The WHF Film Club

[strapped for cash]

Well, The Cook, the Thief and Delicatessen share themes of cannibalism and images of roasted pigs!

Actually, the Delicatessen poster reminds me of Greenaway's film, certainly in terms of palette.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'll have to source a copy - it's been decades since I've seen it. I think I might appreciate it more this time round...

 

[strapped for cash]

I haven't seen The Cook, the Thief for what must be approaching a decade. It's an unsettling watch and upset many critics on release.

It's also an extremely good film, though I'd need to watch it again and write a very long post to address its politics, as a critique of Thatcherism and as an exercise in film form.

 

[BenLaw]

I watched it a couple of years ago and was also struck by the similarities, even down to the undertone of simmering sexuality. Preferred Delicatessen though, summed up by the difference between the large, opulent dining room and the dank, claustrophobia of Delicatessen.

Also struck by similarities with Brazil, especially the underground guys v the repair men.

 

[strapped for cash]

I've seen Brazil, The Cook, the Thief..., and Delicatessen.

It's so long since I last saw any of these films, however, that I'd struggle to say anything useful about each individually, or in comparative terms.

 

[expat_mike]

I found it rather surprising that the building was still standing, once enough water to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool, had escaped from the bathroom.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I found it rather surprising that the building was still standing, once enough water to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool, had escaped from the bathroom.

It's set in a post-apocalyptic future, where food and work is scarce, but building standards are much higher than they are now.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I thought I had seen Delicatessen many years ago. I seem to remember people dressed as people were a few hundred years ago, and sat in a huge hall surrounded by vast amounts of food, including whole roast pigs etc, and eating very sloppily. I found out I hadn't seen it before...

Loved the opening of the film - dark, dank, misty. Maybe the compressed, standard definition of the version I watched added to it, but after that opening, I was tempted to turn it off and order the Bluray!

I bought the blu ray, but wasn't at all impressed, very grainy, littlle improvement in the sound, and overall, not worth the extra IMO.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I'm a little surprised that not all of you have fallen in love with Delicatessen. It really does bear a second and third viewing, as you miss some of the humour and subtleties when you watch it for the first time.

 

[expat_mike]

I found it rather surprising that the building was still standing, once enough water to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool, had escaped from the bathroom.

It's set in a post-apocalyptic future, where food and work is scarce, but building standards are much higher than they are now.

You can say that again.

 

[expat_mike]

I'm a little surprised that not all of you have fallen in love with Delicatessen. It really does bear a second and third viewing, as you miss some of the humour and subtleties when you watch it for the first time.

Maybe I need to watch it again.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I'm a little surprised that not all of you have fallen in love with Delicatessen. It really does bear a second and third viewing, as you miss some of the humour and subtleties when you watch it for the first time.

Maybe I need to watch it again.

I liked it the first time I saw it, but it grew on me even more with repeated viewing, now I love it.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm a little surprised that not all of you have fallen in love with Delicatessen. It really does bear a second and third viewing, as you miss some of the humour and subtleties when you watch it for the first time.

On first viewing I like it, and I'll definitely be seeing it a few more times. Just found out tonight it is on Amazon Prime Instant! I could've watched it in better quality than I did last week!

 

[BenLaw]

Still planning to post some thoughts on Delicatessen when I get some time but just to let everyone know that Sarah's Key is on film4 later tonight, which is meant to be excellent.

 

[richardw42]

I really like Delicatessen. I remembered the lead actor from Micmacs, which has a similar humour to it.

The residents weren't starving, yet still chose cannibalism.

 

[BenLaw]

Isn't one of the logical conclusions of your penultimate paragraph that animated films are always a 'purer' form of cinema than other films, and would you indeed argue that?

I honestly don't know. Obviously animated films vary greatly in terms of style, due to cultural context, technological developments, and so on...

I don't have much of substance to add to our earlier discussion, strapped, but I was thinking that it is difficult to come to any firm conclusions without having a working definition of 'purer cinema' (accepting I assume that there can be no such thing as 'pure cinema'). It also occurred to me that your argument that 'greater or more obvious artifice = purer cinema' risks being tautologous. Thoughts?

 

[BenLaw]

I found it filmed in a very claustraphobic (and atmospheric) style - in fact I was reminded of this when watching The Trial today.

I felt that the film would have benefitted from an initial voiceover, explaining the initial context, post-apocalypse etc.

