The Falls

I reckon that The Falls has to go down as the best thing that director Peter Greenaway has ever did. It marks the end of his early years when his work mainly took the format of short films. In a way The Falls takes this form too, in that it is essentially made up of a multitude of self-contained short films, albeit ones with an overall theme and connection. More specifically, it takes the format of a mockumentary, one that mimics the dry BBC style. Set in the near future, it centres on the fallout of an unexplained occurrence known as the Violent Unknown Event, in which a large number of people experience certain changes, including physical mutations and the ability to speak a variety of new hitherto unknown languages. The cause of this phenomenon remains oblique but it is suggested that it may be in some way related to ornithology. The film is made up of a selection of 92 mini biographies of victims taken from an official catalogue, detailing only individuals whose names begin with the letters F-A-L-L.

The first thing that is apparent about this one is that it is considerably more light-hearted that Greenaway's later feature films. It's full to the brim with absurd humour and the tone remains quite playful much of the time. It really has more in common with his earlier shorts that his later feature films. For one thing, it feels more like an underground movie with much less of a budget. The later films had the cinematography of Sacha Vierney to make them look visually immaculate, yet the more lo-fi approach here kind of feels somewhat more interesting for me. The format overall makes much better use of Greenaway's talents in that it allows for him to try many different things. Each mini-bio allows for a different approach and for a highly experimental film-maker such as Greenaway this lets him flex his avant-garde muscles quite freely. Of course, some parts are more interesting than others and there are some sections that are somewhat tedious. But pleasingly often he hits home with some genuinely fascinating left-field oddity and, in any case, if one part isn't grabbing your attention it will soon be followed by something else. There are many moments of visual invention of various kinds; Greenaway is able to dabble in differing types of avant-garde film-making. Helping matters considerably at times is the score from Michael Nyman, which is often very good; in particular the title theme 'Bird List' is especially wonderful.

Many of Greenaway's peculiarities can be seen here such as the creation of an almost fantasy world of sorts, replete with characters with names so bizarre as to have no connection with our world. Characters do things that go well beyond realism and the tone in general is one of absurdity throughout. There are also characters and events that both refer back to his earlier shorts and which will be used later in his subsequent features. It very much feels like this, along with many of his other films exist within their own little fantasy universe. And of course, his obsessions with list making, numerology, fine art and birds - amongst other things – are consistently adhered to. It is admittedly of an epic length but Greenaway himself has actively encouraged people to watch it in stages or in any order they wish. It's less cold and unpleasant than much of his more famous works and this makes for quite a refreshing change. For me, while it is challenging in many ways, it is the most interesting and enjoyable film he has ever directed and remains one of the best avant-garde films out there.

I saw this movie at a Greenaway festival, at the Neptune in Seattle WA a few years back. It was the ultimate realist experience. The movie went on and on merciliess in its informing you of how much was left. I don't think that I have been to any movie where I have seen so many people walk out. This movie has to be seen in a theatre--video offers to many chances for escape. If you let yourself be caught up in it, the experience is unparalled. Not for the weak, but for those that fall into it, a work of pure genius.

Welcome to the highly personal paramount of Greenaway's work. His scathing documentary on general English silliness. An elongated, meticulously constructed piece of fabulous fantasy. A fantastic frivolous frolic. The film chronicles the biographies of 92 selected victims of the Violent Unknown Event, or VUE for short - a strange occurrence that has left people speaking strange languages and experiencing bird-related symptoms. All of the victims' surnames' begin with the word FALL. The bios are described by several narrators. Some of the bios are curt, others are fastidiously described. They are always witty. Examples being a victim who continually tells bird jokes, "Why do birds fly south for the winter? Because it's too far for them to walk". Others constantly drive in circles. Many of them have new talents, like spitting long distances. Some of the bios reminded me of Monty Python sketches, with the similar zest of absurd English humour.

It is a challenge to sit through it all in one go, and is probably best viewed on video in two or three attempts. Not recommended for everyone, but if you want something hilariously different look no further.

How Greenaway surprises. Here is an early work that is rich in ways that in later works seem submerged.

The concept: A 'Violent Unexplained Event' occurs at 11:41 PM GMT, 14 June, People experience physical changes, often transitioning to birds. 92 new languages appear, and 92 birdnames are embossed in some minds. Four new genders are created; survivors appear immortal. Birds are the apparent cause, perhaps the Australian flightless rattite. The survivors are catalogued by competing societies (together with the detracting Society for Ornitological Extermination, FOX). This film is from the catalogued biographies from the primary society, of those whose names start with `fall.' There are 92 of them.

Some elements are familiar to later Greenaway viewers. Already Nyman creates an apt score. There is a magical surrealism. We have counting and other overlapping synthetic laws that restructure a slightly askew reality. We have a layering, so that many scenes add to or annotate others. Later, Greenaway does this with simultaneous images. Here the device is linear. Much harder, as one must not only create the alternative world, but also it's linear unfolding. Hence, this seems his most intelligent work.

The big shocker: In his later, much more commercial works, one can always count on lush painterly images, and often on elaborate panning shots. None of that here, in fact a practiced complement. All the attention is on the narrative, with many narrators, all filmed doing their work.

This film is self-referential in all the ordinary ways, plus the idea that the creator of the film is responsible for the radical change in reality. Of course, I do believe great artists do change the world; isn't that the only workable definition of art? Does Greenaway come up to this measure or is he like everyone else, a mere spectator?

Spectating here, but we do see something that retrospectively alters my recent experience with `Drowning by Numbers.' Biography 27 is of the three Cissy Colpitts, who live in Goole and establish an experimental film repository in the watertower. This is administered from a room in the nearby maternity hospital, one of the primary epicenters of the VUE (view). The three Cissys and the watertower reappear in `Drowning by Numbers,' and their collective mission is to have a child after eliminating husbands. Fits the Prospero role of replacing God with a new logic.

Love it.

I'm a big fan of Greenaway's works and I jumped at the chance to check out this early work by the director on video.

I can't add to what others have said here except to say that it's an excrutiating experience that doesn't have enough humor to keep your interest for the full running time.

At its best, "The Falls" is an interesting and sometimes funny curiosity that points to themes Greenaway would return to again and again in his later work; at its worst, "The Falls" is a tedious experiment.