Commentaires des utilisateurs

I knew how strange and unusual Greenaway could be but Zed, I believe could take the cake :). I am not sure what it is all about but I still enjoy the triumvirate Greenaway - Sasha Verny- Michael Nyman. Some ideas and images Greenaway will use in the later "8 1/2 women" and "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover" - especially, the soundtrack. "Dead Ringers" and "Mon oncle d'Amérique" (two beautiful weirdnesses themselves) also come to mind while watching Greenaway's elegant tale of decomposing which is also his meditations about life, death and grief. As in earlier "The Draughtsman's Contract (1982), Greenaway explores the relationship between the close relatives - the twin brothers are in the center of "A Zed & two Noughts". The movie is also a modern retelling of an ancient myth about Leda and Zeus who took the form of a swan and slept with Leda on the same night as her husband, King Tyndareus. Leda bore Helen and Polydeuces, children of Zeus while at the same time bearing Castor and Clytemnestra, children of her husband Tyndareus, the King of Sparta.

Greenaway considers that 90% of his films one way or another refers to paintings. "A Zed & two Noughts" refers openly and with great admiration to the paintings of Johannes Vermeer van Delft.

"A Zed & two Noughts" is not easy film to watch, its characters are not sympathetic, it lacks warmth and sentimentality but as always in Greenaway's films, it is a feast for eyes, ears, and for brain.

7.5/10

Peter Greenaway is arty. Painfully so. However he readily admits that this film is "self-conscious", "manufactured" and he says that all cinema is probably as "artificial" a form as you can get.

This film is beautiful to look at. Greenaway was inspired, visually, by paintings of the mid 17th century, particularly those of Vermeer. Almost every shot is composed like a painting. Many of the shots are symmetrical, walls are filmed flat so that the horizontal lines are parallel with the top and bottom of the frame. Objects are placed on tables as if subjects for a still life. Lighting is used in an alternation of light, shade,light,shade receding to the back of the picture, which is a signature of the type of 17th century, Western art that Greenaway is paying homage to.

The substance of the film follows weighty themes, all of which are explained in great detail through the director's commentary: evolution, light and twin-ship.

What is lacking is emotion. This is a cerebral film. Your emotional reaction to it will be through the imagery, be it beautiful or repulsive. You will not engage with the characters on an emotional level. You'll find them hard to relate to. The performances are stilted and amateur theatrical. It is fortunate, then, that Michael Nyman provides a fantastic score (present on almost every scene and almost outstaying its welcome) which prevents the dialogue (the script leaves a lot to be desired too) rendering everything flat.

Rent this if you enjoy visuals for their own sake, if you wear spectacles and if you like holding your chin in your hand and frowning. I qualify on all those points, so I enjoyed it a great deal.

Extra points for an extraordinarily thorough director's commentary on the DVD which serves to pull out all the hidden depths. Though one could make the point that an explanation that adds so much extra understanding leaves you feeling that the film failed adequately to convey much of what was intended.

DVD easter eggs (worth seeing): http://www.dvd.net.au/hidden.cgi?movie_id=10484

(Movie quote) - "So, tell me - Is a zebra a white animal with black stripes, or is it a black animal with white stripes?"

Even though I definitely found this 1985, British, "art" film to be something of a "hit'n'miss" production, it was its very striking camera-work by French cinematographer, Sacha Vierny, that certainly helped to elevate it to a position that set it well-beyond the realm of being considered just purely mundane entertainment.

Surreal, eccentric and bizarre (and, yes, at times, quite puzzling) - "A Zed And 2 Noughts" definitely had me wondering, often enough, what kind of a curve director Peter Greenaway was going to hurl at me next with this weird and somewhat disturbing tale of obsession with decaying flesh and the amputation of body parts.

Certainly not a film to please everyone (and certainly not a film with a gripping plot-line) - I, for one, thought "A Zed And 2 Noughts" was well-worth a view simply for the freakish biology lesson that it quite cleverly wedged into its wacky, little story (all at no extra cost).

A Zed and Two Noughts (or Zoo) is Greenaway's best film. Made during the transition between his early experimental short films and his later more narrative (and more celebrated) ones, his free flowing structure is at its best here, fresh, witty and cerebral (some would also say pedantic). In later films, one has the feeling that Greenaway has try to go back to the style set by Zoo, but the results (like in 8 1/2 women) are almost unwatchable. The plot: two biologists twins working in a zoo, specialized in studying the putrefaction of animals, lose their wives in a car accident. They hook up with a strange woman who lost her leg in that accident. Meanwhile, there are references to Vermeer throughout (what does this has to do with zoology, only Greenaway knows), speeded up shots of real rotting animals, Michael Nyman's hypnotic score, and also a girl who learns the alphabet through giant letters that are linked with live animals (for example, z is for zebra, as in a children's book). Deliberately non naturalistic, Greenaway makes from this strange melange a very compelling movie, though undoubtedly very hard to take for some.

