OT - Peter Greenaway
Mikko Pihkoluoma
capital city of Bulgaria. What I didn't tell you was that my visit
coincided with the ninth Sofia International Film Festival, but what I
didn't *know* was that Peter Greenaway was going to be present at the
festival.
At the opening gala they gave him some fake diploma that sounded as if
someone had just printed and framed it ten seconds before the show.
Anyway, he accepted it with his dry wit, and a weird posing technique
(hopefully I'll post some links to photos tomorrow).
After the opening movie - Vera Drake, which I saw for the second time,
and recommend to anyone who still hasn't seen it - he was at the same
cocktail party with me. However, I didn't get quite drunk enough to go
drool all over his suit and tell how much I love his work.
The next morning at 10 am, after six hours of luxurious sleep and a
freakin' cold shower I crawled to see his lecture modestly titled Peter
Greenaway Masterclass. The first thing he did was to apologize for the
"pompous" title. The lecture was mainly about a generalized theory of
cinema that he has applied in making The Tulse Luper Suitcases. So
basically it was a guide to the work, and also designed to provoke new
thoughts about cinema.
I need to stress here that throughout the whole lecture he was
consistently ironic about it all, while still making the claims seem
sound in his way of thinking. He has a peculiar way of appearing to be
profound and ridiculing it at the same time. Check 'Vertical Features
Remake' or 'The Falls' if you don't know what I mean.
Okay so here's a summary of what he proposed:
1) The Tyranny of the Frame
He started out with an argument that cinema died in 1981 when the remote
control was invented. Key word here is, of course, interactivity. And a
lot of his ideas seem to be strongly influenced by James Joyce, post
modernism, Godard and the Internet.
When he says cinema is dead he means that cinema is dead as an
innovative medium, that in 1981 it slowly started to be a technology and
medium incapable of being of great importance. (i.e. books and
newspapers don't mean what they used to mean.) As a result of its
funeral the great majority of talent has moved on from such an old
fashioned thing as cinema to other more interesting areas.
More closely concerning Frame, he talked about the fact that throughout
the history of art we've been stuck with this one dimensional and fixed
rectangular shape. He wasn't too happy about the passivity of cinema
(that we're supposed to sit still even though even in our sleep our body
is constantly moving). His means to destroy this tyranny is the constant
multiframe aspect of TLS, and the multi-art nature of the project.
2) The Tyranny of text
This infamous argument could also be formulated as the Tyranny of
Narrative Cinema. I'll put some (as he would say "pompous") quotes here:
"99% of cinema is mere illustration of text." "The greatest paintings
are non-narrative." "Cinema has still not really understood James Joyce."
He also brought up the paradoxical nature of image and text and which
comes first. Like in Pillow Book you will find a lot of text in TLS,
used in a way that it actually becomes image and an aesthetic of its own.
Also, concerning narrative, he said he's more interesting in making
sequences and patterns rather than a narrative. In TLS the pattern or
structure is obviously 92. ("Counting and alphabet as a way to
reconstruct a structure.")
3) The Tyranny of the Camera
He gave two quotes that should explain this tyranny, the first is by
Picasso and the second by Eisenstein: "I paint what I think, not what I
see." "Walt Disney is the only real director."
I'm not sure if it makes any sense, but I think he may have hinted at
computer animation of which there is some in TLS and it all looks
utterly horrendous (or perhaps I should refrain from commenting as I
have never seen a glimpse of the Episode 3, that was shot in HD, in the
correct aspect ratio, neither in Tallinn or Sofia, because digital
projection is an utter mess of standards at film festivals, but more
about that later on).
I guess he was also trying to inspire film making to be about
constructing images and ideas rather than illustrating text, and simply
recording what eye can see.
4) The Tyranny of the Actor
I really can't say I grokked what he meant by this argument as I was
getting slightly less coherently concentrating at this point. I'm not
sure if he said it out loud, but apparently he was commenting on the
star vehicle system of Hollywood and how the medium revolves around them.
In TLS the role of Tulse Luper is acted by several different actors and
he said this was a way of breaking the fourth tyranny. One paraphrased
quote that will make more sense to you once you see the films: "The
tyranny of acting is that it consists merely of actor pretending that
he/she is not being watched."
After the tyrannies he talked about several things that connect with the
concept of content, and in a sense explained again what he meant by the
tyranny of narrative.
moral: Postmodern fragmentation has caused lack of universal moral codes.
context: There is no static context. When we experience old works of art
we might not get the full context and understand it perfectly, but the
language/poetry/style remains (medium is the message).
Content always in a way has to be auto-biographical.
