In my language, there's a different word for erotic and non-erotic love. English has just one word for the two. And Charles, the main character in this story, doesn't even make a distinction. The attraction he feels to flowers or classical music is erotic, as is his attachment to his mother; at the same time, he's unable to consummate a sexual relationship. He's a profoundly lonely person, who writes letters to himself and buys 'human relationships' in the form of a doctor or a stripper to whom he hardly talks. Lisa, in turn, is just as lonely: her boyfriend hardly talks to her, only takes her money to spend on drugs. This film is about the isolation of modern people, the impossibility to create relationships. Charles sublimates this longing into a fondness for all art and beauty, others escape into drugs or pointless 'creation'. And the question arises: why am I watching this film? What am I substituting with it?
18 Reviews
A sweet surprise
LazySod30 March 2007
Charles Bremer, an elderly man, is a little eccentric. His love for flowers is only equaled by his love for watching a pretty woman undress. He lives on his own, plays the organ in church and tends to stick to himself. Things don't go really fast for him, until the drug addicted boyfriend of the girl he pays to strip for him turns violent.
Nudity, classical music, long slow scenes with a lot of colors, emotional darkness. That'd be the general description of the film in a few words. It'd be a great injustice to this little film though. The story is played out amazingly well, with a very acceptable explanation of the Man of Flowers, and why he is who he is and all.
The choice of musical overdub in this film, sometimes blotting out everything that is happening completely, reminded me a bit of A Clockwork Orange, although that film is almost entirely unlike this one. It works out very well though, pushing the accentuation in just the right direction when that is needed. Clearly a well done case of film-making.
8 out of 10 flowers in the air
Nudity, classical music, long slow scenes with a lot of colors, emotional darkness. That'd be the general description of the film in a few words. It'd be a great injustice to this little film though. The story is played out amazingly well, with a very acceptable explanation of the Man of Flowers, and why he is who he is and all.
The choice of musical overdub in this film, sometimes blotting out everything that is happening completely, reminded me a bit of A Clockwork Orange, although that film is almost entirely unlike this one. It works out very well though, pushing the accentuation in just the right direction when that is needed. Clearly a well done case of film-making.
8 out of 10 flowers in the air
One of Paul Cox's best
howie7329 December 2004
I've seen many films by Paul Cox but only one or two continue to impress me after all these years - Man of Flowers (1983) is one of them. Taking on familiar Cox themes such as loneliness and sexual repression, Man of Flowers adds an eloquent European feel to its Australian setting. Although the story is not a conventional linear narrative, Cox combines distinctive visual tones (super-8 flashbacks/ conventional framing such as the striptease at the beginning)) to capture different aspects of the protagonist's reclusive life (played by Norman Kaye). What is unique about this film is its refusal to subscribe to any cinematic norm. Thus we get a philosophical postman who adds a touch of off-centered eccentricity to an already edgy patchwork of lesbianism, blackmail and oedipal longing. The only sad aspect of the film is its low-budget which has seriously impaired its standing as a classic. The sound is not the best on VHS although the operatic score (Donizetti's "Lucia di Lammermoor) more than compensates for this flaw. I presume the original budget of $250,000 was not spent enhancing the sound quality.
Is there a little bit of Charles Bremer in you?
John-40511 November 1999
In Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce pokes a little fun at Stephen Daedelus' aesthetics. Daedelus says there are two extremes in art--the kinetic and the static. Static art is beauty of the mind, or Apollonian beauty. Kinetic is more akin to sexual desire, or Dionysian beauty. Though Joyce found this theory to be rife for satire, albeit gentle satire, I think the distinction is compelling.
This film is in part about this distinction, or rather the absence of it in one man. For Charles Bremer, all beauty is erotic. For some reason, emotional or physical, he can't participate in the act of love, so he sublimates it into art. For him, seeing a beautiful painting or a beautiful woman undressing are two instances of the same thing, both equally erotic and equally profound.
All this babble makes the film sound pretentious, but in practice it is actually almost completely unpretentious. It has something profound to say, but it says it very simply. If there is a little bit of Charles in you, you will understand this film implicitly. If there isn't, then nothing will help you, because all of the great things the film has to say are unspoken. All is said with mood and characterization. The music, largely from Lucia di Lammermoor, is put to probably the best use that any music in any film ever has been. The 16mm flash backs with Werner Herzog (yes, THE Werner Herzog) playing Charles' father are brilliant and beautifully balletic, as if they had been choreographed gesture by gesture by the director.
The day I saw Man of Flowers in the theater, I walked out into the sunlight and looked at the world a little differently. That was in 1984, when I was 17 years old. And I'm still moved by the experience.