After two brothers lose their wives in a car crash, realize that death is the most fascinating part of life. They constantly photograph animals in a state of decomposition. This celebrates the fact that for every unique life there is a unique death and it should be glorified as is life in all its forms.

Greenaway seems the exact opposite of Lynch. Lynch takes the ordinary and makes it extraordinary. Greenaway takes the extraordinary and attempts to make it appear ordinary.

The film begins with the sound of a car crash. The next frame unfolds to show us a white car with a swan embedded in its windscreen, and a woman shouting out in agony. We can also see two women in the back of the car motionless. Who are then imposed on to a newspaper headline: SWAN CRASH TWO DIE, it says. The deceased women were married to twin brothers, zoologists Oliver and Oswald Deuce. After the accident they grieve at the bedside of the stricken survivor of the crash, a lady named Alba Bewick, who has had her leg amputated. At first they blame her for the accident, then later start to both sleep with her. Most of their time is spent photographing dead animals and plants. Some of these are shown decaying quickly, accompanied by good music from Michael Nyman. Also around the zoo is a prostitute named Venus De Milo, who the brothers both use. A strange figure named Van Hoyten. And also the film features the only feature film appearance of the English comedian Jim Davidson, who will be familiar to viewers in England. He plays Joshua Plate, an assistant at the zoo. Eventually Alba has her other leg amputated, and also has twin babies by the Deuce brothers. Yes, she claims they are by both of them. It then leads to a tragic conclusion. It is a fascinating film to watch. Beautiful to look at, as always with Greenaway's films. It offers the viewer many layers and textures to explore. Each scene is delicately structured. Something different. Watch it again and again.

This is not a film I could or would ever see again, but I am not about to criticize it as much as I am going to praise it on a technical and aesthetic level. At the core of the movie is the sad and enormously disconcerting theme of humans using animals to enrich their lives, which are lived in a high-tech, hyperstylized human world in which nature is losing its place. I am not a stickler when it comes to disturbing images. Indeed, Salo and Lake of Fire are favorite films of mine. It is animals whose suffering offends me; they are not consciously cruel and do not betray one another. Even when they are cruel, it is the way of survival in the natural world.

Nonetheless, this richly developed film about decay by Peter Greenaway truly sees and says something profound and disturbing about humanity. It is a purely metaphysical experience. For example, there is a scene where two character talk about the relevance of the film they're watching. We see fascinating elaborate showcases of making films of carcass decay. Even brief establishing shots and any one of the few cutaways Greenaway allows are layered with nuance and mathematical precision.

Purely a sensory approach, Greenaway's struck me as very thematically similar to David Cronenberg's: The focus is on the physiological effects of experience and environment. But where Cronenberg works ambiently inward, Greenaway radiates smolderingly outward, his standard being pale mise-en-scenes with intensely emboldened focal colors. And whereas the dark and ethereal nature of Cronenberg's work is accentuated by Howard Shore's brooding orchestral score, Greenaway betrays the psychosis of his wide, still, panoramic, painterly set-ups with Michael Nyman's infectiously eccentric and complex soundtrack.

I am not good at preparing myself for the human effect on animals, but I admire and appreciate ZOO's audacious and brandishingly external style. It is the sort of work that could be deemed style over substance, and maybe it is to some degree, but it is the style that informs function of the narrative. It is form over function that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal world, and yet the form here is a smolderingly animalistic one. We cannot escape our nature.

Two zoologist twin brothers lose each of their wives in a freak car crash involving an escaped swan from the zoo. They become obsessed with understanding death, and the creation of life. They study decaying objects, creation films, and trifling details of the accident & the days events that led to the crash. They seek answers with the zoo's prostitute and the one-legged woman (who is the sole survivor of the car crash).

Beautiful scenes, and memorizing music.

The first time I saw this film I was screening it for the staff at my theatre. Everyone but me left to see something else. I could not take my eyes off of the screen. It was amazing. This film may sound a little morbid, but it is about two people dealing with death in his own way. Maybe I liked it so much because I too recently lost some loved ones just prior to seeing this film. I have seen it numerous times since, and I even bought the tape.