These may seem cryptic to you, but I assure you that once you see the
films it will start to make more sense. I can try to clarify these notes
if someone has something to ask.
--
mikko dot pihkoluoma at helsinki dot fi
"The video artist Bill Viola is worth ten scorseses"
- Peter Greenaway
somaboy mx
I attended a Greenaway lecture when he was a guest at the local film
festival while I was still a student. While I'm not a big fan of Greenaway's
work (particularly of his later work, starting with Prospero's Books), I
admire his sense of self-irony and self-reflection - an ability often
lacking in artists of "highbrow", cerebral calibre. He's also a very verbal
thinker and can make rather complex concepts sound transparent to the keen
listener. Most importanly, perhaps, he doesn't validate his work in the
context of existing film theory and criticism - which is all too easy - but
places it in its own context.
"The Tyranny of..." seems lifted from the phrase "The Tyranny of the Beat",
which is a musical concept coined I believe by minimalist composer Wim
Mertens, with whom he worked on several films.
.soma
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Thanks for the report, Mikko.
Thanks for reading my exhaustive post.
> I attended a Greenaway lecture when he was a guest at the local film
> festival while I was still a student. While I'm not a big fan of Greenaway's
> work (particularly of his later work, starting with Prospero's Books), I
You should try The Tulse Luper Suitcases if you haven't, because they're
much closer to his earlier work than anything he has done in the past
fifteen years.
> admire his sense of self-irony and self-reflection - an ability often
> lacking in artists of "highbrow", cerebral calibre. He's also a very verbal
> thinker and can make rather complex concepts sound transparent to the keen
> listener. Most importanly, perhaps, he doesn't validate his work in the
> context of existing film theory and criticism - which is all too easy - but
> places it in its own context.
>
> "The Tyranny of..." seems lifted from the phrase "The Tyranny of the Beat",
> which is a musical concept coined I believe by minimalist composer Wim
> Mertens, with whom he worked on several films.
Thanks for this information.
btw, I saw one pretentious movie from The Netherlands during my visit in
Sofia. I don't know if you've seen it. The English title is The Arm of
Jesus and it was directed by André van der Hout. It was rather well made
and the music was well picked, but I didn't think much of the film as a
whole.
Joshua Zyber
foot whenever speaking publicly about his ideals of "the cinemaaaaaah".
His "Tyranny of..." theories are just as superficial and limiting to the
medium of film as those he is trying to rail against. There needs to be
a happy medium.
He would be better served just doing his own thing and making his own
films however he wants to make them. Declaring that "Cinema is dead" and
disparaging the work of others just makes him look pompous and petty.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
He's not disparaging the work of others. He could be disparaging normal
filmmakers in comparison to experimental ones, but don't we all have bias
and make it awfully clear to one another?
Can't you see that the death of cinema has nothing to do with the people who
have been collaborating to it before and after the funeral? In his
theoretical point of view it's dead in a technical-innovative sense.
You're taking him far too seriously. He's fully aware of the fact that he
appears to be pompous with his theory. Right after he finished and gave
some time for questions he said sincerely and humorously: "Now you're free
to say that what I have been saying for the past 90 minutes is utter
rubbish"
somaboy mx
I know it sounds arrogant when you read it, but when you've seen the guy
explain himself you'll know it isn't.
.soma
somaboy mx
> btw, I saw one pretentious movie from The Netherlands during my visit in
> Sofia. I don't know if you've seen it. The English title is The Arm of
> Jesus and it was directed by André van der Hout. It was rather well made
> and the music was well picked, but I didn't think much of the film as a
> whole.
I rarely watch Dutch movies precisely for that reason: pretentious and
overblown. The Netherlands are a very poor country, culture-wise, so I guess
they have to blow everything out of proportion to at least make some kind of
impression.
...and I hope you realise I'm Belgian, not Dutch - I just speak Dutch, which
is also an official language in Belgium.
.soma
Mikko Pihkoluoma
Oops. I did know that, but I had completely forgotten about it. And your
real name sounds somewhat Dutch... or perhaps I'm just showing my
ignorance here. I apologize.
Have you seen Aaltra (which is a Belgian film, not Dutch ;])?
Marcelo E Mazzanti
"somaboy mx" <nosuc...@fakemail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:42343f39$1...@x-privat.org...
< "The Tyranny of..." seems lifted from the phrase "The Tyranny of the
Beat", which is a musical concept coined I believe by minimalist composer
Wim Mertens, with whom he worked on several films. >
I'm pretty pissed off at the tiranny of the law of gravity myself.
