User Reviews

"I think my films are always quite self-reflexive and always question 'why am I doing this, is this the right way to do it, what is cinema for, does it have a purpose?"

I'm glad I could find that quote from the man responsible of that film that had me scratching my head for hours and whistling its infectiously catchy tune. Indeed, Peter Greenaway's "The Draughtsman's Contract", directed in 1982, is one of these films that defy analysis and can only be approached through sketches drawn on your own intuition's boards, I watched it three times in a row and I know now that a fourth time will do no good.

And so I figured "what the heck?"... maybe there are some movies that are deliberately unreachable because even the author would fail to be explicit without betraying his own vision. Though I know some would label that film as pretentious nonsense, Greenaway's quote is the perfect getaway: he doesn't aim at the viewers with his films, he doesn't even aim at himself, what he knows is that the film comes from his own inspiration and that's what matters, the rest belongs to cinema.

But I'm sure I would have joined the bandwagon of criticism if it wasn't for one thing the film gets right and that any viewer can agree with: its photogenic beauty. After all, this is a film set in 1695 and so the baroque style invites itself into the picture and we have these intimate shots embedded in stark contrasts like in Caravaggio's paintings, not to mention an orgy of costume designs and make-up combining the most grotesque extremes of the so-called civilized world.

Greenaway while delighting your eyes with such visual marvels also provides great landscape shots that for once, serve a purpose and aren't there to look pretty on the camera. And so we have the beauty and simplicity of geometry and the treacherous nature of the upper-class waltzing together under the triumphant music of Michael Nymar, inspired by Henry Purcell. To put it simply, this is a film that is beautiful to look at and listen to, but that shouldn't take away the bizarreness of the plot..

In fact, the opening prepares to it with many conversations about architecture, one about many streaks of reservoirs dug under an estate could foreshadow the web of intrigues, and it reminded me of the reputation of the Versailles Palace in France, which as beautiful as it was, couldn't cover the stink in the corridors, visitors satisfying their urgent needs in hidden corners. But I'm digressing, let's get back to the film.

The film centers on a landscaper Mr. Neville (Anthony Haggins) who's too arrogant not to be a real ace in his trade, and there are two aristocratic couples: Mr. And Mrs. Herbert (Dave Hill and Janet Suzman) and their daughter and son-in-law the Talmans (Anne-Louise Lambert and Hugh Fraser). Neville signs a contract with the mother (let's call her that way for the sake of clarity), he must produce twelve landscape drawings of her country house, gardens and outbuildings included. Then Nevill adds a clause that's so special I could only copy-paste it: to meet Mr. Neville in private and to comply with his requests concerning his pleasure with me."

O tempora, o mores... I guess. Anyway, the sequences showing the process of sketching are fantastic to watch and the music just brings that energy that seems to prepare you to something. And then there's the mystery with many needless details intruding in the drawings: empty boots, a ladder, anything that look too incongruous but whose presence seem to prepare for something. There is also an odd man disguised as a statue and who doesn't do anything but appear but he, too must be there for a purpose.

Meanwhile, interactions consist merely on the mother honoring her part of the contract (not that she takes pleasure out of it), and Neville making fun of her son-in-law. Needless to say that Neville makes many enemies during the journey and when they try to cancel the contract, he refuses and one thing leading to another, it's the daughter taking the mother's place (since she inherited from her mother the talent to get the wrong man).

There's a lot going on, inheritance problems, absence of children, everything building up to a murder that occurs at two thirds of the film. And when you think that Neville had the making of a suave villain, he becomes the victim of his own shenanigans and his cockiness ends up backfiring at him, making him learn the hart way that one can't be pompous too long and as they say in French, the man just farted higher than his own... bottom. And at that point I won't spoil the rest of the film.

What Greenaway tried to express in his exhilaration of art and through its parallel with the things of flesh, a quest for pleasure within the work or maybe how an artist is immediately an outcast in his world. There's also a strange combination between the rigorism of his work and they way he lets loose details interfere with it, as if by lowering his guard that little, he would cause his own demise.

Anyway, I learned to lower my guard a little too and not expect to get a film, I'm sure there is a riddle in the film that wouldn't be solved even after ten times of viewing but I guess this is the kind of movies that tells pretty much something about the artist as much as it does about the art, and when he doesn't tell, it shows.

One valid and simple criticism, maybe Greenaway got carried away with the lighting and the wigs that he made it difficult to figure who's who (even the mother and daughter looked like they could be sisters).