This film is in part about this distinction, or rather the absence of it in one man. For Charles Bremer, all beauty is erotic. For some reason, emotional or physical, he can't participate in the act of love, so he sublimates it into art. For him, seeing a beautiful painting or a beautiful woman undressing are two instances of the same thing, both equally erotic and equally profound.
All this babble makes the film sound pretentious, but in practice it is actually almost completely unpretentious. It has something profound to say, but it says it very simply. If there is a little bit of Charles in you, you will understand this film implicitly. If there isn't, then nothing will help you, because all of the great things the film has to say are unspoken. All is said with mood and characterization. The music, largely from Lucia di Lammermoor, is put to probably the best use that any music in any film ever has been. The 16mm flash backs with Werner Herzog (yes, THE Werner Herzog) playing Charles' father are brilliant and beautifully balletic, as if they had been choreographed gesture by gesture by the director.
The day I saw Man of Flowers in the theater, I walked out into the sunlight and looked at the world a little differently. That was in 1984, when I was 17 years old. And I'm still moved by the experience.
sad character study
SnoopyStyle20 March 2017
Charles Bremer likes classical music, flowers, and art. He's a lonely church organist and hires nude model Lisa for private sessions. Her boyfriend David is an angry, struggling artist. Charles writes letters to his mother and takes art classes. He is outwardly wealthy with family money but it may not be what it seems.
Bremer is like a trust fund baby without purpose. Norman Kaye creates a private but personable character. It's a compelling emotionally-damaged role. Alyson Best is memorable especially her opening scene. She's a Manic Pixie Dream Girl with real damage from her ugly boyfriend. The plot is a little thin. It's really a great sad character study of these two people. It's a little slow at times but it's a great art-house Aussie indie.
Bremer is like a trust fund baby without purpose. Norman Kaye creates a private but personable character. It's a compelling emotionally-damaged role. Alyson Best is memorable especially her opening scene. She's a Manic Pixie Dream Girl with real damage from her ugly boyfriend. The plot is a little thin. It's really a great sad character study of these two people. It's a little slow at times but it's a great art-house Aussie indie.
An eccentric delight
Mully-315 January 1999
A wonderful slow, gentle film, full of strange characters. I loved the eccentricities of all the characters; the mad painter, the crazy psychiatrist, the main character, Charles, who is obsessed by flowers. Even the postman who delivers the letters Charles sends to himself every day is delightful. The characters are surrounded by wonderful images and the background music is absolutely divine. The rather freudian storyline follows the relationships between Charles, a rich eccentric artist, a young woman he pays to strip for him and her violent boyfriend. I liked the strength of Charles's character despite his gentleness, which leads to a good twist at the end. I loved it.
Beaufiful to look at and listen to
edgeofreality12 February 2020
Slow but absorbing character study of a rich lonely, repressed man obsessed with the beauty he cannot possess (sexually) so sublimating in all sorts of ways. Norman Kaye is sympathetic as the hero, so it is a bit surprising when he shows a nasty side at the end. The other performers are fine too, but the view of modern art as empty and opportunistic is a bit too one sided, and the character of the bad artist played by Chris Haywood therefore comes across as a caricature. However, the locations and interiors are beautifully shot, and the music by Donizetti effectively used. The use of super 8 to show Bremer's memories work well, and the actors who play his mum and dad (Werner Herzog) are most memorable. The whole film reminds one of Herzog's films - take for instance the postman's character; and perhaps Greenaway's too - the erotic bits, and shock end. In fact it seem to be an early example of the quirkiness so many Australian films would fixate on later.
insightful
treborgort1 July 2006
The film is remarkable in that it delves into the issue of sexual inversion - and how childhood events and parent relationships mark us for life. In the case of Charles, we see that his mother alternately enveloped him in her embrace and rejected him, and his father, a remote, humorless person, punished him for being a curious child. End result: he loves beauty deeply, but cannot consummate a relationship. The use of music, both the operatic excerpts and Charles's own playing of the church organ, was pointed and poignant. All actors turned in splendid performances. Norman Kaye was very believable in the title role, and Alyson Best as the young beauty who sees Charles for the decent, loving person he is does sound work. The rest of the ensemble is also to be commended for this picture of life and art's relationship to it.
