Richard Laxton's 'Grow Your Own'

Never ever heard of this film before a rental copy appeared in my living room, I suppose it wasn't that popular on release, although why I can't understand. I. Fucking. Loved. It.

First off the main role was Benedict Wong, a great actor and comedian, most known for his role as suicidist in Sunshine and of course, Errol in 15 Fifteen Stories High (if you haven't watched it, fuck off and watch it now, I command thou).

The title itself threw me off, it sounds too similar to one of the many bad Engcoms that get released every year. I know before I've tooted on about how some of the best comedies come from Britain, and that's not patriotism speaking there, I fucking hate this country, it's more from an analytical viewpoint. But I mean the ones just full of whacky characters, all set in middle-class quaint Britian, Love Actually for example.

In fact I want to quickly take a side-rant here. Is it only me who was absolutely cunting disgusted with what Richard Curtis put into the start of that film? Paraphrase: 'When the planes crashed into the two towers the people on the planes didn't send messages of hate on their phones, but of love.' An unforgivably despicable use of an event which has changed our world, and will no doubt reverberate for years to come. It's like saying Hitler wasn't wrong, just misunderstood. Cunt isn't strong enough to explain the revulsion I have for him. And yes, I understand it may seem a bit harsh to compare Curtis to Hitler but in fact yes, Richard Curtis is the filmic equivalent of Adolf, the poncey fuck faced dick shitting etc. etc.

Ahrum, back to the film. First off the setting. Like most Engcoms it's focused around a small community of people, all part of something quaint and fairly British, something most of us here can relate to, or know a degree about. In this case a set of allotments. Most of us might not have one or use one, but we know what they are, and we have an idea of the type of people who may have such hobbies. Plus since it's British we can't help but chuck in a bit of the old class warfare, social inequalities and immigrants.

In 'Grow Your Own's' case it's do to with immigrants and how they are perceived by the English, specifically ones of a fogey persuasion. The age group that are of the majority on an allotment. The premise of the film is that a governmental immigration group are helping out people with problems. How do they do this? By giving them a patch of land and letting them grow their own food as a hobby. The idea being, fresh air and working with your hands will help them mentally and give them a place of respite. They manage to get three different immigrant groups into the allotments in this film as well. A South African mother and son who's father is dead and are trying to get through it. An Iranian family who are in constant fear of being deported or sent to a detention centre. And then there's the core family, Benedict Wong and his two young children. All three have escaped from China for reasons I won't explain because it would ruin the most emotional scene in the film. Wong's character has broken down mentally after losing his wife and is incapable of doing anything by himself. His daughter has taken the role of parent and looks after her dad and younger brother.

There's the English trademark of complex romances, pathetic characters overshadowed by their fathers, unstable marriages and general unhappiness. An unhappiness which is somewhat relieved by their escape from the stress and depressing nature of day to day life in their 'plots of heaven'.

When the group of immigrants first come to the allotments the locals all team up, disgusted with the 'invasion' as they call it, and want rid of them. Not to mention generally being ignorant or rude to them. That is until all three groups start ingratiating themselves with the locals, showing them they have something to give back. Things take a more complex curve when a real horror of a woman comes from a phone company to install a telephone tower, and the locals have to decide which one of the three immigrant families has to lose their plot.

The comedy itself is sublime. It's never over the top, and the writers haven't tried to force jokes into every scene or sentence. I wouldn't say they're few and far between, but paced well enough to let the drama play without unbalancing it. Everyone has a story to tell and although several of the characters aren't too well drawn it doesn't matter as such, after all we're not interested in everyone on the allotments, only the core 8 or so characters.

Benedict Wong plays the most interesting of the three families. The play of emotion across his face gives you brief glimpses into the horror and fear he's suffered throughout his life, which is certainly handy since he speaks very little throughout the film. Also there's no flashbacks to help you understand his suffering, but that's because you really don't need it, his eyes say it all. It's remarkable how much emotion he can cram into each scene.

Like most small Engcoms there's a whole host of old and new famous Brit faces, something you'd rarely find in a American comedy, since they all demand high wages.

There's the old social commentary going on, not thrust in your face like a bad tea-bagging incident, but there to see if you want too. The chairman of the allotments was a policeman of 35 years. Yet despite being a supposed 'pillar of the community', he's a selfish, racist biggot, who wants his way or nothing at all. Each of the characters also seem to be hopelessly lonely, their day-to-day lives and marriages not giving them what they want from life. Even in the allotments there are divides between the characters, but when your plot is your bastion of self, it's not surprising why.

And the way it's shot, beautiful. It's somewhere between the lines of the grimey, odd angled shots from 15 Stories High (see, you need to go watch it) and a gritty BBC dramatisation of something or other. None of the houses that you briefly look into are Holly Oaks perfection, but much more how you're house would really look. The allotments also have that day to day feel, the sheds are cramped, dark, smeared with soil and generally, well, real.

Basically if I ever made a film, I hope it looked and worked like this one.

3 Series Rule

3 Series Rule

This rule applies more to comedies than other form of television program, as such that's what I'm going to focus on for this little rant. The 3 Series Rule is quite simple, many sitcoms, sketch shows and mockumentaries don’t survive three series. By this I mean that either by the third round the show will either jump the shark (a phrase coined after an infamous episode of ‘Happy Days’ that means the show has become overtly ridiculous), or will lose sight of what originally made the show so damn good in the first place.

Gimme Gimme Gimme is a good example of the rule. Albeit a show lost in time and memory it was still extremely funny, or at least from my remembrance, 'There's no such thing as gay, it's just laziness'. I remember tuning in to see these two hapless protagonists scheme, drool and dick about after any man that was unfortunate to be written into that weeks episode. Gimme Gimme Gimme aspired to the classic underdog formula which has survived the decades and created many of the best comedies in the English lineage. However, by the third series the show lost it’s edge, the characters original charm had been lost. One critic I remember reading described the decline in quality being down to the show’s writers attempting to capitalise on what made the show so popular in the first place, stretching and milking it for all it was worth. Of course this saturation turned the fickle audience away and after series three it disappeared into the depths of static, only to be found now on DVD rather then repeated on any digital channel.

The same happened to Coupling, series three lost the chummy, sexually explicit yet socially acceptable banter it had generated over the first two series, and it turned into a farce of itself, being overly rude and deigning more and more ridiculous plots. And series four, lest said the better.

Aside from the writers trying to package and re-sell the original charm or humour of a show, another sure-fire to get your series dumped is too replace key characters (coupling again in S4) if they’ve left the show. After watching 12 or more episodes we’ve come to learn who these characters are and their overall impact on the show itself. Replacing them, especially with a character reminiscent of the one ‘that got away’, just feels odd. It’s like coming home to find the hamsters died and your mum’s replaced him with a parrot, it just doesn’t feel the same.

The plot or story itself is another problematic area for a third or subsequent series. With a now-set cast it’s difficult to introduce new characters into the fray, which means you have to re-cycle old gags, romantic ties between the main personalities of the show or, worse of all, change locations or situations. Look at friends, albeit hugely successful and astonishingly making it’s all the way to a 10th season, it became a somewhat inbreeders paradise. The six characters got together in a myriad of ways throughout the series. The show became introverted, obsessing over each of the six rather then bringing in many other new single use characters. I admit they still rocked up here and there, but with the constant flickering of romances, most especially whimpering prick Ross and vain, dull Rachel. Once you had Ross and Rachel together again along with Chandler and Monica that only left two other characters to look for romance outside of the circle. And that wouldn't do because they were the male and female 'comedy relief', which is I admit a strange phrase to use in a comedy.

The jokes themselves are another problem. The writers probably only expected a single series, so they chuck all their best gags into it, which of course turns it into a big hit, since laughs is the name of the game in comedy. So when they’re contracted to make a second series or more, they need to think up new jokes to keep the comedy going, only usually by the second or third series they’re more interested in the big fat paycheck they’ll get, rather than for reasons of love or care of the show. Although I should say here I’m not tarring every comedy writer with the same brush there, some do genuinely love the show they’ve created and nurtured. The Red Dwarf creators have been through hell and high water trying to secure money to continue making the show (series 8 had the same budget that Victoria Wood’s Dinnerladies had), and Graham Lineham did an impressive and surprising amount with Father Ted, which would of continued if it wasn't for 'Ted's' death.

