Dutch paintings for the look, e.g the rich colours and the meal setting. He likes nudity, as does Kubrick (well more so women in SK’s case- Eyes Wide Shut was on the other night, he likes rich colours too- Greenaway goes further with both sexes), but he also likes to throw in disgusting elements which tends to alienate many viewers. I saw Alan Howard as Henry V in his Royal Shakespeare days in the late 70s, he was pretty good, and on the way back we had a car crash. I can’t complain about Mirren nude, she was a beautiful woman, in fact in her 60s not long back she was in the papers for her great figure in a bikini
i’m also reminded of the depravity of Salo as a political comment
Ive seen this film a bunch of times and think that, yes the Sacha Vierny’s DP was fantastic, Nyman’s music and mise en scene was a bit to theatrical for my taste but if fits the story so well. I think it was the first time watching tim roth on the screen. i remember that sort of boy singing in the kitchen…
I found it silly the way Peter Greenaway came swooping into the film world from another medium (muralist), declaring that the narrative film is dead, and its proponents are imbeciles, and that film should be considered strictly a visual medium. (ignoring “time” are we?) Then he preceded to make a film filled with flat, stage-like, two dimensional images- like art post cards almost, or like Fellini’s Satyricon (without any real humor, unless you consider sadism humor). If you are going to make sweeping statements about all that came before you, fine, but you should probably live up to your own grand self-important rhetoric. Greenaway did not, in my opinion. He has a fairly typical sassy "Art school " mentality. I am more likely to respect iconoclasts who truly know the medium which they are rebelling against (i.e. Godard)
…okay.. truthfully.. he does make me irrationally angry. so perhaps I am being too strident…
Greenaway trained as a painter, but to say he came “swooping into the film world from another medium” implies that he just decided, overnight, to become a film director, which clearly isn’t the case. You could just as easily say Truffaut swooped into the film world from another medium (journalism), but few people ever would.
Greenaway’s earliest recorded film credit, as writer, editor and director, is the short film ‘Death of Sentiment’, produced in 1962, when Greenaway was 20 years old. In fact, his first significant short film, ‘Intervals’, was produced when he was still 27. He had almost two decades of experience and experimentation in highly acclaimed short-form cinema before his breakthrough feature, The Falls, in 1980.
Also, I think it’s unfair to judge Greenaway’s statements on the future of cinema solely on the results of ‘The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover’. Along with ‘The Belly of an Architect’ and ‘Drowning by Numbers’, it is easily the most conventional of his feature-film projects; you could maybe even call it his most mainstream.
Films like ’Prospero’s Books’, ‘The Pillow Book’, ’Rembrandt’s J’accuse’ and more specifically ‘The Tulse Luper Suitcases’, better illustrate his particular vision of what he calls “multi-media cinema.”
“he just decided, overnight, to become a film director,” like Kaurismaki, he went from construction worker to a film director…overnight.
@Lights in the dusk
you are right about that facts of his history. He gets me into hyperbolic moods. The “swooping” in comment was about his dismissive attitude towards other film makers, and his claim to art pedigree- both of which he was quite open about in interviews at the time of “The cook…” His attitude is very much an art world “type” that I find insular and grating.
“Prospero’s Books” is the only film I have ever walked out of. (correction: there was also some movie with Whoopi Goldberg in it as well) Some day, I’ll take a look at it again… give it a fair shake.
Although I was a fan of Greenaway, having seen several of his films and liking them all, and I was a fan of the two leads, Michael Gambon and Helen Mirren, I nearly walked out of the screening of the film. In fact, I would have, but the friend I was with insisted on staying until the end. I found the whole level of violence way over the top and the story itself totally alienating. Of course, it had those gorgeous sets, the lavish tables, all the colours one associates with Greenaway, but the tale was mostly tasteless – and I’m not even referring to the final scenes and what was ‘served up’. I have no problem with Greenaway’s use on nudity, in this or any other film. It was the violence and tone I didn’t like. This film made me seriously question Greenaway’s judgment, even if I still admired his unique visual style. Fortunately, Prospero’s Books came along and redeemed him in my eyes. Of what I have seen, this is still his masterwork – imo. Give it another try, Two Plus Two.
