THE DRAUGHTSMAN'S CONTRACT (1982) A Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge
Writer/Director: Peter Greenaway Starring: Anthony Higgins, Janet Suzman, Anne-Louise Lambert, Hugh Fraser, Neil Cunningham, Dave Hill, David Grant, David Meyer, Tony Meyer, Michael Feast
I'll give the same defense for "The Draughtsman's Contract" as I did for another Peter Greenaway film, "Drowning by Numbers": I haven't the foggiest what it was about, but I sure had a good time trying to figure it out. The reason "Draughtsman" is better than "Numbers," though, is because it's less obvious than that one; it doesn't seem like a puzzle at all. The puzzle sneaks up on you, takes you off guard, and before you know it, you have to remember everything you've seen before in effort to understand exactly Greenaway is going at with his film.
The entire film plays like a very straighforward period piece, taking place in 1690 with lots of beautiful cinematography, exquisite sets, authentic baroque music (composed by once-Greenaway-regular, Michael Nyman, a brilliant composer in any time period), and dialogue that is always to the point and mannered. The plot is simple: a somewhat famous and very pompous draughtsman (Anthony Higgins) is hired by the wife (Janet Suzman) of a wealthy businessman (Dave Hill) to draw several drawings of their immense estate, under law of a strict contract which becomes less strict as the film goes on.
The draugtsman is extremely anal about every drawing, demanding absolute perfection with every one. He sketches each place for two hours each day, then moves onto another section, and continues like this each day. Nothing is to change during these time periods, so that each drawing can retain its individual integrity. And there is one small catch: every day, the draugtsman and the wife, who's husband is away on business, must tend to the bed to, well, consumate their relationship.
The film gets into a nice little bit of tradition after awhile, with each day switching between the outside drawings and the bedroom. But every day, something weird happens. Windows are opened, sheep interfere, the wife's son-in-law (Hugh Fraser) begins annoying the draughtsman with petty problems, and suddenly even weirder things start happening, such as a statue that turns out not to be what it seems. By the hour mark, a murder has occurred, and like the characters that inhibit this film, you have no clue who to accuse.
The ending is another great one, which happens to be one of Greenaway's fortes. It's strange, unnerrving, and brings the film to a close even if the audience hasn't figured out exactly what it's closing. One small gripe: like the ending to "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover," my the best Greenaway film, it's too complete. It goes too far, and would be even better if it ended just one step too short. Not a major complaint, but something that would have been even more disturbing.
I can't say I figured this film out, even after two very conscious viewings, but the point is not figuring out who the murderer is, or even what the point is. A puzzle is not really about its ending, but about the process of getting there by unearthing clues and logically thinking. Like Atom Egoyan, Peter Greenaway feels the same way about cinematic puzzles, and he creates a film that is like a giant sensual connundrum, with no piece to the puzzle ever explained and the entire film is done so that it is more of an experience than a puzzle.
My theory, though, is that it's something to do with the way we perceive reality, as things are constantly changing, not the least being the contract of the title. But with many of Greenaway's films, that's just a shot in the dark. He always has some point he's trying to make, let it be mockery of conformity or criticism of the Thatcher years. He just hides it under the most seductive kind of filmmaking this side of Martin Scorsese.
There's really not much you can say about this film without giving away many of the pleasures of watching it. I will say, though, that it's a film that moves farily slowly but at a good pace so that it never gets ahead of itself and totally looses us. As such, this is a film that almost requires multiple viewings, just so you can go back and piece everything together. Otherwise, though, you have a simply magnificent film that acts as part social satire, part murder mystery, and part sensual pleasure. This is a film that, for some, may be a puzzle that's fun to do because it's so engrossing that you almost forget that you're doing a puzzle in the first place.
MY RATING (out of 4): ****
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
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