Although many have fell on the wayside, some shows have stood up and broke through the barrier, in some cases making their best episodes in later series’: Red Dwarf made it to 8 series before getting the chuck; Only Fools and Horses, Black Books, Dinner Ladies, Bottom and others made a third series just as brilliant and fresh as their earlier ones. Last Of The Summer Wine has now been going for 24 fucking series! (Which also makes it the longest running comedy in the world).

On a special note I should mention Blackadder, a comedy which defied the norm in practically every way. Whereas normally we get a main character who is a nice character, or at least cheeky but loveable, Ben Elton gave us ‘Slack Bladder’. A character so cruel, spiteful and selfish you couldn’t help but cheer him on for success. Elton even survived the locational problem of comedies, filming each series in different timelines and surroundings. Although it kept the same core characters the situations had changed; from a soldier in the trenches, to a Elizabethan court hanger, to a prince’s butler, yet it was easy for us to follow the new plot of our anti-hero, (underdog formula of course). It’s also widely accepted and agreed that the final series ‘Black Adder Goes Fourth’ was the greatest and funniest of all four. Ben Elton, and grudingly I suppose I should also tip my hat to Richard Curtis did an impressive and unique thing.

As shown, there are exceptions to the rule, but that’s mainly down to the law of averages. Yet for every one survivor, many, many more succumb to themselves. Some shows are so constricted in their ideas, characters and plot that further episodes rend the original charm and quality null, the show devours itself, and a final series that is seen as bad, tarnishes the preceding ones. The sign of a good comedy writer is one that gets out while the going is good, Spaced, Black Books and The New Statesman among many others knew when their time was coming up, when the situation wasn't going to allow for much more. Besides which, changing up of a show allows for something new and different to appear. If we lived in a world of nothing but sequals it would be a shite world indeed.

children of men

this isn't like my previous movie reviews, this one was done for my A level media course in summer 2oo7. to say the least i'm rather proud of it. without further explanation (because it's a large document in itself) here's what i wrote.

Modern Dystopian Films Seem to Have Moved Away from Their Cult Status and Now Occupy a Place in the Mainstream. Discuss with Reference to Children of Men

Introduction

Dystopian film, the sub-genre of sci-fi, has featured in films since the beginning of the 20th century. Dystopians are typically characterised by their bleak vision of the future, either through totalitarianistic states, post-apocalyptic events, or even a change in society that has alienated people that, in contrast to our civilisation, makes them inhumane. The number of dystopian films has grown each decade, along with their popularity. This may be because advancements in special effects has made it easier to create locations and technology seen in films, or even because fear has grown in our society due to the varied development of media texts. Despite their negative storylines, less than appealing visions of the future, and non-Hollywood endings, their appeal is still growing. In recent years they have moved away from their ‘cult’ status and into mainstream cinema. ‘Children of Men’ is a good example of a new age dystopian. Through it’s filming techniques, attention to detail, relevance to our current political climate, social commentary and it’s modestly hopeful ending, it has become a film which can be watched by a larger and more accessible audience than it’s predecessors

Social Commentary

One of the main reasons dystopians exist is any text is to convey a message to the receiving audience. Dystopian novels were written because the author has observed, or believed they have observed an injustice or unbalanced social responsibility in the system, a problem that they believe will escalate into a catastrophe that would change our futures for the worst. ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ by Margaret Atwood was a protest of equal rights in 1980’s America, a male dominated society that could one day revoke all the rights they were forced to give to women. George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was a novel against Stalinist communism and the looming threat of totalitarianism Russia. ‘A Clockwork Orange’ by Anthony Burgess was focused on the growing violent youth gangs forming in the 60’s, separated into Mods and Rockers, put placing it in a not-too-distant future with split becoming greater so that most groups only consist of a few members.