Hugely enjoyable, if somewhat a tad too clever for its own good. A very good English director's attempt to be more continental, by being deliberately obscure, and throwing in large dollops of raunchy eroticism. Imagine if you will an episode of PBS's Mystery set during the Restoration, with a script by Einstein, and direction by Frederico Fellini.

Two excellent stage actors - Anthony Higgins and Janet Suzman - in combination with the very sultry and seldom seen Australian actress Anne Louise Lambert, act their sexy sox off in this delightful delicate pastry of a movie. In the year 1694 an artist is commissioned to create a series of precise drawings of an enormous country house. The twist is that his agreed form of payment is most unusual.

Michael Nyman's score is a careful, yet loud, modern arrangement with contemporary wind and string instruments. The photography by Curtis Clark is incredible, and these two creative artists convince you, you are in the 17th Century. The interior scenes are lit only by candlelight - as was also the case in Kubrick's superb historical masterpiece Barry Lyndon. This movie somehow combines elements of sophisticated themes of woman's self-empowerment, the inhumanity of the aristocracy, mathematics, and Benny Hill eroticism. Really rather wonderful and unique, but also in-retrospect, less than the sum of its parts. For a superior Peter Greenaway picture, try Drowning By Numbers, A Zed and Two Naughts, and The Cook, the Wife, etc..

Peter Greenaway's smart, outrageous, and utterly original historic movie is part comedy of manners and part murder mystery, as a late 17th century draughtsman (Anthony Higgins) is tasked with producing a series of drawings for the Herbert family estate by the lady of the manor (Janet Suzan) in order to please her husband, but he ends up pleasing himself with both Mrs Herbert and her daughter (Anne-Louise Herbert), before the husband is found dead in the moat and he becomes prime suspect in his murder. This was Greenaway's first conventional feature film, it shows him at his best and most playful, and is a calling card of dazzling virtuosity. The original cut ran in excess of three hours but was edited down to 103 minutes for release to make it easier to watch. It is still a puzzle box of a movie and a real strange delight though, featuring elaborate and slightly exaggerated (for eye catching effect) period costumes, a wonderful score by Michael Nyman which borrows widely from Henry Purcell, that reflects the period setting whilst managing to rock with a vengeance, and a 'living statue' that roams the garden unseen to all but children, it is a movie that you won't forget in a hurry. Incidentally, Greenaway trained as an artist before he became a filmmaker, and the hands seen drawing in the film are his own, as are the completed drawings.

A most extraordinary film. A fascinating study of manipulation and murder, of sex, power and the abuse of sex and power. This is not always an easy film to like, it has a coldly clinical approach to its subject and protagonists which produces an intentionally distancing effect.

In one scene, the Draughtsman invites the Lady of the House to examine a painting, owned by her husband, in which a complex allegory appears to be being acted out. I see this as an analogy for the film as a whole - it is an arch, stylised, intelligent and beautiful puzzle (a murder-mystery) in which the audience is encouraged to consider the motives and objectives of the characters, but from which many important clues appear to have been deliberately removed.

This might all sound frustrating, but I find the film endlessly intriguing and entertaining. It's like a very clever and stunningly photographed Agatha Christie mystery, but without an annoying sleuth who comes along at the end and solves everything "oh-so-neatly".

The photography is exemplary (the cinematographer, Curtis Clark, seems to have done little else of note), with the camera hardly moving at all, except for an occasional tracking shot. The Kent countryside used to maximum effect, and the costumes are sumptuous (especially the wigs!). The music is also superb, with Michael Nyman producing probably his finest score.

An engaging, puzzling, visually stunning and, ultimately, rather disturbing film.

Mr. Neville is a young arrogant artist full of himself. He is contracted to make landscape estate drawings by Mrs. Virginia Herbert. She has a bitter relationship with her wealthy landowning husband who leaves on a trip. She submits to Neville sexually as part of the contract. There is also her daughter Mrs. Talmann and her husband Mr. Talmann. The couple is childless taking care of his nephew. Mrs. Herbert tries to revoke the contract but Neville refuses. Mrs. Talmann blackmails Neville into entering a similar contract pointing out items in his drawings which indicate "misadventure". When Mr. Herbert is found dead in the moat, Neville is horrified to discover that he's the leading suspect.

This is an unusual film. It's a Shakespearian sex romp with a murder mystery. The style has long takes and mid to long distance visuals. The movie lost me the first time around. It can meander and the story can be mercurial. It would help a lot if the murder is shown even if the perpetrators are not. The individual clues need accompanying flashbacks to show that part of the crime. This has a certain amount of beauty and weird originality but it's not easy for everyone.

