— — Bulimic Excess and the Films of Peter Greenaway By Tracy Biga ‘Tracy Biga recently completed her dissertation Cinema Bulimia: Peter Greenaway’ s Corpus of Excess at the University of Southern California, She teaches film history and theory courses in the Los Angeles area,In formal features and in depicted content, many aspects of Peter Greenaway’s films and videos appear strikingly immoderate; there are the scenes of cannibalism and torture, extensive male frontal nudity, costumes by Gaultier, obsessivenarrative structures, maniacal tracking shots, ceaseless allusions. How can we account for these elements and others like them? Is the concept of “excess,” as it has been theorized in film theory—typically in relation to hysteria— the most appropriate category through which to consider them? This question recognizes that while excess as a concept is frequently used to discuss cinema, nevertheless, “the critic is also faced with the fact that excess tends to elude analysis.” One of the most pressing problems: what is meant by excess? The concept of excess implies not a sufficiency, but a superfluity. The opposite of excess is not absence, or even paucity, but moderation, aconcept thathas proven difficult to quantify in general as well as in cinematic terms. Although the conceptof “excess” isused oftenin, film theory, no one has ever established how much “filmness” is normal, against which standard, filmic superabundance can be read. In practice, “excess” frequently denotes not-enough- ness as well as too-much-ness. Intheanalysis that follows, I will argue that ‘we can identify Greenaway’s films as excessive and that this excess is related to other qualities of a cinema that bears more in common with a metaphor of eating disorders than with that of hysteria. Many aspects of Greenaway’s films can be seen in reference to features of the eating disorders anorexia nervosa and bulimia, These include: lack of artistic control, confusion over the boundaries of the art object, rejection of interpretation, consumption of other arts and anxiety about that consumption, the female gendering of the art object, and the use of structuring patterns which reject narrative. In a theory of excess suggested by eating disorders, the insufficiency of anorexia exists in relation to the oversufficiency of bulimia, but both can be identified with the issue of control and the problem of extremity. In the clinical afflictions of anorexia (self-starvation, not enough) and bulimia (bingeing, too much), the body becomes the site of extreme fluctuations motivated by a perceived lack of control. Rather than existing in opposition, these syndromes act in accord and are frequently exhibited sequentially. Further, eating disorders are not far removed, or in opposition o, generally accepted behavior. As Susan Bordo argues, the “pathology” of eating disorders can be distinguished from “normal” female behavior only with difficulty. Distortion of body image, obsessive preoccupa- tion with weightand food, and ritualistic control of eating andexerciseare only “pathology” when they are thought to have exceeded some standard of, qualitatively similar, moderate feminine be- havior. The anorectic discovers a technique for becoming “valued in ourculture...paradoxically, by pursuing conventional feminine behavior— in this case, the discipline of perfecting the body asan object—to excess.” Far from being strange and inexplicable, bulimia emerges as a characteristic modem personality construction. For bulimia precisely and explicitly expresses the extreme development of the hunger for unrestrained consump- tion... existing in unstable tension alongside the requirement that we... get back in firm control Rather than forestalling excess, the exercise of control to immoderate degree itself becomes excess—an excess traced on a typically femi- nine body. Thecentral anxiety of the anorectic/bulimic, which getsacted out through too-much-nessand not-enough-ness: who controls the body? Who determines what can go in and what must be rejected or expelled? In the films of Peter Greenaway, thereexistextremities of not-enough- ness and too-much-ness on several filmic levels such as narration, visual design, acting, and the incorporation of other arts; the issue here: who controls the body of the film? The account of excess which I propose relies, then, explicitly on a body. Before turning to examples of Greenaway’s cinematic excess, I will consider SpectatorHelen Mirren models a design by Gaultier in The Cook, the Thiet how accounts of this quality develop a relation- ship between the human body and narrative. Definitions of excess inevitably tend to be defined against standard of filmness set by pre- WWII Classical Hollywood Cinema, whether this standard is consciously invoked or not. A Fritz. Lang film noir can be read as excessive by virtue ofits stylized sets or exaggerated lighting which exceed in some measure the classical ‘standard (too-much-ness). An Andrei Tarkowski drama, on the other hand, may be excessive for the use of long takes or restrained acting styles (not-enough-ness) in comparisonto theclassical standard, At