I'm not a big fan of Peter Greenaway's movies - they're usually too abstruse, confrontational and willfully "clever" for their own good - but Act Of God is a minor classic, if only because it presents a series of widely differing accounts of what it's like when the unthinkable happens, in this case, being struck by lightning. The film taps into a morbid curiosity that, like it or not, exists in most people, and satisfies our desire to know more about a bizarre 'natural' phenomena. The brief 'sting' of Michael Nyman's typically strident music that divides the interviews is a real brain-bug, and I can still remember it more than fifteen years after I last saw this. As the horror expert Kim Newman noted in his book 'Nightmare Movies', Peter Greenaway is primarily a documentation, and this piece, along with 'The Falls', rank among his best efforts to date.
5 Reviews
Excellent early Mockumentary
adesse3 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I do not want to comment on other people's comments, but the thin line between documentary and fictional filmmaker has always been tenuous, and today everyone knows that even Flaherty staged and arranged many filmed events in his legendary "Nanook of the North" (1922). And why should a filmmaker with an artistic sensibility not transform any real events into "faction", as we saw lately with Ari Folmans excellent animated documentation "Waltz with Bashir" (2008)? This film is - against common belief - NOT a documentary. It is one of many early Greenaway films, where he played with the documentary form. There are other films like "Vertical Features Remake" (1978), "Dear Phone" (1977) and long "The Falls" (1980). In these films the content is so absurd (like the "Violent Unknown Event" in "The Falls"), that the recipient will get the joke pretty soon. This is different with this film, since there are no hints if the people interviewed really experienced lightning strokes or are just acting. So the question of dealing with people (cutting in mid-sentence etc.) is just part of the process Greenaway wants to get you in: This is simply not to inform, but to dis-inform to show the limitations and possibilities of manipulation that lie within the documentary form. And - as you can see with many user comments - he is quite successful with this film, since people always infer from the form to the content (even if they have seen "Man Bites Dog", 1992)! So this film is probably among the most successful mockumentaries since there is no context to dissolve the mystery (only now, if you read my comment, but probably you have seen this rarely shown film then already). The techniques of playing with form and further blurring the line between fiction and fact can be studied in a very detailed and playful way with "Act of God". Since I made a seminar on mockumentaries, I showed this film first and asked the students to write a comment on it. The outcome was - even with the title of the seminar in the back of their heads - quite astonishing. So get hang of the title and make your own opinion of one of mockumentaries best.
I love this film...reminds me of The Falls or H is for House
scarletminded11 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Peter Greenaway is not a typical documentary maker. That is what I like about him. This documentary about lighting is a moving artwork. Either you love this style or you hate it. I am on the love side. His angles are wonderful and he seeks to find the story within the story, not just present a boring one angle movie about how people felt when they were hit by lighting.
Water and rain play a key role in the scenes of this film. There is a great shot of a couple behind a sprinkler that looks very natural to me but not typical, rain in the back of another man's house with its windows open wide and shots of the sea. Graphics abound between the interviews, black and white type telling ironic stories of lighting, like a man who was bitten by a dog named Flash and couldn't get the milk on his doorstep so his wife did it and got stuck by lighting. There are also artistic bits about what plays call on lightning. Again, you either love this style and get sucked into the art of it or you dislike it. It reminds me a lot of The Falls (which is a spoof of documentaries and quite funny in a Monty Python sort of way) which is 185 minutes long and H is for House, which isn't.
If you want to know more about this movie, you should rent the DVD Act of God, which came out in 2009 and was directed by Jennifer Baichwal. Greenaway's short is on this DVD, along with an interview where he talks about it and also some My Life in Suitcases VJ footage of him.
Greenway is one of those rare directors that has vision. He knows what he wants his movies to look like. The viewer is bombarded with colors, graphics, irony, stories, etc. It is art come to life.
Water and rain play a key role in the scenes of this film. There is a great shot of a couple behind a sprinkler that looks very natural to me but not typical, rain in the back of another man's house with its windows open wide and shots of the sea. Graphics abound between the interviews, black and white type telling ironic stories of lighting, like a man who was bitten by a dog named Flash and couldn't get the milk on his doorstep so his wife did it and got stuck by lighting. There are also artistic bits about what plays call on lightning. Again, you either love this style and get sucked into the art of it or you dislike it. It reminds me a lot of The Falls (which is a spoof of documentaries and quite funny in a Monty Python sort of way) which is 185 minutes long and H is for House, which isn't.
If you want to know more about this movie, you should rent the DVD Act of God, which came out in 2009 and was directed by Jennifer Baichwal. Greenaway's short is on this DVD, along with an interview where he talks about it and also some My Life in Suitcases VJ footage of him.
Greenway is one of those rare directors that has vision. He knows what he wants his movies to look like. The viewer is bombarded with colors, graphics, irony, stories, etc. It is art come to life.