Sweet Flowers
kenjha7 May 2008
A middle-aged man is unable to have relationships with women, apparently a byproduct of his strict upbringing we learn via flashbacks. It is by turns provocative, funny, and pretentious, but always interesting and definitely quirky. Kaye is well cast as the man-child in search of beauty while Best is lovely as one of the objects of his affection. Among the amusing characters are the philosophical postman and Best's hack artist boyfriend. Cox directs with a sense of freshness, helped considerably by the ever-present music from Donizetti's "Lucia di Lammermoor." The flashback scenes of Kaye's childhood are tinged with Oedipal feelings, simultaneously sad and erotic.
"Won't Be"
TedMichaelMor2 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
An unforgettable film that lingers in memory long after the viewer forgets most details including the narrative itself, "Man of Flowers" is one I saw with my former wife decades ago. I thought she liked it as much as I did. She did not like it at all. At the time, I saw the movie, I linked it with a close friend who lived an acrid and wilted life similar to that of the protagonist Charles Bremer. As I aged, I realized more of myself in the protagonist—something more than a tad unnerving.
Critics praise Norman Kaye for his courage in this role—I think they rightly commend him, but the entire film seems an act of great courage for those involved in its creation, that includes Alyson Best (Lisa)and Chris Haywood the young actor who plays her abuser David. Critics note how the film takes a comic turn—it does.
The final scene looks like something from a surrealist painting but it most fully to me evokes Ute Lemper's haunting cover of the song "Just a Little Yearning" that " won't be fulfilled
Critics praise Norman Kaye for his courage in this role—I think they rightly commend him, but the entire film seems an act of great courage for those involved in its creation, that includes Alyson Best (Lisa)and Chris Haywood the young actor who plays her abuser David. Critics note how the film takes a comic turn—it does.
The final scene looks like something from a surrealist painting but it most fully to me evokes Ute Lemper's haunting cover of the song "Just a Little Yearning" that " won't be fulfilled
Creepy Sex Disguised as Art
disinterested_spectator11 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
When he was a little boy, Charles saw his mother naked, and he has been obsessed with his mother and naked women ever since. He pays a psychiatrist to listen to him talk about his mother, and he pays a woman named Lisa to take off her clothes the way his mother did, giving Paul Cox, the director, an excuse to film some full frontal nudity. In between, Charles writes letters to his dead mother, addressed to himself, and goes around looking for statues of naked women to feel up.
But I guess that was not enough for Cox, so he gave Lisa a girlfriend, who is a lesbian, and they have sex together, and we get to watch. But Charles wants to watch too, so he pays them for the privilege. And that was not enough for Cox, so when Charles goes to look at David's art, we get to see David with a naked woman. And then when Charles kills David so he can have Lisa for himself (just to watch, not to touch), he has a sculptor disguise David's corpse as a statue. A naked statue, of course.
Now, lest we get the idea that Charles is a pervert (or that Cox is a pervert for wanting to make a movie like this), we have Lisa's assurance that Charles is a kind, sensitive, sweet man. And then Cox wraps the whole seedy tale up in a lot of art: we have the organ that Charles plays for the church, we have operatic music unrelentingly going on in the background, we have sculpture and paintings, we have arrangements of flowers, and we have an art class, where a woman poses nude.
In other words, Cox really put some lipstick on this pig.
But I guess that was not enough for Cox, so he gave Lisa a girlfriend, who is a lesbian, and they have sex together, and we get to watch. But Charles wants to watch too, so he pays them for the privilege. And that was not enough for Cox, so when Charles goes to look at David's art, we get to see David with a naked woman. And then when Charles kills David so he can have Lisa for himself (just to watch, not to touch), he has a sculptor disguise David's corpse as a statue. A naked statue, of course.
Now, lest we get the idea that Charles is a pervert (or that Cox is a pervert for wanting to make a movie like this), we have Lisa's assurance that Charles is a kind, sensitive, sweet man. And then Cox wraps the whole seedy tale up in a lot of art: we have the organ that Charles plays for the church, we have operatic music unrelentingly going on in the background, we have sculpture and paintings, we have arrangements of flowers, and we have an art class, where a woman poses nude.
In other words, Cox really put some lipstick on this pig.
Hugely enjoyable
andyb-41 June 1999
A terrifically watchable film, so different from Hollywood style movies that stick to a set pattern. Funny, riveting and erotic in parts, this is a true classic that deserves wider recognition. Alyson Best's strip must be the best opening scene in any film!
the perfume & beauty of a masterpiece
spj-429 December 2007
This is a classy movie!!!
I saw it by chance nearly 20 years ago & it remains one of my great memories of the cinema!
Back then, I thought this loner was intriguing but nothing more. In this world's terms, he was a loser, a grief-stricken man sending letters to his deceased mother, friend of the postman, lover of fine art! In his eccentric kingdom that the palatial few are privileged to find!