Do NOT miss this film!

When the wives of twin brothers (played by the deacon brothers) die in a car crash, the brothers talk to the one survivor to learn as much as they can. To the point of harassment. And they obsess about the decay rates of various animals and fish, thinking about how their own poor wives are slowly decaying in death. It's all quite bizarre. Lots of talk about zebras. Darwinism. This certainly won't be for everyone, but if you like the quirky, offbeat films, then this is for you! Male and female nudity. Adult themes. Many graphic photos of dead animals, at various stages. It's wacky but kind of fun. If you just go with it. Written and directed by peter greenaway. He also wrote "the cook, the thief"... that was odd but fun as well.

For better or for worse, A Zed & Two Noughts is a very unusual film. This is hardly surprising given that it was directed by the avant-gardist director Peter Greenaway. It begins with a car accident at a zoo, where two women are killed when their vehicle collides with a pregnant swan. These women are twins who were in turn married to a couple of twin zoologists, Oliver and Oswald Deuce. Shortly afterwards these men start simultaneous affairs with the survivor of the accident, the driver Alba Bewick who lost a leg as a result of the crash. She later has the other one removed surgically for symmetrical reasons and falls pregnant to the twins.

This strange film features both the good and the bad typical of Greenaway. The good is the visual presentation and distinctive bizarre qualities, the bad is more or less any time someone opens their mouths, which unfortunately is quite often. Greenaway is really terrible at writing dialogue. His script constantly tries to be clever, which is not the same thing as actually being clever. Needless to say, the dialogue is painful to listen to and ultimately makes the film hard work and not in a good way. But setting this aside, amongst other things, it's an intriguing concoction about symmetry, birth and decay. Of the latter are several time-lapse films showing a variety of animals and organic matter decaying - films which were fascinating and repulsive in equal measure. We also have excellent cinematography from Greenaway's common collaborator Sacha Vierney, with many shots being a joy to behold. The other significant cog in the wheel is the typically persistent minimalist score from Michael Nyman, which is sometimes brilliant even if it does border on irritating at others. We also have the most unexpected collaborator in any Greenaway film - none other than Jim 'Nick Nick' Davidson, the politically incorrect stand-up comedian who appears as a zoo-keeper.

In summary, A Zed & Two Noughts was an interesting film spoiled by Greenaway's horrible dialogue and awful characters. If you can get beyond those it does offer some fascinating stuff but you sure have got your work cut out with this one.

ZOO. An absurdist, dadaist film for viewers who can reflect on the spoken words (the script is dense with odd factoids), the minimalist music, the visuals (electrical lighting, red hats, black and white fauna, twins and Vermeer paintings) and the effect of time-lapse photography on both growth and decay. Greenaway's collaboration with cinematographer Sacha Vierny and composer Michael Nyman is a gift for film viewers. The film brings to the fore some of the absurdist common strands between two filmmakers: Peter Greenaway and Raoul Ruiz.

(Favourite movie quote) - "What's so scientific about body rot?"

With 1985's "A Zed And 2 Noughts" don't expect a riveting plot-line to hold your attention - 'Cause otherwise you'll find yourself endlessly disappointed.

But, if you watch this quirky film strictly as a feast for the eyes, then you're bound to get some enjoyment out of it and forgive its demented lack of plot.

Containing some of the wackiest dialogue and off-the-wall humour imaginable, "A Zed And 2 Noughts" can be looked upon as being something of a very weird biology lesson, in a roundabout sort of way.

Directed by British film-maker, Peter Greenaway, "A Zed and 2 Noughts" is, in some ways, actually quite a provocative picture that features plenty of disturbing imagery which obviously won't sit well with many viewers.

Anyway - If you are craving the "odd" and the "unusual", then "A Zed And 2 Noughts" will not disappoint, in the long run.

I first saw this film when it came to British cinemas in 1985. Now, in 2010, I've just seen it again. 25 years ago, as an impressionable film school student, I was both baffled and fascinated by its multi-layered imagery and anarchic themes. Greenaway was my hero then for he had mastery over cinematic form and a unique style that I had never seen before. Added to Michael Nyman's powerful, pulsating music, this film gave me the shivers and also left me breathless. Looking at the film today, it seems barren of emotion (intentional) and laboured. I struggled to sit through the film, and luckily, as I was watching it at home, I could get up at intervals to make tea, have a cigarette, and look out the window. I made the effort to watch Greenaway's patronising director's commentary and 'introduction' to the film, but it still left me with the feeling that I had largely wasted two hours. I may have learnt something about sumptuous photography and resonating soundtracks, but A ZED AND TWO NOUGHTS left me cold, sickened and bored. In 1985 this film may have caused a stir, being made in the negativity and economic/cultural stagnation of Thatcher's Conservative Britain. I remember that was not a good period to live through. A film like this might have caused a sensation among cinema-goers, as it is certainly original. But that is its saving grace.

