The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story

Boy, this is a tricky sonofabitch to evaluate. Tulse Luper is a recurring character in Greenaway's work, kind of a Kilgore Trout to Greenaway's Kurt Vonnegut. And the film makes multiple references to his other works, even citing Luper as their author. And Luper is attributed with having an obsession for categorization and numbering, obsessions inescapably associated with Greenaway's films. But is anything about this truly autobiographical? Is it more akin to Guy Maddin's sense of the poetic autobiography? Or is it just nonsense? Knowing Greenaway, everything in this film is done for very specific (and probably quite complex) reasons. But it's all so elusive and dense with symbolism and double meanings that it's impossible for me to decipher on a single viewing, and I would probably require the use of additional multimedia aids to truly decode it all. Although he hasn't entirely cast aside narrative, it's so shattered by formalist clutter (the literal "frames within frames" as seen in PILLOW BOOK, stylized sets, encyclopedic detail, seemingly pointless use of repetition and contradictory or complementary images) that it's difficult to say "what happens" except in vague terms. As is often the case with Greenaway, it holds almost no emotional resonance (and some of it, especially regarding the Percy character, is kinda stupid). There is no doubt that most would write it off as pretentious drivel. But I found it fascinating nonetheless. It's not the most experimental thing I've ever seen, nor the most unpredictable or surprising. But it's original enough to hold my interest, and it does so with a unique and often beautiful sense of style.

I have three living filmmakers that I revere. Greenaway, of course, is one of them and the most obstreperous of the bunch. I like that he has real problems with making illustrated books and does something substantial out of that.

His fundamental notions of the world are built on overlapping conceptual frameworks, ordered frameworks. In this, he follows the Joycean tradition of "Finnegans Wake," which layered all sorts of frameworks from Kabbalistic, Vican, mythological, even geographic sources. It was all merged according to a dream logic — since we had no other template in that day — and used every lexical and literary device he could muster.

Where Joyce had to make do with dream-layering, our Peter gets to use already familiar web- referenced multimedia overlays. He surely knows how to use the software to extend the art of editing into new dimensions. Wow, just on that score.

And where Joyce used obtuse frameworks with the intent of his book being a life's reading, Greenaway uses obvious overlapping frameworks: numbers, his own life and the mythology from his prior films. Some categories, like the periodic table. Oddly, he hasn't been as thorough in this film as he has in some others: Vermeer's theories of light, animals, sexual stereotypes, the written word, various frameworks of introspection and reflection. Different slices on gender.

Anyway, the point is that where Joyce was esoteric, Greenaway strives to be obvious, though manylayered, even juvenile, in his frameworks. He wants these to be so simple and grand that he can stretch them to many web sites, films, CDs, games, and (I presume) books and installations. Someone can casually enter a part of the larger work and intuit the order of the thing.

Each fan of Greenaway will have to make her own decisions on what she likes in terms of the different balances he has struck. As for me, I want a tighter integration of framework and image than he has here. This is why I value his "book" films the highest.

What does this add to what we have? Sadly, not much, except an attempt to integrate himself and some of the political sweeps of the ordinary world, which he tags to nuclear control. I've often thought that the artists themselves are dumber than the art they produce and the greater distance we have from their personalities, the better.

If you have talked to Greenaway, you'll see this in a flash. He has some good headlines, having to do with the bankruptcy of narrative in film. But beyond that, his films (some of them) soar, while his own spoken narrative crawls.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

i had read a review of this and the 92 DVDs that are part of the project-and essenetially the project itself rather than the actual film- really interested me. unfortunately only the film is available to see and even though it had a certain spirit it was mostly a struggle to watch. there are some films, where one has to give up on trying to follow a strict narrative or a plot, but rather follow the mood and the visuals and the emotion that the film evokes. "Tulse Luper" seems to be that at the get-go. i was curious and i watched patiently, but the more i watched the more it seemed the technique itself cannot be the most interesting thing going on, especially when the film is only a part 1 and I will have to wait indefinately to see a conclusion. be creative, but be lively and inventive across the border, not just in edit. i think the Pillow Book offered more to the senses and its visual style better served the story.

having said all that i still really badly want to see the project as a whole

How can I write something about this movie…as it's almost impossible to write a review about such a film! Get all the other Greenaway's movies, add a doze of Gillian and Lynch and you can get an idea about what this movie is all about it. I think the students that learn about what film editing means, should use this film as the most perfect example. Multiple scenes flying across the screen, multiple dialogs, theater-like atmosphere and a good music score, adds up to create a unique experience! I have to reckon that I had big expectations about this movie, after reading the reviews, seeing the web site related to the whole story, and of course, seeing all the other Greenaway's movies… and I was not disappointed- this film is something that I have waited to see since long time ago: a blend of reality, imagination and a perfect manipulation of movie editing.

Definitely this movie should be seen in the theater, as its just too small for a normal TV-there is so much information on the screen…or maybe if you have a projector at home:)

There are probably lots of `mistakes'(like a very hard to follow script, too many characters...etc) in this film, and many people would not understand a thing, but this is just normal, because there is no other movie that can be compare with this one!

IF you love art movies, and you are prepared to give some `food' to your brain, then see this movie, you won't be disappointed.

Probably, Greenaway's idea of creating this multimedia Magnus Opus would be doomed to a commercial failure, but for the real art lovers, I think the movies created for this project would set a landmark.

10 out 10

Peter Greenaway likes drugs and attempting to differentiate his movies from others. I've seen a few of his other movies before this one and I'm really not much of a fan. I simply don't care for his style but I still respect him somewhat as he doesn't seem to care about living up to peoples expectations. He seems to have plenty of original ideas but it seems as if he never seems to care about perfecting them and bring them out in the most cockneyest of ways. With that said this (along with the whole project) to me doesn't seem much more than a concept... most of the effects (some of which have been used by Greenaway in his previous films) aren't used to their full potential but are used well enough to prove that they can. This might not be an excellent film but it certainly isn't a bad one.