Peter Greenaway's 'Nighwatching' (2006)

[Greenaway]

At this writing Greenaway's biographical film of the Dutch painter Rembrandt van Rijn's life, entitled "Nighwatching", is in pre-production, and should be finished next spring to be unleashed in the year which marks the 400th birthday of Rembrandt.

In particular, the film concerns the life and experience of Rembrandt during the process of painting perhaps his most famous work, "The Nightwatch".

This thread tries to collect all possible information about the project as it advances, and also to serve as a platform to everything Greenaway related discussion.

[Tuukka]

I have to admit that I have been completely indifferent about Greenaway for over 10 years now. I used to watch his films, but it just seems to me that he is beating a dead horse. When I watch a Greenaway film, I know exactly what to expect, and therefore he doesn't come off as interesting and adventurous as he would probably want to be. Sure, there is always something to admire in his movies, but I just feel completely indifferent towards them.

So I'm not gonna watch this one either.

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by Tuukka
I have to admit that I have been completely indifferent about Greenaway for over 10 years now. I used to watch his films, but it just seems to me that he is beating a dead horse. When I watch a Greenaway film, I know exactly what to expect, and therefore he doesn't come off as interesting and adventurous as he would probably want to be. Sure, there is always something to admire in his movies, but I just feel completely indifferent towards them.

So I'm not gonna watch this one either.

So there is a film you like of him? The Cook perhaps? It at least has the most mainstream appeal, so it's my first guess, for if someone doesn't like most of his work, that film always stoods as the favorite.

It seems we are looking for very different things when we watch his films, because he most certainly comes off as adventurous and exciting for me, even though I have always had the highest expectations. Mostly it is because I am very fascinated with all sorts of layered narratives (Joyce and Nabokov in literature, for an example), and he really creates the most exciting universes. The visual grandeour is a commodity we are used to, but even in that context he really expands the so-called "vocabulary" of film. And I am very excited about that. And he has offered great insight for me, as his version of Shakespeare's "The Tempest", the 1991 film Prospero's Books, shows the cleverest of insight I've ever seen on display when it comes to understanding that play.

Anyway, his cinema isn't conventional in terms that he explores territories you really have to be excited about, and his quest has clicked with me. That's the main reason, I think, why so many people disconnect so "easily".

I'm from Finland, too, by the way, and he is coming to Helsinki tomorrow. Too bad I only found out about it yesterday so I'm not able to go on such a short notice. That's disappointing, as his lectures are indeed very well-thought and as a fan it would have been very rewarding.

In any case, take care.

With best regards,

Antti.

[Tuukka]

I don't have a favourite. I've seen A Zed & Two Noughts (1985), The Draughtsman's Contract (1982), The Belly of an Architect (1987), Drowning by Numbers (1988), "A TV Dante", The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover (1989) and Prospero's Books (1991).

I would give them each either 6/10 or 7/10.

My problem is that he has built himself a small ghetto he likes to inhabit. And he has been living in that same ghetto for decades now. Whatever new he makes, I already know what that ghetto looks and feels like.

So there are no suprises anymore.

Greenaway has a long time ago become a similar fimmaker as our local Aki Kaurismaki. They have created small niches to themselves and stick to them. If you like that niche, I'm sure it's nice knowing that there is a consistency of quality in display. But for me the appeal starts to wear off after a while.

Sure, I haven't watched a new Greenaway film for over 10 years. So theoretically I don't know what I'm talking about. But I follow his career and I do read about his movies. And it just comes off as same old, same old.

For a filmmaker like Greenaway even making a traditional drama movie would be an exciting departure from his niche. But I don't think he is adventurous enough to do that.

As you can see, being adventurous can mean many things.

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by Tuukka

For a filmmaker like Greenaway even making a traditional drama movie would be an exciting departure from his niche. But I don't think he is adventurous enough to do that.

As you can see, being adventurous can mean many things.

Obviously.

As for the "traditional drama movie" (what does that mean?), I would recommend 8½ Women if you weren't that stubborn. Well, I've always viewed most Greenaway as comedy, he is British, after all. The composition, symmetry, is there, but this time we have something he doesn't do that often: the closeups and angles are a lot more familiar in the way most cinema handles them. His films have never been about the plot, for which I am grateful, and in most cases if there is one that resembles a plot (which misleads most viewers), it seems to be there by a "lucky accident", so to speak. 8½ Women, while it is obviously generally almost as hated as the rest of his work except for 'The Cook...', stands out as the most character-driven film by him.

And as for the ghetto thing, doesn't every single director do exactly that? Only those who create cinema the way I see it (Greenaway most certainly is innovating) can expand the space they move in. Those would be Tarkovsky, Eisenstein, Welles and Kurosawa, at least. And perhaps Herzog in his early 1970s. And even Welles is, above anything else, the architect of cinema.