Interesting, Intriguing, Revealing, Hilarious, and Truly Greenaway!
meddlecore20 December 2010
This is a brilliant short documentary made by the infamous Peter Greenaway for Thames Television program "Take 6" in 1980. For this project, Greenaway tackles the task of interviewing British subjects that have been struck by lightning...and survived to talk about it. The documentary displays Greenaways signature touches, such as the element of Dark Comedy (Greenaways editing, the Monty Pythonesque narrator, the witty writing, that transitory music, and the nature of their stories in general) and, of course, his trademark attention to detail regarding mise-en-scene and framing. First Greenaway gets his subjects to reflect upon their experiences. He also interviews friends, family, doctors and other witnesses whom fill in the blanks where the strikee may have been unable to remember or recollect. He then continues to slowly peel away at his interviewees like an onion, revealing more of their story as he asks them questions, juxtaposing their responses- indulging us in the experience by forcing us to compare and contrast their experiences. Questions such as: how tall are you, what was the first thing you remember after it happened, were you holding anything and what were you wearing on your feet that day? An element of humour is derived from the transitions between questions, in which Greenaway interviews Herzog-like "Experts", while showing how cinematic lightning effects are made, and providing literary/cinematic references to films and great books that use lightning for various effects on what we now know as a "ticker". He subsequently reads old newspaper reports of various lighting strike victims- survivors, deaths, and even bizarre lighting related events- like the guy who would climb a hill every time there was a storm with suicidal tendencies, hoping an "Act of God" would end his life, only to be struck by a vehicle and killed while walking up the hill to get hit by lightning. This is really an interesting, intriguing, revealing, beautiful and hilarious film that cannot be missed. A definite 10 out of 10.
This kind of commission is a mistake
Spleen8 May 2002
Documentary makers are NOT artists. The worst kind of documentary maker is the kind who thinks he's an artist, and I suspect that the worst kind of "artistic" documentary maker is the kind who began as a painter (or some such). In painting, aesthetic considerations really are paramount as they are almost nowhere else. Painting is an art form with no social influence whatever, and a painter's ONLY professional obligation is to create beautiful pictures. A documentary maker, unlike a painter, has several potentially conflicting professional obligations; chief among them (listen carefully, Greenaway) IS TO INFORM.
A couple of times Greenaway's film threatens to be informative - as I recall, there's a brief discussion of what happens when a body is struck by lightning, and an even briefer synopsis of the physics. But Greenaway undercuts both moments by letting us know he's an artist. Running across the bottom of the screen, to make it as easy as possible for us to avoid actually learning anything, is something like the following: "Lightning effects are called for in Macbeth, Peer Gynt, The Tempest, King Lear..." I don't want to be given a list of stage works involving lightning; if I wanted such a list, I would compile it myself, which would be fun. On the other hand, how lightning is conducted through a human body is exactly the kind of thing I do want to be told - and which images would help me understand. My eyes drifted to that damned pointless list for a moment, and I missed it.
Greenaway's works of fiction may well be brilliant. Michael Powell, possibly the finest director Britain has ever produced, wasn't any good at documentaries, either. He only made one, at the end of his career, when he couldn't find anything else to do. Watching it you sense exactly the same thing as you sense while watching "Act of God": an artist - whether good or bad, it's impossible to tell - utterly ill at ease, doing what artists were never meant to do, and not knowing how to go about it.
And what's with Greenaway's technique with his interview subjects? He cuts away from them in mid anecdote, sometimes mid SENTENCE, for no reason except to make them look foolish. If they came to him in good faith, he had no right.
A couple of times Greenaway's film threatens to be informative - as I recall, there's a brief discussion of what happens when a body is struck by lightning, and an even briefer synopsis of the physics. But Greenaway undercuts both moments by letting us know he's an artist. Running across the bottom of the screen, to make it as easy as possible for us to avoid actually learning anything, is something like the following: "Lightning effects are called for in Macbeth, Peer Gynt, The Tempest, King Lear..." I don't want to be given a list of stage works involving lightning; if I wanted such a list, I would compile it myself, which would be fun. On the other hand, how lightning is conducted through a human body is exactly the kind of thing I do want to be told - and which images would help me understand. My eyes drifted to that damned pointless list for a moment, and I missed it.
Greenaway's works of fiction may well be brilliant. Michael Powell, possibly the finest director Britain has ever produced, wasn't any good at documentaries, either. He only made one, at the end of his career, when he couldn't find anything else to do. Watching it you sense exactly the same thing as you sense while watching "Act of God": an artist - whether good or bad, it's impossible to tell - utterly ill at ease, doing what artists were never meant to do, and not knowing how to go about it.
And what's with Greenaway's technique with his interview subjects? He cuts away from them in mid anecdote, sometimes mid SENTENCE, for no reason except to make them look foolish. If they came to him in good faith, he had no right.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
