The Cook, The Thief,
JOHN KRIVAS
[a hodgepodge of interesting ideas for interpretating The
Cook, esp. dwelling on the religious subtext, deleted]
As with many good movies, it's interesting how The Cook tends to take a
while to digest :-) Unlike the standard Hollywood fare which we flush
:-) out of our systems immediately upon leaving the theatre.
I, too, immediately recognized a strong ancillary religious theme; all-
the-while film reviews were content to simply mention that the film was
an allegory of the political situation in contemporary Britain--a theme
which IMHO is unintelligible unless one has had prior 'insider'
information. So there!
Now back to your religious programming:
Halfway through The Cook I couldn't help but think of Dante's 'Divine
Comedy.' I think using the hierarchical structure presented in Dante's
novel (viz. the progression of the different levels of Hell) transposes
well onto Greenaway's model. Here's how I got this figured so far:
The long tracking shots (uninterrupted by room changes) used by
Greenaway's cinematographer, for the purpose of my interpretation,
illustrates the descent/ascent to/from the bowels of Hell.
This is the structure:
Book Depository/outside world --> Parking Lot --> Kitchen -->
Dining Room. (from high to low)
I'm not sure where the Bathroom fits in this schema as it's kind of
off to the side and fulfills some sort of singular function.
Now, leading away from the restaurant is a steep hill/driveway. On the
part of this driveway that is presented on the screen we see a bunch of
(yellow highway) markings painted on the road in a herringbone design
looking somewhat similar to: >>>>>>>>>>
Well, this gives the appeareance of a very distinct arrow pointing *IN*
to the restaurant, flowing *DOWN* the steep hill. Once we realize this
orientation, we can extrapolate this arrow (and hill) to flow through
the kitchen, and to the dining room where it has its terminus. The
terminus is the lowest level of Hell (which according to Dante is
reserved for the most vile and evil sinners, i.e. lawyers :-)
Some people are limited to their particular 'level' while others are
free to roam about [statism vs. dynamism theme, e.g. the nouveau riche
Albert Spica is able to move from the lowest ranks (petty thief) to eat
in the finest of eateries (upper class), which, in this film, amounts
to much the same level].
Since the movie is not 'black and white', I don't expect this model to
work for everything. I could expand on this idea a lot more, but this,
at least, is the gist of the interpretation.
The points illustrating religious themes that follow are largely
unstructured, so feel to twist, bend, and reshape my ideas; or simply
use them as food for thought :-)
*Adam/Eve=Micheal/Georgina parallels: They fell into sin and out of the
Garden as a result of an act of EATING (of the Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil). Thus there is a strong correlation between the act of
eating and that of sin which The Cook so wonderfully explores.
[continued]
---
* Via ProDoor 3.1R
JOHN KRIVAS
get transported in that god-forsaken-awful truck loaded-to-the-tits with
rancid meat and carcasses, is reminiscent of Adam and Eve fleeing the
Garden. Garden = Kitchen? : it's superabundant with food, etc.
*Stained glass windows at the extreme 'left' of the kitchen, in
combination with the high ceiling and smoky/steamy atmosphere gives it
the appearance of a medieval cathedral (making it, incidentally,
contemporary with Dante).
*you already mentioned the little boy (cherub?) working/singing in the
kitchen. He might also be an agent of Micheal (brought him food, etc.).
*images of Fish: a very important symbol in Christianity. Fish were
painted on the side of trucks parked in the lot. Also I remember
'poisson' being mentioned either in speech and/or as the appelation of
one of the meals which appears on the shots of the dinner menu.
>the colors - white/bathroom, red/dining room, green/kitchen,
>blue/outside, and brown/the book depository. what is the
>significance? white - purity? green - growth, life?
I don't think the colour scheme is too cryptic. In fact, I find that it
is very similar to the atmospheric effects achieved through tinting film
in the silent film era (D.W. Griffith et al). The usual tints were:
Red = passion, war (~Dining Room)
Green = pastoral and calm (~Kitchen)
Blue = night, melancholy (~Parking Lot)
Sepia = interiors (~Book Depository)
White = isn't a tint, but was used to achieve much the same effect that
Greenaway envisioned.
You don't have to stretch the tint colour convention too hard to get
a reasonable match with The Cook's colour coding.
*The carnivorous dogs roaming around the Parking Lot: remind me of the
myths where the gates of hell (back entrance of the restaurant) are
guarded by a pack of dogs. Also in the Bible the Antichrist is borne of
a jackal.
*lots of disembodied pigs' heads = the devil/beelzebub.
As an aside, I'd like to make a comment about the French Revolution, the
subject of Micheal's voracious reading. This is really where the
political allegory is at the forefront: the unwashed lower class will
rise up and overthrow the wealthy, privileged, decadent elite/nobles.