all times, this classical standard is guided by a steadfast devotion to the develop- ment of the story, which is often repeated in theoretical accounts. In “The Concept of Cinematic Excess,” Kristen Thompson, synthesizing the approaches of Stephen Heath and Roland Barthes, connects excess to the materiality of film: Style is the use of repeated techniques which become characteristic of the work; these techniquesare foregrounded so that the spectator will notice them and create connections between their individual uses. Excess does not equal style, but the two are closely linked because they both involve the material aspects of the film, Excess forms no specific patterns which we could say are characteristic of the work, But the material ofthe filmic techniques, and a spectator’ sattention tostylemightwell lead to a noticing of excess as well.‘ Inthis conception, “material aspects of the film” are seen in opposition to narrative or plot ele- ments—the word of the father—pater—pattem— plot. What is not the father’s word, what is image, is the mater—material.’ All imagery is therefore implicated in the struggle against nar- rative pattern. Since the materiality of the image always exceeds that of the written word, all film—in its materiality—is excess. A tension develops between narratively- motivated elements which unify—words—and excessiveelements which lie outsideand struggle against the narrative, Christian Metz comments onthisrelationship, calling themerging of cinema and of narrativity “a great fact,” “a fact of civilization.”* For Metz, the nature of the image complicates any attempt to discuss cinema as a linguistic system. Unlike words, the number of images possible at any point in the syntagmatic chain “is indefinite. Several times indefinite.”” Therefore, “the paradigmatic category in film is condemned toremain partial and fragmentary, at least as long as one tries to isolate it on the level of the image.” Analyses of narrative films, then, must depend on narrative, on “their principal syntagmatic figures,” as the theorizable organization, ‘Thompson, too, implies thatimages function differently than words in that theres less control over their deployment and that this difference has implications for narrative: Spectator[Nlarrative function may justify the presence of a device, but it doesn’t always motivate the specific form that individual element will ake. Quiteoften, the device could vary considerably in form and still serve its function adequately... The actual choices are relatively arbitrary....!° Although Thompson approaches the question of excess from a neo-formalist perspective, her discussion is compatible with a psychoanalytic framework. Thompson's conception of how the material of cinema functions accords with how the clinical disorder of hysteria has been used to conceptualize film. The hysterical symptom is not stable in its manifestations, and it doesn’t fall within the patient ’s control. The hysterical symptom signi- fies through representation rather than through Storley Kracklite surrounded by his stomachs. the word. It lacks, therefore, the unity, the linearity, and, most of all, the fixity of words, The inability to communicate with words/plot characterizes those films—melodramas, women’s films—most associated with hysteri- cal expression in visual design and acting. The inability to communicate with words also ap- pears within these works; muteness isa particu- larly favored hysterical symptom in the hysteri- cal woman's film of disease." Hysteriaisexcess, which “formsno specific patterns,” rather than style, because style “is the use of repeated techniques which become characteristic of the work.” Through organized repetition, material aspects of the film canexpress unity, wholeness, pattern, Jean-Francois Lyotard puts this idea into economic terms: Nomovement, arising from any field, is given to the eye-ear of the spectator for Spectatorwhat it is: a simple sterile difference in an audio-visual field. Instead, every movement put forward sends back to something else, is inscribed as a plus or minus on the ledger book which is the film, is valuable because it returns to something else, because it is thus potential return and profit." Lyotard’s analysis leaves open the nature of the pattern, the structure of return which is signaled by repetition. Some elements, for example, dis- playing only narrative significance when pre- sented singly, can be repeated to the point of excess. Thompson suggests a pattern based on narrative motivation “by which the work makes its own devices seem reasonable. At that point where motivation fails, excess begins.” The conception of the body as intrinsically excessiveand, moreover, antithetical tonarrative depends on reading the body as female, and itis at the heart of hysterical excess. The body—of the hysteric or of the film—speaks what cannot or won't be said in words. Understanding this ‘wanton and illogical communication depends on careful interpretation whichrestores the principal of narration, Mary Ann Doane argues that hys- teria maintains a doubled relationship to narrativity, “in its relation to its