~MeM~
Marcelo E Mazzanti
< I know it sounds arrogant when you read it, but when you've seen the guy
explain himself you'll know it isn't. >
I've seen the guy explain himself and I knew it was.
~MeM~
somaboy mx
> Oops. I did know that, but I had completely forgotten about it. And your
> real name sounds somewhat Dutch... or perhaps I'm just showing my
> ignorance here. I apologize.
>
> Have you seen Aaltra (which is a Belgian film, not Dutch ;])?
Not yet, but I intend to.
We have some pretty good filmmakers here, like the Dardenne brothers
(Rosetta, The Son,...), Remy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoit Poelvoorde
(Man Bites Dog aka C'est arrivé près de chez vous) and Jaco Van Dormael. I
wonder how well known they are internationally.
.soma
somaboy mx
> < "The Tyranny of..." seems lifted from the phrase "The Tyranny of the
> Beat", which is a musical concept coined I believe by minimalist composer
> Wim Mertens, with whom he worked on several films. >
>
>
> I'm pretty pissed off at the tiranny of the law of gravity myself.
I agree. Gravity is completely overrated. People are giving it too much
credit.
.soma
Joshua Zyber
news:39ovvbF...@individual.net...
> < I know it sounds arrogant when you read it, but when you've seen the
> guy
> explain himself you'll know it isn't. >
>
> I've seen the guy explain himself and I knew it was.
As have I. Whether he indulges in a little smirking irony or not, he is
most definitely arrogant and pretentious.
That doesn't mean I don't like his films, of course. Which was my whole
point.
Trichome
"somaboy mx" <nosuc...@fakemail.com> wrote:
> "Marcelo E Mazzanti" <RuatC...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> > I'm pretty pissed off at the tyranny of the law of gravity myself.
>
> I agree. Gravity is completely overrated. People are giving it too much
> credit.
>
> .soma
Truth is, it's the weakest of the four fundamental forces.
Trichome
somaboy mx
I thought the weakest of them was, well.. the so-called weak force.
.s
somaboy mx
> "Marcelo E Mazzanti" <RuatC...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39ovvbF...@individual.net...
> > < I know it sounds arrogant when you read it, but when you've seen the
> > guy
> > explain himself you'll know it isn't. >
> >
> > I've seen the guy explain himself and I knew it was.
>
> As have I. Whether he indulges in a little smirking irony or not, he is
> most definitely arrogant and pretentious.
Aren't you mistaking "British" for "pretentious"?
.soma
Joshua Zyber
news:4237cc41$1...@x-privat.org...
>> As have I. Whether he indulges in a little smirking irony or not, he
>> is
>> most definitely arrogant and pretentious.
>
> Aren't you mistaking "British" for "pretentious"?
No comment.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Marcelo E Mazzanti" <RuatC...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39ovvbF...@individual.net...
>> < I know it sounds arrogant when you read it, but when you've seen the
>> guy
>> explain himself you'll know it isn't. >
>>
>> I've seen the guy explain himself and I knew it was.
>
> As have I. Whether he indulges in a little smirking irony or not, he is
> most definitely arrogant and pretentious.
Maybe he's a little pretentious and a little arrogant, but at least he has a
sense of humour about it. I mean, it's like watching Vertical Features
Remake - a hilarious poke at British Academics and its pedantic search for
truth - it's quite difficult to tell at which exact moment you laugh, feel
bored for its tediousness, and feel awe for some of the aesthetic ideas. It
is at the same time sympathetic towards pedantic cataloging, but also makes
fun of it at every turn.
To me he was very much the same in his lecture as he appears in some of his
films.
Marcelo E Mazzanti
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <mikko....@omaluukku.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:39p3u3F...@individual.net...
< You utterly misinterpreted the guy. A lot of people do. It's a shame. >
Maybe. Then again it's very British to laugh a bit at yourself and still
mean every word you say. Anyway, it's more important what he does than what
he says, and I agree he's done some excellent work - when he hasn't followed
his own theories. Certainly, what he's doing with the Suitcases series, to
turn a film into a treasure hunt, is not a solution for all of today's
supposed problems of cinema.
~MeM~
somaboy mx
> news:39p3u3F...@individual.net...
>
>
> < You utterly misinterpreted the guy. A lot of people do. It's a shame. >
>
>
> Maybe. Then again it's very British to laugh a bit at yourself and still
> mean every word you say. Anyway, it's more important what he does than
what
Of late, I've been finding what he says more interesting than what he does.
Haven't seen "Suitcases", though, I stopped paying attention around "The
Baby of Macon".
.s
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Anyway, it's more important what he does than what
> he says, and I agree he's done some excellent work - when he hasn't followed
> his own theories.
When was that?
