Review of The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989) by Tristan G — 01 Feb 2008

Unforgettable, original, and beyond brilliant! THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE, AND HER LOVER, directed by Peter Greenaway, is a film about politics, cannibalism, throw up, love, death, betrayal, torture, revenge, and making a stand.

It is a black comedy/crime film about four characters, one of whom is smart and curious, one who stands by and does nothing, one who is a very deeply messed up victim, and one who is a very evil person who is the reason why the previous person is is so deeply messed up.

The owner of a particular French restaurant(the thief) occupies it daily in order to stuff his fat face and beat on the poor innocent bystanders who aren't allowed to do a thing about it. The only person who could possibly stop him(the cook) is too afraid to due to how powerful the thief is.

The thief's wife(his wife) is beaten, raped, and humiliated every day by the thief and can't escape no matter what. She falls in love with another man at another table(her lover) and begins to have a rather passionate and hot affair with him.

What results is one of the most over the top films ever made. Peter Greenaway has created a film that is unlike anything that has ever been made before. It is a film that is so disgusting and dark and tasteless, and yet so beautiful and intelligent and fresh that it must be seen to be believed.

All of the performances are unforgettable, especially Helen Mirren as the wife, in a heart wrenching performance. Michael Gambon is really really scary and creepy as the thief. People can discuss the political implications that the film implies all they want.

It could be a comment on the old days of Thatcherism, meaning that the thief is supposed to be Margret Thatcher, the cook, like the government that doesn't stop her, the wife being the citizens, and the lover being the foreign aid.

It could be considered a comment of liberals and conservatives, the thief being a leading republican who doesn't listen, and the cook being the democrats who don't do a single thing to stop it, the wife being the poor people who have to suffer from it, and the lover, again, being the foreign aid.

I really don't care about that stuff though. Even if that's what the film is about, it isn't why I love it. I love it because it challenges me and the way I feel that film should be depicted.

This is the kind of film that reminds me that people in the film industry can still make intelligent, smart, and brilliant films without having to pile on the excess. The film works because it is not only effective, but it is also original storytelling.

The film's use of set design only amplifies the way it is presents and gives the film even more meaning with it's vibrant colors and the way that each set piece in the entire film represents a different color of the rainbow.

The music by Michael Nyman is simply one of the most chilling and unforgettable scores I've heard in a film. It only enhances the beauty of the film though. Also worth mentioning again is the thief character and ow he seems to be the only kind of person who has the ability to make it in this world seeing as he's rich.

He is, indeed, also the most "normal" person in the whole film. He's charismatic, leading, has a sense of humor, and seems to be the only person in the film who knows what he's doing while everyone else around him are "freaks" who look strange, act strange, and are mostly crazy or helpless.

While the film is certainly not for everyone, especially children(although it won't be easy for them to view it given it's NC-17 rating), this film is for the kind of audience who likes to think and not just be shown something that will waste their time.

If this sounds like something you wouldn't be able to handle, you'd probably be best not watching it. The content will be too much for many people. For people who want to be challenged and shown a film that will make them view the world in a different way, It's a must see.

It's a real tough one to find, but if you can find it, watch it!!! If you live nearby, I believe I found it on vhs at Videostop in Hanover and in Lebanon a few times. This is one of my personal favorites.

I hope it gets released on DVD again soon. Still, I have to say, This is a really bizarre film when you really look at it. I mean, think about what it's about. On one level, you have a film about a greedy idiot who owns a French food place who continues to repeatedly embarrasses and destroys a cook, the kitchen staff, his wife, and pretty much everybody around him, including his henchmen.

In one scene, he harasses a customer in a public bathroom and then kicks him out when he threatens to talk to the manager. In another scene, he interrupts a man whose head is buried in his novel and introduces him to his wife, who he barks orders at.

In another scene, he tricks one of his henchmen, played by Tim Roth, into eating a sheep's buttock. He has a wife who obviously is too good for him but for some reason is still with him. She sneaks away from the table in order to have an incredibly steamy affair with a stranger and she just does this over and over again.

This is one way to look at the film. On another level, it could be looked at as a film about an idiot who consumes the environment and destroys the resources while people who need to use them are humiliated and embarrassed.

He is with somebody who is forced to follow him and obey him, and she meets up with an outside source to evade the idiot's tactics. A viewer can look at this film however they want, but what sets this apart from other films is how angry it is.

The film is full of garish colors and ferocious tone. From beginning to end, the film is uncompromising in it's anger. The first shot in the film is that of dogs eating meat. But no, these aren't just any old dogs.

These are dalmatians. In case you don't know, dalmatians are dogs that are well-known for being completely white, with black spots covering them. It's this sort of intense excessiveness that parades about the film like a cricket.

As if this isn't intense enough, there is a scene later on in which the idiot husband runs a dog over. The film doesn't show the impact of the car and the dog, but rather shows the car backing up, a sound of a dog yelping, and then the car taking off with the disemboweled dog in the foreground.

This type of violence happens a lot in this film. In one scene, we see a woman get stabbed in the face with a kitchen fork. We see the impact of the kitchen fork, but it's from a distance, so we can't feel it.

We can only observe it happening, without quickly cutting to the close-up to her face and the blood and the nasty sound effect. We see the aftermath of the attack, with a man attempting to pull the fork out of her face.

