THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE & HER LOVER
A film review by James Pellman
Copyright 1990 James Pellman
SUMMARY: Not an entertainment, but an art film which does not compromise (even for the sake of "decency") its pure visions of beauty, cuisine, evil, greed, lust, and revenge. At times repulsive, it nonetheless is a beautifully crafted, unique, and thought-provoking film. * * * *
Rather than accept the X rating, the film's distributor has released it without a rating, but no one under 18 is admitted. Even with all these warnings, more than a few people in the audience walked out at various points.
You have been warned.
I enjoy seeing a movie which makes me think about it for several days after seeing it. When this one ended, I wasn't sure if I liked it or not. Having now thought about it for a few days, and realizing that there are certain images from it that I will never forget, I want to go see it again. I think the first viewing left me numb because it was so unlike anything I had seen before.
The Thief is Albert, a London gangster, who is sadistic, greedy, insensitive, and grotesque. Michael Gambon (who starred in PBS' "The Singing Detective") gives a bravura performance. Albert decides to use gourmet dining as a way to gain society's acceptance, and show off his wealth. He acquires an interest in London's finest French restaurant, and holds court there every night with his fellow gangsters and entourage of hoodlums.
The restaurant is run with perfection by the Cook, and its menu and decor are the ultimate in taste and refinement, with service beyond reproach. The depiction of the various areas of the restaurant, in which most of the action takes place, is one of the striking aspects of the film. The impossibly elegant dining room is dominated by a huge 17th Century Dutch painting, and at various times Albert and his gang seem to imitate poses from the painting. The perfectly coiffed and dressed diners (except for Albert and his crowd) and the fabulous food presentations form beautifully composed still lifes. The dining room is surrealistically juxtaposed with the cavernous dungeon-like kitchen, where hygiene is of little concern, and dozens of workers endlessly prepare mountains of food.
A different color is used in each area of the restaurant--red for the dining room, white for the bathrooms, green for the kitchen, and blue for the back alley behind the restaurant. The color of the costumes change as the characters move from one area to another, so that they are always perfectly coordinated. And the camera always moves with the characters from area to area.
In this setting, Albert yells at the restaurant staff, abuses and attacks the other diners, and makes fun of the food. As his wife walks towards the bathroom, he yells after her to be sure to wipe her bottom. His henchman casually vomits down his shirtfront. When the girlfriend of one of his henchmen challenges Albert, he disfigures her with the silverware. And at the beginning of the movie, Albert has one of his rivals beat up, forced to eat dog feces, and urinated on. Since Albert now owns the restaurant, the Cook can only stand by and watch.
The passing of time is indicated by shots of the changing daily menu, and in the seven days during which the action takes place, Albert's long-suffering wife Georgina, makes eye contact with a solitary diner, and quickly starts a passionate affair with him. They meet and make love in the restrooms, closets, and prep rooms of the kitchen at every possible opportunity, with the aid of the Cook.
Being naturally distrustful and suspicious, it is only a matter of time before Albert discovers the affair, and the tension of the various near escapes is almost unbearable. When Albert does find out, his revenge on the Lover is horrific. But Georgina also gets her revenge, and it is just as satisfying for us in the audience.
The actress who plays Georgina (Helen Mirren) calls the film a Jacobean drama (a form of theater from the days of James I that emphasized tragedy through violent action, spectacle, and revenge). The director (Peter Greenaway) refuses to discuss its meaning.
Being so graphic, it is not easy to sit through. But as Mirren points out, this film is no more graphic than the typical teenage slasher movies, which routinely get R ratings. What makes this more difficult to watch? In an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Mirren said, "This is a film that pushes people's buttons. It gets to areas we're most prudish and prurient and embarrassed about. It gets under our skin. If you don't find it a bit much, you're a bit much yourself."
The San Francisco Chronicle review summed it up nicely: "What's more important [than the graphic nature of the film] is that it is a bracingly intelligent and often beautiful work--a chilling black comedy that tells its heartless story in a virtuoso style marked by visual elegance and dark, ironic wit. Anyone able to stomach its graphic imagery will find it an unsettling but unforgettable movie."
-- Jim Pellmann Internet: jpellmann@rational.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews