I remember last year Variety reported director Peter Greenaway stating "Cinema is dead." As if he is the new Nietzche of our modern era! But in many ways, like Nietzche, he is correct. Cinema as a medium is dead, or at best, being held back from its fullest potentials. Its being held back by opportunists, studios, producers, emerging technologies, etc., basically anyone who wants to profit from a movie. While it is understandable, it does impeded the possibilities that cinema might offer. Sometimes in these veritable artistic strikes from the mundane and predictable cinema a lot of strange and uninspiring films emerge, but that is part of the process. You need to start making crap so the good ones can shine. To me, in recent years, the decline of cinema has not been the case of some excellent films among crap, but mediocre among the living dead.

I say living dead to refer to popular cinema as that. In grammar, cliches are referred to as "lexical zombies" because they are phrases that are so worn down that they have lost their original meaning, but at the same time refuse to die. Similarly, cinema has such zombies that are plots that continue to repeat themselves over and over that we have all heard of them and can predict the outcome. We can think of I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,  Halloween, Live Free or Die Hard, Saw, Good Luck Chuck, or the Pirates of the Carribean. I could go on and on with a list as long as...well, its pretty long! These films are what I pronounce as "Cinematic Zombies".

So, by definition, a Cinematic Zombie is a film that has been re-hashed , remade or spawning more sequels. I wish I had a complete roster of films released in 2007, I would bet minimally 50% of the films fall into this category. By the way, before you jump the gun, a re-hash is a film more in the way of, say, teen romance films like when the ugly chick turns out to be the hottie and gets the guy or the guy gets the girl in the end, no matter what the troubles are through the film. 

On the flip side, you have entirely original films whose intentions are to wake you up from the norm. These films really do not get the publicity they deserve. Only in passing of time do they end up being called "classics". For a number of reasons they have persevered through the sordid crap of Hollywood trash and made a distinct impression upon the audience. One such film that I highlight here is The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, directed by Peter Greenaway.

His films gets alot of critical attention as they stand out as something different. This film does challenge your idea of narrative. While it tells the story of a crazed jealous man, Albert (Michael Gambon) who loves food, friends, gossip and his own anger, he also loves to love his wife. But it's a selfish love, in the same way he treats everything around him. He is barbaric in his manners and crude in language and, although eats at the finest restaraunt in town, he has no real taste for fine dining, but eats like a king in a castle in the ages of Camelot. His friends appear to only tolerate him due to his unpredictable outbursts and streaks of jealousy. 

His wife, Georgina (Helen Mirren) is sick, tired and bored of her relationship to Albert. One can almost surmise how they were brought together. Maybe he konked her on the head with a club one night and dragged her off to his cave. Regardless, she is obviously interested in being devious in her own ways. So she spots a man, Michael as we find out (played by Alan Howard) sitting across at another table. She seduces him without saying a word. In fact, these two do not say a word for over 30 minutes in the film, and only when forced to speak at an uncomfortable moment when Albert sees them together. Georgina and Michael have their trysts in the back of the restaraunt, the bathroom, at his place and wherever else she can get away from Albert. This whole affair behind a crazy jealous man really creates the tension.

While that is the general gist of the story, there is much more to the film than the story alone. The cinematography is exquisite, shot by Sacha Vierny who appears to pick up every detail with rich colors everywhere, while the costume design is by the famous Jean-Paul Gautier. The colors! The colors! You cannot help notice them that they end up playing a role in the film as well. Not in the way a character would, but it they have emotional symbolism as well as atmospheric charm. There are many panning shots that go on for five minutes at a time (reminds me of some of Kubrick's work) where you have a good steady glimpse at the panaorama of the whole set design before being placed in the action. These shots are not just for visual pleasure, but also inform you of supporting characters, their whereabouts, the relationships of locations, the current happenings of the day, and other smaller trivial things that tend to find its way into the film. Lastly there is the soundtrack. Here is great use of music which moves in and out of the events of the film. At times its a singer in the background of the restaraunt, other times its like dinner music and other times it is out to stir your emotions apart from directly inteferring with the film. Very inventive use of music , if you ask me (but dont ask because I will be repeating myself).

There is rarely a wasted moment in this film, no matter how strange it may seem. Perhaps that is what seems strange to most people that watch this film, that there is a lot of information being given for you to assimilate. It does not change the story, but deepens it, giving you allusions to possible histories and outcomes. Nothing is spelled out here in terms of what has happened before, but you get it all when you watch the film.

While watching, one almost gets the feel that a play is being put on, as the locations primarily take place in one room, almost from one vantage point. Because the colors are so rich, the props so outstanding, the characters so pronounced that it is the kind of thing you see at the theater, so that those in the back are able to see and hear everything. I feel that this is intentional, that Greenaway wants you to have that kind of experience. That is, to pay attention!

So, to me, this is what Greenaway meant when he said "Cinema is dead." He states that cinema tends to the narrative and follows the book form rather than behaves in its own format. It would have a stronger tie to theater than the book, however, we have seen that (with emphasis) sometimes a book can be translated well to the screen, but ultimately we are dealing with novels and not cinema directly.  

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is a moment of "direct cinema", which opposes the "cinematic zombie". One wants you to pay attention to the screen and take in all of its happenings. You may need to revisit the film to discover all of it. It may be a film that is in constant discovery with each viewing, while the other type wants you to stay asleep and let it roll over your senses by engaging in it through memory of films that you give you the impression you have seen this before. That kind of experience is based on previous expectations and there is nothing new for you anymore. Oh, and the ending is something you only need to see, no review, write-up or critic can ever do it justice or take away from the experience!

The DVD was released through Anchor Bay Entertainment back in 1998 and has been discontinued for over 5 years now. It has become a staple in the OOP market and is one of the films that is in higher demand. While Greenaway has a smaller audience than some, his film fans are fervent in their adoration. It continues to be discontinued with no sight of a re-release anywhere.

For details on the DVD and authentic Region 1 pics, see the detail page here.

Comments, thoughts, opinoin and theories are welcome to post in our forum here.