The Falls (1980) User Reviews

Unbelievably Funny

[kurosawakira · 8/10 · 12 January 2014]

This just might be Greenaway at the top of his game: unbelievably funny and witty, a film that is a structurally magnificent testament to the wonderful madness of Joyce, or Perec, who not only wanted to distill the world but somehow managed to create a microcosm of their own in their work.

This is certainly the cinematic answer to a work like "Life: A User's Manual". Really, this is so laugh-out-loud funny it's not even funny, considering Greenaway's work for the past 25 years has been rather… serious? What Greenaway manages to do is this: he is able to create a profound film that looks deep in the mirror and sees the world unfold upon itself in an endless swirl; then he's able to present it to us in a structurally coherent way, by means of documentary filmmaking; then he's able to poke fun mostly at those means and the film itself, and still turn that gentle and witty parody on its head. In short, this is wondrous filmmaking, something quite unparalleled in my books.

I wish there were more films like this that make you laugh and not feel bad about it.

And to think that Greenaway, who is such an aesthete and wonderful crafter of shockingly beautiful images, mostly uses stock footage and images that are very much of the ordinary sort. Knowing that he would go on to make such multi-layered works such as "Prospero's Books" (1991) and "The Pillow Book" (1996) only adds to the fun. By the way, we have Stephen and Timothy Quay, of all people, pop up in the film!

One of a kind avant-garde epic

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 14 May 2015]

I reckon that The Falls has to go down as the best thing that director Peter Greenaway has ever did. It marks the end of his early years when his work mainly took the format of short films. In a way The Falls takes this form too, in that it is essentially made up of a multitude of self-contained short films, albeit ones with an overall theme and connection. More specifically, it takes the format of a mockumentary, one that mimics the dry BBC style. Set in the near future, it centres on the fallout of an unexplained occurrence known as the Violent Unknown Event, in which a large number of people experience certain changes, including physical mutations and the ability to speak a variety of new hitherto unknown languages. The cause of this phenomenon remains oblique but it is suggested that it may be in some way related to ornithology. The film is made up of a selection of 92 mini biographies of victims taken from an official catalogue, detailing only individuals whose names begin with the letters F-A-L-L.

The first thing that is apparent about this one is that it is considerably more light-hearted that Greenaway's later feature films. It's full to the brim with absurd humour and the tone remains quite playful much of the time. It really has more in common with his earlier shorts that his later feature films. For one thing, it feels more like an underground movie with much less of a budget. The later films had the cinematography of Sacha Vierney to make them look visually immaculate, yet the more lo-fi approach here kind of feels somewhat more interesting for me. The format overall makes much better use of Greenaway's talents in that it allows for him to try many different things. Each mini-bio allows for a different approach and for a highly experimental film-maker such as Greenaway this lets him flex his avant-garde muscles quite freely. Of course, some parts are more interesting than others and there are some sections that are somewhat tedious. But pleasingly often he hits home with some genuinely fascinating left-field oddity and, in any case, if one part isn't grabbing your attention it will soon be followed by something else. There are many moments of visual invention of various kinds; Greenaway is able to dabble in differing types of avant-garde film-making. Helping matters considerably at times is the score from Michael Nyman, which is often very good; in particular the title theme 'Bird List' is especially wonderful.

Many of Greenaway's peculiarities can be seen here such as the creation of an almost fantasy world of sorts, replete with characters with names so bizarre as to have no connection with our world. Characters do things that go well beyond realism and the tone in general is one of absurdity throughout. There are also characters and events that both refer back to his earlier shorts and which will be used later in his subsequent features. It very much feels like this, along with many of his other films exist within their own little fantasy universe. And of course, his obsessions with list making, numerology, fine art and birds - amongst other things – are consistently adhered to. It is admittedly of an epic length but Greenaway himself has actively encouraged people to watch it in stages or in any order they wish. It's less cold and unpleasant than much of his more famous works and this makes for quite a refreshing change. For me, while it is challenging in many ways, it is the most interesting and enjoyable film he has ever directed and remains one of the best avant-garde films out there.

Documentary as Borgesian fantasy.

