Goltzius and the Pelican Company

Hendrik Goltzius was a Dutch printmaker, draftsman, and painter. He was the leading Dutch engraver of the early Baroque period, or Northern Mannerism, noted for his sophisticated technique and the exuberance of his compositions. The pelican symbolizes Jesus our Redeemer who gave His life for our redemption and the atonement He made through His passion and death. We were dead to sin and have found new life through the Blood of Christ. Once again Peter Greenaway is in the role of avant-garde innovator and Goltzius and the Pelican Company is the fireworks of extremely fabulous visions. The film is grotesquely mannered and it represents Holy Scripture as a series of pornographic episodes performed by the itinerant theatrical troupe.

I really think this could replace water boarding. I know they were going for artistic but they accidentally landed on...odd.

The Dutch painter Golzius (Ramsey Nasr) needs to secure funding for his new printing press and approaches The Margrave, (F. Murray Abraham) who is agreeable provided that Golzius' acting troup, The Pelican Company, perform six erotic interpretations / versions of famous Old Testament stories from the Bible. Whilst these are well received in a place known for its freedom of speech, they are interpreted by the priesthood, intelligentsia and The Margrave as blasphemy resulting in harsh punishments which Golzius must work around not least because they have no more knowledge of the truth of the Bible than Golzius

Obviously Peter Greenaway is an acquired taste and if you don't like his work, best to keep away. Like many of his works eg Nightwatching, Prospero's Books, The Baby of Macon what you get is a sort of moving theatrical tableau acting out elements from Greenaway's theme for the film in frequently beautiful, cleverly structured looking aircraft hanger stages. Like most of his work, this carries long erudite pieces to camera (Nasr is very entertaining) which often features strong language, a good deal of sex, constant nudity and death. This one is a bit samey though - he does need to find a new way of conveying his thoughts, but Greenaway is still a unique and dynamic filmmaker, although, as it has often been said, he's closer to a painter than a filmmaker. Fascinating but not for everyone.

Goltzius and his pelican company are a band, or troop, of entertainers who want to set up a printing press to produce enlightening pictures of 'art', the sort of art that gets pulses racing. Well they happen upon the kingdom of The Margrave of Alsace. Where Goltzius sets out to seduce him into funding his entrepreneurial activities and make some cash into the bargain.

In order to do this he is required to put on several plays of a 'Biblical' nature for the titillation of their imminent (hopefully) financier. The plays all examine the latent sexuality of the stories, and in doing so challenge the hypocrisy of the sixteenth century religious establishment. The plays lead to public debate that starts out as free speech and soon descends into anything but. In the meantime the on stage sexual displays get hotter and lewder to a point where the 'legitimate voyeurism' of the audience is replaced with something more akin to mob rule or directorial influence. As the analysis falls away it is replaced by accusation and retribution and the audience become the players in what is ever closer to recreation of sins of the past and nothing to do with public debate and discourse.

Now this is a film from Peter Greenaway ('The Cook, the thief, his wife and her lover') who is known for making controversial stuff. This has full frontal nudity throughout with on screen copulation aplenty. The story is mostly developed with a running narrative from Goltzius to camera. There is , at the beginning, a lot of comparisons to art history and portrayals of the characters from the Bible from Adam and Eve to Sodom and Gomorrah. Also most of the shots are overlaid with other scenes that add extra animation but can become distracting.

The camera angles are often split and even bent to give the idea that everything is in 'the round'. The idea of moving in circles is a constant feature with even a circular stage - even the chamber music players rotate.

So is it any good? Well it is so art-house that to not like it marks one as being in bed with the Philistines. But this is two hours of often alienating camera devices and 'art' nudity, which will not be to everyone's taste and the language is fairly 'earthy' too. It was amusing in places, challenging in others and almost self indulgent in places too. It was far from ordinary and, as far as alternative cinematic experiences go, it was one to be remembered. If you like your cinema a bit cutting edge and not afraid to challenge a few taboos I think you will be a fan, if your tastes are more 'vanilla' then might want to give it a miss - either way it is a film I am glad to have experienced.

Another visual feast from Greenway whom remains imaginative, perfectly frammed and ever a teller of stories. There is little else I can say to fans, but I can say to naysayers, typically disgusted by the natural, normative human form: stay away. This film and this director is not for you.