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
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.
====
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
>
>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
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