[alice liddell · 8/10 · 29 March 2000]

Exhausting and brilliant, Greenaway's first feature may come as a surprise to those familiar with his more famous concoctions, such as THE DRAUGHTSMAN'S CONTRACT or DROWNING BY NUMBERS. Instead of sumptuous finery, set-design and colour, or studied, enigmatic performances, we have a, very local, documentary. A documentary which, like all others in the genre, seeks to examine realistically a particular problem in a particular area, through evidence, witness and analysis. A documentary whose 'real' elements are so preposterous that they develop not into an answer for truth, but full-blown mystery and fantasy, without ever moving beyond words and plausible images. What is very Greenaway is the numerology, the formalism, the very literary script, the arch jokes, the word-games, the nonsense-as-high-theory. Stunning, but you may not watch it again in a hurry.

Borges Meets Hitchhiker's Guide

[tedg · 26 July 2000]

How Greenaway surprises. Here is an early work that is rich in ways that in later works seem submerged.

The concept: A 'Violent Unexplained Event' occurs at 11:41 PM GMT, 14 June, People experience physical changes, often transitioning to birds. 92 new languages appear, and 92 birdnames are embossed in some minds. Four new genders are created; survivors appear immortal. Birds are the apparent cause, perhaps the Australian flightless rattite. The survivors are catalogued by competing societies (together with the detracting Society for Ornitological Extermination, FOX). This film is from the catalogued biographies from the primary society, of those whose names start with `fall.' There are 92 of them.

Some elements are familiar to later Greenaway viewers. Already Nyman creates an apt score. There is a magical surrealism. We have counting and other overlapping synthetic laws that restructure a slightly askew reality. We have a layering, so that many scenes add to or annotate others. Later, Greenaway does this with simultaneous images. Here the device is linear. Much harder, as one must not only create the alternative world, but also it's linear unfolding. Hence, this seems his most intelligent work.

The big shocker: In his later, much more commercial works, one can always count on lush painterly images, and often on elaborate panning shots. None of that here, in fact a practiced complement. All the attention is on the narrative, with many narrators, all filmed doing their work.

This film is self-referential in all the ordinary ways, plus the idea that the creator of the film is responsible for the radical change in reality. Of course, I do believe great artists do change the world; isn't that the only workable definition of art? Does Greenaway come up to this measure or is he like everyone else, a mere spectator?

Spectating here, but we do see something that retrospectively alters my recent experience with `Drowning by Numbers.' Biography 27 is of the three Cissy Colpitts, who live in Goole and establish an experimental film repository in the watertower. This is administered from a room in the nearby maternity hospital, one of the primary epicenters of the VUE (view). The three Cissys and the watertower reappear in `Drowning by Numbers,' and their collective mission is to have a child after eliminating husbands. Fits the Prospero role of replacing God with a new logic.

Love it.

Absurd, eccentric, fastidious, hilarious, intricate. A fantastic frivolous frolic.

[Afracious · 10/10 · 12 May 2000]

Welcome to the highly personal paramount of Greenaway's work. His scathing documentary on general English silliness. An elongated, meticulously constructed piece of fabulous fantasy. A fantastic frivolous frolic. The film chronicles the biographies of 92 selected victims of the Violent Unknown Event, or VUE for short - a strange occurrence that has left people speaking strange languages and experiencing bird-related symptoms. All of the victims' surnames' begin with the word FALL. The bios are described by several narrators. Some of the bios are curt, others are fastidiously described. They are always witty. Examples being a victim who continually tells bird jokes, "Why do birds fly south for the winter? Because it's too far for them to walk". Others constantly drive in circles. Many of them have new talents, like spitting long distances. Some of the bios reminded me of Monty Python sketches, with the similar zest of absurd English humour.

It is a challenge to sit through it all in one go, and is probably best viewed on video in two or three attempts. Not recommended for everyone, but if you want something hilariously different look no further.