The first Peter Greenaway's feature "The Draughtsman's Contract" (1982) - is absolutely delightful, devilishly clever (just imagine the best Agatha Christy's mystery with all sorts of clues and suspects but without Poirot or Ms. Maple to explain in the end whodunit and why. You are on your own to try to figure out - everything you need to know is right there), and funny (Yes, Greenaway can be funny!) art film - the perfect example of an art film. It combines the elements of social satire with murder mystery, meditates on the power of art and role of an artist, studies family drama and mothers -daughters love and understanding, perfectly wraps it in sensual pleasure - and what the pleasure it is. I know I will watch it again because it is a feast for eyes (I've seen big budget movies that looked plain comparing to this one shot on the limited funds), ears (Michael Nyman wrote one of the best score ever for this film) and for brain - there are mysteries and puzzles in every frame and in every dialog.

There is couple of Greenaway's thoughts on his first film and on the films that influenced him from the interview that was published in L'Avant-Scene Cinema", No 333, October 1984:

"Majority of my films may be viewed on several levels. Thus, in "The Draughtsman's Contract" there was the desire to open the symbolism of plants and fruits, to study the connections between the aristocrats and the common people, the conflicts between the worlds of gentlemen and of servants. With my films, I hope to generate interest, to stimulate imagination, to wake feelings...

I consider that 90% of my films one way or another refers to paintings. "Contract" quite openly refers to Caravaggio, Georges de la Tour and other French and Italian artists...

Before the work on the film began, I did not explain to film crew what I wanted, but I showed them five European films: "Fellini's Casanova", "The Last Tango in Paris" by Bertolucci, "The Marquise of O" by Eric Rohmer, "Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach" by Jean-Marie Straub and, most importantly, "Last Year at Marienbad" by Alain Resnais which has been the most influential film for me."

A bizarre, quite unique period film, it is full of odd occurrences and it is technically quite well made, however the product is less than satisfying overall. Some of the dialogue is just rambling, and towards the end I really felt that this bogged down the production, despite some funny lines in the mix. The characters come off as rather cold, and some sequences in the film are not really explained properly. But is this confused and unwelcoming atmosphere what Greenaway intended? It might well be, even if knowing that does not help fix the uneasiness that one might feel when watching it. But enough of the 'bad', for the film has some great aspects too. Michael Nyman composes some wonderful music to fit alongside the action, the sets and costumes are flashy and eye-catching, and Greenaway particularly pays attention to giving the material a unique feel with the lighting design. It is an unusual film, and that makes it fascinating. Not the best out there, and from its director I prefer 'A Zed and Two Noughts', however this one is still worth a look.

The Draughtsman's Contract contained a little special conditions; sometimes it was the draftsman himself who would establish the clauses and conditions and sometimes were the ladies who required him and his "services". The title of the film could have well been "The Draughtsman's pencil". The film is full of sexual / fruity symbolism, which complements a statue of a naked man which can be part of any landscape at any time. The movie also presents an outstanding scenery. Makeup and costumes are so excessive that they contribute visually to give a tone of something never seen before, although on the other side, the main plot is extremely vulgar with an outcome certainly as excessive as the rest of the work. The soundtrack by Nyman is not only a great contribution but sometimes eclipses everything by turning the images into a sort of video clip. It could be said that the features of Greenaway's works are similar to Andy Warhol insofar as their ideas for reinterpreting art can turn something vulgar into a fascinating item.

I have been wanting to see Peter Greenaway's debut feature length film for a while now. It was a pleasure to finally do so (thanks to Fandor streaming service and free trials).

This is certainly the most straightforward Greenaway film I have seen. Plenty of the key Greenaway elements are here intact... complex dialogue that holds bundles of dry humor within it, beautiful environments, beautiful wardrobe, beautiful photography, controversial sexual themes, and, the most important part...a goosebump-inducing orchestral score composed by THE MAESTRO himself, MICHAEL NYMAN. The lead character, Mr. Neville, played by Anthony Higgins, carries the film wonderfully as the type of person who will say what everyone else is thinking but is afraid to say. He's a bit of an anti-hero, a total jerk, and it's very entertaining.

