In the late 1970s and early 1980s, British cinema slipped into an unprecedented trough: creative themes dried up and audience numbers plummeted. However, British film workers are not discouraged. They are constantly striving for self-improvement, working hard, and boldly making various explorations, striving to open up new paths on the basis of promoting national culture. This film came out in this context. The British Film Institute and TV Channel 4, which have always provided substantial funding for the creation of serious films in their country, came forward in person this time and worked together to produce this exploratory film.
Greenaway’s work has both inheritance and innovation. He combined traditional British drama with mystery novels to create this ancient costume mystery comedy, and there is no lack of originality in the structure and visual expression of the drama. It can be said that his work is highly stylized and bears his distinctive personal brand.
The choice of the background of the film is meaningful at the end of the 17th century. At that time, Britain was in the period of the restoration of the king's regime. Some of the emerging new aristocrats tried their best to imitate the feudal aristocracy in their way of life, but they were more corrupt in their moral concepts and style of life. They seem to be noble and elegant, but in fact they are eager to fight with dogs, men, thieves and women who are prostitutes. Stripped of their gorgeous coat, they are cruel and cold in nature, just as the film reveals at the end. On the other hand, although the classicism that pays attention to the beauty of form has already flourished and is about to be replaced by romanticism, the influence of classicism on art and lifestyle can still be seen everywhere at that time, which provides the Baroque art style of this film. The basis. In the film, the exquisite craftsmanship of the manor building, the weirdness of the characters' clothing, the pretentiousness of the conversational behavior, and the complex and strange plot of the film are all manifestations of this artistic style. The background of the 17th century also reminds people of the usual comedy tactics used in British dramas at that time, and this comedy tactic is extensively used in this film. However, this film is not a true portrayal of life in the 17th century. The director's pursuit is to "look like a dragon instead of a dragon", and its purpose is to alienate the viewer from the plot and think calmly. Therefore, the characters, costumes, language, dialogue, and soundtrack in the film are based on the 17th century, and are not equivalent to the 17th century. The director stylized them in order to express a certain idea.
Mysterious crime novels are another legacy of English literature. Gothic novels, Sherlock Holmes stories, and Agatha Christie’s mystery all provided inspiration for Greenaway, prompting him to design an intricate crime in this country house. story.
The initiator of this series of mysterious stories in this film is Mrs. Herbert. She seems to be a weak female in a male-centered society. Although she is a bit unruly in her sex life, she does not speak much, has a docile attitude, is often cheated and calculated by others, and even her sex with Neville always appears negative. Passive, as if being humiliated by him; but in fact the master planner of the conspiracy is the strong woman in this male dwarf world. She has no feelings for Neville, but just fancy his masculinity (to put it bluntly is his young and vigorous sexual ability), in order to meet her physical requirements and solve the problem of inheritance. In addition, she used Neville as a tool to cover up her conspiracy to kill her husband. When Neville's use value was exhausted, and his paintings exposed the conspiracy, posing a threat to her, she invited him back again and instigated the man who was accomplices to get rid of him. Neville's body was thrown into the river where Herbert's body was found, which strongly suggests that the death of the former is a replica of the latter. The unruly painter Neville is just a comic clown-like figure for people to play with. He has high self-esteem and despises the pampered and incompetent people. He gives orders to them as if he is the owner of the manor, even the distinguished mistress and the young and beautiful. Sarah fell at his feet, making him even more arrogant. He had never thought that he was plunged into a treacherous and murderous world, he was caught in a whirlpool of conflicts of interest, and all kinds of conspiracies were planned and implemented under his nose, but he didn't realize it. Sarah is determined to take a spoonful of his mother's mouth in order to get something from him that her husband cannot give. For this reason, she sometimes tells him the truth and advises him. Helplessly, Neville's heart was insane, and he didn't change it. In the end, he fell into the trap and lost his life inexplicably. Before he died, he was burnt blind to mock him for being blind. In addition, the image of Neville has several other aspects. He looks cool and handsome, full of masculine charm, this is his main use of Herbert mother and daughter. The painting talent he prides on is just an excuse to take him in, and is of no value to them. He spoke coldly and lacked passion, even making love with Herbert mother and daughter was a routine and part of the contract transaction. He is also meticulous in his paintings, very faithful to the appearance, and can even be said to copy the appearance. The choreographer chooses the profession as a painter rather than a painter, which also has profound implications (a painter’s work is a kind of creation, full of passion, pursuing the likeness and not constrained by the appearance; the highest standard of the painter is to reproduce the surface objectively and calmly. Reality. Painters still had a market before the invention of photography). In fact, Neville’s entire personality and behavior are closely related to his long-term professional training. His personal tragedy (or his The comic color of a character) is built in this sense. The other main male characters in the manor are the opposites of Neville. They are rich, arrogant, and