the disturbing The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover

[Colin]

Unlike Time magazines 100 best books of all time list, where I have only read maybe a dozen of them, I have seen all but a dozen of the American Film Institutes 100 best Films. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

So to rectify this error, I perused Mein Kampf and watched Peckinpahs The Wild Bunch with William Holden, the colorful An American in Paris with Gene Kelly and the disturbing The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover (1989), with Harry Potters new Dumbledore (Gambon) and the bold Helen Mirren.

Much like Stanley Kubricks Eyes Wide Shut, this is a disturbingly different style of cinema photography.

First, the exterior and interior of a large, massively stylish restaurant is stretched across a huge <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Hollywood soundstage as if a Broadway play ran continuously from one theater to another for several city blocks. Second, many of the camera shots are long takes as the characters move from one area to another. This is only part of the reality style: the camera never looks away. As the accident happens, the rubber-neckers (viewers) are right there, watching the entire scene unfold. Third, the sumptuous of the individual costumes and stages pieces is in stark contrast to the bare openness of the set. Then there is the raw offensive brutality of a way too successful gangster (Gambon) tyrannizing his wife and crew. Plus, there is the titillating full frontal, never look away, nudity of both the voluptuous Helen Mirren and her male lead, who have several scenes in which they never put on clothes and yet remain exposed, vulnerable, in rooms in the restaurant and their hiding place. Set, dialogue, color, violence, nudity are used in ways that film rarely does.

This work exposes the dangerous volcanic emotions running underneath all of ourselves, and our clothes. A film school classic.

[oscarsear]

I ran across this movie late one nite while channel surfing. It's rather like Salvador Dali does screen writing. Don't understand what artistic patrons patronize this but I guess they're out there in enough numbers to warrant the making of the film. Strange indeed.....[mo]

[Kriton]

Oh man, do I have a story for you! I saw this movie when it was

in limited release in the theater way back when. My date was an

artsy music major type who I thought would dig a nice art-film. < It

was our first date.>

I left the theater wanting to wash, scrub raw every part of my body -

and so did my date. We didn't talk for something like an hour on

the way home, incredibly uncomfortable.

Then, we just started analyzing the hell out of this thing, how the

color of the costumes changed depending on the room that the characters

were in, the dish washing boy soprano that carried redemption and

innocence, the cannibalism and its symbolism, the grotesque sex scenes

while full frontal were not titallating but desparate and lonely.

The idea of killing someone by force feeding, kind of like pate, and

the trip in the truck to the library as an escape to paradise...weird

but brilliant in a sick twisted and beautiful way.

Forgot the girl, remember the movie like yesterday.

K

[Amy]

Wow, a blast from the past for sure, Colin, thanks! I saw this when I was in college a million years ago. Vaguely remember it, excepting it was somewhat disturbing. Interesting though!

[RichardP]

I too was disturbed by the movie. As I recall, I began feeling queasy

by the gang smearing dog feces on the guy in an early scene (IMDB

trivia says it was chocolate mousse). This was one of the very first

movies to receive the newly-created NC-17 rating.

[Kriton]

With the disclaimer that I have not seen this movie since the early

90's, am I mistaken that the guy was not just smeared with dog crap,

but he was forced to eat it too? Curious minds want to know...

Eeekkk...

K

[Aggie Klipsch]

Try the movie "Eating Raoul". Another one for being a bit over the top.