Dystopian films are usually made for the same reasons as the novels they are adapted from. Films, however, focus more on the elements that affect the modern audience. By decade dystopians have followed a trend. In the 1950’s and 60’s the threat of the cold war and totalitarianistic governments was hanging over the US and Western Europe. ‘On the beach’ (1959, Stanley Kramer) was a film about the last days of man after a nuclear war. ‘Fahrenheit 451’ (1966, Francois Truffaut) was a film where reading was banned and a fascist state controlled all. In the 70’s the fear of environmental degradation and over population inspired films such as ‘Soylent Green’ (1973, Richard Fleischer) and ‘Silent Running’ (1972, Douglas Trumbull). The 80’s was a technological fear, with ‘Terminator’ (1984, James Cameron) and Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott) being the most notable. Interestingly the 90’s lacked dystopian films. This may suggest the stability of the 90’s, or even a social disregard or political apathy. However, it’s important to note that not all dystopian films followed these decade trends. These films not only played on the audiences heightened fear, but also tried to make people realise the real threat that our civilisation may be heading towards.

Çuaron also does this in ‘Children of Men’, taking the current moral panics in the nation, and using them to create a meaningful film which explains, in a much more visual way than any other media text, the threats our society is moving into. Çuaron includes messages of violent youths, racism, patriotism, religion, governmental subterfuge and Islamic terrorism. In the film two youths kill the leader of their own renegade group to cause a re-shuffle of power. When one of the bikers is accidentally killed by Theo, his friend vows to take revenge on him. Near the end of ‘Children of Men’ the biker has the chance to deliver retribution to Theo, but before he does he calmly and coldly shoots an innocent man in the head. The way he swaggers, hums a tune and calmly turns his head so he can see the damage the bullet will do to the mans brain suggests at the inbred violence in this youth. Analysis of the biker suggests a lot about the current violence bred into our youths and society. When you take into account the approximate age of the biker, around early twenties, and the date when infertility occurred world wide, this youth was born in the first decade of the new millennium. Most personality traits originate from childhood. The biker was born when violent crime is on the rise and violence in the media is commonplace, this suggests a lot about our current society and out apathy for suffering and pain.

Man’s fear of the afterlife tends to manifest when somebody close to us dies, or when our own demise is near. With all of humanities extinction certain within the next century a lot of new cults and religious sects have appeared. Clive Owen’s character, Theo, and Michael Caine’s, Jasper, briefly discuss a couple of well known religious cults. One such cult sit on their knees for a month and the other flagellate themselves, both groups begging for mercy from god for the crimes of mankind. The desperateness and selfishness of humans and their fear of death has made create new religions and sects to find a way to save themselves, when most of them had no care or belief in religion before.

At the start of the film the coffee shop Theo had only just left explodes, killing almost everybody inside. When Theo travels with Jasper to his secluded house they discuss the bombing incident. Jasper’s belief is that the government plants the bombs themselves, using the excuse of terrorism to drag the spotlight away from their mis-endeavours. With the July 7th bombing only a year behind at the time of the films release, it’s questions the credibility and trust we place in our infallible government. Could our own government be involved in similar actions, or is it really terrorists?

The government supports racism, with civilians told to report anybody they believe not to be British Nationals. Immigrants or refugees, known in the film as ‘fugees’, and rounded up to be placed in camps. With constant panic over the amount of immigrants living in England and the numbers increasing every year it’s not surprising that a large portion of the film focuses on ‘fugees’. Çuaron takes the British opinion of ‘fugees’ one step further then it currently is, with the army and police having little compassion for them, the way they’re collected in cages on street sides, waiting to be sent to camps. It’s not hard to believe the UK travelling down this road.

Although all this extra information adds little to the plot of the film, it gives it depth, prevents it from being a two dimensional world solely focused on the plot. It allows the audience to analyse our own society within the film.

Reality

Dystopians have always held the reputation of ‘cult’, either because of their unpleasant endings, alternative plots, lack of media coverage or simply because they are purposefully aimed at a narrow margin audience. One of the major reasons for their lack of popularity is the realism portrayed in the film. THX 1138 (1971, George Lucas) is a film that has almost no basis on the reality of our society. Set in an underground city where humans are given numbers instead of names, made to consume tranquilisers as part of their diet, robotic masturbation systems are used for sexual release and people are told to buy pointless items to keep industry running. THX 1138 is a film that is focused more on symbolism rather than plot or reality.