I included this film for Greenaway in a thread I started on filmmakers who are purposefully provocative:
Yeah, ‘Prospero’ can be a tough one. I first saw it when I was at university on an old VHS recording and I absolutely hated it. I think it put me off Greenaway for a couple of years. It wasn’t until I saw ‘The Draughtsman’s Contract’ that I decided to give him a second chance, and it’s been mostly smooth sailing since then. I think I needed to really enjoy and spend time with his more conventional 80s work before I could really appreciate what he was attempting with ‘Prospero’.
Then again, if someone didn’t like Greenaway’s more conventional films to begin with, I could certainly understand them absolutely detesting it.
@Bob- I read your original posting for the “The Auteurs as Agent Provocateur” thread and I think your list of films is very good (missing Harmony Korine?). I don’t have much to add to it, but I think it is a good thread. I will bump it on a bright sunny day. That might be my Greenaway problem—- I have a problem with provocative- I certainly don’t need anyone to help me to think negatively to the point of nihilism— (been there, done that blah blah blah)
I reference to a post on The Auteurs as Agen Provocateur, I think provocation when done right can be amazing, but when it doesn’t it falls flat, there really doesn’t seem to be a middle ground, and Greenaway fell flat with The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. As a film it’s too excessive and the themes backing it up like the allegory of Thatcherist England or the excessive 80s, or even the parallels to the Divine Comedy really come out paper thin.
I will say this in Greenaway’s defense, when I watched the film I had to watch it on a VHS of somewhat fair quality, certainly not the best medium for viewing the cinematographic splendor on display. Also, on a note about the cinematography, everything is so lush and nice to look at, the sets are amazing, and what we see visually is amazing, however the actual camerawork left me a bit underwhelmed. It didn’t really seem like there was anything special about it. Most of the time it’s in a sort of theatrical fashion, just showing what’s in front of us. It’s not really a problem, and doesn’t detract from how visually stunning the film is, but it’s worth noting.
The Pillow Book was his most mainstream imo. it was completely dull too.
As for Greenaway being over the top, that’s his thing, he is into theatrics, and his sensibility is very British, but also shares something in common with the Italians too. HIs hyperbolic statements are just part of his exaggerated personality. Like Von Trier, he enjoys winding people up, but Greenaway is smarter than Von Trier, much smarter, far more cultured and knowledgeable, and has no modesty about it. In fact, few directors are as ‘with it’ as Greenaway, and even the ones that are cannot articulate their ideas as fluidily. Kael once said that he is a culture vulture who ‘chews with his mouth open’, and that about sums him up. He is arrogant, but that is part of his wayward appeal. And i agree with him that cinema is a visual medium and that narrative bookshop cinema is inferior to cinema that functions on a metaphorical level as a general rule, but that’s just me.
Greenaway’s camera work isn’t too flashy, true, but he is all about the mise-en-scene, which is usually superb.
I’ll also say that in person, Greenaway is quite friendly. I met him years ago when he was in Melbourne and chatted to him briefly. I told him that 8 1/2 Women is his most underrated and he smiled and said ‘yes, i agree’, ;-)
I’m sorry, i can’t be objective and analytical about this film – i fully loath it and fully intend to continue loathing it. I think for a film to be called ‘avant garde’ or to be praised for ‘pushing the envelope’ because it evokes ‘strong emotions’ (i.e. most people can’t stomach actually watching it) is about the very pinnacle of pretentiousness, as far as what counts as ‘good art’ (and who says so) goes. And please – this is not aimed at any of the posts above – it’s just my rant about the film.
Actually, i was on the verge of deleting this post because i can see how pathetically ‘morally outraged’ i sound (not a usual stance i take against films) (and i mean who are ‘most people’ anyway??) but i really have a very visceral response to this film. And i start frothing at the mouth when someone suggests that this is precisely the kind of reaction Greenway was aiming for. I doubt that anyway, since i thought him to be beyond therapy upon seeing this film (and just one sophisticated, cinematic visual step away from Eli Roth’s Hostel offering). I’m just not a Greenway fan – I fell asleep during Draughtman’s Contract. Although… i can stomach Belly of an Architect and found Pillow Book riveting… Oh well… maybe when i’m a more mature film viewer I’ll appreciate the cinematics…
sorry – double post (my nerves…!)
ANA— I appreciate what you are saying very much! We are not creatures of pure intellect. Our empathy is hardwired into our brains. For a filmmaker to enflame our natural empathy with images of cruelty towards a victim and then expect us to have some sort of intellectual discourse is pretty arrogant and rarely works.