Whom do you consider as a director who wouldn't build his own "ghetto"? In a way, this is very ironic, because if you refer to a certain universe a director creates, I believe this to be one of the hightest compliments ever given to a film-maker. If this is the meaning of "ghetto" in this context, I would possibly reverse the question by asking 'who do you believe has created a ghetto?'. But I don't know why it is exactly that negative to you, because the way I see it is that most varied artists create, and geniuses inhabit what they have created. And the true creators, so to speak, include the audience, which I believe Greenaway has been doing very brilliantly.

By the way, you should definitely see his early films (pre-Draughtsman), especially The Falls, from which his new Tulse Luper is an update of a sort.

[Tuukka]

His films have never been about the plot, for which I am grateful

RE:

This has been always my main problem with him. As a rule of thumb Greenaway movies have weak stories. And they have zero emotional involvement.

This is a problem for someone like me who primarily wants to see a good story well told, and who values emotional investment over intellectual investment.

do you consider as a director who wouldn't build his own "ghetto"?

RE:

Plenty of filmmakers in fact. I'll start with two of most famous ones:

Kubrick was able to move from realistic crime thrillers to historical epics to blackly comic satires to straigthforward horror films to philosophical sci-fi films. Plenty of genre-hopping there. Sure, stylistically you can always tell a Kubrick film, but he was in the constant process of re-inventing himself.

Spielberg also has his strong trademarks, but he also has done work to re-invent himself. He has done straight horror, historical melodrama, slapstick comedy, action adventure, etc. Even stylistically he has been able to constantly re-invent himself, from Jaws to Schindler's List, from E.T to Saving Private Ryan. Those films don't look and feel like the work of the same director, except that they are all extremely visually dynamic.

a way, this is very ironic, because if you refer to a certain universe a director creates, I believe this to be one of the hightest compliments ever given to a film-maker. If this is the meaning of "ghetto" in this context, I would possibly reverse the question by asking 'who do you believe has created a ghetto?'. But I don't know why it is exactly that negative to you

RE:

Yes, it does depend on the specifics of the ghetto a filmmaker has created for himself. Sometimes I can embrace a ghetto. But even then, even with filmmakers I love, the appeal starts to wear off after a while. I used to be psyched about every new Coen Brothers film, but nowadays I feel indifferent about them. When I was introduced to Tarkovsky I was at first psyched about him but after seeing five movies I got tired of the same quirks, and since then haven't watched anything else by him.

If Kubrick were still alive, I wouldn't have any idea at all what he would be doing 5 years from now. I have a fairly good idea what Spielberg will be doing, but I know he can suprise me.

I know that the Coen's or Greenaway are not gonna suprise me anymore.

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by Tuukka
His films have never been about the plot, for which I am grateful

Kubrick was able to move from realistic crime thrillers to historical epics to blackly comic satires to straigthforward horror films to philosophical sci-fi films. Plenty of genre-hopping there. Sure, stylistically you can always tell a Kubrick film, but he was in the constant process of re-inventing himself.

Spielberg also has his strong trademarks, but he also has done work to re-invent himself. He has done straight horror, historical melodrama, slapstick comedy, action adventure, etc. Even stylistically he has been able to constantly re-invent himself, from Jaws to Schindler's List, from E.T to Saving Private Ryan. Those films don't look and feel like the work of the same director, except that they are all extremely visually dynamic.

[RE:

Yes, it does depend on the specifics of the ghetto a filmmaker has created for himself. Sometimes I can embrace a ghetto. But even then, even with filmmakers I love, the appeal starts to wear off after a while. I used to be psyched about every new Coen Brothers film, but nowadays I feel indifferent about them. When I was introduced to Tarkovsky I was at first psyched about him but after seeing five movies I got tired of the same quirks, and since then haven't watched anything else by him.

If Kubrick were still alive, I wouldn't have any idea at all what he would be doing 5 years from now. I have a fairly good idea what Spielberg will be doing, but I know he can suprise me.

I know that the Coen's or Greenaway are not gonna suprise me anymore.

Ah, I was going to give you Kubrick as an example, by the way. I for one see this concept of "creating a universe" as a bit more broader than just genre-hopping, of which you are talking about. Because basically what Kubrick has been doing since Lolita to Eyes Wide Shut was heavy play with indeed layered narrative, which some call films inside films. A Clockwork Orange is the most resonant example, perhaps, because there it is made immaculately precise: the drugas speaking in rhymes, the druga battle occuring on stage, and the notion of theatre is all over the place. This is very common to Greenaway. But they go to different directions, because I feel that Kubrick has indeed always considered himself as a storyteller. Greenaway does not. Kubrick is perhaps the real magician of cinema, because what he creates is an illusion of a different environment, which is a lot more universal concept than just genre-hopping. The basic universe and the language is thoroughly of same nature.

So for you ghetto seems to be very heavily bound to a genre, which then again is heavily dependable on the plot. Visually Kubrick has been the most inventive, I believe, most varied, not structurally or in his storytelling. This reinvention you are talking about occurs on this small space he expands. Isn't reinventing expansion after all?

