tomgraham101-39-39878 What I know about dance (contemporary or otherwise) wouldn't even fill the back of a postage stamp, but even in my ignorance I could appreciate and even marvel at the extraordinary choreography and performance skills on display in this truly stunning film. Ben Craft is as lithe as an eel, never making a clunky or awkward movement even when twisted into painful- looking contortions (at one point, he seems to be taking his entire body weight on his head and one shoulder). The two naked female dancers are no less agile and balletic, describing devils, lovers, Beethovian geniuses, and even a sperm fertilising an egg, with an almost arrogant aplomb. On its own, the choreography, performances, and stunning musical score would hold your attention. But seeing it all run through the visionary imagination of Peter Greenaway takes its all to a whole new level. The anatomical engravings of Vesalius come hypnotically to life, then crash into the wild and bawdy world of Hogarth. Information flickers and flashes across the screen. Reality twists and morphs as in a dream. The dancers leave behind visual echoes of parts of their body as they whirl about the screen. Multiple images pile up, transform, over- lap, and then vanish. The art direction and cinematography are gorgeous throughout.This is art, in the very best sense of the word - it excites, it inspires, it dazzles, and it makes you glad to be alive in a world where such work is possible. See it if you can, even if you prefer Hollywood movies to art-house. Forget your preconceptions, open your imagination, and take the plunge with this unique film!

ozmirage I have resisted Greenaway's insistence on nudity for his performers almost from the beginning but he was right and I was wrong, because I was thinking in stage terms and he in visual-art terms. I misunderstood Helen Mirren exposing her amazing breasts in The Cook, Juliette Stevenson her steel-spring body in Drowning by Numbers, Joan Plowright's refusal to bare all in the same film, John Gielgud's courageous self-exposure in Propero's Books. When one performs for Greenaway, one crosses a threshold, one leaves the stage and enters the frame. I still do not know if he is a great artist but my opinion is irrelevant, he is a necessary one for our time. I salute him.

nethermanus Well I only just found this stuff about my work on this film. Firstly I Choreographed this in Collaboration with P.Greenaway and L.Andriessen. So its not Greenaways attempt at Choreography, however I must say he is the only Director I have worked with who kept all of the material I made (I expected it to get cut or chopped up into smaller bit's just like so many other projects I did with Film Directors, before.) When I first read the treatment all I could see was ..Pink Narcisuss..'Wild Mozartness'!!.For me the sequential line of the music that dictated the order of movement making it look like a live piece, which I think Greenaway transformed into a marvelous spectacle. I agree that to understand this work, homework it's necessary to understand the reference's. The mob (audience)...The Spectacle(Versalius amphitheater)...Alchemist gods flippantly creating the alphabet, a man and then Mozart. The accentuation of geometry within the dance but also the overtness and intended banality of it all, coupled with the ultimate idea that these phenomenal artist's are often dead before they are famous, the implications therefore on the critical mob of people who have never done it?.., Art itself.. but have the power to dictate other peoples careers. Question to the negative people; Do you think the solo dances are really that ridiculous.....? can you see the Cunningham references, also the clarity of the Balletic. Do you think this is so easily done.? It strikes me as a harsh and uninformed comment. But I guess thats the nature of the Mob! B is for Ben.

match-3 I'm not familiar with Greenaway's other work; I mostly experienced this for Louis Andriessen's score (I'm a fan, and this isn't his best work, but it does have its moments). As for the film itself, let me say this: I like difficult art, and difficult cinema. I spend many hours justifying the existence of difficult art to others who are not quite so adventurous. I enjoy emotional distance and ambiguous meaning, taken even to Euro-trash extremes. And yet, I found this film to be the worst, most pretentious piece of crap I've ever seen in my life. It is very unattractive visually, and the film has dated very, very poorly in terms of its overall look. (Yes, you can tell this was made for TV...) Greenaway never knows when to get out of the way and let the images just breathe on their own... there is far too much information on screen at all times. If a first run through his completely awful text (which might pass as "edgy prose" in my junior high diary), set to Andriessen's music, wasn't enough for you, don't worry... he'll display the whole thing from start to finish in a slow side-scroll that features such high-tech effects as digitally-generated drop shadow. And his attempts at "choreography" are so banal in spots that you'll want to laugh out loud. Now I absolutely have to see another Greenaway film to see if they're all this bad. As for yourself, don't bother.