I think this is quite clear, just one bit of trivia though:
A key event that brought about the *start* of the French Revolution was
an increase in the price of BREAD (price of bread in France was state-
controlled as it is today). It seems in The Cook that food also ENDS
the revolution.
Further ongoing thought-provoking discussion on this wonderful movie
encouraged!
P.S. Giving further creedance to my Dante theory is this info. that I
gleened from this newsgroup a few days ago:
"Even better in my opinion is "A TV Dante", an ongoing collaboration
between Tom Phillips and Greenaway in which they are filming Dante's
Divine Comedy for British television."
Uncanny! Boy, ain't this newsgroup great!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
john....@canremote.uucp.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hager
Continuing John Krivas' excellent exegetical thread, I'd like
to toss out a few observations. Greenaway's films often have
near tableaux -- "The Cook ..." being no exception. Of the
many I noticed, one composition in the dining room struck me as
being a variation on the last supper. It was very subtle (for
comparison consider the "last supper" tableau in "M.A.S.H") and
may be just a creation of my own mind. This, however, suggests
another way in which a Greenaway film works on the viewer -- on
the meta-level. Certain symbols and images can lead one to expect
others, to anticipate what Greenaway is doing. This worked very
well, I thought, in "A Zed and Two Noughts" (my favorite Greenaway)
when all of the Vermeer-like tableaux served to introduce the
demented doctor who thought he was Vermeer -- while I was searching
for deeper meanings, Greenaway blindsided me with the banal. But
this bending of symbology directly to the plot worked to take me
outside the plot -- to a meta-plot -- which effectively added
another layer to the action on the screen.
But this thread is about "The Cook ...". In describing this film
to others, I've suggested that it is the Art House version of
"Scarface" or "Public Enemy" -- it's almost as if a Flemish Symbolist
painter had access to modern technology and decided to explore
the gangster movie genre. Film buffs will recall the brutishness
of the central character in "Public Enemy" whose excesses helped
to bring about his own downfall -- ditto, "Little Caesar". As
"The Cook ..." proceeds, we watch Albert diminish -- his henchmen
fall away as Albert's excesses alienate even them.
I think I'll hand this thread off to others now.
--
paul hager hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
--from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Michael Gagnon
>
>many I noticed, one composition in the dining room struck me as
>being a variation on the last supper. It was very subtle (for
I remember this scene also, however I thought it was a imitation of
the large painting in the dining room. I think they even faded to the
painting at the end of the sceen. I egree that this has some significance,
but not being an art history buff it's meening was lost to me.
Does anyone know what the painting is called, who painted it, and what
other meening it might give to the film.
Mike.
small dog alert
In article <1990May18.1...@ccs.carleton.ca> m...@doe.carleton.ca (Michael Gagnon) writes:
.>In article <45...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
.>>
.>>many I noticed, one composition in the dining room struck me as
.>>being a variation on the last supper. It was very subtle
.>I remember this scene also, however I thought it was a imitation of
.>the large painting in the dining room. I think they even faded to the
.>painting at the end of the sceen. I egree that this has some significance,
.>but not being an art history buff it's meening was lost to me.
.>Does anyone know what the painting is called, who painted it, and what
.>other meening it might give to the film.
====
the painting was in the style of Rembrandt.
he did many group portraits of merchants' guilds, and
such. i don't know enough about art history
to know if it was an enlargement of a real
Rembrandt, or simply a piece done in his style
(or as a parody of his style?).
michael's point that the the meaning of the backdrop lacked
significance brings up one of my main problems
with the movie.
i too, felt that there was much
metaphoric meaning in the backdrop painting--and in
many other aspects of the movie--but i
could not grasp what it was.
i think the director was trying to make many points of
historic and social relevance, but they were so vague
and unexplained, that i ended up feeling lost. what
was he trying to say in and around all the
sex and violence?
my non-fully-formed theory is that it's some kind
of parable about class (ref the Thief and the Lover,)
nationality (the Cook), sexual politics,
revolution--and ultimately, the state `western society'
has been brought to under capitalism (as represented
by the Thief and his cronies).
all the heavy-handed clues don't add up to understanding,
though. i kept thinking, `if only i were
European, i'd get all this.' ;-)
some hints the director dropped that suggested
there was more to the story than met the eye:
the lover was an intellectual, specifically interested
in the French Revolution
the thief was from the lower classes, yet attained
a high status (of merchant and property owner) that
granted him immunity from punishment for his
crimes
the patrons of the restaurant were so into their bourgeois
little existences that they ignored the chaos around them.