But his complex nature is balanced by the puritanical historical background he is enlivened by, privileged by, but too, imprisoned by! So he sits at his lonely piano in a deserted church of grandeur! Playing his heart out!!!
A perfect Catholic solution by the reckoning of some without hope of any resolution!!!
It reminds me of a pair of REAL priests! One who liked to use his Sunday sermons for derision & cynical responses! Another who used pillars of the church to distribute confessions of trusting practitioners! When I was a little boy, hearing for the first time of the "Good Samaritan", I couldn't believed that a priest would walk by on the opposite side of the road, to the injured & beaten collapsed man who was cared for by the rich young man & the innkeeper the hero paid for the keep of the downtrodden one!
But there's chambers of music & gardens of intrigue wafting with or without audience here!
The settings & the musical background are most impressive, from the fineries of the outside garden, to the gardens that are revealed to us layer by layer in the relationships of the protagonist to the beautiful female model who undresses for the man of mystery, on appointment, to the crass judgemental nature of her accomplice & lover in his satire of derision. Or even in the art classes where this trio mingles in a volatile atmosphere within seconds! The chemical reaction is furious!
This is NOT a good movie! It is a CLASSIC!!!
Personally, I rate this with "Cinema Paridiso", as one of the finest films ever made!!!
Do NOT miss it!
I saw it by chance nearly 20 years ago & it remains one of my great memories of the cinema!
Back then, I thought this loner was intriguing but nothing more. In this world's terms, he was a loser, a grief-stricken man sending letters to his deceased mother, friend of the postman, lover of fine art! In his eccentric kingdom that the palatial few are privileged to find!
But his complex nature is balanced by the puritanical historical background he is enlivened by, privileged by, but too, imprisoned by! So he sits at his lonely piano in a deserted church of grandeur! Playing his heart out!!!
A perfect Catholic solution by the reckoning of some without hope of any resolution!!!
It reminds me of a pair of REAL priests! One who liked to use his Sunday sermons for derision & cynical responses! Another who used pillars of the church to distribute confessions of trusting practitioners! When I was a little boy, hearing for the first time of the "Good Samaritan", I couldn't believed that a priest would walk by on the opposite side of the road, to the injured & beaten collapsed man who was cared for by the rich young man & the innkeeper the hero paid for the keep of the downtrodden one!
But there's chambers of music & gardens of intrigue wafting with or without audience here!
The settings & the musical background are most impressive, from the fineries of the outside garden, to the gardens that are revealed to us layer by layer in the relationships of the protagonist to the beautiful female model who undresses for the man of mystery, on appointment, to the crass judgemental nature of her accomplice & lover in his satire of derision. Or even in the art classes where this trio mingles in a volatile atmosphere within seconds! The chemical reaction is furious!
This is NOT a good movie! It is a CLASSIC!!!
Personally, I rate this with "Cinema Paridiso", as one of the finest films ever made!!!
Do NOT miss it!
LOVING ADMIRATION
bauerdk9 November 2003
The storyline is secondary to the telling of the hero. The journeys into his (our) madness (?) are beautiful beautiful, as are we in our most tender selves. I suggest seeing the film of course, I also suggest regular visits to our tender self. The natural beauty of the model is astonishing.
Lovely Work of Art, but Not For Me
kiwisago22 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Over twenty years ago, a good friend at the time insisted I see this film. And until a few weeks ago, I thought I'd never done so. But when I got about four fifths of the way through it, I realized that I had seen it before. I had forgotten this. My most recent viewing also came from a friend's insistence that I see it (different friend).
I can see why people THINK I should like it. It has art, beauty, flowers, sensitivity, an intelligent and gentle approach to sexuality, uniqueness, and flair. But I just don't.
I find the central character painfully stagnant, rather than poetically so, with his preoccupation with both the collective past and his own past. He reminds me of people I have known who are equally sensitive and locked in their own worlds, and I find it more tedious than romantic. Rather, I found the obnoxious young painter to be full of life and vivid. So it's not for me. With its antiquated sense of beauty, I suspect it would appeal most easily to people who were born before 1965. It really is a lovely little jewel.
I can see why people THINK I should like it. It has art, beauty, flowers, sensitivity, an intelligent and gentle approach to sexuality, uniqueness, and flair. But I just don't.
I find the central character painfully stagnant, rather than poetically so, with his preoccupation with both the collective past and his own past. He reminds me of people I have known who are equally sensitive and locked in their own worlds, and I find it more tedious than romantic. Rather, I found the obnoxious young painter to be full of life and vivid. So it's not for me. With its antiquated sense of beauty, I suspect it would appeal most easily to people who were born before 1965. It really is a lovely little jewel.