The camera moves up so that we don't see the process. The audience cannot dwell on these sorts of details because the story is still moving. But it is difficult to get the sight out of the head, not because it's something we haven't see before because it is, but because it happened so quickly and without any sort of clear purpose except to add a gross-out moment.

But the scene isn't gratuitous enough to be a gross out moment. This same effect was used in RESERVOIR DOGS and FARGO. In RESERVOIR DOGS, we have a brutal scene in which the Mr. Blonde character tortures a cop by slicing off his ear and slashing up his face.

We never see any of the impacts of the actions, but rather we feel like we do. They dwell on the aftermath in such an intense way that it gives us that sense of viewing an incredible act of violence. In FARGO, there is an indescribably disturbing and extremely gruesome sequence in which we witness a crook put his partner's body parts into a wood chipper.

We see the blood, guts, bones, and bowels all over the ground and spraying out of the wood chipper, but it happens from such a distance that we don't get the full effect of how horrible it is to watch because our faces aren't shoved in it.

It's an incredibly unique and honest way to show violence. But enough about the violence. Lets talk about the characters. The characters are incredibly creepy. The wife is probably one of the most depressing characters in motion-picture history.

Her change from distanced wife to passionate lover, to fierce avenger is as terrifying a transformation as I have ever seen. The character of the lover is a quiet and fascinating man to look at. He reads his books endlessly, he says very little throughout the film, and when he does speak it's quite beautiful.

He's the kind of character that you just want to see more of. The character of the cook is glimpsed at throughout the film in such brief and bizarre ways. His scenes are just awkward, his and the rest of the cast.

There are deformed and disturbed creatures all over the place. There is a young kitchen boy with white hair who is one of the first to be seen in the food place. He is seen singing rather nicely, but his presence is remarkably unnerving.

When he is one screen, he is the only person that draws the most attention from the audience due to his general strangeness. He is like the little boy with the rabbit ears in GUMMO. Aside from him, we also have people who look like they belong in a goth-rock show, weirdos with crazed faces, and inhuman henchmen who do unspeakable things to customers in the background.

Which brings me to what is the creepiest thing about this film. The nastiest character in the whole film, the character of the annoying idiot husband, is the most human character in the whole film! He is the only character who seems to have a kind of reality to him.

He is the only character in the whole film who isn't artificial. This character isn't a character. He's an evil man. It's such a disturbing feeling to watch this film. We are horrified by his actions and what he does to the other characters in the film.

He is the nastiest villain we've ever seen, and yet, he is the only character that we can identify with! So what is Peter Greenaway getting at by doing this to us? I think that he is trying to say that since this man consumes and wastes the environment and goes around denying crisis that so many people are worried about and want to have be dealt with, he may be what survives.

All the characters in the film is gross except the character of the lover. He is a sweet man who is concerned with all the issues and does his part to help deal with everything. He has a relaxing presence, he's a refreshing character in this circus of freaks, and he has a decent and average look to his face and his body.

The evil husband constantly attacks people's weaknesses. He mocks men who are circumcised, he mocks Ethiopians and their weight, and he constantly refers to his wife's gynecologist as a Jew, among other things.

We, the audience, would never pick on people with these sorts of things. Not only does he not have any morals and has no sense of restraint, but he also does it all in a fiercely chilling way. And yet, for some reason, the audience strangely feels sorry for him.

The revenge aspect of the film is done in such a gleefully planned way that it's truly brutal when the revenge act is carried out. The audience feels drained and shocked by the entire situation. The music is remarkably intense and frightening, sounding almost like horror movie music.

We are completely disgusted with ourselves for watching this, and really repulsed by it's uncompromising intensity. So I think that the film is able to create some truly genuine horror. We view the film in the way that we'd view a car pile up.

We know that it's too horrible and difficult to watch and we don't want to, but we have to so that we know what happens. This film takes that whole experience and pushes it to such an extreme that we aren't sickened and grossed out and instead feel disturbed by the reality of the situations these characters put themselves in.

It would be incredibly strange to view this film and not feel bad for the actors. These actors do things that normal actors probably would never want to do, but these actors relish in the acts because they obviously have great respect with what the film has to say.

It is an incredibly dangerous film if it were watched by the wrong people. Some people will simply be outraged by the material and what the film could possibly be implying. It is difficult to digest that this film could exist.

There is a lot of shamelessness to the brutality and horror of the film. If you have seen Peter Jackson's MEET THE FEEBLES, imagine a live-action version of that film and you'll have an idea of how unearthly and unwholesome the entire film is.

To understand the film, you have to want to watch it with an open mind. You have to allow the film to show you things that you don't want to see. This isn't the kind of film that you can cover your eyes to.

This isn't the kind of film that you groan at during the graphic scenes. You need to watch the film and allow the actions of the characters speak for themselves. You have to watch, knowing that you will have a difficult time understanding what these people are trying to do to each other.

It's completely difficult, I won't deny it. I would even go so far as to say that this film horrified me in a way that makes it difficult for me to think about. It's a film that I came out of, completely speechless and looking like a ghost.

It's a hard film to recommend to people, but this is why the film is so effective. It touches a nerve that many people don't think about having touched. The film challenges everybody's views and opinions and forces somebody to adapt to this sort of rationale.

The only other film in recent memory that has done this to me is CHILDREN OF MEN. You can leave the film disgusted and regretful, but you will not leave unmarked and changed.