Something of a synthesis between the archly contrived "Draughtsman's Contract" and its more experimental predecessor, "The Falls", this, like all of Greenaway's films, requires close attention and repeated views. A meditation on similarity and difference, growth and decay, it follows "The Falls" with its litany of visual and linguistic repetitions. Anyone looking for a conventional plot, even one as convoluted as found in "The Draughtsman's Contract", is going to be disappointed. Not that there isn't a storyline - there is and it's important - but to really enjoy the film you need to be open to its symbolism. It's really a moving painting more than a film. Awareness of Greenaway's early experimental works helps a great deal in comprehending the concerns of this film. But if you're open to it, it's both thought-provoking and very amusing.

Greenaway at his finest, pretentious to some viewers, his film on grief and decay stayed with me for many weeks and the final flash photography with snails was a triumph.

Nyman created some wonderful pieces though neither artist quite surpasses their work on The Draughtmans contract in my humble opinion (I've yet to see The Falls), though still visually stunning this remains a sometimes darkly comic but ultimately unsettling piece - highly recommended.

I am usually eager to see Greenaway films again and again and this is no exception, but it is "talking to me" from it's first viewing 6 months hence. When my mind is finally starved of this feast and I am ready for a new perspective on it I will sit down and indulge in it again.

The lowest possible rating is a 1, but I reserve dispensing that to films that feature live animal killings like Cannibal Holocaust, Men Behind the Sun ...and all those lovely Korean films. This movie treads the line dangerously, showing gross-out images of decaying animals ad nauseum, but no animals were killed on screen. Still, excluding animal snuff films, this is about the WORST thing I've ever seen on a screen. Peter Greenaway may have an eye for symmetry, colours, contrast and shadows. Fine. But that's where his talents stop. He has no ability to write dialogue, to tell a story, to delve into philosophy or to inspire our emotions (other than disgust). It takes no talent to shock an audience. My 3 year old nephew can shock an audience by holding a dog turd. But how many directors can play on our more elevated emotions? Not Greenaway. He knows this. So he hides behind sarcasm, kind of like the dweeb at work who has no charm whatsoever, so he attempts to compensate by being "the sarcastic guy". Peter Greenaway is that guy. Imagine standing next to "the sarcastic guy" at work for two hours at the water cooler whilst he babbles about nonsensical, gross, vulgar things. That's the only way he can have a memorable impact. But all the while you're just standing there saying, "I wish he would shut up." Btw, if you don't know what I'm talking about, chances are "the sarcastic guy" is YOU. I tried so very, very, very, very hard to like this movie. I ignored the inane musical score (the same 4 chords plucked over & over, like some sort of Philip Glass nightmare). I put aside my revulsion for the fat naked women and hairy men with little weenies (Greenaway's trademark). And I accepted the histrionic acting as a deliberate satire. OK, fine. But an hour into it I realized that movies are not supposed to be a chore. They're not supposed to be some sort of endurance test whereby the audience learns the virtue of patience. Cripes, movies are supposed to be enjoyable or--at the very least--interesting. If you browse the discussion boards you'll see that the majority of Greenaway fans like him simply because "HE'S THE MOST SHOCKING DIRECTOR EVER!" or because "HIS FILMS ARE SO DISTURBING! AND WEIRD!" If these phrases appeal to you, then have a nice time. But if you're sitting there wondering, "yeah? what else?" Then you, like me, would profit by spending your time elsewhere.

I don't know what people see in this movie, whatever it is, I'm obviously too ignorant to get it. Peter Greenway movies are like black licorice-- obviously somebody likes it because it's on the shelves, but who likes it and why is not clear. Just be sure not to a) take your middle-aged parents to see it or b) take young kids to see it or c) take a date to see it (unless you want to get rid of them, or they are truly wierd).

Anyway, brothers both lose their wives in a car crash and the lady who was driving the car loses her leg. Meanwhile, the brothers get into doing time-lapse photography of decomposing animals they steal from the zoo. A number of people commit suicide for reasons that don't make much sense.

