The Draughtsman's Contract
Tags: allegory, psychedelic, satire, murder

Plot synopsis:
England, 1694. Mrs Herbert (Janet Suzman) and her daughter Mrs Talmann (Anne-Louise Lambert) try to persuade Mr Neville (Anthony Higgins), an artist, to make a series of drawings of Mr and Mrs Herbert's house and estate. Mr Neville finally agrees when Mrs Herbert offers, in addition to paying for each drawing and giving him room and board while he draws, to sleep with him. (Oddly, she makes this offer in the presence of her husband's agent, Mr Noyes (Neil Cunningham), who is drawing up the contract.) Mrs Herbert intends the drawings to be a gift to her obnoxious and estranged husband, who dotes on his property and who is conveniently planning to be away from home while the drawings are created.Mr Neville inconveniences the entire household with detailed and stringent requirements for his 12 drawings. For specified periods every day, the views he has chosen must be kept clear of carriages, animals, smoking chimneys, and people -- except for the one that requires Mr Talmann (Hugh Fraser) to stand still and wear the same clothes for several days running.The atmosphere of the film is chilly; there's little indication that any of the characters like one another, and many of them are fairly hostile. Starting over the issue of Mr Talmann's wardrobe, Mr Talmann and Mr Neville snipe at one another continuously. Mr and Mrs Talmann have a bitter confrontation. It's hard to tell what the exaggerated costumes are meant to contribute: comically tall headpieces for the women, and for the men, very long, curly wigs -- waist-length, in some cases -- which, along with full-skirted coats, make them look like Edwardian schoolgirls.Mrs Herbert is distressed by the sexual part of her agreement and tries to break the contract; Mr Neville refuses. Mrs Talmann makes her own bargain for sexual favors with Mr Neville (which doesn't affect her mother's). Later, we learn that Mr Talmann is impotent -- and also that Mr Herbert doesn't believe that women should own property, so the inheritance of the estate depends on Mrs Talmann producing a son.Mr Herbert's injured horse turns up, and shortly thereafter his body is found in the moat. Mr Noyes, the agent, who as a young man wanted to marry Mrs Herbert, comes to her demanding assistance because he believes he will be suspected of murdering Mr Herbert. Mrs Herbert shows no interest in helping him, so Mr Noyes blackmails her: if she doesn't give him the drawings (why does he want the drawings?), he'll make the draughtsman's contract public, exposing her as an adulteress.Mrs Talmann observes that many of the drawings include objects that have no business being where they are: a ladder leading to Mrs Talmann's bedroom window; a pair of boots belonging to her husband; and several items of clothing belonging to Mr Herbert. Mrs Talmann implies that Mr Neville is planting clues related to the demise of Mr Herbert. But Mr Neville is clearly drawing what he sees, and we have no evidence that he's responsible for the presence of any of the misplaced objects.An odd feature of the landscape is a moving statue (Michael Feast), which turns up twined with vines against a wall, on the roof while Mrs Herbert and her guests are eating an outdoor meal in the foreground, and on a pedestal from which it first removes an obelisk.Having completed his contract and gone away, Mr Neville comes back for a visit. Mrs Herbert offers him one more tryst in exchange for one more drawing, and he agrees. He completes a view of an equestrian statue in the garden, though he draws the horse without its rider. It's not apparent whether this is because he can't see the rider -- the moving statue may not be visible to everyone -- or because Mr Neville is alluding to the death of Mr Herbert.Although his drawing is done, Mr Neville continues to sit by the statue. As it grows dark, he's surrounded by a group of masked gentlemen, most of whom are recognizable as members of the Herbert household or their friends. The gentlemen taunt Neville, put his eyes out with a torch, kill him, and throw his body in the moat. If their motivation is related to Mr Herbert's murder, they don't mention it. They burn all the drawings.

Review: This is not always an easy film to like, it has a coldly clinical approach to its subject and protagonists which produces an intentionally distancing effect.In one scene, the Draughtsman invites the Lady of the House to examine a painting, owned by her husband, in which a complex allegory appears to be being acted out.
I see this as an analogy for the film as a whole - it is an arch, stylised, intelligent and beautiful puzzle (a murder-mystery) in which the audience is encouraged to consider the motives and objectives of the characters, but from which many important clues appear to have been deliberately removed.This might all sound frustrating, but I find the film endlessly intriguing and entertaining.
It's like a very clever and stunningly photographed Agatha Christie mystery, but without an annoying sleuth who comes along at the end and solves everything "oh-so-neatly".The photography is exemplary (the cinematographer, Curtis Clark, seems to have done little else of note), with the camera hardly moving at all, except for an occasional tracking shot.
The music is also superb, with Michael Nyman producing probably his finest score.An engaging, puzzling, visually stunning and, ultimately, rather disturbing film..
