The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 3: From Sark to Finish (2004): Writers are corrupt

The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 3: From Sark to Finish (2004)
dir: Peter Greenaway

In the previous 2 movies, Greenaway has taken the time to explore each stop of Tulse Luper's episodic life. He would spend 40 minutes on each station, and linger on each stage to explore the themes each episode reveals. But, for a reason I haven't entirely fathomed yet, Greenaway turns up the pacing in Part 3, rushing through the final 10 episodes in one 2 hour blast. Some of these episodes seem to be 2 minutes in length, while he spends an extraordinary amount of time both on Sark, and near a border between the East and West that developed in Europe.

After Tulse Luper's escape from Northern France, he finds himself on a coast on the island of Sark, which is just outside of Normandy. On Sark, he develops himself as a writer, writing stories on the cliffs of the beach in which he is now trapped. There he is visited by three sisters, each of which lust after him, and then decide that none can have him.

Sark itself, is an island that belongs to Guernsey, a British dependency off the coast of France, which also has its own parliament. This is an island that is 2.1 sqmi in area, and also has a population of 600.  This island exists. And, from 1940-1945, it was occupied by the Germans during World War II. But, unlike other significant locations, Greenaway doesn't even explain what Sark is.

Greenaway's focus on storytelling, and the three sisters, explores the difference between Parts 1 and 2, and Part 3. Part 3 begins to explore the sick rotting interior of the writer. Its an attempt to focus on both propaganda and the dangers of fiction. The rivers of Europe were beginning to fill with corpses, as World War II was coming to a close. The Nazis, believing they were doing the right thing, were killing the corrupt (Jews, homosexuals, dissidents, etc) in 3s. They would tie them up, and kill two of them, then throw them into a river to let the third drown. At least, in Greenaway's world.

Finally, Tulse ended up at a border between the west and the east, as a prisoner (as usual). There, he was forced to write 1001 stories for the guard's wife, whom he was also schtupping in order to give her a child. Eventually, many of the still surviving characters end up at this gate, in an attempt to get him across. And, in the end, he makes it.

Ultimately, in the final episode, we discover this whole 3 movie epic is actually an in-movie fiction. Tulse Luper actually dies in Episode 1, and the other episodes have been a fictional character created by that friend mentioned in the beginning, Martino Knockavelli. Sure, Martino would pop up periodically to involve himself, but the whole movie is a fiction within a fiction.

Greenaway, by exposing this whole history, and pseudo-documentary, to be a complete meta-fiction, is engaging in a conversation about the corruption of documentaries, as well as the corruption of the screen, and the corruption of writers in general. He focused much of this part on Luper's writing, including his 1001 fictions, and his cliff writing, but Luper didn't exist, and those stories were actually the fiction of Knockavelli. As such, the documentaries are the works of the victors, and the ruling class.

Part 3 completely rewrites the understanding of Parts 1 and 2, which had been hinted at by the out-of-time Moutessiers in Part 2. And the unverifiable Mormons of Part 1. Greenaway is having a lark, and playing a game, which is in line with the cinema he engages in. He exposes trappings, boredom and also tries to subvert our expectations at every turn. After a 6 hour investment, we don't expect that our whole story has been a lie by Greenaway.

How does the audience deal with this information? What are we supposed to do with this/ Is it all a complete lark, as it seemed to be in The Holy Mountain? Is Greenaway making a gigantic F for Fake that kind of fails because of its sheer scope before you get to the punchline? Was this perfected in his Rembrandt's J'Accuse? The main takeaway I got from this whole windup is don't believe anything. Don't believe what's been constructed. Don't believe the fictions. Don't believe the victor-written histories. Don't believe the loser-written histories. Everything is false. The very act of writing is a corrupting act.

Does that make this watchable? Worth it? Is it a lesson we need repeated? Is that even the lesson? Greenaway's movies cause us to ask so many questions, it is totally fascinating for me to watch, but is probably an exercise in frustration to the usual audience, who probably could use the lesson most.

The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 2: Vaux to the Sea (2004): Europeans are corrupt

The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 2: Vaux to the Sea (2004)
dir: Peter Greenaway

In The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 1, Peter Greenaway brought Tulse Luper from London to America to Belgium in a long and windy way of showing the various forces at work in the development of uranium into the atomic bomb. But, also showing the various aspects of society through the early 20th century, from the British devastation from World War 1 to the Mormon movement to the Nazi takeover of Europe.

