Drowning by Numbers

source: Drowning by Numbers

I first saw this film many years ago when it was first released, after having seen all greenaway's BFI funded experimental films and the Draughtman's Contract et al. Some of the reviews here seem to compare this film with greenaway's later films, right up to the Pillow Book. I don't see this as relevant, a film maker will obviously evolve over a period of 20 years. This film was at the time, and still is, a thoughtful, beautifully photographed masterpiece. The cast are superb, the script is crisp, and although it generally is regarded as greenaway's most "user friendly" film, this is no bad thing. In short, a film to be enjoyed time after time. PLEASE WILL SOMEONE ARRANGE A DVD RELEASE SOON !!!!!!!!!!

Bizzare and not funny. wash your hair instead. Joan Plowright is usually very good but this one is a bust.

There are some rare films where you discover something new each time you watch, and this is such a case. Initially you might watch it for the simple fairy-tale story (like all good fairy tales, there is repetition and a good deal of nasty goings-on). Then you might try to spot the ascending numbers that are sometimes obvious in the frame, sometimes spoken by the characters or sometimes really obscure (can you spot 86?). You may wonder whether any of the games - some of which are brilliantly conceived, like The Great Death Game - have ever really been played, or whether they are just products of Greenaway's imagination. Then you start seeing strange connections, like the one between the water tower conspirators' names - all from the apocryphal last words of famous people - and the way each of the Cissies destroys an object symbolic of her husband's occupation at the time of each murder. Even after ten viewings, the film will still have you wondering. The star names at the beginning, for example, contain other Greenaway characters and "Adnams", which is the Suffolk brewer based in Southwold (the Skipping Girl's home is a real Southwold house, by the way, called Seaview House, although there is no Amsterdam Road!). Ultimately the characters' motives are the hardest to understand. Each of the three Cissies (mother, daughter and niece) encourages the next to dispose of her unsatisfactory husband, with Madgett used as a pawn to cover up the murders. However, there are several strong suggestions that a fifth person is behind the whole plot, with its twin themes of counting and death. There is a twist at the end, however, that means things don't quite work out as intended. It's fantastic and surreal to look at, with the typical garishly coloured and deliberately over-lit scenes used by Greenaway in his other films, and quite affecting, although it's hard to feel sympathy for many of the characters involved. I give it 10/10 for its sheer uniqueness and ability to make the viewer think.

This is a black comedy-drama film set in Southwold, Suffolk. It stars Joan Plowright, Juliet Stevenson and Joely Richardson as three middle-class women (who ridiculously all have exactly the same name) from the same family. Each woman murders her husband, then tries to persuade the coroner to help them get away with it. This pointless, weird, miserable, boring film is very hard work to watch. The numbers 1 to 100 appear in the film - almost all of them are in order, but a few aren't. Some of them are very difficult to find. It takes great concentration to find them all - but they are of no relevance. It's preposterous that these educated killers would think that they could get away with their crimes in a tiny town. None of the characters are likable. The coroner's son is the worst to watch and listen to. He's a very annoying kid who proudly drones on and on about various strange games - as though what he's saying is really important. He - and the film - give the impression that they're old, traditional, rural English pursuits that many people frequently play. However, most of them are either invented for the film or are obscure. None of them have anything to do with the main plot. This film is a waste of the acting talent of its three actresses. It doesn't work as a black comedy, because it isn't funny. It doesn't work as a drama, because it's too ridiculous to take seriously. What point is there to this film - other than to make the ludicrous claim that death is just around the corner in this tiny, prosperous town?

Life's a game, death's a game. This playful little movie is all about games. If you're not a gaming-type person, you might not find this, umm, diverting. The thoroughly surreal and tongue-in-cheek tone of the movie keeps us from taking it very seriously...all of which is for the best, since that way we don't confuse the plot with serious drama; the games the women play tend toward the homicidal.... Wittgenstein famously pointed out that there are all manner of games in the world--there's no tight set of identifying characteristics; games all have, at most, a "family resemblance". Greenaway has here collected numerous far-flung relatives in this odd family. You'll no doubt appreciate some of them more than others, Well, we all inevitably have favorites. DbN and Prospero's Books (two very different movies!) are my favorite Greenaway films.