Unfortunately this is my last reply of the day, but let's keep this up as long as it lasts. It's refreshing to really argue with other people in a polite and friendly manner, which is rare in Internet forums these days, even here. I'll especially get to the Spielberg comment you made when I'm available.

Good night.

[Tuukka]

Yes, my point about diversity has a lot to do with genre-hopping. By playing on a different genre instantly sets different demands for filmmaking. A horror and a comedy film can't be approached similarly. Each director tends to have certain stylistical trademarks which are echoed in all of their films. But this is not what I'm talking about.

The issue is how well the director is able to succesfully adapt his stylistical devices into new environments and new contexts. In the end style serves the story, not vice versa. Kubrick certainly was able to inject his artistical sensibilities into form that complimented the actual content of the film - The story.

Sure, it can be argued that movies are not necessaritly about storytelling. This is a purely subjective question. But for ME movies are more than anything else about storytelling.

I think it's fairly safe to say that you embrace films of Greenaway for much of the same reasons that I reject them. I admit that there is a lot to admire in his work, but I prefer to love something instead of admiring it.

I love many movies of Kubrick and Spielberg. And I have never felt such emotion towards anything Greenaway has done. His works can intrigue and satisfy me intellectually, but never emotionally.

And when it comes to art, I choose emotion over intellect anyday.

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Yes, my point about diversity has a lot to do with genre-hopping. By playing on a different genre instantly sets different demands for filmmaking. A horror and a comedy film can't be approached similarly. Each director tends to have certain stylistical trademarks which are echoed in all of their films. But this is not what I'm talking about.

The issue is how well the director is able to succesfully adapt his stylistical devices into new environments and new contexts. In the end style serves the story, not vice versa. Kubrick certainly was able to inject his artistical sensibilities into form that complimented the actual content of the film - The story.

Sure, it can be argued that movies are not necessaritly about storytelling. This is a purely subjective question. But for ME movies are more than anything else about storytelling.


My point with Kubrick was most definitely with the fact that while he has always been a storyteller, he is also what I call "a visual narrative" director, meaning that especially his 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most perfect examples of visual "storytelling". Not that I would have that much against directors who make story-oriented films if they do it right, take Kubrick example. I've always felt that the most important thing he has done is the movement and expansion inside the narrow concept of narrative, as I explained. But as said, we share a different perspective upon this, and it's all right. I only notice most text-based cinema rather awkward in their quality of the visual narrative, which I believe is because text-based tends to reinforce itself instead of giving room to the image.

In a way cinema is the most complex of all art, because everything we perceive tends to have the quality to make us create associations with different things -- it is us who urge that there would be no disconnection but a narrative, also known as a story. And I am no different. But for me stories told in films are much more about the relation of the ideas to other films, for an example. A depiction of reality is an example of this, as I don't think that a film can, or should, depict reality, because I don't think that it is capable of such a thing. So in the historical contex, for an example, films are fascinating because they are urging us to create our "own film" -- so there would be many narratives.


I think it's fairly safe to say that you embrace films of Greenaway for much of the same reasons that I reject them. I admit that there is a lot to admire in his work, but I prefer to love something instead of admiring it.

I love many movies of Kubrick and Spielberg. And I have never felt such emotion towards anything Greenaway has done. His works can intrigue and satisfy me intellectually, but never emotionally.

And when it comes to art, I choose emotion over intellect anyday.

That's true that our perception of cinema is rather different, and indeed when you see flaw, it makes perfect sense in my universe. And this is great, in my opinion. But if I said that there wouldn't be any emotion in my experiences with films, I would be lying, because with all art emotion is radically different, essential. But that's true that intellectual satisfaction seldom comes last, because I often feel that the fault of most film-makers is that they are appearing too manipulative with sentimentality, and not varied enough to give us the space to create our own film, as I have said. And when an experience allows me to participate in the creation of a film, I would say that this experience brings forth all kinds of emotions. I would say that most Greenaway does this, yet his films are more of intellectual ground, which we both agree with. But it is no problem for me, because it is in the vein of how I filter information with films. And most definitely Kubrick does this. And of the directors already mentioned, Tarkovsky most definitely.

So basically it's a rather complicated paradox to me to say that I would choose intellect over emotion or vice versa, because for me those two things, as strange concepts as they are, are integral to each other, balancing each other. For an example Spielberg has always been a bit too manipulative in my eyes, meaning that the emotional effect, so to speak, diminishes when it becomes clear what he intends. With Tarkovsky, as an example, it doesn't become obvious that I could or should be emotionally connected, but because I am allowed to make my own film in the process I can basically experience a lot more than in those circumstances that the more conventional, if you forgive using such a dull world, film-makers do. The problem of my approach is of course in the consciousness of the action, but I've gotten so used to it, it is natural, hence not a problem in the way most people have seen it, as they often claim it too analytical. Which is odd, in my opinion, but I guess we all use some sorts of stratagems to categorise the experiences we have.

And you're on the right track; we should prefer love over admiration.