This time around, Greenaway stays largely in France, to show the effects of the Nazi occupation through three different scenarios. In Part 1, Greenaway had to spend time getting the audience used to his style by re-iterating the facts frequently, and reintroducing us to characters. In Part 2, Greenaway figured that, if you're 2 hours into this experiment you should know what is coming. Eliminating the adjustment period allows Greenaway to focus on his other indulgences, such as architectural history, cinema history, and art history.

Part 2 covers episodes 4-6 of Tulse Luper's life. Remember that The Tulse Luper Suitcases is also "a life in 16 episodes" and "the personal history of Uranium." With these 3 episodes, Tulse Luper makes the run through France in an attempt to escape the Nazis, or at least save his own ass.

Episode 4 is set in Vaux-le-Vicomte, a French chateau built by Nicholas Fouquet, and also a source of jealousy from King Louis XIV. Of course, it is well known that the Nazis, during their occupation of France raided museums and palaces in order to steal valuable works of art. But, Fouquet was arrested and imprisoned by the jealous Louis XIV, who would create an ode to it in Versailles, and raid Vaux-le-Vicomte in order to fill Versailles with art and tapestries. Greenaway hammers the parallels home through elaborate scenes that take place in the 17th century. Tulse Luper is rescued by a Nazi soldier and a woman, in a relationship. But, as they are fleeing, the soldier kicks the woman out of the car.

Episode 5 regards a French cinema, which is running under Nazi occupation. The cinema shows mainly silent films, such as The Passion of Joan of Arc. While running the cinema, Tulse falls into an orgiastic group where he starts interacting with film and with the stories he sees. Also, the dumped woman finds him, and plots to kill a Nazi in the cinema. But, actually then is going to kill him, with Tulse's help, in a Cathedral. Tulse narrowly escapes this situation.

Episode 6 brings us to a house in Northern France with the Moitessiers, who are a bit out of their time element. The Moitessiers agree to hire Tulse Luper as their children's tutor, but they can only hire women. So, Tulse must dress as a woman. Monseiur Moitessier had had an affair with the previous nanny-dude, and would like one with Tulse. Meanwhile, Madame Moitessier is a cold, brutal woman who takes pleasure in abusing the help. When the world crumbles around them, Luper makes his bolt for the sea.

As in the previous episode, Greenaway's goal isn't to tell a completely coherent story about Luper. But, he's telling a story of European history, and European corruption. In the beginning of Part 2, Greenaway pointedly kills the Americans from Part 1, so that we can focus more on his history of corruption in the European vein. While saying that Nazis are corrupt would have been a facile statement, Greenaway isn't ever content with something so basic.

All three episodes are about the corruption of the ruling parties of Europe through history. He explores the corruption of the European government through the incidents between Louis XIV and Fouquet. This corruption is also evident not only through the wrongful imprisonment of Fouquet, the stealing of a bunch of erotic woodprints, statues and tapestries. But, the corruption is also shown through Fouquet's abandonment of traditional architecture by crafting Vaux wholly from his head, or something. And, in a way, he started to define a whole new architectural language...according to Greenaway.

The second episode explores the corruption of everyday people, setting the cinema as a place where both Nazis frequently went, and also the people went to be entertained by corruption. The historical corruption is explored through the corruption that lead to the burning of Joan of Arc. Greenaway, of course, isn't content for just Joan of Arc, and even wraps his own movies into the story of the European corruption.

The third episode is more about the corruption of complacency, especially in the complacent rich. While the Moitessiers didn't exist during the 20th century, they are used as examples of aristocracy believing that they can use people in order to get what they want. Whether this is by having drag servants that they abused sexually, or by having Black assistants they abused physically, they used their "cover" and the Nazi occupation to get their sick jollies out. The help was never altruistic, nor was it all that help. It begs the question whether this is actually the better choice, considering the last Nanny had been murdered. This whole corruption was exposed through two portraits of Madam Moitessier which had been started and finished at vastly different times. This would be a predecessor to Greenaway's Rembrandt's J'Accuse.

Greenaway is showing his hand even more than he did in Part 1. Cursory research finds the times Greenaway gives for Moitessier to be different than WWII, and Tulse Luper's life. So, why does he include it? What is he saying using these two specific people? Greenaway's postmodern style starts to rip itself apart, including two actors playing Tulse Luper, which may or may not be showing Luper's maturity, or may just be a way to get around long-term scheduling conflicts and budgeting.