vanity, but at the same time greedy, stupid, and impotent. Their shapes have been given a certain meaning: their faces are modified with makeup, just like wearing a mask; their weird long wigs are a metaphor for their impotence. Herbert mother and daughter couldn't find satisfaction in them, so they took a fancy to Neville, which deepened their hatred of Neville. In order to point out the incompetence, the director deliberately designed a servant posing as a figure statue in the film with a comedy technique. The sturdy man was naked and painted oil black. When the first-class men were having dinner in the garden, he secretly removed a genital-like pointed object on the stone pedestal, stood up by himself, took a pose, and then peeed to indicate the existence of "it". In another scene, the living statue poses on a stone pedestal, and at the same time fiddles with the sex organs with his hands, and then looks at the high-class men who are talking loudly not far away, which implies that they are all impotence. His naked body contrasts sharply with the gorgeous clothes and grotesque wigs of those noble people, which metaphors that the latter are all illusions. The impotence of these superiors is also manifested in the fact that they are actually manipulated by women. They were disrespectful to Herbert mother and daughter in words, and sometimes rebuked them aggressively, but Mrs. Herbert pinched her nose on key issues. They deceived and calculated each other for their own benefit, and the item on Herbert's body in Neville's painting was deliberately put in to blackmail Mrs. Herbert or calculate each other. The choreographer used their greed to weave a turbulent world. At the end of the film, after Neville's last painting was burned out, the halberd knight riding on the stone-carved horse suddenly jumped off. It turned out that this was the servant again. He picked up a piece of pineapple left by his master, took a bite, and immediately threw it on the ground again. The director ends the whole film with this scene to show that the lives of these noble people are really decadent, shameless, and disgusting. Servant posing as a figure statue. The sturdy man was naked and painted oil black. When the first-class men were having dinner in the garden, he secretly removed a genital-like pointed object on the stone pedestal, stood up by himself, took a pose, and then peeed to indicate the existence of "it". In another scene, the living statue poses on a stone pedestal, and at the same time fiddles with the sex organs with his hands, and then looks at the high-class men who are talking loudly not far away, which implies that they are all impotence. His naked body contrasts sharply with the gorgeous clothes and grotesque wigs of those noble people, which metaphors that the latter are all illusions. The impotence of these superiors is also manifested in the fact that they are actually manipulated by women. They were disrespectful to Herbert mother and daughter in words, and sometimes rebuked them aggressively, but Mrs. Herbert pinched her nose on key issues. They deceived and calculated each other for their own benefit, and the item on Herbert's body in Neville's painting was deliberately put in to blackmail Mrs. Herbert or calculate each other. The choreographer used their greed to weave a turbulent world. At the end of the film, after Neville's last painting was burned out, the halberd knight riding on the stone-carved horse suddenly jumped off. It turned out that this was the servant again. He picked up a piece of pineapple left by his master, took a bite, and immediately threw it on the ground again. The director ends the whole film with this scene to show that the lives of these noble people are really decadent, shameless, and disgusting. Servant posing as a figure statue. The sturdy man was naked and painted oil black. When the first-class men were having dinner in the garden, he secretly removed a genital-like pointed object on the stone pedestal, stood up by himself, took a pose, and then peeed to indicate the existence of "it". In another scene, the living statue poses on a stone pedestal, and at the same time fiddles with the sex organs with his hands, and then looks at the high-class men who are talking loudly not far away, which implies that they are all impotence. His naked body contrasts sharply with the gorgeous clothes and grotesque wigs of those noble people, which metaphors that the latter are all illusions. The impotence of these superiors is also manifested in the fact that they are actually manipulated by women. They were disrespectful to Herbert mother and daughter in words, and sometimes rebuked them aggressively, but Mrs. Herbert pinched her nose on key issues. They deceived and calculated each other for their own benefit, and the item on Herbert's body in Neville's painting was deliberately put in to blackmail Mrs. Herbert or calculate each other. The choreographer used their greed to weave a turbulent world. At the end of the film, after Neville's last painting was burned out, the halberd knight riding on the stone-carved horse suddenly jumped off. It turned out that this was the servant again. He picked up a piece of pineapple left by his master, took a bite, and immediately threw it on the ground again. The director ends the whole film with this scene to show that the lives of these noble people are really decadent, shameless, and disgusting. After being burned out, the halberd knight riding on the stone-carved gallop suddenly jumped down. It turned out that this was the servant again. He picked up a piece of pineapple left by his master, took a bite, and immediately threw it on the ground again. The director ends the whole film with this scene to show that the lives of these noble people are really decadent, shameless, and disgusting. After being burned out, the halberd knight riding on the stone-carved gallop suddenly jumped down. It turned out that this was the servant again. He picked up a piece of pineapple left by his master, took a bite, and immediately threw it on the ground again. The director ends the whole film with this scene to show that the lives of these noble people are really decadent, shameless, and disgusting.