Heh. You can stomach Belly of an Architect, nice,,,
lol @ greg – i thought so too…
It looks like this is a love/hate sort of film, and it seems we’ve heard a lot from the haters, but I’m curios, the people who like this film, what is it you like about it? Kenji, you rated it 4 Stars, and made a few points about the things you liked, but could you expand a bit? I’d really like to hear your full thoughts on this one.
I love this film but for the life of me cannot explain it. Also, usually I don’t like films that try to provoke, so for a film like this I look for nice, easy symbolism/allegory to justify it. I don’t find that in Cook but like it nevertheless (by the way, I have no knowledge of British politics etc. so I don’t understand the Thatcher allegory). Perhaps I like that the visceral is taken to the extreme, the lush colors, the theatrics of the thief, but I cannot explain it adequately.
I watched The Draughtsman’s Contract last night and really loved it. I think it’s time to take a second look at The Cook, the Thief His Wife and Her Lover, but I think I’ll watch Prospero’s Books first. I was dumbfounded as to exactly what The Draughtsman’s Contract was really after though. I enjoyed it’s allegorical elements about artistic struggle and erotic games, but what was with the statue? As for the infamous and unsolvable mystery it didn’t seem so cryptic on surface level, yet it was cryptic.
DP
He gets me into hyperbolic moods. The “swooping” in comment was about his dismissive attitude towards other film makers, and his claim to art pedigree- both of which he was quite open about in interviews at the time of “The cook…” His attitude is very much an art world “type” that I find insular and grating.
Yes! I can’t stand his attitude in interviews. Having been to art school, I can say he epitomizes the elitist, totally insular, pandering to other artistes attitude you find in some of the worst professors and students. I cracked up when I read a quote of his dismissing Kubrick, especially considering how often he imitates Kubrick’s style (but does a much worse job of it).
^^he has more ideas than kubrick though ;-)
Overstuffing a film with ideas doesn’t make it good, though. Kubrick is better at executing his ideas, which is more important imo. ;)
Should have posted this here:
I think Greenaway is a high-concept director, brimming with ideas but with an aloof (yet often lush) style of filmmaking. In this sense I think his films are polarizing because whether you are willing to go along with a rough and often alienating viewing experience relates to how compelling you find his concepts which provide the foundation for his work.
For me, Cronenberg is similarly high-concept and stylistically alienating. I find his philosophy and use of genre fascinating enough that I was willing to put up with, in his case, bad dialogue, crappy actors and often abstruse narratives but can totally understand why others wouldn’t find it worth it.
Bruce should be here to read this, I remember that guy loves Greenaway… Yeah, The Falls, and The Draughtsman’s Contract sure do ape after Kubrick… Hmmm…
To quote my good friend, Peter:
Greenaway does not attempt to provide a definitive answer, nor does he feign profundities, but rather shows what some people might do if the shackles of humanity were lifted from them.
That’s a pretty good distillation of his entire career… and, to me, something Kubrick always attempted, but never did.
Zachary George Najarian-Najafi
Let me begin this post by quoting a post I made on IMDb when I first watched the film:
“Wow, I just watched this today and I’m really not sure what to think. The cinematography was stunning, as were the sets. I personally hated the movie, the Thief’s character really grated on me about twenty minutes in, I was more interested in The Wife and Her Lover but that was mostly scenes of explicit sex, and when some character development did enter it was pushed away for more of The Thief’s antics. Then there was The Cook’s role in the affair, his voyeurism, but that was only touched upon at the end. I don’t know, it was a pretty original film, but I can’t help but wonder if it was all shock value, part of me believes it, and part of me doesn’t.”
Honestly, my opinion of the film hasn’t changed much. The Thief still irritates me to the core, and I still feel that the film is nothing more than a lot of shocking scenes backed up by half-assed metaphors. Yet, I’ve become more torn on the film the more I think about it, I don’t know if I quite loathe it anymore. There’s something there that did affect me, and Greenaway accomplished what he set out to do, which was to stir strong emotions. My big problem with the film is just how repetitive it is, it’s like being beaten over the head with a blunt instrument, because The Thief takes up way too much screen time, and the elements I would have preferred take center stage didn’t. I’d personally love to hear what others have to say about this film. Normally I like these types of movies, but this one left me angry and let-down.