cause (excessive daydreaming) and its treatment (the ‘talking "The interpreter’ simposition of narrative authority on the hysterical body acts out the struggle of pattern and excess, with the latter contained by the former, Inthe case of Greenaway’ sfilmsand videos, the primacy of narration as an organizing or controlling principle, and the ability of narrative to contain excess, is frequently called into question. His work doesn’t lack narrative elements; often there is too much plot, as in The Draughtsman' s Contract where murderers and motivesproliferate. However, organizing pattems other than narration typically exert more control over the films’ development. Such patterns include: the numbers from one to a hundred; the alphabet; the seven hills of Rome; the twelve drawings of Mr. Neville; the first four letters of, alastname; the nine circles ofhell. These systems. are irresolvable into narrative pattern, and yet a model of hysterical excess doesn’t seem to account forthem either. While these works oper- ateas too-much-ness, suchas thatwhich Thomp- son describes—in costume, allusion, set design, color—they are also examples of not-enough- ness, excessive reduction which is also not motivated by or returnable to anarrative system. For this quality of not-enough-ness, Northrup Frye provides a model, one which is also traced ‘onabody. In this case, though—perhaps because Frye discusses prose (writing) rather than cinema (image)—the body remains ungendered. In Anatomy of Criticism, Northrup Frye posits a category of fiction which, like a Greenaway film, privileges taxonomy as an organizing principle, Like Thompson, Frye also analyzes the relationship of the work’ smateriality tonarrativedriveasaway of drawing distinctions between texts, Frye doesn’t describe a perpetual tension between the narrative—unified and stable—and material manifestation—diffuse and changeable. Instead, he uses the quality of foregrounded materiality, as it appears in some texts, as a way of defining a category. In his taxonomy of critical categories, Frye identifies whathe at first calls Menippean satire: extroverted and intellectual; “deal [ing] less with people as such than with mental attitude likely to be critically misunderstood; and least likely to conform to narrative expectations.'® Atitsmost concentrated the Menippean satire presents us with a vision of the world in terms of a single intellectual pattern, The intellectual structure built up from the story makes for violent dislocations in the customary logic of narrative....!6 Frye suggests Burton’s Anatomy of Melan- choly as the paradigmatic example of this cat- egory and adopts the word “anatomy”—defined as a dissection or analysis—to replace “Menippean satire.” By choosing “anatomy” to designate the form, Frye connects the body tothe tendency to “expand into an encyclopedic farrago,”"”atendency perhaps of his own critical Spectator 10work—Anatomy of Criticism—andoneon which Greenaway obsesses. P. Adams Sitney, who inserts Greenaway into his own taxonomy of filmic Menippea, analyzes Greenaway’s 1979 film The Fallsas“an instance of this rare genre in its purest and most extravagant form.” The film isencyclopedic in length—185 minutes—and a farrago of references—Hitchcock's The Birds, avant-garde animation, documentary cinema, the French Revolution, Genesis, Greenaway’s other films pastand future, etc. The imaginary project which The Falls pretends to depictis both isolating and comprehensive. The film consists of ninety-two, almost completely discrete, segments which provide a capsule sketch of 92 “victims” of the VUE (Violent Unknown Event). The subjects of the film’s study, a portentous narrator informs us, have been chosen because the first four letters of their lastnames are F-A-L-L. A conceit of the filmis thatthe chosen lettersare purely arbitrary, although of course the word they form clearly evokes Adam and Eve's fall from grace; and, as Sitney notes, “falls” sounds very much like “false.” The VUE purportedly incites changes on the bodies and speech of its victims. They assume some physical characteristics of birds and begin to speak in idiosyncratic languages. In contradistinction to Adam and Eve, they realize that they have been rendered immortal. Greenaway provides a similar catalogue in his shortfilm Death in the Seine(1989).Twenty- six corpses are made to represent all the bodies pulled from the Seine during the French Revolution, Here, the bodily nature of the category’ s objects, slightly offsetby immortality in The Falls,is foregrounded by their disposition: dead and decomposing. Like the sufferers of the VUE, these victims are isolated through a peculiarity—in this case, the location of the discovered corpse. But the film also demonstrates, inclusiveness. While the camera examines each naked and inert character, a voice-over lists, everything that is known about the person, and how he or she came to be found dead in a river. Like The Falls, the people described represent only a finite sample of a much larger group. The Falls and Death in the Seine synthesize isolationandcomprehensiveness. These qualities are basic