Sterne meets Python meets PBS

[srepka · 10/10 · 7 January 2003]

"The Falls" is an extraordinary piece of work. Nothing else comes close. The biographies of 92 victims of the "VUE" ("Violent Unexplained Event") whose surnames begin with the letters f-a-l-l, Greenaway's film is a mixture of the encyclopedic, the sinister, the silly and the plain mad. At 3h30, mad as Monty Python and as rambling as Laurence Sterne, shot and narrated in public television documentary-style, "The Falls" is designed to be exhaustive and wear you out; Greenaway himself has on occasion stated that nothing forces you to sit through, and that the film might actually work better if you just dip into it at random - "browse" was the word he used.

When I saw it, there were only myself and two other friends still in the cinema by the time the lights came up. All three of us were absolutely delighted, exhilarated in the manner of kids coming back from the Science Museum. Words like "mesmeric", "entrancing" and "fascinating" were used to discuss it afterwards, as well as "plain daft" (meant as a compliment, of course.)

Not sure if you'll enjoy "The Falls." It depends on what you want from your filmed entertainment, I guess. If you don't really think cinema should do anything other than tell stories that are easy on the brain, don't bother. If you love lists, however, and think intellectual challenge is entertaining, on the other hand, you're in for a treat.

One final note - whoever thought of recommending "Titanic" to fans of "The Falls" is obviously on some really heavy drug I've never heard about. What is it, and what other side effects does it have?

not for the weak

[aleph-1 · 10/10 · 20 February 2000]

I saw this movie at a Greenaway festival, at the Neptune in Seattle WA a few years back. It was the ultimate realist experience. The movie went on and on merciliess in its informing you of how much was left. I don't think that I have been to any movie where I have seen so many people walk out. This movie has to be seen in a theatre--video offers to many chances for escape. If you let yourself be caught up in it, the experience is unparalled. Not for the weak, but for those that fall into it, a work of pure genius.

NOT a movie

[Yxklyx · 8/10 · 17 September 2006]

This really isn't what most people would call a "movie". It uses the film _media_ in a totally different method than what we are accustomed to. Of course I'm probably repeating something I've read elsewhere but this is really a "Visual Encyclopedia" or something like that anyway. I'm sure most of you have seen "movies" in a driver's education class - I'm thinking of the movies we had to drive to on virtual car machines back in high school in the 70s - now you wouldn't put those movies in the same class as Hudsucker Proxy now would you? Just because something was filmed on a visual media doesn't mean it's a "movie". Imagine Encyclopedia Britannica making a movie of their books - that's kind of what we have here - or better yet, imagine a dictionary in "movie" format in which each word instead of being spelled out is given a 5 second video clip - now splice all these video clips together and that's kinda what we have here.

You will "falls" asleep

[rooprect · 1/10 · 9 May 2005]

10 minutes into the film, I had to check to make sure this was the right movie. 20 minutes into it, I had to make sure it was indeed Peter Greenaway, and not his evil afterbirth, who directed this. 40 minutes into it, I had to check my pulse for signs of life.

I am not too familiar with the work of Peter Greenaway (_The Cook_ being the only film of his I've seen), but based on this experimental rambling, I don't think I want to.

If you loved _The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover_ for its visual brilliance, compelling story and vivid acting, I ASSURE YOU, YOU SHALL RUE THE DAY YOU EVER POPPED _THE FALLS_ INTO YOUR TV SET. This film is little more than a Monty Python skit dragged out for 2 hours. The joke is over in the first 5 minutes. Don't waste your lives. Save yourselves. Alas, it is... too late... for me... beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

What a strange and interesting film.

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 8/10 · 15 December 2023]

The Falls is an exhaustingly long Peter Greenaway film, and apparently the first of his that can be called a feature film. In typical idiosyncratic Greenaway fashion, his "feature debut" is by no means traditional, as this is more or less 92 brief stories strung together into one film that runs for a little over three hours. Each of the 92 stories focuses on a different survivor of some strange event that killed much of the world's population and had bizarre effects on most people who survived. Despite how grim it might sound, just about everything's played for laughs, and much of the humor is absurd.