We have an 'Agatha Christie' style country house murder mystery, an investigation of class and religious opposition at the end of the 17th century, a philosphical study of the problem of artists' perception of the world (is what we 'see' what we actually perceive it to be?).
In this allegory, Mrs Herbert persuades the Draughtsman (Mr. Neville) to draw her husband's estate, sexual favours being the lure.
Evidence of Mr Neville's indiscretion eventually emerges in the 12 drawings for all to see -discarded clothing, ladders leading up to bedrooms- all rendered faithfully by the draughtsman who tries 'never to distort, nor dissemble' what he sees through his optical device.
Here, Mrs Herbert draws the link between those times and her role as the real custodian of the 'fertility' of her husband's estate.
The first Peter Greenaway's feature "The Draughtsman's Contract" (1982) - is absolutely delightful, devilishly clever (just imagine the best Agatha Christy's mystery with all sorts of clues and suspects but without Poirot or Ms. Maple to explain in the end whodunit and why.
It combines the elements of social satire with murder mystery, meditates on the power of art and role of an artist, studies family drama and mothers  daughters love and understanding, perfectly wraps it in sensual pleasure - and what the pleasure it is.
I know I will watch it again because it is a feast for eyes (I've seen big budget movies that looked plain comparing to this one shot on the limited funds), ears (Michael Nyman wrote one of the best score ever for this film) and for brain - there are mysteries and puzzles in every frame and in every dialog.There is couple of Greenaway's thoughts on his first film and on the films that influenced him from the interview that was published in L'Avant-Scene Cinema", No 333, October 1984: "Majority of my films may be viewed on several levels.
The film is about an artist who creates rich images that include incongruous elements.
The living statue is only the most obvious illogical element, and in fact draws attention away from other smaller visual diversions.Mystery artifice.
The prominent character is a draughtsman named Mr. Neville, who is asked by a lady named Mrs. Herbert to make twelve drawings of her house from different angles.
Then Mrs. Herbert's daughter approaches Mr. Neville and tells him her father may have been murdered.
Then Mr. Herbert's body is found in a ditch and things get even more complex.This film is one of those that you need to watch and try and unravel yourself.
The pictoral conceit referred to in the film repeatedly is matched by a pictoral conceit played on the viewer: the wigs were never that big, the house, garden and grounds stunning and the weather too perfect.Deception exists at many levels.
A nice touch which I suspect follows the line in the film,  something like this), "Do you think Mrs Talbot is a lady who likes her gravel being kicked around by a pack of dogs."The arrogance and exploitation of the ladies of the house by the Draughtsman, readily apparent, is more sinisterly exceeded by the arrogance and exploitation of the Draughtsman by the ladies.
Michael Nyman composes some wonderful music to fit alongside the action, the sets and costumes are flashy and eye-catching, and Greenaway particularly pays attention to giving the material a unique feel with the lighting design.
Imagine if you will an episode of PBS's Mystery set during the Restoration, with a script by Einstein, and direction by Frederico Fellini.Two excellent stage actors - Anthony Higgins and Janet Suzman - in combination with the very sultry and seldom seen Australian actress Anne Louise Lambert, act their sexy sox off in this delightful delicate pastry of a movie.
Peter Greenaway originally intended this film to be over three hours long, but he was eventually made to edit it down to 103 minutes.
This especially really goes for this unique little film.it's a very witty movie and halve way through it also becomes obvious exactly how intelligently the movie is written and constructed.
At first it doesn't look like the movie is heading anywhere and it's merely a good and enjoyable movie filled with some slightly subtle eccentric and quirky characters.
But about halve way through it becomes clear that the intentions within the story and the intentions of the characters have way more in to them, when the movie becomes more of a murder-mystery and layered and the character's motivations all start to take form and become clear.
It's a really well constructed and visually crafted movie from Peter Greenaway.The movie doesn't have the Jane Austen kind of story and approach but more like "Barry Lyndon" with the same certain quirkiness in it, if I need to compare it to anything else.
The movie has a sort of a surreal kind of atmosphere over it, which gets strengthened all the more by the outrageous costumes and wigs, thick accents and extremely difficult but beautiful to listen to- dialog and of course the special kind of characters that are in the movie.
It's also a very sexy and sort of erotic movie to watch at, with almost always a sort of sexual tension in the atmosphere during the entire movie, despite not having any real nudity or explicit nude scene's in it.The whole movie is almost entire filmed in a stage-play kind of approach, with no moving camera's and long sequences filled with dialog.
I had to watch this movie for my film class.
There was a mysterious naked man painted like a statue; who knows what his purpose was.
3. There is alot of wig usage.Maybe I'm not as 'deep' as some of you film buffs, but frankly, this movie was terrible and was a bore.
Mrs. Talmann blackmails Neville into entering a similar contract pointing out items in his drawings which indicate "misadventure".