to the anatomy which strives to be both discrete and all-encompassing, and yet they are not opposed. In its vast and universal inclusion, it is single. The anatomy implies a taxonomy based on the most minimal, and therefore the ‘most profoundly abstract, of principles, a not- enough-ness to the point of excess. This principle underlies all taxonomies, including those in Greenaway’s films where taxonomy is associated with the appearance of excess and motored by a demonstration of con- trol. One of the most powerful examples of taxonomy and control can beeen in the story of Adam and Eve, a story to which Greenaway, in films such as The Falls and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (1989), makes frequent and explicit reference. It is interesting to note ‘Adam’s first chore: So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them. to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever themancalledevery living creature, that was its name.” Having been granted dominion over “every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth,” Adam constructs a taxonomy. As Lacan—who makes the psychoanalytic project a linguistic ‘one—points out, the operation ofnamingassumes dual function: Thusthesymbol manifests itself first of all as the murder of the thing, and this, death constitutes in the subject the in- ternalization of his desire. Adam names to control all other entities, to fix them (although they might be dead, decayed, or debased in the process). This action is at once limiting—itreduces the objects in the world toa single intellectual idea or signified—and infinite—it is capable of including everything and anything. Unlike Adam’s cerebral performance, Eve's actions are disorganizing, With her consumption il Spectatorof the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (perhapsanapple, ubiquitousinGreenaway’s films), Eve disconnects the couple from Adam’s perfectly organized system, The body— female, associated with excess, opposed to nar- rative pattem—is here depicted as engaged in transgressiveeating that interrupts the patriar- chal project. If we now return to eating disorders, it is withthe practical manifestations of these diseases put aside for the purpose of considering their psychological/semiotic meaning. This per- spective would link Thompson’s hysterical and Frye’s Menippean models by a concept which sees these excesses as compatible and as differ- entiated from moderate artistic (filmmaking) practice quantitatively rather than qualitatively. Inasense, all filmsare poised between starvation and gluttony. The individual artist imposes con- trol: “autonomy, will, discipline, conquest of desire, enhanced spirituality, purity, and tran- scendence of the female body” as Bordo, in her discussion of eating disorders, decodes the mean- ings of slendemess. Against the artistic will are arrayed destabilizing factors—the collaborative nature of filmmaking, the codes and conventions passively inherited from culture, the unfixed nature of images themselves. The body of the film text can be seen as the site of an intense struggle for control which cannot be re-solved by the imposition of a narrative pattern in the form of an interpretation. A model of bulimic excess would account for the characteristics of Greenaway’s films and videos by linking the impulses of too-much-ness andnot-enough-ness through the consuming body of the film text, a body which modern Western culture genders as female because of cinema's reliance on the material image, An explicit association of excess, narrative disruption, and inappropriate consumption exists throughout Greenaway’s films and videos, These ideas are connected on the level of plot and character to artistic subjection and annihilation. I would like to examine two examples from Greenaway’s film where these concepts cluster: one ofa belly Caspasian Speckler (Lambert Wilson) amuses spectators by reenacting the poisoning of Augustus. Spectator 12and the other in a restaurant. In The Belly of an Architect, the architect Storley Kracklite fears that his wife has been poisoning him with tainted figs. The choice of fruitiis already overdetermined, designating not only the fruit from which Adam and Eve bor- rowed concealing leaves, but Kracklite’sinterest in the Emperor Augustus, who, Kracklite be- lieves, was fed poisoned figs by his wife. (“Fica,” the Italian work for “fig” is also Italian slang for the female genitals.) Kracklite has not been poi- soned, but rather suffers from terminal stomach cancer. He suffers as well from an over-identifi- cation with both the architect Etienne-Louis Boullee, whom he seeks to commemorate in a spectacular Roman exhibition, and Augustus, whom heisabout to follow into digestive failure and death. Kracklite’s fear of dying manifests itself in ceaseless wandering, postcard writing, and a belligerent attitude towards the other characters. Most obsessively, he repeatedly photocopies representations of stomachs—his own, that of a statue of Augustus, that of a putative drawing of Boullee. Early in the film, a museum display of postcards—of Augustus and a building— foreshadows this