Marcelo E Mazzanti
"somaboy mx" <nosuc...@fakemail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:423895c2$1...@x-privat.org...
< Of late, I've been finding what he says more interesting than what he
does. Haven't seen "Suitcases", though, I stopped paying attention around
"The Baby of Macon". >
A good point where to stop paying attention...
Suitcases is something else, though. I'm not much into this "treasure hunt"
kind of thing, thus I couldn't like the 1st film any more than the general
idea, but I can see it may be extremely interesting for more hardcore
Greenaway fans.
~MeM~
Marcelo E Mazzanti
<< Anyway, it's more important what he does than what he says, and I agree
he's done some excellent work - when he hasn't followed his own theories. >>
< When was that? >
When he puts a story to go with the pretty images, ie in the majority of his
films, therefore being susceptible of, oh no!, being descripted in a
screenplay! Cut & paste jobs! Narrative tyranny! Even consistent horizontal
framing! Why, he'll also be in Hollywood in no time! :-)
Just kidding on that last part...
~MeM~
Emmanuel Papillon
> When he puts a story to go with the pretty images, ie in the majority of his
> films, therefore being susceptible of, oh no!, being descripted in a
> screenplay! Cut & paste jobs! Narrative tyranny! Even consistent horizontal
> framing!
On the other hand, don't you agree it's annoying when people ask : "why does
the 'Pillow Book' doesn't end after Ewan McGregor's death? the story's over".
IMO his greatest is "Pillow Book", and it has as much story as "Lost Highway".
Why cinema would be the only visual art that has to have narration ? Is
"Nosferatu" about a story ? Even books (say, "Naked Lunch") can do without
narration.
Marcelo E Mazzanti
"Emmanuel Papillon" <emma...@diespamdie.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:4238df16$0$25058$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
< On the other hand, don't you agree it's annoying when people ask : "why
does the 'Pillow Book' doesn't end after Ewan McGregor's death? the story's
over". >
Yes. Well, actually, no one's asked me that, but I'd be annoyed at them if
they did!
< IMO his greatest is "Pillow Book", and it has as much story as "Lost
Highway". >
I'd have a hard time picking a favorite. Even if I thrash Greenaway's
comments, I've fell in love with many of his films. The Draughtman's
Contract may not be among his best, but it's the first I saw by him and it
blew me away. I loved Drowning By Numbers (which is saying a lot since in
general I don't much care for that kind of visual tricks), and, this may be
trite, but I also loved a lot The Cook, The Thief, the Whatever and his
Whatever (or whatever).
But all in all, I think the one I enjoyed the most was also The Pillow Book.
I've read somewhere it's thrashed by many Greenaway fans as too much of a
compromise with, um, traditional storytelling, but maybe I love it because
of that. Apart from the fact that it's totally gorgeous and we both share a
love for typography and calligraphy! (Heck, the poster alone is enough to
get me going!)
< Why cinema would be the only visual art that has to have narration ? Is
"Nosferatu" about a story ? Even books (say, "Naked Lunch") can do without
narration. >
Yes, that's a point I've had trouble getting across in the past. In a
nutshell, as a general rule with very few exceptions, I need some narrative,
only that it doesn't need to be necessarily on the forefront. Sometimes it
doesn't need to be much more than the glue in a book: without it the pages
would fall off, but you don't need to notice it at all.
Using your examples, Nosferatu's not about a story, but it does have one,
and without it it wouldn't be the same at all. Naked Lunch (the book, and to
an extent the movie too) is a perfect and marvelous example of narration
being the tiniest of threads that totally takes a back seat and serves only
to move the whole thing forward. A bit like (but more extreme than) another
of my favourite books, Under The Volcano, where Lowry is clearly more
preoccupied with putting on paper specific vignettes than with telling a
story, but that story structure serves to convey the message of progressive
self-destruction of the main character.
Having said that, I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit of a dinosaur on
these things, and non-narrative films generally have to be either
exceptionally great, or just plain short (or both, as in Un Chien Andalou,
where there's no narrative whatsoever, but then it's 27 minutes of pure
genius!) for me to like them.
~MeM~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
You do realize that probably means he didn't think much of Baby of Macon?
damnfine
> Of late, I've been finding what he says more interesting than what he
> does.
> Haven't seen "Suitcases", though, I stopped paying attention around "The
> Baby of Macon".
You somehow just managed to suck more.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Where is Richard Nixon when we finally need him?"
- Hunter S. Thompson
Marcelo E Mazzanti
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <mikko....@omaluukku.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:39svt6F...@individual.net...
< You do realize that probably means he didn't think much of Baby of Macon?