Unlike most dystopians where there are only one or two explanations as to why the world has changed drastically from our own, Çuaron has more then one explanation. Although infertility plays a large role in the downfall of humanity, it’s not the only event to happen, we learn that Theo and his ex-wife, Julian, attended large protests against the Iraq War when they were young. A nuclear bomb was detonated in Africa, floods of immigrants have fled from their own war torn countries to England, only to be rounded up and sent to concentration camps, racism is promoted by the government and there is speculation whether terrorist bombs in London are planned by extremists, or by the government themselves and a pandemic in 2010 (a current hot topic with the growing fear of avian flu) has destroyed a large part of the worlds population.

Using all these aspects of political, military, environmental and social downfall, Çuaron creates richly detailed and solid world, its attention to detail makes it a lot more frighteningly realistic. Its references to the Iraq war and the terrorist exploits of Muslim fanatics immediately give us something to relate to. It seems that even if the infertility problem didn’t occur it wouldn’t make much difference to the state of the world, a thought shared by Theo in a discussion with Jasper,

‘The whole world went to shit even before the baby crisis for fucks sake’

The use of well-known locations such as Regent Street also helps the audience relate to the film. By making the well known street look run down and full of black rubbish bags, we can see how low the country is sinking if one of the cleanest and most famous streets in London is full of filth.

Çuaron’s choice in camera angles and filming style greatly affects the realism of the film. Referring back to THX 1138, George Lucas’ use of camera style, stable long shots and cold lighting creates a distanced feeling between the audience and the film. Children of Men is filmed completely with hand held camera’s, every shot shakes and Çuaron tries to keep the shots at eye level. One scene where Theo watches his friend die whilst hiding in the forest is shot from a long distance. We see the shot from about the same distance as Theo does. Relating to the film is easier for the audience because Çuaron has almost lent us the use of eyes, instead of a camera. In the war town street of the ‘fugee’ camp we run along behind Theo, we hide in rubble as bullets thud into the wall behind. We feel like we are experiencing what the characters are living through. The mixture of events, filming style and location helps the audience relate to the film, and the hopeful ending is less likely to effect people in a negative way once they’ve left the cinema.

Psychology of Audience/Happy Endings

Hollywood is famous for it’s happy endings, a tradition that dystopians classically ignore. ‘1984’ (1984, Michael Radford), ‘Eraser Head’ (1977, David Lynch) and ‘Brazil’ (1985, Terry Gilliam) are all examples of negative films. In fact, Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’ had such a negative ending the studio feared they wouldn’t make a profit and re-edited the film to create the infamous ‘Happily Ever After’ version. Other dystopians decided to use the negative end format, but much more subtly, for example, in Soylent Green Charleton Heston’s character manages to tell his superior officer, along with a church full of homeless people the secret behind Soylent Green. However, the audience already knows that without Soylent Green, the food supplies wouldn’t be able to support the population. Despite the hope of the character, dramatic irony means that the audience understands the earth has reached such a state that it can never heal or repair fully. Humanity is nearing its end.

As discussed, directors usually end dystopians on a sad or despairing action. This is a moral challenge to the audience. Dystopians question our lifestyles, social aspects or even political apathy and the depravity that may spawn from them if we continue in our current habits. If the characters experience a positive ending, the entire impact of the film would be destabilised. A negative ending gives the audience ‘food for thought’ when they leave the cinema. We question our society, are we doing enough to prevent a situation like this, morally, politically and industrially? The seminal question which begins all of these being, ‘could this really happen to us?’

A dystopians effect on the audience is greatly increased by the relevance of the character to modern society, if they share our morals and ideologies. In Equilibrium the hero, John Preston believes people should be allowed access to their emotions. Although eh understands the pain and problems that emotions can inflict on people, he believes them to be well worth it. Dupont, however, believes the opposite. Without emotions people are joined in unity, war is forgotten and peace reins supreme, albeit at a costly price. Although both sides of the argument have valid points today’s audience would almost unanimously flock to the Hero’s point of view. We believe being emotionless would remove what makes us human.

Another reason that dystopians have never been in the mainstream is because of audience denial. When we watch these films and we see the events currently surrounding our society and how they have created these nightmarish worlds, we don’t like it. People don’t like the thought that we’re destroying our children’s future. It’s similar when the news is broadcasting information about a murder or rape, we deny the thought that it could happen to us, it’s something that only happens to other people. This is belief is shared when people watch a dystopian film, we deny the idea that the events could ever possibly happen to us, and the easiest way to reinforce this is to ignore the film, or hate it.