As is the case with a lot of Greenaway films, the audio/visual aspect of the movie is it's primary strength. The plot and it's progressions are very simple, and not that exciting when it comes down to it. If this had been my first impression of Greenaway, I may had been more blown away by it, but really, why would I watch this again when I could watch his masterpiece The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover over and over again, or if I really just wanted an-all out audio/visual feast, Prospero's Books is MUCH more SINGULAR, and thus, intriguing when it comes to stimulation. A Zed & Two Noughts is similar in the manner that it's stunning to look at and listen to, but the plot is almost irrelevant. The incredibly underrated BABY OF MACON is a perfect meeting point between audio/visual and story though - and is definitely my 2nd favorite film I have seen by him.

It was funny that when I searched this film on Letterboxd, 5 reviews for THE FAVOURITE came up before this film did. I was totally thinking of that film the entire time I was watching this. The truth is that The Favourite is a much better film overall. But, for fans of Greenaway, audio/visual art, or the avant-garde in general, you're going to want to see this.

Being of English origin the film has a particular fascination. Certain things become apparent if you know England well, but also I suspect on repeated viewing.

A tale of conceit, deception and power. The conceit of the Draughtsman, all too apparent, is matched by the conceit of the upper classes as the film unfolds. The pictoral conceit referred to in the film repeatedly is matched by a pictoral conceit played on the viewer: the wigs were never that big, the house, garden and grounds stunning and the weather too perfect.

Deception exists at many levels. The viewer is deceived as to where the houses and events take place. The allusions are to Southampton and surrounding areas. Being from the Southampton area I realized this wasn't Southampton. Though it could possibly have been. The deception was convincing. The location is Kent. I believe this deception, which fits so nicely in the film anyway, was pulled so that the owner of the house where the film is centred around would not be invaded by tourists. A nice touch which I suspect follows the line in the film, something like this), "Do you think Mrs Talbot is a lady who likes her gravel being kicked around by a pack of dogs."

The arrogance and exploitation of the ladies of the house by the Draughtsman, readily apparent, is more sinisterly exceeded by the arrogance and exploitation of the Draughtsman by the ladies. The Draughtsman provides a cover for murder, solves the problem of transfer of the property by siring a child and finally ends up as the scapegoat for murder. While the Draughtsman may appear to be playing with the household for his own amusement, the Draughtsman himself is the focus of a much more brutal and more deadly game.

Like all the best films there is much going on in the film. The lines and language are wonderfully rich. The camera merely shows you the events. And it is not above deceiving you as a viewer. Trying to make sense of it all is great fun. Many things I didn't even see until the second or third viewing, let alone make sense of them!

A beautiful allegory which slowly unfolds and challenges the senses. Much like The Prisoner (1967) tv series, and hopefully The Prisoner (2000) movie.

Anthony Higgins is artist "Neville" who attracts the eye of the unhappily married aristocrat "Mrs. Herbert" (Janet Suzman). She concocts a plan to have her wicked way with him by commissioning him to sketch twelve aspects of their modest stately home in return for £8 per drawing and unlimited "access" to her person. When "Mr. Herbert" has to go away, that proves convenient for all and their contract is agreed and applied. Midway through his task, her daughter "Mrs. Talmann" (Anne-Louise Lambert) approaches our virile artist with another proposal. She is saddled with the foppish "Talmann" (Hugh Fraser) who would appear to be no use whatsoever in begetting an heir. Her deal with "Neville" however is more on her terms - and he thinks he is in clover. Is he though, or is he being played buy one or both of these women - and where has "Mr. Herbert" got to through all these shenanigans? Peter Greenaway gives this a sort of Regency look to it, the costumes - especially the wigs - are exaggerated to fully illustrate the vacuousness of their petty but privileged existence and there is some humour that just about stays on the satirical side of bawdy! Suzman is great, as is Lambert and though I found Higgins just a bit weak to sustain the title role, this is still a great and entertaining ensemble effort well complimented by Michael Nyman's lively and Handel-esque score. Forty years on, it has lost little of it's power to ridicule and shame, is pithily written and is well worth a watch.

Gave this 3/10 (on a par with my rating for something like John Wayne's "The Green Berets" or Laurel and Hardy's "The Bohemian Girl" - i.e. about as dire as it can get). The good news is made up by the costumes (especially the hats!), music and photography/imagery (like walking around inside a Gainsborough painting!) Otherwise, pure rubbish as far as I am concerned; LONG, boring, pointless dialogues between people speaking in full, interminable sentences and with a "plot" which may have involved a murder (or not - I really could not have cared less after about half way through!) but does involve a very nasty, brutish and sadistic final scene (the purpose/reason for which also entirely escaped me!) And all this even before mentioning "The Statue" - even Monty Python could not have sent up that piece of filmed junk. Given the swooning, adoring reviews which a number of reviewers have awarded this, I am obviously either (a) a complete philistine or (b) "missed" the whole "message" and need to re-view the thing again (or six times?) in order to "get it". NO, thanks. I sat through this excruciating equivalent of having a tooth pulled in the (forlorn) hope that it would get better before the end (and that anything having an actress of the quality of Janet Suzman in MUST have a lot going for it somewhere!) In the end, all I felt was cheated and that two hours of my life had been spent to no purpose whatsoever (as with the other turkeys mentioned at the beginning). Once is more than enough for me, thank you.