Welcome to weirdorama, in something way way different
PeterMitchell-506-5643646 February 2013
It's no surprise, you'll find Man Of Flowers one of the oddest films you've ever see. A rich lonely man, Norman Kaye, fantastic as, loves arty things. He plays piano, studies flowers, art, pays to watch beautiful young women like Alyson Best disrobe, in the opening scene. Not there's nothing wrong with the latter, although I wouldn't pay a hundred smackaroos. But in our Charles Bremmer, is an underlying picture of a lonely and mentally sick man. He posts letters to his dead mother. His psychiatrist isn't any help either, telling Charles he's doing the same thing as well as informing him that the rates are going up. One thing Charles has a lot of, is money. The scene with his shrink is my favorite among a few others. He forms a friendship with Best, that borders on a sexual one. Best though too has a lesbian lover, in one frank scene of nudity, one thing this film doesn't hold back on. Another scene, a droll timeless one, involves Kaye, in the raw, standing up in a spa bath, telling a doctor on the phone, his problems, like how he loves to smell his studies flowers, and wait till you hear how he replies. Just another guy that doesn't understand our poor Charles and his predictament. Best has an abusive ex boyfriend (Haywood-good as always) a struggling artist, who lives in the studio in the city. One scene sees him having an argument with a client on the phone, while nibbling on a yo yo biscuit, is another treasured scene. Haywood, one of Aussie's great actors is great at portraying anger, it had me rewatching the scene a few times as other ones. When Best moves in with Charles she invites her lesbian lover over, where Charles explains a exercise they must do, where Charles starts by quoting, "I've been told by doctors in the higher field". He even gets a pool installed, tent and all, I found intriguing. I really wanted Best to end up with Charles, but the end just reminds us lonely folk, as we stand apart from our other lonely peers while looking out to sea, loneliness can sometimes to be an inevitably, especially if we're not willing to do anything about it, or keep turning people away. The scenes that really got up my goat, I had to fast forward, were flashbacks played against operatic music. But they're not all bad. One shows Charles as a kid outside with a slingslot, breaking one of the front windows, where the father comes running out after him. Another of the weird scenes has Charles having quite a peculiar conversation with you're not ordinary mailman, who prewarns him about the consequences of not paying gas bills. A lot of scenes in this film are odd, as it's other characters, that are not of the regular norm, but they're funny. Another odd scene, is when he's sketching a nude artist-guess who? His teacher-Julia Blake, goes off at him, as he's drawing flowers instead. What's this preoccupation with flowers? Man Of Flowers is odd, but with it's oddness, is it's originality that I liked. This one deserves it's place up against Bliss, though it's not gonna appeal to all tastes. It's one of the most uniquely beautiful and oddest Aussie films you'll see, with great performances to boot.
High Art or Pretentious Porn?
Sleeper-Cell28 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of many films I saw at too young an age. I was probably about 11 or 12 if memory serves me correctly. Due to that I do have an affection for this film, or more precisely, an affection for Alyson Best.
I thought, as I was a kid at the time that I didn't get it because of my age. I thought there was something deeper at play that I wasn't able to detect or understand.
Having watched it as an adult I can see that there isn't much going on. Charles is someone who cannot connect easily with others. He needs rules and boundaries. Such as paying a woman to undress for him but not touching her. He is obsessed with his mother which is another recurring theme.
In end he commits murder which shows an even darker side to him.
An interesting film but hardly amazing either.
I thought, as I was a kid at the time that I didn't get it because of my age. I thought there was something deeper at play that I wasn't able to detect or understand.
Having watched it as an adult I can see that there isn't much going on. Charles is someone who cannot connect easily with others. He needs rules and boundaries. Such as paying a woman to undress for him but not touching her. He is obsessed with his mother which is another recurring theme.
In end he commits murder which shows an even darker side to him.
An interesting film but hardly amazing either.
Analysis and Critique of Man of Flowers
usersmail28 November 2001
Warning: detailed review
----- The film, Man of Flowers explores the murky and mysterious Freudian world of psychologically disturbed behaviour - the unconscious mental urges produced by denial of painful past experiences. Director, Paul Cox portrays how those deeply buried torments are so tortuously twisted when reemerging within the conscious mind. In this case, the cause of the sinister deviance being the originally repressed, oedipal sexual infatuation of a young boy (Charles Bremner) for his mother. Now matured into adulthood, the consequences of the boy's unresolved mental morass are both delightful and deadly. The stifled erotic obsession not only mentally metamorphoses into a richly cultured and critical appreciation of the arts, but also poses a dire threat to the perceived psychological father figure, who, threateningly, represents a modern-day rival for the mother's sexuality.
