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