I enjoy the films of Peter Greenaway. "The Cook the Thief his Wife and her Lover" and "the Pillowbook" are both films that are unique and visionary. Peter Greenaway is like a British David Lynch. Some critics get frustrated by Greenaway, claiming his films are self indulgent. I feel self indulgent is sometimes a good thing, especially when it comes to a breathtaking film like "Drowning by Numbers". The movie is one giant puzzle. There's a girl who jumps rope while counting out the names of the stars by number. Try to see if you can spot all the numbers 1-100 hidden throughout the film. The plot concerns three women, a mother and two daughters. All 3 women are named Cissy. Each woman named Cissy drowns their deadbeat husbands for being unsatisfactory lovers. Magit is the local coroner, and he agrees to keep the murders a secret. He makes a deal to claim each death an accidental drowning, if each Cissy gives him sexual favors in return. So 3 generations of women all named Cissy decide to lead on Magit the coroner without promise. Poor Guy! The coroner's son Smut, is obsessed with death. He plays strange number games and marks roadkill with different colored paint. He also likes to set of fireworks after a death. Not to mention, Smut is also obsessed with circumcision. He's never been circumcised and feels the need to take matters in his own hands, so to speak. Wow, the crazy things men will do for women. Also look for Nip/Tuck actress Joely Richardson as the youngest Cissy. "Drowning by Numbers" is extremely bizarre, and shows that life is a game made up of numbers. It's a brilliant surreal mind-phuk puzzle that you have to watch at least twice to comprehend. Peter Greenaway is very original, with satirical wit and a dark comic edge.

Peter Greenaway's film Drowning By Numbers certainly has an interesting and unique visual style and some very strong performances. However, in the final analysis I didn't really care much about the story on screen. The film opens with a young girl in a large, star-spangled dress counting out 100 different stars. The framing of the scene is compelling and curious, but ultimately pointless. Throughout the film, various things are numbered in sequential order. After the girl is finished jumping rope, an older woman passes by and proceeds to drown her husband in a tub after he has had an amorous interlude with a younger woman. He doesn't put up much of a struggle and there are numerous apples involved in the romantic escapade, and butterflies too. Eventually the film revolves around the woman's daughter and granddaughter also drowning their husbands with the complicity of the local coroner. Amid this, there are games with ridiculous rules; numbered cows; numerous insects; a self-circumcision; runners numbered 70 and 71 who attend a series of funerals and no compelling narrative. The interesting framing of many scenes held my interest for ten or fifteen minutes, for the next 100 or so I found myself wondering, "Why should I care?"

I was ready to shut this movie off during the opening credits. A young girl skips rope as she names the stars in the cadence of her count 13-Rigel, 14- get it? Now you'd think most filmmakers would pick up this little symbol at a point near its end, but not Peter Greenaway. We see the whole count. I nearly fell asleep before the movie title appeared. I'm glad I didn't. This is one weird movie, but a charming entertainment. The counting to 100 in the rope-jump prefigures the appearance of the numbers one through a hundred in sequence throughout the movie. It's fun after a while to see if you can spot them or to predict their appearance. The plot, such as it is, centers around three women with the same name who all drown their husbands, with the assistance of the coroner, an inveterate gamesman. The other main character is the coroner's bizarre number-obsessed son, who narrates, and actually does most of the numbering that marks the progress of the film. The main characters are all utterly amoral. Does the plot really matter? It's a black comedy, and a puzzle. The people are real, but they aren't. "The play's the thing". The film is odd and personal. I loved it. You may not. It reminded me of TV's famous "The Prisoner". Peter Greenaway wrote and directed. The script is dryly amusing. The visual presentation is poetic and rich with symbols. The camera angles are unusual, befitting the material photographed. The landscape is ethereal, not unlike Prospero's Island in Greenaway's The Tempest. Except maybe for Zefferelli, nobody creates a richer texture of visual imagery. For me, the only disappointment was an unsatisfying ending. I guess this was how it had to end. I couldn't come up with a better solution to the puzzle, but I wanted the characters to fare better than they did, and the fate of the boy-narrator seemed unduly harsh. Still and all, it was Greenaway's game, and that's how he played it. I'm not sure why anyone financed this film, because the potential audience is small. But I sure liked it.

Not much I can add to the rave reviews above. A simple-complicated-ugly-beautiful-puzzle-painting of a film, which demands repeated viewings. "Drowning" is not for everyone - but look at the breakdown on that voting. As I write this, this film got more "10"s than any other number. I'm not into lists, but if you forced me, this would be my number one. Go see (or rather go buy). If you've seen it before, see it again - new layers reveal themselves even now.