Nightwatching (Peter Greenaway, 2007)

Message

Cronenfly · #1 Post by **Cronenfly** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:18 pm

I could've sworn that there was a seperate thread for this, but in searching I could not find one; please forgive me if there's already one up. Saw this at the TIFF this afternoon, with Greenaway, Martin Freeman, Emily Holmes, and Christopher Britton in attendance. It very much seems that Greenaway is vying for some modicum of commercial success with this; indeed, one can look no further than the exaggeratedly crude, modern dialogue that populates the picture as a sure sign of PG's reaching out. It's a shame that he feels compelled to do so, as he doesn't adjust at all well to it during several portions of the movie, making it alternately a chore to get through and hard to take seriously (he's been more effective in the past with his use of raunchier subject matter even beyond the dialogue). Its length is also a bit punishing at times, with a number of false-ish endings that go on a bit too long. It's characteristically well-contstructed visually, and makes excellent use of its mostly soundstage-bound sets, but that only compensates for so much (as does the music, which is similarly fitting). An orphanage subplot could've easily been lost as well. PG seems to be channeling Draughtsman a fair bit here, though, to his credit, it isn't the tired retread of that film I thought it might be. All in all, it seemed to be mid-level PG, with decent performances (Freeman is a bit hard to get used to, but he's not too bad most of the way through) and a general throwback to his earlier theatrical works of the 1980s. I hope it gets picked up by a North American distributor: while not his best work, it certainly deserves to be seen, and not just in the Netherlands (the only country for release now listed on IMDB).

Oedipax · #2 Post by **Oedipax** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:49 pm

Thanks for the report. I definitely remember some Nightwatching discussion taking place here, but I think it was within other Greenaway threads, not a dedicated topic.

I for one wish Greenaway would get off the soundstage for a change, but I guess his relocation to the Netherlands has removed him from the glorious English landscape he once chronicled so beautifully in his films. I'm looking forward to seeing this.

Tommaso · #3 Post by **Tommaso** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:43 am

Surprisingly, there are a lot of positive notices about "Nightwatching" in the German press at the moment. They note the problems with the dialogue, but revel in the pictures, for instance Dirk Schlömer in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung speaks of an "irreal pallette of filtered colours, shadows and contrejour photography, in which Greenaway unashamedly revels in the beauties of Dutch painting, daring to re-build Rembrandt by means of the cinema". And thus "Greenaway puts an end to conventional cinema with its short-lived and hectic images by counterpointing it with the static reality of painting." (my, somewhat free, translations).

Honestly, this sounds VERY promising to me, and just remember that "Prospero" was also made exclusively on a sound stage, without any detriment to its glories. Fingers crossed we get to see this in the cinemas, or that at least the Dutch will make a dvd of it.

Barmy · #4 Post by **Barmy** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:30 pm

Why is it a "shame" for an artist to try to reach a broader audience?

Cronenfly · #5 Post by **Cronenfly** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:17 pm

Barmy wrote:Why is it a "shame" for an artist to try to reach a broader audience?

I didn't mean it that way: just that PG handles some of the more "current" dialogue in such a way that it just doesn't work. I feel that a lot of PG's work has never been that hard to crack, so I just don't see why he should feel the need to contort himself in this way in hopes of bringing in a few more dollars that likely won't result anyways, at least not due to more (for some) understandable diction. PG's handling of language has never bothered me before, but I find that here he loses a lot of the wit usually present in his wordplay. Part of it might have been Freeman's too-modern style of acting, but, in any case, it falls flat out of too many of the other actor's mouths as well to justify it. Granted, the other dialogue doesn't really work either: rather it just careens between time-period inappropriate and impenetrable, with precious little middle ground. I get the feeling that the movie was rushedly and haphazardly written but beautifully, carefully visualized, so this may be more of a question of sheer quality rather than of audience appeal. Greenaway can aim for as large or as small as an audience as he wants, as can any other artist, as far as I'm concerned; sorry for the poor phrasing/poorly made prior point.

