The Green Man


This is clearly an enigmatic character in the film and I'm not entirely sure how to interpret him as a character and what his function is in the Draughtsman's Contract.

I was thinking that he could be a man of the land in the wild, which contrasts with the heavily ordered society of the upper class characters that have strict societal 'rules' or standards for how to act (generally), interact with others, and present one's self in accordance with their social class. Everyone else is proper in appearance because of their outfits and the controlled way they carry themselves while walking or sitting which is pretty much all of what they do. Green man is by contrast very physical; his body doesn't look like a well straight postured stick while walking (or better yet creeping) mischievously yet playfully around the property. He is free and seemingly without any structure in his life which is in opposition to the bourgeois and even Neville who, in addition to having to act in a formal manner at his employer's residence, has that framing device for the purposes of tediously reproducing exactly what he sees by means of very controlled hands. He has learned his craft well, but much like the sex he has, it seems mechanical which is certainly a quality that the green man never displays...
Anyway at the end he spits out the pineapple which the internet tells me is a symbol of hospitality. Does this mean that he is rejecting the sickening bourgeois idea of hospitality which was responsible for Neville's treatment (which caused his eventual death)?

Possibly on a related note is the scene where he urinates from up on the statue. Is this a mockery of art with Greenaway pissing on how seriously the bourgeois take art? Or, since statues act to preserve the past, is this a comment on the preservation of patriarchal influence of past generations whose customs, tendencies, traits, etc are *inherited* by the later progeny w for good or ill? It would seem that Greenaway thinks ill, but at the same time this film clearly shows the influence of previous art forms (drawing, painting spec. baroque Dutchies, still life, and landscape paintings...art that unlike film cannot be mechanically reproduced), if not societal customs.
And then there's the shot of him on the horse statue. Mr Herbert was supposedly traveling by horse which is probably related, but what's the significance of having this green guy in the statue saddle?

He also mostly observes from a distance; he's on the outside looking in...like the viewer! Is he meant to mirror us? Would that mean that when he gets pulled from the bridge in the scene preceding the revelation of Mr Herbert's death is GREENaway sort of playfully poking the viewer and making him acknowledge himself and his spectatorship, the director/artist behind the work, and/or foregrounding the fact that this is a film?

One of my favorite scenes in the film was when the little boy/nephew is on a walk with his uncle who is encouraging him to be a serious person and to mold into what high society expects him to be. Though the uncle doesn't see or acknowledge the green man, the boy of course does and they have a really nice little light hearted exchange which made me feel warm for the only time in the film because it seemed to be the only time there seemed to be a real genuine human interaction. The boy and the green man seem to share something wonderful and relieving in the context of the estate and all the stuffy characters within. It's so spontaneous which is also significant since everybody seems to have planned out strategies to accomplish their hidden motives.

Or he is he just in there to throw the viewer off? A sort of disorder in a tightly constructed film soaked with artistic contrivance and symbolism?

Maybe the extended cut would elucidate what his function and purpose is, but alas all we have is this version to go off of.

So what do you all think?

reply

a very interesting post...
in a film so replete with self-referentiality and metatheatricality, it would not surprise me if the 'green man' is yet another metatheatrical construction. i cannot detect any particular pattern which determines his appearance, and perhaps this randomness is intentional.
he is certainly uninhibited, in flagrant contrast to the other characters (eg pissing, making silly faces, spitting out food etc) and this no doubt provides a touch of relief.

reply

*Spoilers*

Many reviewers chant "chimera!" regarding the green man, but I'm more inclined to view him as an active--material--character in the story. It's almost like one of the characters hired him to observe and report. While some of the same characters that participated in the act on Mr. Neville at the end, seemed totally unaware of the green man's presence throughout the story, I wouldn't be surprised if there were layers of confidantes within that collaboration--some more privy to information than others.

In an artificial, heavily constructed world, it's easy to miss those things and people you've trained your eyes not to see; unpainted faces and unadorned bodies, servants, danger. "Old world" aristocrats were strongly separated from "organic" duties and unpolished things---someone else would take care of every, single annoyance or unpleasantry of life; plucking chickens, scooping dung, washing feet. Class-dictated behavior became ingrained and conditioned. If people acted against expectation or dressed out of "uniform", the result would've been disorienting and disturbing; humans like to feel secure and able to anticipate things to come. Gender and class symbols partly exist for this purpose; an attempt to establish predictability. Sometimes people subscribe to expectations not in their best interests, for the very same reasons as those who do because they benefit from them: People want to feel safe, powerful and necessary.