One of Greenaway’s leading motives for making this film is to reveal the inconsistency between appearance and substance (for example, Neville can only see the appearance but not the essence). The other main manifestation of this inconsistency is the 12 paintings. After these 12 paintings copied the superficial reality, several senior figures saw different connotations based on their own interests and their own imaginations. The director deliberately only outlines the appearance, but does not point out the real reason for this phenomenon. Let the people in the play and the audience guess for themselves and complete the story by themselves. Not only these 12 paintings, but in fact the entire film only provides some representations, and different audiences will come up with different stories. For example, Mr. Herbert’s cause of death is not pointed out in the movie, so viewers can imagine for themselves. After the release of the film, it has aroused great interest in the British and American intellectual and theoretical circles. Sexual psychologists analyzed it as described above, while semioticists and art hermeneutics explored image symbols and their multiple interpretations. Many scholars mentioned this film when writing articles and lectures. This method of the director undoubtedly strengthens the original mystery of the film due to the subject matter.
Related to this, another leading motivation for the production of this film is to achieve a separation effect. Since the film is mainly to inspire thinking rather than to identify and communicate with emotions, the director deliberately alienates the audience from the plot and watches with cold eyes. Regardless of the actor’s performance, the shape of the screen, the movement of the camera, the editing rhythm or the use of sound, the director avoids sensationalism. Try to give people a sense of calmness, stability, objectiveness and fairness, allowing viewers to judge and determine the attachment object of their emotions (in fact, there is no character worthy of sympathy in the film). One of the functions of the living "statue" interspersed in the plot is also to alienate the audience, but this time it is by means of comedy in the drama.
Greenaway (1942～) studied fine art in his early years, and later engaged in painting, novel creation and film editing, screenwriting and director work. His experience has a great influence on the style of the film. Because he is good at art and literature, His artistic exploration in this film is mainly reflected in these two aspects. As far as the literary nature of the film is concerned, he not only designed an intricate, allegorical and mysterious story, but also the characters’ dialogues were carefully scrutinized. The rhetoric was gorgeous, philosophical, and humorous. There were plenty of puns and humor. The imitation sentences and playful allegories are meaningful and intriguing. Watching a movie is like playing a well-made crossword puzzle. Dialogue itself is a parody of the language of the 17th century. It is neither the language of the 20th century nor the language of the 17th century, but a fusion of the two. Many vocabulary has now disappeared. The parody and allegory in the dialogue can only be tasted by those who have a certain knowledge of British culture. For example, out of contempt and hatred towards Neville during a meal, Talman sarcastically said, "British people don't understand painting at all, and'British painter' is a contradiction in itself." In addition to the literal meaning of this statement, there is another meaning: French director Truffaut once said that "British cinema" itself is a kind of contradiction. Greenaway is here to adapt Truffaut's words, in fact, there is a background of self-mockery and self-encouragement by British filmmakers.
As a painter, Greenaway not only uses the artist as the protagonist of the film, and his paintings (all by the editor and director) as the joints of the plot, but also painstakingly worked on the composition, photography and art design of the film. The house garden in the film is like a beautiful stretch of landscape paintings, full of idyllic taste, and the extreme inconsistency between this gorgeous and quiet picture and the filthy plot and the strong impact on the audience’s soul. It embodies a kind of aesthetic pursuit of the choreographer. When the artist paints, Greenaway deliberately uses the light changes at different times of the day to create different atmospheres in the same scenic spot, serving the plot. This technique is unthinkable for directors without painting skills. He often used the camera to shoot through the framing frame supported by the painter on the ground with a tripod. On the one hand, it is a reflection on the film frame, and on the other hand, it is also a metaphor, indicating that what is seen in the framing frame is like a Like a painting, it's not real, it's just a copy of appearance. Greenaway played in the film to his heart's content. As a result, the film was more than four hours long. He had to reluctantly cut his love and compressed the film in half. The part left was mainly small conspiracies in the big conspiracy (such as the conspiracy between servants). In addition, he would The specific process of painting is also simplified, so that the film provides fewer explanations for the painting, and the resulting painting is more confusing.
Greenaway's work does show his unique style, and for this it has been praised by some British and American film critics. Some people even think that his style represents a new direction for British cinema. However, his innovation is purely literary or artistic, for which he sacrificed the cinematic nature of the film-he often relies on dialogue and static pictures to explain the plot, which lacks action; he often uses long shots, the longest being up to eight. Minutes, however, its purpose is only to accommodate large sections of dialogue; his camera seldom moves, sometimes to emphasize an objective, steady, and impartial attitude towards the event, and sometimes to allow the audience to appreciate the beautiful scenes. However, after all, film is not equivalent to art, it is the art of movement; film is not a novel, it should not rely on language but on visual action to show the story. In a sense, this is a kind of degradation. Although this film has participated in many film festival selections on behalf of the United Kingdom, most of them have lost their names. This may be one of the reasons. This film is very interesting for people with profound knowledge of British culture or intellectual audience with high taste. However, most audiences other than this will find it difficult to appreciate this kind of work in the spring and white snow. Nevertheless, it has a place in the history of British film as an artist's exploration.
View more about The Draughtsman's Contract reviews