Genres

In the last decade cinema has become more varied. With Holly Wood drying out of original ideas many more independent and foreign films are entering the cinema. With their increase in popularity Holly Wood has also begun to experiment, not just with stories, but with directors as well. As Holly Wood in the 60’s began to hand cameras over to newer and younger directors and a new wave of cinema began, Holly Wood is beginning to hand cameras, and budgets, to independent directors. Çuaron Çuaron, with only a few films underneath his belt, and one of them being a Mexican

One of the current experiments occurring in cinema is the amalgamation of clichéd genres, comedy with horror, action with drama; directors are constantly playing with traditional genres. A modern example is Shaun Of The Dead. Shaun of the Dead used the plot of a typical zombie film, defend and wait for rescue, and then mixed in the romantic comedy genre.

This crossover of genres could also be another explanation as to why Children of Men and other modern dystopians have moved into the mainstream. At a quick glance the last big three dystopians are; ‘The Matrix’, ‘V for Vendetta’ and Children of Men. Each of these films used a genre crossing technique. The Matrix and V for Vendetta crossed over sci-fi dystopian with action. The blend of technological, social and environmental events surrounding the past of these worlds, along with their ‘high-octane’ action made them hugely popular at the box office. They also had a large effect on the way people looked at technology and their government. When the matrix was released people began to question reality, and whether AI was, and is, a good idea, and how far we should let it evolve. After v for vendetta was released newspapers began to compare events in the film to what is happening in our current society. With several newspapers warning Tony Blair to be careful!

Children of Men, although having several action sequences, is focused on the traditional British drama. This is one of the reasons why Çuaron was able to create a world much richer and deeper than either of the Wachowski Brother’s films. By giving the film time to focus on characters relationships and their emotions, we have a better understanding why they do what they do. Çuaron’s ability to create a more detailed and believable world than most previous dystopians using a mixture of techniques and genres has made it more accessible to a larger audience that it’s predecessors. We have dramatic scenes where Theo and Jasper are sitting and discussing their situations in life, in typical dramatical dialogue. However, near the end of the film we are thrown into scenes that could of come from Saving Private Ryan.

Conclusion

As the above evidence suggests there is no single reason why dystopian films have grown in popularity in the last few decades. It has been a mixture of technique, social and moral panic, plotline and relevance to our modern society. These elements have moved dystopians out of their old niche and into a larger audience. The problem is, if there are more dystopians being released, will they lose their edge and effect on people, and most important, the whole point of their creation?

peter greenaway's 'the cook, the thief, his wife and her lover'

wow, really and truly wow. an astonishing film. i just finished watching it at about 2am, i've never seen anything quite like it before. true it did have a few similarities in style to some of my other favourite directors, namely terry gilliam and jeunet & caro, but this, a really unique film. i happen to be a fan of michael gambon which is one of the reasons why i watched this film, that and i always saw it sitting in hmv begging to be bought, i just never got round to buying it until now, and i'm glad i have.

right the basic outline. the four people mentioned in the title sum up the main characters, everyone else is minor in contrast to them. the cook in question is called richard borscht, the head chef and owner of an extremely posh and respectable restaurant. the thief is the main baddy who you will come to hate within five minutes of seeing him on screen, all typical inhibitions of a typical human being missing from him. his wife is helen mirren, known as georgina or 'georgie' in the film. a woman who you can only really feel pity for throughout. her lover is michael, a book shop owner who eats in the same restaurant every night.

a quick side note, i hate characters with the same christian name as me, when they're names are talked within films it has a strange effect on me, it makes me oddly uncomfortable. anyway that's got nowt to do with the film.