I had been warned that the first few minutes were strange, but I was not expecting the man disguising himself as rubbish, trying to escape via the bin - still it set the tone for the rest of the film.

Overall the film had it's moments of humour, but I don't think that I would rate it as one of the best films ever made.

I know that to a certain extent, one had to suspend belief in reality, to accept some of the semi-grotesque characters - but I think elements of the rebel underground were just too unbelievable. In particular, why inhabit an environment that was continually running with dripping water. It would have been uninhabitable - I think that if the dripping water had been left out, you would then have had a believable environment for the credible underground rebels.

A few thoughts then. Before getting onto the film itself, I was surprised to read BBB saying he didn't think the blu ray was great. I haven't seen the DVD so maybe that's excellent and the gap isn't that much, but I thought PQ was excellent. True, it's a dark and very 'brown' film so there's never going to be vibrant colour and contrast, but I thought there was excellent clarity where it called for it and the grain and general look added to the overbearing atmosphere.

I couldn't disagree with Mike more (sorry Mike!) about the film needing an opening voiceover or intro. It's not that that can never work, but this was never meant to be feigning reality. Terminator springs to mind with your suggestion, and these are two very different apcocalyptic films! I feel that any intro would have been more likely to take the viewer out of this singular world, rather than further immerse them.

I agree this was a claustrophobic and atmospheric film. 'Cloying' springs to mind, through form and content, picture, sound and character.

Was anyone else reminded of imagery from Pink Floyd? Various shots of the building reminded of Battersea Power Station from Animals and the sewer underground with gas masks reminded me of the little dudes from The Wall film.

Given the discussion strapped and I have been having, your comments Mike on suspension of disbelief are interesting. I felt that the film was always internally consistent and never got dragged out of it. You're clearly right about the living conditions in the sewers and the fact the house was still standing, but all this artifice seemed apt to the small, claustrophobic world we were briefly inhabiting / observing and therefore pulled me in deeper rather than pushed me away.

Just being called away, more later hopefully...

 

[strapped for cash]

It also occurred to me that your argument that 'greater or more obvious artifice = purer cinema' risks being tautologous. Thoughts?

Potentially. I said it was a highly contentious claim and bracketed a counter-argument in a later post.

At a theoretical level we can make all sorts of outlandish claims through feats of intellectual gymnastics, not that I'm suggesting I'm the most nimble-minded individual out there.

Film criticism is littered with highly contentious arguments that are ultimately little more than expressions of taste, the auteur theory being a notable example.

I'm happy to acknowledge that my earlier comment was at best highly subjective, and at worst baseless. My claims of "purity" related to early attempts to create stylistically consistent films: i.e. Metropolis is "pure expressionism," October is "pure montage," or Un Chien Andalou is "pure surrealism."

I have no confidence in this argument whatsoever and can easily complicate it. At the same time, I like these films and feel each helped to define filmmaking approaches that were later mixed or diluted.

For what it's worth, if someone tried to make this argument in an academic context they'd probably be torn to shreds.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

A few thoughts then. Before getting onto the film itself, I was surprised to read BBB saying he didn't think the blu ray was great. I haven't seen the DVD so maybe that's excellent and the gap isn't that much, but I thought PQ was excellent. True, it's a dark and very 'brown' film so there's never going to be vibrant colour and contrast, but I thought there was excellent clarity where it called for it and the grain and general look added to the overbearing atmosphere.

Maybe I've underestimated it, I'll compare it more directly to the DVD and see. I think my major gripe was that the sound was only 2 channel, not 5.1.

I couldn't disagree with Mike more (sorry Mike!) about the film needing an opening voiceover or intro. It's not that that can never work, but this was never meant to be feigning reality. Terminator springs to mind with your suggestion, and these are two very different apcocalyptic films! I feel that any intro would have been more likely to take the viewer out of this singular world, rather than further immerse them.

I couldn't agree with you more Ben, it's a total fantasy piece, it's just that it's set in a gritty looking real world situation.

Was anyone else reminded of imagery from Pink Floyd? Various shots of the building reminded of Battersea Power Station from Animals and the sewer underground with gas masks reminded me of the little dudes from The Wall film.

No, I've never seen The Wall, though I am selling a copy on eBay.

 

[BenLaw]

It also occurred to me that your argument that 'greater or more obvious artifice = purer cinema' risks being tautologous. Thoughts?