But, Part 2 is the typical middle movie, where nothing much is added to the original. If you want to see Greenaway fucking around with European Nazi fiction, Part 2 is for you. It gets to his corrupt fantasies. Hell, it practically seems that Tarantino trainspotted the cinema scenes from the second episode for Inglorious Basterds, where it seemed very much, for a few minutes, that the lady was going to kill a head Nazi, and not just the guy who ditched her. But, it doesn't seem to add much other than getting Luper out to the sea, and out of the main battlegrounds of WWII so he can flourish.

The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 1: The Moab Story (2003): Americans are corrupt

The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 1: The Moab Story (2003)
dir: Peter Greenaway

Peter Greenaway has been at the forefront of pseudo-interactive cinema. Starting with The Pillow Book, Greenaway was beginning to experiment with cinema that broke every rule of conventional and arthouse cinema by using onscreen text, screens within screens, scenes within scenes, juxtapositions, voice-overs, repetition, overlaid imagery, intentionally fake sets, image projection, and a whole variety of other methods that smashed through the fourth wall with the force of a wrecking ball. In no other place has this more heavy-handed than here in The Tulse Luper Suitcases.

The Tulse Luper Suitcases is a huge scope of a project. It has its roots as a web project which was a sort of contest examining the life of Tulse Luper through 92 characters in his life, 92 suitcases he left behind, 1001 stories he had to write, and 92 random objects of life. 92 is the Atomic number of Uranium, which is a major theme in The Tulse Luper Suitcases, which is subtitled The Personal History of Uranium.

The website for The Tulse Luper Suitcases, however, appears still somewhat unfinished, as it is supposed to be a whole network of suitcases, events, characters, and real life history. But, as you'll see over the next three days, The Tulse Luper Suitcases isn't simple or easy.

Following The Tulse Luper Suitcases website were three 2-hour movies. Six hours to explore the life of Tulse Luper. Following that, there was a television show of 16 episodes, which seems to use a lot of the footage of the initial 2 hour movies (and has close to the same running length), as well as A Life in Suitcases which is a condensation of the 6 hour edition into 2 hours.

And, following the website, the 3 movies, the re-edited movie, and the television show, Greenaway also had installations which explored the life of Tulse Luper through the use of short repeated videos projected on multiple screens throughout a warehouse. In essence, the Tulse Luper Suitcases are the basis of what is now termed a Vine, in that most of these videos are very very short loops of 10 seconds or less. But, Greenaway used these to form a singular pastiche as an installation.

One of the debates that should be surrounding The Tulse Luper Suitcases is whether any of the above information is actually necessary to the project. Should the movies be stand alone films completely separate from the website? Or, should everything be taken as one big whole with the installations, that very few people had a chance to see, and the website and the show and the films all recalling and informing each other, making this a project for one person to get lost in for months as they create the lists upon lists and networks that the website was attempting to make.

The review that follows, as well as the next 2 reviews, will ignore all of the other media and focus solely on the 3 2-hour movies. While, I am not of the mind that no project can have appendices outside the main body of work, if a project is of a large enough scale, then each piece should be able to stand on its own.

The Moab Story

Peter Greenaway has stated that Tulse Luper is his alter ego. Indeed, Tulse Luper has had periodic references made to him throughout Greenaway's oeuvre. But, Tulse Luper is also a physical parallel to the development of Uranium in the modern world. And, to top it off, he's also a figure to explore the various aspects that eventually went into the development of the bomb.

The film version of The Tulse Luper Suitcases is subtitled "a life in 16 episodes," with the first movie containing the first three episodes of Tulse Luper's life, moving Luper from London to Utah to Belgium in episodic formats during the run up to World War II.

The first episode is Tulse Luper as a child in London, playing World War I games with his friends. They had a game crossing yards which were in reference to the historic areas or battles of World War 1. At the end, they break the final wall and Luper is punished by his father with imprisonment in a shed. Though, his friend Martino Knockavelli visits him and tries to define him according to a book with facial elements segmented out.

The second episode is Tulse Luper exploring Moab, Utah around the time of discovery of Uranium in Utah. While he is looking around at old abandoned towns, and discovering the importance of Utah, he also spies on a hot Mormon wife, and is punished through honey and bees to the genitalia...and then through imprisonment again.

The third episode is Tulse Luper writing in Belgium during the rise of the Nazi party, with his friend Martino while also looking after friends of the Mormons. Until he is imprisoned again, and the Mormon family comes looking for him and for everybody else.