When Mr. Herbert is found dead in the moat, Neville is horrified to discover that he's the leading suspect.This is an unusual film.
Some good examples of the dialog are listed in the quotable lines section of IMDb. Greenaway makes very intricate films.
His background is in the arts and his films tend to be more like paintings layered with many ideas rather than the more literal representational photographic style used in most mainstream/classical/Hollywood film-making.
The good news is made up by the costumes (especially the hats!), music and photography/imagery (like walking around inside a Gainsborough painting!) Otherwise, pure rubbish as far as I am concerned; LONG, boring, pointless dialogues between people speaking in full, interminable sentences and with a "plot" which may have involved a murder (or not - I really could not have cared less after about half way through!) but does involve a very nasty, brutish and sadistic final scene (the purpose/reason for which also entirely escaped me!) And all this even before mentioning "The Statue" - even Monty Python could not have sent up that piece of filmed junk.
The film is full of sexual / fruity symbolism, which complements a statue of a naked man which can be part of any landscape at any time.
Peter Greenaway's classic comic murder mystery is a parade of fanciful language, English accents, long, white wigs, and beautiful countryside.
While this film is highly artistic and, at times, feels almost like a step into an 18th century painting, it balances style with substance gloriously.
In 1694, rural Wiltshire, Mr. Neville (Higgins), an eloquent, stuck-up draughtsman strikes a contact with Mrs. Virginia Herbert (Suzman), to complete 12 landscape drawings of her estate during the absence of her husband Mr. Herbert (Hill), with a proviso that Mrs. Herbert must meet him in private and consent to actions gratifying his pleasure, which Mrs. Herbert condones.
A sinister turning point hits when Mr. Herbert's body is found in the moat around the estate, soon the presumption that clues of the said murder can be unobtrusively garnered from Mr. Neville's 12 drawings, unfortunately puts the latter in a perilous situation.
Greenaway contrives at great length to frame the 12 drawings with his principally stationary camera angle and a vaguely anachronistic apparatus, an expedient stems from his artist upbringing and magnificently instils each and every scene with painting-like allure and precision, which balances out the elocutionary hyperbole in a positive way.
The design is beautiful, with the sets and costumes serving a dull dull story, bereft of plot, characters, and interesting dialogue.
She informed me that Greenaway edited out a pivotal scene towards the end of the movie, which filled in the gap in the plot.Aside from this egregious edit, this is a lush and sumptuous film, one of Greenaway's best.
Welsh-born British screenwriter, painter and director Peter Greenaway's second feature film which he wrote, is a British production which was shot on various locations at the Groombridge Place in Kent, England and produced by David Payne.
It tells the story about Mr. Neville, a contemptuous young artist who comes to a mansion in the English countryside owned by Mr. Herbert who lives there with his wife Mrs. Virginia Herbert, her daughter Mr. Talmann and the daughter's husband Mr. Talmann.
Mr. Neville is granted his wishes by Mrs. Herbert after having started on the drawings, but as time goes by he gains a bad reputation amongst the residents and becomes such a burden to Mrs. Herbert that she decides to put an end to the contract.
When Mr. Neville makes it clear that he is not willing to annul the agreement, Mrs. Herbert's daughter tries to blackmail him into signing a new contract where he is the one that has to abide her requests.Acutely and precisely directed by experimental filmmaker Peter Greenaway, this surreal and unconventional period piece which is set in England in 1694 during the coregency of the Kingdoms of Ireland, England and Scotland, draws a variegated portrayal of an unorthodox contract that gradually instigates a deceitful game driven by power, sex, and gender issues.
While notable for it's colorful milieu depictions, fine art direction by English costume designer Bob Ringwood, cinematography by American cinematographer Curtis Clark and costume design by English costume designer Sue Blane, this dialog-driven and plot-driven fictional tale contains a remarkable score by the director's frequent collaborator, British pianist and composer Michael Nyman which emphasizes it's mystifying atmosphere.This rhythmic, sarcastically humorous, erotic, somewhat overstated and inventive 17th century social-satire is impelled and reinforced by it's quick-witted dialog, cogent narrative structure and the splendid acting performances by English actor Anthony Higgins, South African-born British actress and director Janet Suzman and Australian actress Anne Louise Lambert.
This film actually is so pretentious, gave you an era of 17th century England, gave you a murder mystery, then in the end, another killing, gave you a naked guy in oily paint, urinating, mimic like a statue, sometimes on the roof, sometimes on a pedestal, or climbed on the gate.
But I'd like to tell you, this film sucks big time!
This film is like a fart, so stink, yet mucho reviewers told you it smelled so good and so lovely.
I have problems with Greenaway, but I usually give him the benefit of a doubt, since I find some of his movies intriguing and atmospheric, like Pillow Book and The cook..., and some, like this one, is pretty boring and pretentious.