reproduction. In this commonplace display, the statue of Augustus no Iongerexists.asa unique art object; itis replaced by limitless multiples of a photograph of the statue, reduced in size, sold for a pittance, effectively diminished, Perhaps in response to this diminution, Kracklite steals one. Later in the film, after Kracklite has begun to feel stomach pain, he photocopies and enlarges this postcard until itis life-sized and holds it up to his own stomach. He projects his discomfort ‘onto the photocopy. He uses it as a map, upon which he draws the guilty figs, marks his pain, and guides the doctor's diagnosis. This enlarged, stolen, reproduced stomach of Augustus becomes Kracklite’s main object of contemplation while simultaneously collapsing many of the film's themes. Among them: the debased nature of the artwork as the result of its reproduction, and the ambiguous nature of the engorged cavity. The reproduction of the Augustus postcard demonstrates the tenuous nature of the control which it is possible to exert over the artwork’s circulation, The variable methods by which art objects circulate is an important Greenaway theme, as in A Walk Through H (1978) where maps are bought, sold, destroyed, given as gifts, lost in the mail, etc. In this case, the postcard has been stolen. The original statue of Augustus has already been reproduced as a postcard in a way unanticipated and unsanctioned by its carver; now, Kracklite manipulates the postcard ina way similarly unanticipated and unsanctioned by the postcard’ printer. A lack of authorial control and authorial connection to the art object can be seen in the repeated scene of Kracklite photocopying the belly. The belly continually spews out of the photocopying machine with implications both reproductive and digestive. Kracklite’s obses- sive pursuit serves anarrative function—itdem- onstrates that he is worried about his stomach pain and is becoming increasingly upset. Yet, its visual impact and repetition clearly transcend this rationale. The scene escalates with each repetition until eventually Kracklite’s apartment iscovered with bellies. In heircumulativeimpact, the scenes function as excess. The objectoof this obsession, the belly, itself The architect (Brian Dennehy) learns of his terminal illness. Spectatoracquires an excessive significance. ILis compre- hensive by virtue of what it can contain. The engorged cavity comes to signify everything. ‘The cavity may be a pregnancy or a cancerous stomach, both indices of mortality; it may be Boullee’s memorial to Newton or Augustus’ tomb, indices of immortal memory; it may be artistic inspiration or personal annihilation, More specifically, the belly itself can break down and transform food into life-sustaining nourishment or it can itself break down, destroying its owner. The film links the belly to the ancient world— Augustus’ reign—and to the most modern technology—the miniature video camera in- serted into Kracklite’s intestines, Eating may be a pleasure—much is made of Kracklite’s appe- tite—yet it may also be poison and pain, All signifieds seemingly ensue fromasingle signifier. To become the repository of all meaning, the belly requires only mediation—as statue, draw- ing, photo, video; variation—Augustus’, Boullee’s, Kracklite’s bellies; and the means of ‘multiplication—the postcard and the photocopy. Anumber ofexcessive elements of formand ofcontentalso characterize The Cook, the Thief. One of these elements—a long, lateral tracking ‘movement—can often be found in Greenaway’s films, Repeatedly, the cameratracks continuously from a parking lot, through the kitchen of Le Hollandais restaurant—principle setting of the film—past the entry and cloakroom, and into the restaurant's dining room. Eventually, it travels further into the “ladies room” and then back again. This tracking repeats several times and is the principle camera movement in the film. William F, Van Wertidentifies different meanings for this movement depending on its direction, Panning left to right to follow the vari- ous sound elements or panning right to leftto follow characters and exitscenes, these are the parameters of [Sacha] Vierny’s mobile camera ‘Van Wert describes the main effect of thismove- mentas its refusal to “devolve[] toa character's point of view” which frees the camera to ac- complish other things: among them, the articula- tion of space. The space to which this camera provides access, vast and artfully decorated rooms and hallways, contains examples of excess which contribute to the pleasure of the camera movement. What visual delight will the camera reveal next? Where will this journey end? The camera tracks past glamorous clothing, heaps of food, large canvasses, displays of richness and depravity. This pleasure is only heightened by the knowledge that the unified flow of the movementis constructed; as the characters pass through the different spaces, the color of their clothing changes subtly, revealing the artifice of continuity. The extended tracking shot operates inter- and intra-textually. It will be repeated several times throughout The Cook, the Thief, and it visually