>
No, I didn't realize it, I thought soma meant that was Greenaway's last
great one. But re-reading, you're probably right. And what's more, I'm even
more of a dork since I incorrectly remembered Baby of Macon being done
*after* The Pillow Book, which as I said is maybe my fav Greenaway. I'll
just go shoot myself in the foot or something... sigh.
~MeM~
somaboy mx
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <mikko....@omaluukku.com> wrote...
> You do realize that probably means he didn't think much of Baby of Macon?
That's right. The best thing I could say about it at the time was that it's
"very decorative"...
My favorite one is probably Drowning by Numbers or ZOO (Zed and two Noughts)
but I haven't seen those in ages...
.soma
Trichome
"somaboy mx" <nosuc...@fakemail.com> wrote:
> "Trichome" <proph...@ver-EYE-zon.net> wrote...
> > In article <42376...@x-privat.org>,
> > "somaboy mx" <nosuc...@fakemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Marcelo E Mazzanti" <RuatC...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> > >
> > > > I'm pretty pissed off at the tyranny of the law of gravity myself.
> > >
> > > I agree. Gravity is completely overrated. People are giving it too much
> > > credit.
> > >
> > > .soma
> >
> > Truth is, it's the weakest of the four fundamental forces.
>
> I thought the weakest of them was, well.. the so-called weak force.
>
> .s
Nah, the nuclear weak force is only weak with respect to the stronger
nuclear strong force. I wouldn't know at the moment where to look for
the exact rankings, but I remember the documentary point was made that
gravity was the weakest force, because that's precisely what we
gravity-bound humans would least expect.
Trichome
somaboy mx
> Nah, the nuclear weak force is only weak with respect to the stronger
> nuclear strong force. I wouldn't know at the moment where to look for
> the exact rankings, but I remember the documentary point was made that
> gravity was the weakest force, because that's precisely what we
> gravity-bound humans would least expect.
Thanks for clearing that up. I hope you'll excuse my ignorance, I
consistently flunked physics and chemistry throughout my educational
"career".
.s
Trichome
"somaboy mx" <no...@nosuch.no> wrote:
Not at all. I myself had a miserable hard science career, taking
advanced courses, understanding little, getting average-low grades, in a
time and field of significant grade inflation.
I probably understood more from public tv science documentaries, than
I did from my time in college math, physics, and chemistry classes. In
a more equitable world, I would have failed out.
Trichome
Nils J. Nesse
> We have some pretty good filmmakers here, like the Dardenne brothers
> (Rosetta, The Son,...), Remy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoit
> Poelvoorde (Man Bites Dog aka C'est arrivé près de chez vous) and Jaco
> Van Dormael. I wonder how well known they are internationally.
>
I loved Aaltra, the best twist ending in modern time.
I hated Rosetta, the worst European film since Breaking The Waves.
And that's all I know about Belgian cinema.
(Probably more than you know about Norwegian cinema.)
--
Nils J. Nesse -- www.nilsjnesse.com
Nils J. Nesse
> I've read somewhere it's thrashed by many Greenaway fans as too
> much of a compromise with, um, traditional storytelling,
I love most of Greenaway's work, The Falls is one of my favorite films, but
I thought The Pillow Book was sort of, just not very interesting...
Mikko Pihkoluoma
art schools have signed on to the Tulse Luper Suitcases project. They're
supposed to make a video game out of one of the suitcases I assume...
Anyway, he mentioned filmmakers whom he once upon a time took a liking
to, naming them in this order: Lynch, Cronenberg and Atom Egoyan. He
also briefly mentioned Kubrick's 2001 (and in a positive meaning). And
of course Eisenstein, Godard, Truffaut and Alain Resnais whom he praised
immensly. I think he mentioned Eraserhead three times.
So basically I just dropped in a line to brag that I've seen the guy
twice within one month, and that he's a David Lynch fan, or used to be,
once upon a time when he still watched films.
Oh yeah, and he told he's going to make a film about necrophilia in
Russia! Shooting starts in September 2006. He also spoke about
greediness of rights holders. And talked about the 92 dvds coming up -
"My god, that's going to cost a lot of money - I personally think they
should be distributed freely."
He also said, concerning internet distribution, that I expect others to
steal as much from me as I steal from others. And that there is no need
for him to try to distribute his films online because they're being
pirated there already. And that, in fact, the piracy success he has had
in Russia is the reason why he is able to make a film about necrophilia
there, a subject no one in Britain or USA would touch.
--
mikko dot pihkoluoma at helsinki dot fi
"In my world, the books would be nothing but pictures."
http://trulio.vuodatus.net