and then with all the cultural references:
the costumes were a pastiche of
styles...from the 18th century garb of the
kitchen-help to the 50's-ish suit
The Lover wore, to the post-modern
weirdness of the women in the bathroom
(did you catch some of the shoes??)
many parts of the sets seemed reminiscent of paintings--
from the Last Supper/Rembrandt motif of the dining
room, to the Titian-esque shots of the high, arcing
kitchen doorway and kitchen interior, to the sort of
Lautrec-ian costumes of the Wife (especially towards
the end).
does anyone have anything else to
add to the list, or any insight
as to their relevance?
this is one of those movies that
i really didn't like much, but that
has left a lasting impression--i had
the same reaction to Blue Velvet;
i hated it the first time i saw it.
but i gave it another chance, and
ended up loving it. maybe the same
thing will happen if i see TCTTHWAHL
again....
michelle
Steve Scher
>
>michael's point that the the meaning of the backdrop lacked
>significance brings up one of my main problems
>with the movie.
>i too, felt that there was much
>metaphoric meaning in the backdrop painting--and in
>many other aspects of the movie--but i
>could not grasp what it was.
>
>i think the director was trying to make many points of
>historic and social relevance, but they were so vague
>and unexplained, that i ended up feeling lost. what
>was he trying to say in and around all the
>sex and violence?
>
>my non-fully-formed theory is that it's some kind
>of parable about class (ref the Thief and the Lover,)
>nationality (the Cook), sexual politics,
>revolution--and ultimately, the state `western society'
>has been brought to under capitalism (as represented
>by the Thief and his cronies).
>
>all the heavy-handed clues don't add up to understanding,
>though. i kept thinking, `if only i were
>European, i'd get all this.' ;-)
Your point is exactly the reason that I love Greenaway (and this film in
particular). The symbols SHOULDN'T be obvious, and the interpretation
SHOULDN'T neccesarily be straight-foward.
I don't think that Greenaway was trying to make a pedantic movie, he was trying
to make people think. In the same way, Spike Lee was trying to make us think
in DO THE RIGHT THING. What was the right thing? You have to decide, Spike
isn't going to force you to decide.
The point is that most movies force feed opinions and interpretations. Vietnam
was worng! (BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY). Vietnam was right, but those damn
liberals wouldn't let us win! (RAMBO). etc
In THE COOK ... there is a lot to think about, and it is hard to figure out.
So what? How do YOUR feelings and opinions lead you to interpret it? How
is that different from my interpretations? What does that say about the film
and about us?
Have you noticed that these two films (The Cook... & DTRT) have generated the
most interesting discussions on this net in AGES? It is because of these
ambiguities. We may not understand it all, and we may not agree on a lot,
but it sure is interesting to talk and think about.
(Parenthetically, I should say that this is not the only reason I like
Greenaway. The man has one of the greatest senses of visual composition
ever.)
--
Steve Scher Program in Measurement and Affect 744 Ballantine Hall
Indiana University Bloomington, In. 47405
Jeff Dalton
>painting--and in many other aspects of the movie--but i could not
>grasp what it was.
I think it may be a mistake to look for _the_ meaning of the film,
as if it were some sort of puzzle you were supposed to work out.
It's a game you can play if you want, but you don't have to play it
and, besides, why suppose Greenaway had one meaning in mind? Maybe
he was trying to make a film that could stand up to a number of
different interpretations or even to none at all. [By "none", I
mean this: there's a lot to the film just on the surface, syntactic,
level, without trying to ask what it means at all.]
In short: don't worry about it. In particular, don't think there
are a lot of smarter, or better informed, or whatever people out
there who have all figured it out (to the same conclusion?) while
you haven't.
>i think the director was trying to make many points of historic and
>social relevance, but they were so vague and unexplained, that i ended
>up feeling lost. what was he trying to say in and around all the
>sex and violence?
I think this may be why some people find the film so disturbing. If
there were some point or message in the film that we could all approve
of, it would justify (or at least explain) the sex, violence, etc.
But since the film is, at best, ambiguous, ...
Of course, there is a genre that has lots of violence and doesn't try
to justify itself, namely horror films. Horror films have the
advantage of being familiar and unsubtle. But since _The Cook_
doesn't follow any of the horror film conventions, it can't be
so conveniently filed away and so we have to pay more attention
to what it shows.
>all the heavy-handed clues don't add up to understanding, though.
"Heavy-handed" is usually said of clues whose meaning is all too
obvious but where, for some reason, someone wants to make sure you get
the point. (Think of the finger licking shots in _The Name of the Rose_,
for example). That something is a particularly strong image (and the
film is full strong images) doesn't necessarily mean it has some
definite meaning which you ought to be able to figure out.
-- Jeff