quotes from previous Greenaway films— for instance, The Draughtsman's Contract (1982)—and anticipates others—Prospero’s Books (1991). The nature of the shot signals a break with traditional cinema—Hollywood cinema—which typically avoids such an ex- tended “un-motivated” camera movement, De- spite theimmensity of space revealed inthe shot, the one-dimensionality of the movement evokes the two-dimensionality of painting rather than a space constructed to suggest realism. The shot, ints duration, its rejection of Hollywood three- dimensional space, and its repetition within and without the film, functions as excess. The symbolic resonances of the space transversed inthese lateral tracking shots suggests another meaning, one which, ike theexample of excess from Belly of an Architect, is gastro- intestinal. Ina film about eating, the camera acts out a consumptive function; Van Wert says the camera“swallows” the extras. The tracking shot begins in the lot outside the restaurant in which are parked two delivery vans full of food. This food is not permitted to enter the door, or mouth, of the restaurant, and over the course of the film it begins to rot. The camera next passes through the kitchen, site of food preparation, and then into the huge entryway and hallway filled with waiters and diners. The camera finally moves Spectatorinto the cavernous, red dining room. This space could be read as inferno to the kitchen as eden or as stomach to the kitchen as mouth, At the farthest remove of the restaurant is the oversize, white “ladies room”"—heaven or the anus. Yet, having arrived at the toilet, the camera doesn’t pass through; it returns. The tracking camera articulatesamovementnotof satisfying digestion and elimination, but of regurgitation. Otheraspects of the film reinforce the theme ofexpulsionasapunishment foreating. The wife Georgina and the lover Michael flee the kitchen inashot which visually quotes from Masaccio’s fresco of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the earthly paradise. Georgina shoots the thief Spica—who has just vomited—as retribution after she forces him to eat human flesh. Both of these examples are at the same time reductive, comprehensive, and outside narrative system, Whatare the organizing patterns of Belly and The Cook, the Thief? We might say a love triangle and a revenge drama, yet much of the material in the films lies outside these familiar constructs. The plots themselves suggest that ‘what enters and what is denied entry to the body of the film lies to some extent outside artistic determination. The architect Kracklite loses his exhibition and his baby to the fascist moneyman Caspasian. The cook Richard can makemischief in the kitchen, but the loquacious moneyman Spica rules the dining room. Control can only be achieved in extremity and outside the realms of, logic and capital. Kracklite acts out a metaphor of self- absorption and inward, single focus: contemplating his own navel. Conversely, the mobile camera of The Cook, the Thief, by investigating every comer of the restaurant regardless of narrative action, demonstrates all- inclusiveness, With the starvation of minimalism, the belly becomes the sole signifier of the film’s ‘meaning; the lateral tracking movement, on the other hand, acts out a process of bingeing and purging. Neither example can be accounted for by a model of excess that appeals to either a ‘moderate narrative pattern or taxonomy. Rather, they suggest digestion—a bulimic excess. NOTES ‘Kristin Thompson, “The Concept of Cinematic Ex- cess,” Narrative, Apparatus, Text, ed. Philip Rosen, (New York: Columbia U. Press, 1986) 133. Susan Bordo, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, West- ern Culture and the Body, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 179. >Bordo 201 “Thompson 132. SJean-Joseph Goux, Symbolic Economies After Marx and Freud, trans. Jennifer Curtiss Gage (Ithaca, New York: Cornell U. Press, 1990) 214. “Christian Metz, “Some Points in the Semiotics of the Cinema,” FilmLanguage, Film Theory and Criticism, Third Edition, ed. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1985) 165. Metz 170. “Metz 171. * Metz 172. "Thompson 135. "Mary Ann Doane, “The Clinical Eye: Medical Discourses in the‘Woman's Films’ of the 1940s,"The Female Body in Western Culture, ed. Susan Rubin Suleiman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1985) 16. ® Jean-Francois Lyotard, “Acinema,” Wide Angle, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1978) 53. © Thompson 135. "Doane 66. 'sNorthrup Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (New York: Atheneum, 1969) 309. “Frye 310. "Frye 311 ™P, Adams Sitney, “The Falls,” Persistence of Vision, No. 8 (1990) 45. "Sitney 50. » The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1973) Genesis 2:19. Genesis 1:26. % Jacques Lacan, Ecrits, A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1977) 104. > Bordo 68. 2 William F. Van Wert, “Review of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover,” Film Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Winter 1990-91) 46. 25Van Wert 45. 2 Van Wert 45. 15 Spectator