UK maverick filmmaker Peter Greenaway's Venice main competition entry in 1982, arguably his feature debut, a period picture steeped in highbrow phraseology, sumptuous baroque costumes and elusive intrigues.

In 1694, rural Wiltshire, Mr. Neville (Higgins), an eloquent, stuck-up draughtsman strikes a contact with Mrs. Virginia Herbert (Suzman), to complete 12 landscape drawings of her estate during the absence of her husband Mr. Herbert (Hill), with a proviso that Mrs. Herbert must meet him in private and consent to actions gratifying his pleasure, which Mrs. Herbert condones. Later, Sarah Talmann (Lambert), Mr. Herbert's sole daughter approaches to Mr. Neville with a new proposal, but this time, she should be the recipient of their carnal knowledge, moreover, maybe there is also a hidden agenda behind it, as we apprehend that Sarah is married to Mr. Talmann (Fraser), yet they have no heir to inherit the Herberts' fortune. A sinister turning point hits when Mr. Herbert's body is found in the moat around the estate, soon the presumption that clues of the said murder can be unobtrusively garnered from Mr. Neville's 12 drawings, unfortunately puts the latter in a perilous situation. In the final deciding crunch, Mr. Neville seems to be designated as the fall guy by a clique lead by the jealous Mr. Talmann, but nothing substantial of the conspiracy theory comes to full disclosure at last. The only unbidden witness of the appalling denouement is the camouflage man, a full-frontal figure at times inexplicably skulks out on the roof when the residents are dining al fresco, hides invisibly among the creepers, or straddles the bronze horse as a medieval knight, and finally gobbles up the pineapple.

Greenaway contrives at great length to frame the 12 drawings with his principally stationary camera angle and a vaguely anachronistic apparatus, an expedient stems from his artist upbringing and magnificently instils each and every scene with painting-like allure and precision, which balances out the elocutionary hyperbole in a positive way.

A core cast marshaled by Higgins, who triumphantly struts his haughtiness in an unstinting mode, precisely up to his last breath, whereas Janet Suzman puts on an imperial air spiked with a tense impression of self-inflicted dejection, she might be as clueless as the scapegoat, but is certainly swell in her cogent diction about pomegranate and deities. Anne-Louise Lambert, the ethereal Australian beauty from Peter Weir's PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK (1975), is quite unrecognizable (much as everybody else) under the elaborate garments, but pulls off a brilliant equivocation in contrast to Hugh Fraser's competently rebarbative impersonation of upper-crust impotence.

Predominantly, composer Michael Nyman's Purcell-inflected accompanying score hones perfectly the Baroque decadence and essentially Greenaway's inimitable work remains as aloof, indecipherable and tongue-in-cheek as it aims to be.

This is a most intricately structured enigma of a film, one that seems on the surface to be ordinary, but underneath has many layers that need examining in detail from several viewings. The story is set in the English countryside in 1694. The prominent character is a draughtsman named Mr. Neville, who is asked by a lady named Mrs. Herbert to make twelve drawings of her house from different angles. He agrees, as long as he can have the lady for his intimate pleasure.

Mr. Neville is a perfectionist, and very meticulous in his drawings. He states to everyone at the house all his rules about everything that has to remain in the same place while he draws. The film moves along nicely, everything seems usual, then events start to become strange. Stone statues start to move around, and take up different locations to contort into another static pose. Objects start to change location to confuse Mr. Neville in his drawings. Then Mrs. Herbert's daughter approaches Mr. Neville and tells him her father may have been murdered. She says she has evidence to indict Mr. Neville of his murder, and blackmails him, requesting his service for her sexual needs. Then Mr. Herbert's body is found in a ditch and things get even more complex.

This film is one of those that you need to watch and try and unravel yourself. To try to do that here in this review is almost impossible. I recommend it. It is exquisitely performed and filmed. The costumes are good. The speeches by the cast are delivered in a grandiose and statement-like manner. The music is appropriate. A classic piece of puzzling cinema that will have you watching it many times.