----- Confused already? Coherently translating such complex human mental meanderings to the cinematic screen is no simple task. Paul Cox not only thrives on the challenge, but, in Man of Flowers, admirably succeeds in immersing us in the pathos of his tormented heroes.
-----The principal character, Charles Bremner, is a wealthy, eccentric, gentle man who loves, or rather, is obsessed with the harmony of form and colour - the aesthetics of visual art. He admires skilled creativity, often stopping and physically caressing the sculpted, sensuous form of artworks on his many long walks throughout the city parks. He particularly adores the delicate, natural beauty of flowers and is a frequent customer at the local florists where he orders exotic arrangements for his finely decorated home, complementing the many examples of his discerning taste. He is a scholarly man. A would be artist himself.
A connoisseur of style and cultural excellence.
----- However, it is apparent that Charles has a hidden problem - a behavioural disorder. He visits his psychologist for help and we slowly realise that Charles is sexually impotent, unable to become naturally aroused unless stimulated by the aesthetics of form and beauty. When we see Charles sensuously stroking various objects d'art, we realise that he is mentally masturbating - pleasuring himself
-----The brilliantly effective series of flashback photographic sequences, shot in nonprofessional, hand-held, 16 mm format, offers the audience an historical perspective on Charles' dilemma and an explanation for his strange behaviour. Through the soundless, sepia toned, home-movie styled shots, we glimpse Charles, as a young boy, sexually infatuated with his mother (arguably, the result of an earlier unresolved Freudian, `Oedipal Complex' - the boy, as an infant, being sexually attracted to his mother, and viewing the father as a threat to this psycho sexual relationship). The ethereal quality of the photography gives the scenes a symbolic dreamlike connotation. This further emphasises the Freudian repressed psychological connection, as we witness Charles making overt sexual advances to his mother (and antoher woman). The advances are sadistically reprimanded by his father, who humiliatingly hauls the boy away from the scene by his ear, indicating the likelihood of some forthcoming harsh punishment - perhaps a sound thrashing - thereby repressing the whole disastrous episode deeply within the boy's unconscious mind.
----- Lisa is a likable, highly attractive, sensual, long-suffering woman; seemingly trapped in an abusive relationship with a misogynistic, starving artist, whose frustration over his questionable talents and lack of recognition is exacerbated by a heavy cocaine habit. Lisa increasingly resents her sorry predicament, but continues to financially support her boyfriend's artistic aspirations and drug dependent lifestyle. In order to supplement her income she moonlights as an artist's model.
Charles, as a would-be artist, is drawn to her sensuous beauty, and hires Lisa to pose at his home each week.
------ In Charles' splendid salon, the visually rich mise en scene shots, accompanied by the exotic operatic tones of Lucia di Lammermoor, feature a frame-centred Lisa slowly and erotically removing her clothing piece by piece, displaying the sheer physical beauty of her body. Meanwhile an enraptured but tense Charles sits unobtrusively (almost off screen) voyeuristically watching her performance. The actors are surrounded by a jungle of exquisite flower arrangements, exotic furniture and Charles' splendid collection of paintings and various artistic creations. The scene exemplifies beauty as his erotic fetish and informs us that Charles desperately needs the stimulation of beauty to function sexually.
----- Although perplexed, Lisa becomes rather fond of this strange, cultured man. She feels a compassion for his loneliness. Perhaps, she even senses his sexual dilemma as she finally stands naked in front of a now tense Charles to tentatively enquire: `Do you want anything else?' Charles, tongue-tied, and befuddled, mumbles an anguished `no', and staggers out of the house to a church across the street where he wildly plays the organ to an orgasmic crescendo. The irony of the sexually charged mise en scene is demonstrated by the sombre, sanctified surroundings of the church and the stoic minister approaching Charles, congratulating him on being such a good man who is much appreciated by the local congregation, contrasted with the climatic eruption of organ music as Charles finally metaphorically releases his frenzied passions.
----- Using surrealistic characters, Cox continues the theme of psychological personality extremes throughout the movie: the philosopher postman who exchanges long intellectual dialogues with Charles as he delivers the letters that Charles has written to his dead mother and then mailed to himself. The dominatrix like instructor in Charles drawing class reveals her lack of artistic sensitivity, barking military style orders to her students. The morbid, clinically depressed psychologist attempting to help Charles resolve his own problems. These larger than life characters further enrich the mentally murky mood that permeates the film.
