When i saw this movie i had read and heard a bit about Peter Greenaway and his movies, that he was often compared to David Lynch and Fellini, he used "strong and controversial themes" and that he also worked with visual arts. So i was really interested when i finally got to see one of his movies on TV, which was this one.
The movie opens with Greenaway's textual description of the scenes overlaid on top of several nicely shot but meaningless outdoor images, as pictures within pictures. While this got my attention up for about 20 seconds, as soon as the movie starts it is obviously just a gimmick-about as phooney as the reverse scrolling text in George Lucas "THX 1138".
Then the movie starts. For the first few minutes i got interested, then depressed. Then i had to smile, and for the rest of the movie there was just one thing running through my head: how to best phrase "Peter Greenaway is a pure cinematic BLUFF MAKER!"
8½ Women deals with the subjects of sexuality, the human body, death, prostitution and the relation to parents. These are topics that writers and directors have been centering on from the birth of cinema, yet Greenaway likes to think that he's the only one who dares to take it upon himself. He compares himself to Fellini, who this film is at least partly a tribute to.
But in reality, Greenaway's strategy is the exact opposite of Fellini's, in each and every way. Fellini's movies deal with seemingly absurd situations and characters, but displays them in such a natural way that nobody even considers seeing them as "strange" or deviative. He makes us feel the events from the inside.
Greenaway shows scenes which could have been perfectly natural and mundane, but he does everything he can to make us see them as absurd. The lighting, settings, style of dialogue and general isolation of the characters (no distracting "background elements" to make us feel like we're still in the real world) isn't there to convey any hidden truths or messages. It's all about confusing the audience!
He might claim to be revealing mysteries of existence, showing aspects of humanity never shown before, but what he really doing is using "the magic of cinema" to make us believe that things are stranger than they really are! If successful, viewers of his movies feel like they have truly been revealed something important, but they can never gain any real knowledge from them because THEY DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING!
Also, Fellini didn't like to show many explicit images of "sex, violence and such" because he felt that he could get his points across better by reflective events and commentary. While Greenaway throws all sorts of meaningless imagery at the screen, images and events which doesn't even have any point at all!
I've also heard Greenaway compared to David Lynch. Which is somewhat relevant since they both obviously do settle to create "bizarre and disturbing" images. However Lynch is a much more commercially successful director, which can be attributed to him never hesitating to include more mundane and "normal life" sets in his movies.
Lynch's movies take place in the "real world" (without any creative isolation) and he STILL makes them feel "weird". This in my opinion just shows that Lynch is an infinitely much better director than Greenaway, who i could never imagine starting to work on something like "Twin Peaks".
Greenaway's constant use of nudity is nothing but an iconoclastic joke. It's a way of showing self awareness, cause he knows The Emperor Has No Clothes.
The movie opens with Greenaway's textual description of the scenes overlaid on top of several nicely shot but meaningless outdoor images, as pictures within pictures. While this got my attention up for about 20 seconds, as soon as the movie starts it is obviously just a gimmick-about as phooney as the reverse scrolling text in George Lucas "THX 1138".
Then the movie starts. For the first few minutes i got interested, then depressed. Then i had to smile, and for the rest of the movie there was just one thing running through my head: how to best phrase "Peter Greenaway is a pure cinematic BLUFF MAKER!"
8½ Women deals with the subjects of sexuality, the human body, death, prostitution and the relation to parents. These are topics that writers and directors have been centering on from the birth of cinema, yet Greenaway likes to think that he's the only one who dares to take it upon himself. He compares himself to Fellini, who this film is at least partly a tribute to.
But in reality, Greenaway's strategy is the exact opposite of Fellini's, in each and every way. Fellini's movies deal with seemingly absurd situations and characters, but displays them in such a natural way that nobody even considers seeing them as "strange" or deviative. He makes us feel the events from the inside.
Greenaway shows scenes which could have been perfectly natural and mundane, but he does everything he can to make us see them as absurd. The lighting, settings, style of dialogue and general isolation of the characters (no distracting "background elements" to make us feel like we're still in the real world) isn't there to convey any hidden truths or messages. It's all about confusing the audience!
He might claim to be revealing mysteries of existence, showing aspects of humanity never shown before, but what he really doing is using "the magic of cinema" to make us believe that things are stranger than they really are! If successful, viewers of his movies feel like they have truly been revealed something important, but they can never gain any real knowledge from them because THEY DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING!
Also, Fellini didn't like to show many explicit images of "sex, violence and such" because he felt that he could get his points across better by reflective events and commentary. While Greenaway throws all sorts of meaningless imagery at the screen, images and events which doesn't even have any point at all!
I've also heard Greenaway compared to David Lynch. Which is somewhat relevant since they both obviously do settle to create "bizarre and disturbing" images. However Lynch is a much more commercially successful director, which can be attributed to him never hesitating to include more mundane and "normal life" sets in his movies.
Lynch's movies take place in the "real world" (without any creative isolation) and he STILL makes them feel "weird". This in my opinion just shows that Lynch is an infinitely much better director than Greenaway, who i could never imagine starting to work on something like "Twin Peaks".
Greenaway's constant use of nudity is nothing but an iconoclastic joke. It's a way of showing self awareness, cause he knows The Emperor Has No Clothes.