There's something weird about it because even with the repetition and slower/kind of boring moments, I never lost interest entirely. This is one film where I respect the brazen approach and admire how different it is more than I can say I really enjoyed it, but I wasn't bored too often and did enjoy parts of it for sure. It's a unique take on the post-apocalypse genre, if it can be categorized as a sci-fi film that deals with the after-effects of some kind of apocalypse. It's all done in a realistic, mockumentary style, too. Perhaps it's a little bit like the final third of Threads from 1984, but much funnier and not so soul-crushing.

I think this is my second favorite film of Greenaway's, after the immortal The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, and her Lover. Actually, it would be third, after a short film of his called Making A Splash that's literally just people swimming (trust me, the Michael Nyman music makes that one amazing- it's on YouTube). Exploring about half a dozen films of his over the last week or so has proven most rewarding, and I think he's an endlessly fascinating (and talented) filmmaker. Also happy I've done my homework before tackling an article about the man's work sometime in the next couple of days. That article is going to be lucky to get more than a couple thousand views, but oh well - it's good to be thorough and do your homework when it comes to writing about entertainment (or films that you'd probably have watched at some point anyway), no matter what.

Good G-d, this is DULL!

[madjack71 · 1/10 · 20 February 2006]

This movie has my vote for the worst movie ever made. Other candidates, such as "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "Manos: The Hands of Fate," are at least amusing, if unintentionally so. "The Falls," however, doesn't even have this advantage. Instead it is just excruciatingly long, boring and repetitive, telling an absurd number of supposedly linked vignettes about victims of some undefined apocalyptic event. The victims profiled, most of whom have developed some sort of bizarre physical or psychological handicap as a result, have nothing in common other than that the first four letters of their last name are "F-A-L-L," hence the title. There is a theme, but no plot and no particular reason to care about anyone in the film. I sat through this monstrosity while in college. When the theater brought up the lights for an intermission, halfway through the 185 minute film, at least two-thirds of the audience got up and walked out. It was that bad.

Hitchcock in a filing cabinet.

[catfish · 15 November 1998]

This is the pinnacle (some might think nadir) of Greenaway's obsession with lists and catalogues (at least so far). An obsessive film about obsession.

The film comprises ninety-two mini-documentaries of a random sample of people who have suffered as a result of the mysterious (and unexplained) "Violent Unknown Event" (or "VUE" for short). Though the VUE produces varying results, there are some common themes, such as bowel problems, skin conditions, and an obsession with birds. Some of the VUE victims even seem to be turning into birds. Though we never find out, it seems clear that "the responsibility of birds" was a key factor in the VUE.

I love this bizarre film. Despite its three hour duration it rarely drags and is witty and urbane. Greenaway uses the space to indulge in some wonderful running gags (especially the tendency of the VUE sufferers to go around in circles), and to make interesting points about the absurdity of statistics and the way in which science dehumanises its subjects by "categorising" them. This last point is subverted by the odd biographical details which Greenaway supplies us with, helping us to see the victims as individuals.

Greenaway has said that one way of viewing the film is as ninety-two different ways to make a documentary. I see it more as a cinematic equivalent of experimental music. It's like minimalism, with a strict repetitive structure which builds towards a dramatic climax. Nyman's score helps immeasurably in this development, beginning as isolated notes and chords, and finishing as an oratorio. The theme he wrote for the opening credits, "The Boulder Orchard", is fabulous.

All the old Greenaway obsessions are here: sex, death, sex and death, water, birds, calligraphy, etc. The Falls is a catalogue of Peter Greenaway as much as anything else.

Simply Awful

[VHelsing · 1/10 · 28 December 1998]

I saw this film in college. A third of the way through (about 90 minutes into the film), the lights came up for an intermission -- and virtually everyone in the theater left. It was that boring. To paraphrase Tom Servo of MST3K from his critique of "Manos," this film made me want to blow my brains out. I would recommend "The Falls" for the MST3K treatment itself, save that the show doesn't produce two-part episodes, which is what this behemoth would require.

Pernicious inclusion of fictional universe. Criminal charges pending.

[Krustallos · 17 February 2004]

I'm pleased to see so many positive reviews of this unique film. I entirely agree that it needs to be seen in a cinema to get the full relentless effect. It's also worth persevering to the end as Greenaway lightens up a bit and gives you a few more clues. In a way it's a shame that he got drawn into narrative cinema after this because The Falls seems a much more original and appropriate vehicle for his talents.