----- Man of Flowers is intended be viewed as a psychologically erotic drama exploring one man's kink, his unconscious repressed sexual urgings and how they are represented in his conscious world. As such, the movie is laced with sexual imagery: the beautiful Lisa sensuously stripping off her clothes to the surging operatic tones of Lucia di Lammermoor; a Woody Allen like, pathetic Charles standing, full-frontal nude and limply impotent, unarroused by the sexually playful female swimmers. The gratuitous lesbian scene, involving Lisa and her friend was designed by Lisa to stimulate Charles, but it fell very flat, and went nowhere. The result is a missed opportunity to excite the viewer with a valid supporting shot of sensual imagery as further evidence of Charles fetish for erotic beauty. perhaps Charles' aestheticisation of sex is so complete that no amount of sexual provocation can ever stimulate him.
-----The complex mental maze often stretches the audience's comprehension. Much like the mentally disturbed themselves, we are unsure just what the real motives are. Just what is Charles doing and why he is doing it? We are aware that his compulsion is sexual gratification through beauty. Much is left to our own interpretation and when the film ends we are perhaps as confused as Charles is. What was the implication of Charles returning those club like objects to their rack in his garden - were they the murder weapons? Did then, Charles kill Lisa's abusive boyfriend in order to protect her - his `little flower' - and claim her precious beauty all for himself? Or, in fact, did Charles actually kill Lisa herself, in order to permanently preserve her exquisite physical form. And the final bizarre touch, did Charles then `bronze' either Lisa's or her boyfriend's body and mount the statue in the park in order that he may perpetually admire the beauty he so longingly coveted? We are really not sure what actually finally happened.
------ Despite these shortfalls, Paul Cox succeeds in his intention of creating empathy for our mentally tormented hero. Charles Bremner may be an odd, impotent, murderous, voyeuristic, sexual deviant; but, despite all the negative characteristics, he is an essentially decent and well intended human being. Furthermore, he represents a certain elegant, albeit wacky, sophistication and refinement - rare qualities in today's crude and vulgar society.
----- The film, Man of Flowers explores the murky and mysterious Freudian world of psychologically disturbed behaviour - the unconscious mental urges produced by denial of painful past experiences. Director, Paul Cox portrays how those deeply buried torments are so tortuously twisted when reemerging within the conscious mind. In this case, the cause of the sinister deviance being the originally repressed, oedipal sexual infatuation of a young boy (Charles Bremner) for his mother. Now matured into adulthood, the consequences of the boy's unresolved mental morass are both delightful and deadly. The stifled erotic obsession not only mentally metamorphoses into a richly cultured and critical appreciation of the arts, but also poses a dire threat to the perceived psychological father figure, who, threateningly, represents a modern-day rival for the mother's sexuality.
----- Confused already? Coherently translating such complex human mental meanderings to the cinematic screen is no simple task. Paul Cox not only thrives on the challenge, but, in Man of Flowers, admirably succeeds in immersing us in the pathos of his tormented heroes.
-----The principal character, Charles Bremner, is a wealthy, eccentric, gentle man who loves, or rather, is obsessed with the harmony of form and colour - the aesthetics of visual art. He admires skilled creativity, often stopping and physically caressing the sculpted, sensuous form of artworks on his many long walks throughout the city parks. He particularly adores the delicate, natural beauty of flowers and is a frequent customer at the local florists where he orders exotic arrangements for his finely decorated home, complementing the many examples of his discerning taste. He is a scholarly man. A would be artist himself.
A connoisseur of style and cultural excellence.
----- However, it is apparent that Charles has a hidden problem - a behavioural disorder. He visits his psychologist for help and we slowly realise that Charles is sexually impotent, unable to become naturally aroused unless stimulated by the aesthetics of form and beauty. When we see Charles sensuously stroking various objects d'art, we realise that he is mentally masturbating - pleasuring himself
-----The brilliantly effective series of flashback photographic sequences, shot in nonprofessional, hand-held, 16 mm format, offers the audience an historical perspective on Charles' dilemma and an explanation for his strange behaviour. Through the soundless, sepia toned, home-movie styled shots, we glimpse Charles, as a young boy, sexually infatuated with his mother (arguably, the result of an earlier unresolved Freudian, `Oedipal Complex' - the boy, as an infant, being sexually attracted to his mother, and viewing the father as a threat to this psycho sexual relationship). The ethereal quality of the photography gives the scenes a symbolic dreamlike connotation. This further emphasises the Freudian repressed psychological connection, as we witness Charles making overt sexual advances to his mother (and antoher woman). The advances are sadistically reprimanded by his father, who humiliatingly hauls the boy away from the scene by his ear, indicating the likelihood of some forthcoming harsh punishment - perhaps a sound thrashing - thereby repressing the whole disastrous episode deeply within the boy's unconscious mind.
