Just a quick thought -- Greenaway isn't really as inovative as one might
think -- Godard was using split-screen (albeit with primative equipment)
as far back as Ici et ailleurs and Numero Deux (1974-5).
________________________________________________________________
Glen Norton
Graduate Programme in Film and Video
York University, Toronto, Canada
THE PANTHEON: http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/3781
"When you see your own photo, do you say you're a fiction?"
-- Jean-Luc Godard
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Edward R. O'Neill wrote:
> While I enjoyed *The Pillow Book* I have to say my aesthetic
> judgment of the film is not at all what Mr. Daniels' is. For me it is
> interesting as a Greenaway film: one could spend hours pointing out devices
> which the film shares with his other films: sex and violence, art and the
> body, etc. I, however, found the multiple screen techniques less successful
> than Mr. Daniels did. It *is* exhilarating to see this kind of technique,
> since one wonders if it's going to become a permanent part of the cinematic
> vocabulary.
> I do agree that Mr. Greenaway's idea of "adaptation"--if that is
> really the word--is quite interesting. Greenaway seems to construct a kind
> of paratext which both cites and replays issues from the text he's
> "adapting"--using? relying on? operating upon? This to me seems like a
> very rich topic within the hoary old topic of "cinematic adaptation," as
> well as within the newer, trendier topic of "postmodernism."
> I found *The Pillow Book* less emotionally engaging than some of
> Greenaway's other films, such as *ZOO* or *The Cook, the Thief....*
> All this for what it's worth.
> Sincerely,
> Edward R. O'Neill
> UCLA
>
>
> At 12:12 PM 6/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >For those who haven't yet caught it, Peter Greenaway's latest is most
> >definitely THE GOODS. You must see it at once. A wonderful film. Do
> >NOT wait to rent it. Seeing it on a large screen is essential.
> >
> >I think directors like Greenaway (Atom Egoyan is another) are the
> >main hope for cinema considered as an art form. (Not that I dislike
> >popular cinema, but there are other possibilities, as here we see).
> >The split-screen experimentation (Yes, I know, but it's no cliche in
> >Greenaway's hands) that seemed such a muddle in PROSPERO'S BOOKS is
> >here used with absoulute artistic control and ravishing visual
> >results. Each image is firmly related to the others, and all of them
> >are subordinated to the artistic idea they gradually disclose. Which
> >is? Go see. Text = image = thing = life; drawing on paper/flesh =
> >living life itself; literature and experience are not two but one.
> >All that and a good deal more. Plus a grim tale about a man who
> >couldn't write a book but became one.
> >
> >Greenaway incorporates the experience of literature without being in
> >thrall to it. He does not mount a book as THE ENGLISH PATIENT did. He
> >encompasses literature within a vocabulary of images; this is a truly
> >(and purely) cinematic realisation of an idea.
> >
> >Must, must, MUST see.
> >
> >Wayne
> >
> >----
> >To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> >in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama.
>
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.sa.ua.edu/screensite
|