The Herbert property, like those of other similar estates of its time, had been "tamed" and shaped into distinct structures, giving the aristocrats an impression of power over their environment. As a result, the aristocrats felt safe in it, leading to a laziness in surveillance; not having to be weary of changes in shadow, shape and color in their surroundings or risk being at the mercy of some wild thing, hoping to make you its dinner. This is what happens when people are submerged in constant luxury--they become blind to it, conditioned into taking it for granted (Mr. Neville fell into this condition of "blindness" the more his demands were being met and his false sense of power and superiority became puffed-up)---something is enjoyed for its shiny novelty, only to be totally abandoned when something new catches their fancy. The children in this story--the next generation of aristocrats--were being trained to trust the constructed world around them with a false sense of power and security, taught to focus on socially constructed, representative symbols as the sole tools for interpretating existence(language, math, social manners, etc.) while becoming blind to what they actually see, feel and experience. That's why the kid looks so surprised and fascinated when he encounters the green man; he looks at the man, then back at his uncle as if to say "Don't you notice this? Doesn't anyone?"

The green man would need to become part of the scenery, if he was going to get past Mr. Neville; he had to not be associated with any of the material symbols and things--shirts, shoes--that set the people apart from the scenery. He would have to move in the periphery of the gardens, hiding in areas that had been carefully designed and fashioned to be enjoyed, yet long since ignored, once people stopped bothering to give them any serious attention. But yet, he was a human body, completely unadorned except for paint, hopping around, totally unnoticed; it was as if the aristocrats and their staff had been conditioned by routine and class expectations--surrounded by superficial constructs--for so long, they didn't even notice a naked human body when they saw it. As much as Mr. Neville wanted to draw what he saw without being tainted by human perspective, he allowed himself to be pulled into the social drama of the aristocratic circle and secured his role in it, once he made contractual conditions that were too humanly intimate for business. Notice what he always draws first when he begins his work; people, human-made items like ladders and shirts. As much as he pretended to look at his surroundings without any emotional or pre-meditated connection, he always focused first on things strongly connected to humanity. The green man was just the shrubbery, the statues, the walls--the non-descript staging for human events; therefore, he went unnoticed.

reply

Well said tetrabean, VERY perceptive of you if a trifle long-winded. And furthermore, not a spelling error in sight! I'm PROUD of you. I've shown it to my Scottish friend and his comment is "smairt wee lassie" which is high praise from such a cantankerous old b*****.

Now learn to be concise, and your words will have greater impact........
"He's richt, ye ken," that's old MacDougal chiming in again. Fortunately, he's off to the "Cannie Man," a pub at the foot of the Morningside Road in Edinburgh, for a wee refreshment..........

Have a nice day, America!

reply

Thank you, finnegansword---and also thank your helpful, direct friend for me. Wait; "Long-winded"? But I shortened it. Couldn't take too much out, though-- then it just ends-up being clear and effective. There's no hard-won glory in that. I don't want to impress with quality of skill and value of content, but with lots and lots of frivolous flash and distraction. I guarantee it'll make significantly more sense AFTER a visit to the pub. In conclusion; there's absolutely nothing wrong with my writing, you're just not "smashed" enough to appreciate its philosophical under and overtones.

Hug your lovely rocks and lochs for me, Scotland!

reply

Hey tetrabean - you're awake at last. Wondered if I would hear any more from you. I tease you something rotten, don't I?

Auld MacDougal: "You're ower sair on the lassie!" which translated into English means I am over-critical.

But have I got news for you! You have earned a lovely prezzie for all your efforts and for being a "Good Sport" besides - is that phrase in use in the US? It's probably a very English one. Send me an e-mail to *********************** and identify yourself by some secret means, and I will send you some jpeg images of the "bronze man and his horse"," living statue. Can you do that? Go on - live dangerously.........

MacDougal has been causing something of a disturbance on the TINKER, TAYLOR, SOLDIER, SPY, and SMILEY'S PEOPLE IMDb site. You should watch those movies and follow the blog. There are some witty people there. And who knows, you may even enjoy the films (movies) besides!

reply

I've heard about "Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy" but haven't watched it yet; maybe being knocked around on that IMDB board will be a good education for me.

...and I get a prize?! WHERE?! Now!

reply

"I've heard about "Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy" but haven't watched it yet."

****************************

Auld MacDougal recommends that you watch the series in the correct sequence: TTSS comes first. They are based on the John le Carre novels.

P.S. I've gift-wrapped your prezzie.

reply

[deleted]

I saw the "Green Man" as the garden/landscape's point of view. Its perspective of events as they unfolded in it. It witnessed everything that occurred in it, and while so much importance was placed on it by the humans, as if it were made of gold, it itself couldn't care less.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]