----- Lisa is a likable, highly attractive, sensual, long-suffering woman; seemingly trapped in an abusive relationship with a misogynistic, starving artist, whose frustration over his questionable talents and lack of recognition is exacerbated by a heavy cocaine habit. Lisa increasingly resents her sorry predicament, but continues to financially support her boyfriend's artistic aspirations and drug dependent lifestyle. In order to supplement her income she moonlights as an artist's model.
Charles, as a would-be artist, is drawn to her sensuous beauty, and hires Lisa to pose at his home each week.
------ In Charles' splendid salon, the visually rich mise en scene shots, accompanied by the exotic operatic tones of Lucia di Lammermoor, feature a frame-centred Lisa slowly and erotically removing her clothing piece by piece, displaying the sheer physical beauty of her body. Meanwhile an enraptured but tense Charles sits unobtrusively (almost off screen) voyeuristically watching her performance. The actors are surrounded by a jungle of exquisite flower arrangements, exotic furniture and Charles' splendid collection of paintings and various artistic creations. The scene exemplifies beauty as his erotic fetish and informs us that Charles desperately needs the stimulation of beauty to function sexually.
----- Although perplexed, Lisa becomes rather fond of this strange, cultured man. She feels a compassion for his loneliness. Perhaps, she even senses his sexual dilemma as she finally stands naked in front of a now tense Charles to tentatively enquire: `Do you want anything else?' Charles, tongue-tied, and befuddled, mumbles an anguished `no', and staggers out of the house to a church across the street where he wildly plays the organ to an orgasmic crescendo. The irony of the sexually charged mise en scene is demonstrated by the sombre, sanctified surroundings of the church and the stoic minister approaching Charles, congratulating him on being such a good man who is much appreciated by the local congregation, contrasted with the climatic eruption of organ music as Charles finally metaphorically releases his frenzied passions.
----- Using surrealistic characters, Cox continues the theme of psychological personality extremes throughout the movie: the philosopher postman who exchanges long intellectual dialogues with Charles as he delivers the letters that Charles has written to his dead mother and then mailed to himself. The dominatrix like instructor in Charles drawing class reveals her lack of artistic sensitivity, barking military style orders to her students. The morbid, clinically depressed psychologist attempting to help Charles resolve his own problems. These larger than life characters further enrich the mentally murky mood that permeates the film.
----- Man of Flowers is intended be viewed as a psychologically erotic drama exploring one man's kink, his unconscious repressed sexual urgings and how they are represented in his conscious world. As such, the movie is laced with sexual imagery: the beautiful Lisa sensuously stripping off her clothes to the surging operatic tones of Lucia di Lammermoor; a Woody Allen like, pathetic Charles standing, full-frontal nude and limply impotent, unarroused by the sexually playful female swimmers. The gratuitous lesbian scene, involving Lisa and her friend was designed by Lisa to stimulate Charles, but it fell very flat, and went nowhere. The result is a missed opportunity to excite the viewer with a valid supporting shot of sensual imagery as further evidence of Charles fetish for erotic beauty. perhaps Charles' aestheticisation of sex is so complete that no amount of sexual provocation can ever stimulate him.
-----The complex mental maze often stretches the audience's comprehension. Much like the mentally disturbed themselves, we are unsure just what the real motives are. Just what is Charles doing and why he is doing it? We are aware that his compulsion is sexual gratification through beauty. Much is left to our own interpretation and when the film ends we are perhaps as confused as Charles is. What was the implication of Charles returning those club like objects to their rack in his garden - were they the murder weapons? Did then, Charles kill Lisa's abusive boyfriend in order to protect her - his `little flower' - and claim her precious beauty all for himself? Or, in fact, did Charles actually kill Lisa herself, in order to permanently preserve her exquisite physical form. And the final bizarre touch, did Charles then `bronze' either Lisa's or her boyfriend's body and mount the statue in the park in order that he may perpetually admire the beauty he so longingly coveted? We are really not sure what actually finally happened.
------ Despite these shortfalls, Paul Cox succeeds in his intention of creating empathy for our mentally tormented hero. Charles Bremner may be an odd, impotent, murderous, voyeuristic, sexual deviant; but, despite all the negative characteristics, he is an essentially decent and well intended human being. Furthermore, he represents a certain elegant, albeit wacky, sophistication and refinement - rare qualities in today's crude and vulgar society.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