Film criticism is littered with highly contentious arguments that are ultimately little more than expressions of taste, the auteur theory being a notable example.

Hah, definitely!

I'm happy to acknowledge that my earlier comment was at best highly subjective, and at worst baseless. My claims of "purity" related to early attempts to create stylistically consistent films: i.e. Metropolis is "pure expressionism," October is "pure montage," or Un Chien Andalou is "pure surrealism."

I find that argument more instantly attractive. It doesn't seem entirely consistent with the greater / more obvious artifice argument, as it would be possible to have a great deal of artifice whilst being varied in style. I own but haven't seen October, but the film that sprang to mind when I read your post was Man with a Movie Camera. Presumably that would also qualify as pure montage? (Although also rather surreal!)

For what it's worth, if someone tried to make this argument in an academic context they'd probably be torn to shreds.

I was wondering whether there had been any academic attempts to define 'pure cinema'? Perhaps as you say any such attempts are merely masquerading expressions of subjective taste.

 

[BenLaw]

Maybe I've underestimated it, I'll compare it more directly to the DVD and see. I think my major gripe was that the sound was only 2 channel, not 5.1.

I watched it in the bedroom, so only 2.0 anyway, so didn't notice any issues with sound. I thought it looked fantastic - the opening credits sequence must be one of the best and most inventive in film history.

I couldn't agree with you more Ben, it's a total fantasy piece, it's just that it's set in a gritty looking real world situation.

I'd say an interesting comparison could be made between this and Visitor Q, as per our earlier discussion of whether that was a surrealist / fantasy film. In fact Delicatessen has a significantly more stylised look in all regards (exterior, interior, costume, makeup) but both still in some sense retain that 'real world situation' whilst presenting a hyperbolic, grotesque vision of reality.

No, I've never seen The Wall, though I am selling a copy on eBay.

:O Whatever you do, watch it first! It helps to love the music, and it can take a few watches, but I think it's a brilliant film. Well worth watching just for the surreal animation, which is where the things who look the sewer underground men come in.

 

[expat_mike]

I couldn't disagree with Mike more (sorry Mike!) about the film needing an opening voiceover or intro.

No offence taken.

Given the discussion strapped and I have been having, your comments Mike on suspension of disbelief are interesting.

My mind keeps being drawn back to the fact that the last two films that I have watched, Pans Labyrinth and Delicatessen both require an element of suspension of disbelief, in order to enjoy them. And yet I have found Pans Labyrinth to be the most enjoyable film that I have watched for a long time, but in contrast I am feeling the need to be critical of certain aspects of Delicatessen . I am genuinely curious as to why I should feel so differently, about the two films. I feel the need to understand my mind - so I think that I shall have to watch Delicatessen again, to see if I get clues.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

:O Whatever you do, watch it first! It helps to love the music, and it can take a few watches, but I think it's a brilliant film. Well worth watching just for the surreal animation, which is where the things who look the sewer underground men come in.

it's finishing in about 15 mins.

 

[expat_mike]

I'd say an interesting comparison could be made between this and Visitor Q, as per our earlier discussion of whether that was a surrealist / fantasy film. In fact Delicatessen has a significantly more stylised look in all regards (exterior, interior, costume, makeup) but both still in some sense retain that 'real world situation' whilst presenting a hyperbolic, grotesque vision of reality.

From what I have read about Visitor Q, it is possible that there is an element of surrealism to it.

In complete contrast Delicatessen is missing a key element of surrealism, the gaudy colours - all I can remember is shades of brown.

I wait in trepidation, in case BL and BBB are able to easily point out large sections of colour in the film, which I have forgotten.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I couldn't disagree with Mike more (sorry Mike!) about the film needing an opening voiceover or intro.

No offence taken.

Given the discussion strapped and I have been having, your comments Mike on suspension of disbelief are interesting.

My mind keeps being drawn back to the fact that the last two films that I have watched, Pans Labyrinth and Delicatessen both require an element of suspension of disbelief, in order to enjoy them. And yet I have found Pans Labyrinth to be the most enjoyable film that I have watched for a long time, but in contrast I am feeling the need to be critical of certain aspects of Delicatessen . I am genuinely curious as to why I should feel so differently, about the two films. I feel the need to understand my mind - so I think that I shall have to watch Delicatessen again, to see if I get clues.

Just watch it for what it is Mike, a black comedy set in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world.