Guess I really like this sort of period movies, about the British upper-class in the 17th century. The movies have an own unique kind of style and atmosphere over them. This especially really goes for this unique little film.

it's a very witty movie and halve way through it also becomes obvious exactly how intelligently the movie is written and constructed. At first it doesn't look like the movie is heading anywhere and it's merely a good and enjoyable movie filled with some slightly subtle eccentric and quirky characters. But about halve way through it becomes clear that the intentions within the story and the intentions of the characters have way more in to them, when the movie becomes more of a murder-mystery and layered and the character's motivations all start to take form and become clear. It makes the movie surprisingly and delightful. It's a really well constructed and visually crafted movie from Peter Greenaway.

The movie doesn't have the Jane Austen kind of story and approach but more like "Barry Lyndon" with the same certain quirkiness in it, if I need to compare it to anything else. The movie has a sort of a surreal kind of atmosphere over it, which gets strengthened all the more by the outrageous costumes and wigs, thick accents and extremely difficult but beautiful to listen to- dialog and of course the special kind of characters that are in the movie. It's also a very sexy and sort of erotic movie to watch at, with almost always a sort of sexual tension in the atmosphere during the entire movie, despite not having any real nudity or explicit nude scene's in it.

The whole movie is almost entire filmed in a stage-play kind of approach, with no moving camera's and long sequences filled with dialog. Really the sort of stuff you normally experience during a stage-play. It all adds up to the reasons why this movie is a quite unique and delightful little movie to watch.

This movie is a great watch, as long as you're capable of handling the long and difficult dialog and the more stage-play kind of storytelling.

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This is a confusing and gorgeous film. Witty, clever and fun. A bit bizarre with its rococo themes and moodiness but a marvelously rich visual experience. The sight of the living statue peeing on command, as it were, tickled my funny bone. I loved it from the opening scenes to its strange ending.

Peter Greenaway originally intended this film to be over three hours long, but he was eventually made to edit it down to 103 minutes. Well, maybe the three hour version would have made some sort of sense, but the shorter version makes none! There are all kinds of elements essential to understanding the story which do not appear in the film, and which you will only know about from reviews which undoubtedly themselves were dependant on explanations by the film makers. This is an example of pretentious nonsense being lavishly praised by weak minds afraid to call the emperor naked. It is best to see this film without having read what it is supposed to be about, as that is an objective state of mind. No film should require to be explained to reasonably intelligent people. This is art-house drivel.

The Draughtsman's Contract (1982) is a picture crafted with such exceptional skill that any thoughts of what one has just watched, any analysis of the film, any contemplation of the cinematography or writing - all of it calls for further appreciation of the work.

Set in rural Wiltshire in 1694, the film is concerned with the pastimes of an aristocratic circle and an artist invited into it. The latter is Mr Neville (played by Anthony Higgins), the draughtsman of the title. He has arrived at the Herbert estate to produce a series of drawings - those are intended by Mrs Virginia Herbert (Janet Suzman) as a gift for her husband. While Mr Herbert is away, his wife should have no trouble fulfilling the contract she entered with Mr Neville in its entirety: in addition to the money and the board, Mrs Herbert has agreed 'to comply with his requests concerning his pleasure'. How perfectly, deliberately scandalous!

At the heart of it, The Draughtsman's Contract is a country-house murder mystery, but not in a way that is typical; nor is that the only puzzle to be solved.

Much like Mr Neville's drawings (in reality, made by Peter Greenaway, the film's director), the movie contains no accidental decisions. Each line of dialogue, each frame, the development of every seemingly inconsequential plot-line - all of it is deliberate, infused with symbolism, symmetrically arranged, and presented in the most elegant and ornamental fashion. The acting is superb, the music written by Michael Nyman is absolutely perfect, the wigs and outfits are even more elaborate than their historical prototypes, and the ending remains astonishing. Passions, it would seem, are complementary to extreme restraint.

There is no need to hate this movie. It's quite enjoyable by itself. It doesn't require any heavy intellectual digging or background instruction manual to appreciate. Plus, it's quirky comedy is being taken as mysterious and dark. Please! Just enjoy it and laugh. The humor is irksome but funny. It's like a bit of Shakespeare. It has meaningful plot and fun dialogs. The guy who wrote the review centering on the Draughtsman's "arrogance and innocence "(a dangerous combo!) had it spot on, and this personality flaw is key to the plot. Thoroughly enjoyable and funny and clever. Architects everywhere, TAKE COVER! LOL.