On the first sight this is one of numerous attempts to make a Shakespeare movie. Yes, it looks rather like a spectacle than a film. First impression is that it is a very-very strange movie. Actors are deliberately artificial. Make up is intentionally thick. Gestures are exaggerated. People are silent. You hear music and reader's voice. I thought watching it - what's it exactly? A try to say a new word on a topic which is equal to four hundred years?.. Try to say a new word of it, just try, okay.
Time passed. Several years.
By the time a new adaptation of 'Tempest' appeared, with Helen Mirren as Prospero. And what's the matter? I found that I can not watch another 'Tempest' shot by any other director. All of them look like wrong, WEAK and stupid. All of them look like fakes. (I love Helen Mirren, I adore her works and her appearance in every film is welcomed by me. But not in 'Tempest' - and it is not her fault.)
Wow, I thought, what a surprise! The movie by Peter Greenaway - for me - is the Best 'Tempest' I have ever seen - and I'm afraid - I will ever see. It is so right as it can be. The text is a pure contradictory fantasy of the poet and Mr. Greenaway makes it into reality, breathes a life into it showing it with all means which do not offer ready images for us and, on the contrary, he turns a spectator's imagination on and involves us into a game with images. Do you know such another director or another film which makes it with a spectator? It is closer to a real Globe staging. It is a miracle. And it is a fantastic masterpiece.
Do I recommend it to everyone? I don't. It is very-very specific. It is not for everyone. Just like something collectible, something valuable, rare and fragile. Something you would prefer not to show for everyone not to break an atmosphere around it. And it takes several years to understand what it really IS. Just like in life ... when you live and do something whatever, and then several years later you suddenly catch your thought that it was a happiest time in your life. So this film is something of that kind (for me). You may understand what it IS not immediately after watching.
Time passed. Several years.
By the time a new adaptation of 'Tempest' appeared, with Helen Mirren as Prospero. And what's the matter? I found that I can not watch another 'Tempest' shot by any other director. All of them look like wrong, WEAK and stupid. All of them look like fakes. (I love Helen Mirren, I adore her works and her appearance in every film is welcomed by me. But not in 'Tempest' - and it is not her fault.)
Wow, I thought, what a surprise! The movie by Peter Greenaway - for me - is the Best 'Tempest' I have ever seen - and I'm afraid - I will ever see. It is so right as it can be. The text is a pure contradictory fantasy of the poet and Mr. Greenaway makes it into reality, breathes a life into it showing it with all means which do not offer ready images for us and, on the contrary, he turns a spectator's imagination on and involves us into a game with images. Do you know such another director or another film which makes it with a spectator? It is closer to a real Globe staging. It is a miracle. And it is a fantastic masterpiece.
Do I recommend it to everyone? I don't. It is very-very specific. It is not for everyone. Just like something collectible, something valuable, rare and fragile. Something you would prefer not to show for everyone not to break an atmosphere around it. And it takes several years to understand what it really IS. Just like in life ... when you live and do something whatever, and then several years later you suddenly catch your thought that it was a happiest time in your life. So this film is something of that kind (for me). You may understand what it IS not immediately after watching.