These three episodes just form the bare bones plot on which Greenaway does whatever the fuck he wants to the structure, themes, and style. Some of the post-modern structural elements will stretch through the three movies, some only through two, and others only through this one movie. But, they're all telling.

The three episodes in Part 1 are separated by auditions for the various characters in the movie. The characters will repeat lines that haven't happened, yet, change actors or actresses, and faux-explore the various elements that go into movie making. In a way, Greenaway is having a conversation with the audience, and also with other movies that have preceded him.

It's rather obvious that Tulse Luper's three main conversationalists are History Channel documentaries, Zelig, and Forrest Gump. But, Luper borrows deconstructive elements of the hyperlink culture we started living in, some of which was seen in early adopter movies like Run Lola Run, sketch comedy shows, and sitcom cartoons like The Critic. Of course, Greenaway had already been exploring the limits of the frame and the constant delivery of condensed information since The Pillow Book and Drowning By Numbers.

With The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Greenaway begins deconstructing the constructions of the historical documentaries and biographic shows, and also pointing fingers at the fictionalization of historic events through popular culture. The set he constructed for London was an open stage set with cardboard blocks to represent the various yards or sections that the children crossed. A deconstructionist trait that Greenaway shared with Lars Von Trier's 2003 released Dogville, which even removed those walls for a completely open set.

By exposing the filmic trappings of set design as pure constructionist fiction, Greenaway already opens his firing shots at discussing the corruption of the world. Corruption, of course, being one of the most major themes in every single episode of The Tulse Luper Suitcases. In the first episode, the father is corrupt, the game children play is corrupt, the fictionalization is corrupt, the rehearsals we're shown are probably corrupt, the suitcases are corrupt. Everything is a corrupt commentary on everything else.

As I mentioned, Greenaway isn't just content to tell the story in a linear format. The traditional narrative film is frequently interrupted by talking head historians who are putting false context to the events happening, explaining or over explaining the story, and also introducing us to the various suitcases, most of which are filled with elements taken directly from the story, or with symbolic gestures that comment on the story.

In additional to that, Greenaway uses a style of placing frames over frames, sometimes of the same event, and using the same dialogue, starting to expose the repetition in modern culture for the confused corruption that it is.  We see commercials on repeat, we hear songs played over and over again on the radio, and this was just before America would be plagued by that terrible commercial for HeadOn. By constantly interrupting his own various styles, Greenaway participates in a cinema of frustration. All of our traditional narrative expectations are destroyed, and we try to build our own network of events and suitcases and history, all of which has been corrupted and fictionalized by Greenaway.

Greenaway uses the techniques the heaviest in the first 40 minutes, as he's acclimating us to the techniques he'll be using, as well as to the world he is creating. He will frequently return to his techniques throughout the films, but as he moves into the world of Moab, Utah and Belgium, Greenaway more and more frequently allows the story to play through for longer periods of time.

The main story-based element that Greenaway is criticizing in this first part are the Americans. He seems to be criticizing their handling of the first World War in the London segment. In the Moab, Utah section, he is openly critiquing the weird hyper religions, capitalism, the obsession for torture, and the self-serving nature of Americans. By the time we get to Beligum, and the Mormons enter sided with the Nazis, Greenaway is being completely critical of the Americans, even going so far to hint that they are more corrupt than the Nazis themselves. The Americans in Belgium act more like jackbooted thugs who rape, abuse and imprison people at their will, moreso than the Nazis do on screen.

Contrastingly, Tulse Luper is the constant victim in the first three episodes. He's imprisoned by his father for playing a game. Luper is tortured for spying on the Mormon wife. He is again imprisoned for succumbing to her charms after he was tortured. And, in Belgium, he's imprisoned by the Nazis and then by the Americans as Nazis. By making Luper be an ineffectual victim, Greenaway is starting to expose the corruption of our victim culture, where people who sacrifice are considered to be better people than the ones who do the punishing.

What Greenaway does in Part 1 is lay the corrupt groundwork for Tulse Luper's corrupt journey through the world of World War II, and the history of the 20th century. He introduces his dense post-modern techniques, and basically informs the viewers that, if they can't keep up with his attitude, they're going to suffer. The Tulse Luper Suitcases is a game within a conversation within a corruption within a movie, and it forces you to keep up or die. Some will say that it is cinema of the unpleasant, but I find this overindulgence entertaining, even if it is kind of exhausting.