Greenaway's obsessions with lists, wordplay, coincidence, sexuality, the surreal, and the explicit (not to mention the "conventionally used" ones like men and women, birth and eating and death, physiology (formal and psychological), and abstraction) come to a head in this film. A bizarre mileau of fancy digressions and focused narrativity create a film which is perhaps too obtuse for first time viewers but is, as far as I'm concerned, the best way to initiate oneself into the "world" of Greenaway.

Two twin zoologist brothers, both loose their wives in a car accident. The car hits a swan while on Swan lane. The driver Alba Buick looses her leg. Both brothers have an affair with Alba, all while they are researching the decay of animals.Then there's Venus De Milo, a prostitute obsessed with zebras and dirty bestiality stories. "A Zed and Two Noughts" is another complex mind puzzle from Avant-Garde director Peter Greenaway. The film deals with decomposition of animals and Symmetry. Even on the screen the composition is symmetrical. And since the film is about symmetry, Alba decides to give up her other leg to a crazed doctor obsessed with amputation. It sounds disturbing, but really the film is beautiful to look at. It has stunning cinematography by Sacha Vierney, and a hypnotic musical score done by composer Micheal Nyman. Greenaway is a visionary in mind-games, and the film is very complex even after repeated viewings.

Themes of obsession, grief, and death haunt the gloomily lit hallways of Peter Greenaway's clever, funny, tragic, and disturbing artistic masterpiece 'A Zed & Two Noughts'. To describe this film is to describe a work of genius, something I am not exactly prepared for. I can only glowingly praise this film and its queer quirks and impressive precision. Almost every shot is, in its own odd way, by turns beautiful, cryptic, and unsettling (even grotesque at times), and these visuals move perfectly to the rhythm of Michael Nyman's perfect score that only further adds to the artistically orgasmic mastery of this film's every moment. It can be argued that the film has elements of pretension, but I believe that it is too witty and brilliant a film to dismiss w/such overused language, and, although I do not recommend it to everybody, I am ready to make the claim that it is legitimately among the greatest art house films of all time. The bleak comedy and absurd tragedy of the grieving process has hardly ever been showcased w/such a display of stylistic perfection as it is in this film. The way the film moves and glows and darkens and laughs and cries and creeps awkwardly round, constantly disturbing and exciting the viewer, is pulled off by Greenaway in such a way that I beg of anyone interested to seek out this film almost immediately. It isn't always fun, but it is too worthwhile to ignore. It utilizes black comedy, surrealism, the avant garde, philosophy, and complete complexity in the most delightfully cinematic manner...it is a true masterpiece.

Having seen Peter Greenaway's The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover, I knew I was in for an intense sensual experience with crude symbolism and even cruder people. A Zed & Two Noughts is a film about symmetry, about its dependence and complimentary tendencies, accidental/natural or intentional/forced. The twins become obsessed with the search of purpose in randomness and therefore especially the meaning for coincidence and symmetry. Although they come up empty handed, there are some profound ideas in there, with nine months for a baby to be born and then nine months for a body to decay. The arresting visuals reflect the use of symmetry with elaborate sets designed as reflections. It has a David Lean level of lushness as the cameras glide through the elegantly coloured sets, as well as featuring time lapses of decaying food and animals, closeups of painting and nature documentary footage, narrated by David Attenborough.

Although it has shocking drama and daring tragedy (a woman voluntarily having a second leg amputated then regretting it, a dalmatian shown rotting) it does have a key sense of humour that keeps it from being dreary. It mostly comes from Greenaway's obsession with obscenities clashing within upper class etiquette, particularly with sex, which gives the film more shock value though is never vulgar for the sake of vulgarity. It has an incredibly haunting score by Michael Nyman, who also did the one for The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover, and this one may be even more intense due to the films freakish nature. Of which the script is full of twists of turns of phrases and wordplay to apply to the bizarre scenarios in the film, which isn't always as intelligent as it appears to be. The film has a bad habit of relying on characterisations rather than characters, and it took far too long for its protagonists and primary supporting characters to be fully fleshed out and developed beyond caricatures. It's main downfall is it's far too urgent. Scenes are rushed and sequences hurried with barely any scenes properly savoured enough to soak in the flavour of the film. It gives the film a vignette feel which I didn't think the film needed and a resolution without real closure. Though I guess this exactly fits into its theme of chaos and the meaning of it all.

8/10