the mise-en-scene. this is where the similarity with the two directors comes from; a strong use of lighting, mainly in this film green and red, vast over sized locations, i wouldn't go so far as to say it makes it look studio because that would be comparing it to the fucking dreadful 'john carpenters dracula', a mise-en-scene so tacky looking it rendered the film un-watchable to me. there's also a hefty use of steam and smoke in the film. whenever the film wanders outside, which isn't often since most of the film takes place in the restaurant and kitchen, steam flows down the streets, along with rags from construction material, plastic trash and general bric-a-brac. and of course the kitchen is full of steaming and smoking pots and pans. the overall feeling you get from the film is one of two, either a dystopic near distant future, or a uchronian where the financial gap between poor and ultra-rich has increased drastically. the look of the vehicles and even the clothing (which is suprisingly designed by jean paul gautier , which suggest this film had a larger budget than i thought) leans more to the the latter. although in fairness this film could be said to be set in an undetermined time frame.

clothing. since it was designed by an internationally famous fashion designer i feel it's only fair to mention it. first off there was a little trick greenaway used which at first i didn't catch onto. the two main characters, helen mirren who plays georgie and michael gambon, spicar wear expensive clothing which is affected by the light more than any other character. what i mean by this is that whilst in the restaurant where everything is coated in a red light their clothes are of course red. their clothes are actually white but the light itself changes the colour. when they move into the kitchen the clothes instead become green, outside blue and in one short scene in a hospital, yellow.the thing is you can see their clothes haven't actually changed colour because of the light, but in fact each time they change from location to location they're redressed in the correct colour clothes. a clever idea which does serve a purpose, if you're prepared to read into it.

whenever they are in the restaurant the clothes are primarily black and red. black, the colour of death and darkness, which is in-fact discussed by 'the cook' later in the film when he explains he prices food according to colour and chemical attributes. red, the colour of passion and anger. michael gambon's character is a fantastically angry character, always arguing with his associates or verbally and physically attacking his wife and diners. black, well that becomes more apparent later on. but also the red denotes passion as that's where the love affair between 'the wife' and 'her lover' begins, on the restaurant floor. green, according to colour theory, is the colour of envy. it's also the colour of health, greed and in some cultures, the colour of evil. but mainly in this film it's used for jealousy. i won't explain, the film makes that apparent.

the lighting in the film is awesome as well. there are tons of shadows thrown into corners of faces, rooms etc. with the other shades of colour majorly taken up by the location. lighting on faces on the close ups typically comes from the ground up, revealing all the shades and highlights on the face, the most notable case of this is when michael gambon gets 'slightly' ticked off with his wife. the camera work is intriguing as well. when going from room to room the camera always pans across, fading through the walls to allow it to progress into the next area. also whenever we go from new day to new day (it takes place over a week) the camera usually starts in the kitchen where we see the food being prepared, pans right across it and then into the restaurant where it finally finishes on 'the thiefs' table. the camera work throughout is stable and usually from a distance, which is why we gain such a vast scale of the locations.

'the cook...' is certainly a violent film, it's not constant but you're always expecting it to come out of nowhere, if that makes any sense. it's certainly got nudity in it as well, then again what did you expect from helen mirren? she somehow manages to spend about half the film in the nuddy despite most of it being in a restaurant. if you're not into gore or anything remotely shocking i wouldn't suggest this film to you, the two torture scenes in the film are certainly grotesque in their execution.

acting. damn good throughout, you can see 'the lover' thinks 'the thief' a fool from the way he responds to him through smiles and straight-to-the-point sentences. michael gambon certainly enjoys his role as complete bastard and plays it with relish, you can see how much he is enjoying himself. despite being completely nasty and truly despicable he still doesn't beat 'bill' in 'dancer in the dark' as biggest film cunt, he comes close though. but this is mainly because being a git seems to be intrisinc to michael gambon's character, whereas bill does it all of a sudden in a one time chance, plus the situation surrounding the event helps to increase the level of bastardness. there's a great sound bite in the film where helen mirren is inbetween laughing, crying and ranting like a lunatic, one of the best such 'laughs' in a film, it really did freak me out.

the dialogue is great as well. since it's all set in a eating establishment most of the conversation is focused around food, with the candid talks 'the thief' has about 'his wife' being disgusting without actually having to use any extremely rude words, context is enough. the romantic drivvle between 'the wife' and 'her lover' is always enjoyable. never talking about romance in a typical way, but more comparing it to other things, such as watching a film.

it's safe to say this is a unique film which won't suit everyone's pallet (excuse the pun), but if you're willing to give it a try, you will enjoy it.