Sorry if this is just me being dense... {{SPOILERS}}

Awesome, thanks. Now I do want to re-watch it, and actually pay attention...

The doctor has spoken.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Surely it's the other way round. Mr. Neville draws exactly what he sees which is why he is so easily pulled into the Herbert lady's plans. He says at one point how he never 'disassembles' or 'distorts', simply reproducing what he sees. Mr' Neville's problem is that he is unimaginative and conceited and, as you say, 'blind' to the events unfolding around him.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't think the living statue was meant to be a mystery unbeknown to the characters of the film. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Neville even mentions him.

Anyway, this is just my personal take on the film. Actually there's a few things I took from it.

The first is that an artist should never comprimise his vision. Doing so will only be painful in the end. If Neville stuck to his guns and made sure his drawings turned out exactly as he wanted them to he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. And there will always be those out to destroy the artist and his vision.

Also don't follow the so called "rules". Greenaway was taught in school to "Draw what you see not what you know" yet doing just that is what sealed Neville's fate.(his last drawing wasn't finished and I doubt it would have mattered by then anyway.)

Or maybe the words "see" and "know" are being taken to literally. As in he "knows" the latter was there but that didn't mean he had to "see" it. It's possible that the "seeing" represents the "vision" of the artist and the "knowing" the boring facts of reality.

Which then leads me to this conclusion... an artist should never create something simply for material(or physical) gain. Never sell out or it could cost you your life(artistically at least).

I also think that maybe the film is a slight joke at the viewers expense. In that with any work of "art" there will be always someone who looks for and finds their own meaning, regardless of the artists intensions, if the artist even had any intensions to begin with(outside a shag or two). Considering even Nevilles's obvioulsy straightforward drawing were analyzed to all hell.

As for the main mystery, I figured it like this. No one was very found of Mr. Herbert including his wife and daughter so they set up a man to pin his murder on, all the while obtaining a hier to the "thron" that the infertile Mr. Talmann was unable to provide thus gaining power while avoiding scandle and humiliation. And that can then be taken as a theme of women empowerment, or an argument for the fact that women are the ones with the power over men. And that as a man thinking with one "head" over the other can get you in trouble.

Sorry, this post ended up being longer than I planned.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Also the guy on the statue is not a real person, notice only the child and the gardener could see him.

Only the child and gardener acknowledged the human statue and paid any attention to him.

That does not necessarily mean that they were the only ones who could see him. Especially, with this extremely class conscious bunch of snobs.

He did not draw the rider on the statue even though it was clearly present in the final scene.

The thing is, the final scene takes place well after dark. Although *we* can see well enough to make out the scene, the dialog makes it very clear that it is currently far too dark for Neville to work on his drawing.

Therefore, we have to conclude that Neville had completed his drawing some time earlier, not just within the last couple minutes before we (the audience) arrive to see the climax.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that Neville *did* draw exactly what he saw at the time, and that the human statue had come and mounted the horse statue after the drawing was complete.

reply share

add reply

formatting help