A Zed & Two Noughts (1990)

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Admirable film.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

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.

To those of you who think this is an intelligent film, I say wake up and smell the rotting carrion. This flick is about as intelligent and subtle as a suicide bomb. There are a lot of ostensibly clever puns, but Greenaway feels the need to smash us over the head with them, like a bad comedian who keeps repeating the punchline with "did you get it? did you get it??" Take the title for example. A zed and two noughts. Mildly clever. But Greenaway feels the need to bash us in the face with it, with (literally) neon signs saying ZOO throughout the flick. Peter, I think anyone with a heartbeat gets it, OK? Similarly, he grosses us out to no end with disgusting rotting corpses. Again this is his way of saying "Gross, eh? Are you grossed out? Are you grossed out? How bout I throw in a penis? Now are you grossed out? A naked fat chick?" This is not cinema. This is not intelligent expression. It's abstract, visceral "potty art". People who think farts are funny will think Greenaway is intelligent. Avoid this film, and while you're at it, avoid all Greenaway films. They're all the same.

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

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.