Drowning by Numbers

One woman in three bodies. Games about death, with death as a rule, and as a consequence. Life as this game and vice versa. The scoring of the game, the ruling of the script according to numbers. Sequential skipping through the numbers as a way of adumbrating the game to tell a story.

Another masterpiece from Greenaway, his most accessible in my view. But that makes it a lesser work compared to his others, because the story is perfectly comprehensible. One can see how his notion of structured visual allegory with narrative footnotes starts to emerge here. The latest I have seen at this writing is The Pillow Book where this is all so much more elaborate and integrated into the narrative. But this film still charms. I wish I could personally thank the financier.

In "Drowning by Numbers" Peter Greenaway managed to find the thin line between the art movies and the audience-pleasing comedies. His other films, like "The Draughtsman's Contract" are visually arresting but very hard to understand and to stay with. I worried a little bit before I sat down watching this film but I spent a cheerful evening in front of the TV. Hilarious dialogues and monologues are matched with Sacha Vierny's beautiful photography and Greenaway's distinctive and moody sets and atmosphere. Plowright, Stevenson and Richardson are equally terrific, not to mention Bernard Hill as the corny coroner. The debuting Jason Edwards is one of the highlights of the film. His strange behaviour and explanations of the newly invented games are the funniest moments in the film. The final scene is one of the most bizarre closing ever put on screen. Unfortunately, this film was faded by the other commercially successful English films of the late 80s, early 90s (e.g. The Fish Called: Wanda), but if you have the opportunity to watch this film don't miss it. It's highly recommended.

The notion is the same. All things move towards their end, as Nick Cave would romantically have it. Or die violent, arbitrary deaths, as Greenaway would. Bees, cows, men, we are witness to all these deaths, how all of creation is inadvertently eclipsed, as marked one to 100. We need not see any more because as a girl jumping rope says while counting stars, after you count to the first 100 all the other hundreds are the same. It's enough to understand the replicated pattern.

Various games with stakes in the film mirror the one game, life, where existence is the stake, various conspiracies attempt to unlock the meaning, while others obfuscate it. That these deaths, of three husbands at the hands of their wives, are the result of cruel whims and little more. That there's no grand plan or ultimate purpose that justifies the loss, Greenaway always the pessimist and cynical.

The most interesting character in all this is the coroner's son. Who, as his father devises elaborate games to pass idle time, with boyish innocence he wants to know the simplest answers of the universe. How many leaves on a tree, how many hair on a dog? And who commemorates the passing of living things by lighting up fireworks.

Greenaway generally knows how to make an interesting film that is intellectual but not dyspeptic. The fun here is in the form of a typically British black comedy, where deaths are clumsily covered-up and the noose around the culprits' neck is pulled tighter all the time.

He's done better work but this worth watching. If only for the cinematic fireworks of Sacha Vierny.

English and dark humor - something you will get a lot of by watching the movie on hand here. This really will depend on your taste and how you like your movies delivered. The pacing is rather slow but consistent. The movie itself is also quite predictable (just the title right?) and then you have characters that seem not from this world.

But that is also how you should try to engage this. This is different, it does not really dabble in reality and is more like a play or a dream (though I have not checked what this is based on). So depending on your own taste and patience you will like this more or less than what I voted ... I would argue I'm right in the middle. Very well made for sure and really well acted (weirdness considered)

I saw the movie at a local art-house cinema, and was instantly converted to the church of Greenaway/Nyman. I raved so much about it that my philestine friends finally agreed to rent it.

Of course, the rented version was pan-n-scanned. It was truly awful. As bad as the original was good. Much of the Greenawaynian charm is his flair for composing scenes visually. Pan-scanning deprives you of almost all the fun. Besides whoever did the pan scanning didn't get the spot-the-numbers game. Several were lost out of frame.

Don't bother renting it on VHS. Maybe the DVD will get it right. Until then, ask the Brattle or your local cinema paradiso to show you it in all its glory.