Peter Greenaway's masterpiece is simply one of the best films I have ever seen.
Michael Nyman's score has stayed with me for 24 years and will always remember the insouciant pseudo baroque echoes making one feel as if the music is of repetitive grandeur and of the greatest intimacy.Every performance captivating, it is a movie that I wish I could again see in the big screen.
The beauty of colour is simply too great.I insist, a film that anyone who loves art should see.Marcellny.
The Draughtsman's Contract is a very good movie, and has beautiful shots and cool characters, but is a bit slow.Don't misunderstand me, this one is like all the Greenaway movies: so good to miss it.
This is a great film with excellent moments, but I don't think the end is the best...Anyway, this one rocks..
A Peter Greenaway film that works on so many levels and for me at least, shows a developmental of Greenaway's work as there are scenes in it which remind me of his early works.We start with "H is for House", & then when we see the draughtsman's sketches up close some of them could be maps for "A Walk Through H" some of the scenes are almost static & remind me of "Vertical Features Remake".
Peter Greenaway's films have characteristic features: beautiful aesthetics, Michael Nyman scores, grotesquely humorous plots.
His first film shows his gifts came fully formed: 'The Draughstman's Contract' is a bizarre costume drama that displays all of his talent, while, at the same time, being arguably about nothing.
Greenaway's films really are pure cinema: his interest in what he can do with the form exceeds any external message, and there's no attempt to hide the the sense of artistic experiment.
Greenaway is visually incredibly satisfying, his films are entire of themselves.
I liked the premise, the cinematography, the crazy statue and of course the beautiful music, which wouldn't ever stand alone for my strange musical tastes, but as a soundtrack, particularly for this film's static visuals, it is perfect!
One of the best Greenaway films, also check out The Cook the Thief .....
The religious, political and social issues of 1694 (the dawn of the Age of Reason) are examined and the chauvinism of the time is expressed by Mrs Talmann (Anne Louise Lambert) who acidly chides her father for cataloging her mother as the least of his assets: `a house, a garden, a horse, a wife, the preferential order'.An arrogant draughtsman (Mr Neville, played with suitable conceit by Anthony Higgins) is commissioned by Mrs Herbert (Janet Suzman) to sketch 12 drawings of her husband's house and gardens in exchange for reluctant sexual favours.
This very accessible Peter Greenaway film is both original and rewarding, and though not as well known as his later works such as The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, it is a great introduction to his exceptional art (as is Drowning by Numbers).
He is engaged by the lady of the estate, Mrs. Herbert (Janet Suzman) to draw 12 views of the estate as a present for her clod of a husband, who will be away on business for the next 15 days.
A contract is prepared which spells out Mr. Neville's exact requirements for the 12 views and Mrs. Herbert's contractual obligation for his pleasure.
I have no doubt that Peter Greenaway knew exactly what he was doing with The Draughtsman's Contract.
Discussing the meaning behind Greenaway's films like The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, or Prospero's Books or The Draughtsman's Contract, is almost a small industry among film students and certain cineastes.
What I know is that I think The Draughtsman's Contract is a mannered, magnificent puzzle of a film, where everyone speaks in complete sentences.
It's been carefully restored, is anamorphic and has several interesting extras, including an introduction to the film by Greenaway..
In the late 17th century a pompous and avaricious draughtsman, Mr Neville (Higgins), is hired by Mrs Herbet (Suzman) to sketch her husband's opulent manor (situated in Groombridge Place, in Kent) from differing viewpoints.
Basically set in rural Wiltshire, England in 1694, young and arrogant artist Mr. Neville (Anthony Higgins), also something of a romantic hero, is contracted by Mrs. Virginia Herbert (Janet Suzman) to produce 12 landscape drawings of the estate of her absent and estranged husband Mr. Herbert (Dave Hill).
Part of the contract agreement is to meet with Mr. Neville in private, and to comply with his requests for the purposes of drawing, such as when servants and residents will not be present and obstructions will be removed during his sketching.
Mrs. Herbert exhausted by meeting Mr. Neville to give him pleasure tries to terminate the contract before all drawings are completed, but the draughtsman refuses to stop and void the contract, he continues as before.
Then Mr. Neville seems to be blackmailed into making a second contract by Mrs. Herbert's married but as yet childless daughter Mrs. Talmann (Anne-Louise Lambert), she has become attracted to him and he agrees to satisfy her pleasure, as opposed to his own.
Higgins gives a great performance as the arrogant artist paid in sexual favours, the aristocratic 17th century world looks authentic with great costumes and the beautiful estate, the drawing scenes are interesting, the sexual scenes are good, and the murder plot towards, with the drawings becoming witness evidence, is intriguing, also with great use of minimalist music by Michael Nyman that fit the remarkable visuals, and a witty script, it is a fantastic period drama.