In regards to Tommaso's comments about the German press: I don't know Rembrant's work hardly at all, but regardless, in thinking about the movie more, it really is a superb visual construct. I think that the pinnacle of PG's use of sets is The Cook, the Thief, etc, which is incredibly fluid and rich. And, unlike Oedipax, I think that PG's use of sets has yet to grow tired. They seem to impose an important formal control on his visual constructs (though I love his outdoor work too, so I guess I'm just positively biased towards his visuals as a whole) that just makes them that much more impressive to behold. The use of colour filters is at times obvious and ineffectual but also sublime through a great deal of the film, so it more than balances out. Greenaway does, to a degree, fuse the movie with the painting process, even more so than in a number of his other works: I was taken aback at first by the lack of time spent with the actual painting of the Nightwatch, but soon warmed to the fact that the movie as a whole is such a thorough exploration of the themes and nuances of the painting that any more time spent on the intricacies of its creation would be superfluous. The muder mystery is mishandled, in that its implementation is somewhat confusing and carries zero impact, but it really doesn't matter, as, if you can get past the poor dialogue, why should a botched plot point be a problem? PG is frustrating in his lack of faith in his structure here where it was so assured in the past, but, again, it doesn't completely derail the movie so it isn't so bad.

So, as you can probably tell, in reflection, I've forgiven the movie a number of its vices. I still think that it's a flawed work, but I wholeheartedly recommend it to PG fans and newcomers alike (though there are better places to start, this one isn't bad), and hope that you can do so in a theater. This was my first theatrical PG (at the Elgin theatre, which is huge) and it was certainly an experience. It was amusing to have Greenaway chastise the audience for being in the cinema on a Sunday afternoon, and it would have been delightful to have had a Q and A with him and the cast members afterwards, but Sean Penn and his Into the Wild put a stop to that.

EDIT- Apologies in advance (at the end[?]) for the rambling, contradictions, and/or stupidities that may be contained herein. As big a PG fan as I consider myself to be, I also haven't seen all of his work and don't find it's something I can analyze too well, at least not in written form that isn't really shallow. Still hope my comments are at least somewhat worthwhile.

Mr Buttle · #6 Post by **Mr Buttle** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:09 pm

Just saw Nightwatching at the Atlantic Film Festival. It has a lot of good points. Greenaway's style (i.e. classical compositions of ugly naked people) is absolutely perfect for a film about Rembrandt, echoing the artist's own combination of classicism and realism. There are some genuinely powerful moments, mostly involving discussions about the purpose of the artist who tries to give works of art more than one meaning. Martin Freeman is wonderfully warm and earthy, a la Brecht's Galileo.

Unfortunately, the film is clumsily constructed; it's trying to combine the story of Rembrandt painting The Night Watch with a biopic about his love life, which is deeply unsophisticated (first woman: brainy but not horny enough; second woman: horny but not brainy enough; third woman: utterly vacuous; the latter is represented as womanly perfection - thanks, Peter). The combination of British actors with thickly accented Dutch actors is silly. The film has moments of great beauty and excitement, but a lot of tedious longeurs too. As somebody noted above, it has too many false endings.

Greenaway did a schpiel at the beginning and end. He came across as a pompous git, but he did make some interesting points, in particular that he doesn't actually like Rembrandt's art, finding it "too messy"; he prefers the clarity and perfection of Vermeer. Someone asked if he was influenced by Monty Python, and he said they were one of his major influences...!

Cronenfly · #7 Post by **Cronenfly** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:33 pm

Good analysis, Mr. Buttle: Freeman is indeed better than I made him out to be- I guess I just couldn't get over his acting style inside the conventions of Greenaway, denying my enjoyment of his acting over what I perceived as an error of aesthetics. The construction is indeed clumsy, which is too bad, as Greenaway used to possess some clarity regardless of the level of complication of his narratives. I also hadn't considered Greenaway's misogyny as you pointed out (my denseness knows no bounds), but it's absolutely true, and I feel that he has unfortunately been moving in that direction more and more as his career has progressed. At the screening I attended, PG's pomposity was reigned in by the brevity of his speaking, but that's a quality that has dogged him for a long time. Although anyone who admits to MP's influence on their work can't be all bad...

Mr Buttle · #8 Post by **Mr Buttle** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:49 pm

Yeah, I know what you mean about Freeman's acting style; he is giving a quiet, naturalistic performance while all around him are being stylized. It is rather odd, but I felt it worked with the way Rembrandt was characterized in the film.

BTW, somebody asked Greenaway a question about the screenplay, and he just shrugged, saying he's interested in images, not words (a rather odd comment from the director of Prospero's Books!)