As with his earlier short films, various bits of disparate footage, old photos and other assorted nonsense are woven together with an elaborate cover story, in this case the Violent Unknown Event, which among other things is a metaphor for nuclear calamity (92 is the atomic number of uranium, "Fall" can refer to the fall of man).

Along the way we find a cornucopia of references to Greenaway films past and still to be made - principally A Zed and Two Noughts and Drowning by Numbers - running gags, in-jokes, academic pastiche, whimsical storytelling, different film techniques and ways of constructing reality. Where the average video artwork concentrates on form and style, Greenaway gives us an overdose of content.

It's worth noting that the 92 biographies in the film represent only those victims of the VUE whose names begin with the letters FALL. If you take the whole alphabet into account there are 19 million cases. You get the feeling he really, really wanted to show all 19 million.

Greenaway's new project "The Tulse Luper Suitcase" is apparently a remake or extension of "The Falls" using more modern technology. A definite must-see but it will be hard to top this for sheer demented monomaniacal verve.

A Three Hour Shaggy Dog Story

[rand-4 · 2 September 2001]

I'm a big fan of Greenaway's works and I jumped at the chance to check out this early work by the director on video.

I can't add to what others have said here except to say that it's an excrutiating experience that doesn't have enough humor to keep your interest for the full running time.

At its best, "The Falls" is an interesting and sometimes funny curiosity that points to themes Greenaway would return to again and again in his later work; at its worst, "The Falls" is a tedious experiment.

Repetitive, strange, fascinating, irritating, boring AND highly amusing, there is nothing quite like 'The Falls'!

[Infofreak · 4 March 2003]

I must admit I find most of Peter Greenaway's movies to be too much hard work. They are usually visually stunning but ultimately too cerebral and contrived for my taste. However I was pleasantly surprised with 'The Falls', his little seen feature length debut. This is one mighty strange movie, even by Greenaway's standards! A mockumentary concerning the mysterious and unexplained "Violent Unknown Event", or V.U.E. Approximately 92 short biographies of V.U.E. victims are presented, the people being selected in alphabetical order, surnames beginning with "Fall", hence the title. We never quite know what the V.U.E. is other than it tends to make people exposed to it mutate, speak previously unknown languages, and become obsessed with birds, flying and/or water. The film goes for over three hours and very few viewers will be able to watch it in one sitting without being driven slightly bonkers. Monty Python fans will probably "get" it as much as postmodernist artheads, but beware it isn't easy viewing, and requires some perseverance. Greenaway says fast forwarding is acceptable. I say almost obligatory! I watched it in three or four sittings, and when interrupted for a minute or two kept the tape running. You really have to watch this profoundly eccentric movie to understand why it's not the kind of conventional narrative that demands your complete and utter attention. At times I was bored almost to tears, at other points almost angry at the pointlessness of it all, but then on the other hand at certain sections you almost get into a Zen-like state and the whole thing becomes fascinating. And I must point at it is often very, very funny. Finishing 'The Falls', even with breaks, was a pretty exhausting experience, and not one I'm in a hurry to repeat, but it's a movie I'm glad I watched, and I recommend it to anyone looking for something (completely) different.

absolutely different

[bernie-25 · 5 June 2000]

only one word comes to mind after watching The Falls. DIFFERENT.then again, Peter Greenaway has never ceased to surprise us (even those of us expecting the surprise). from victim 1 through 92 (including the few who are barely mentioned, along with a very convincing excuse as to why they don't have a full feature mention), the viewer is trapped in this make belief world of this plague that has struck part of the population. The entwining of some of the victims stories gives one a feeling of "now-that-makes-sense", the feeling we get when watching real documentaries.

the musical score left me speechless. and after three hours of listening to it, i am sure it will be stuck in my head all day tomorrow at work. the way it progresses from one victim to the next is fascinating.

i thought that i would struggle to remember individual cases. however, the closing scenes show a quick recap of the victims, and each case is remembered individually. i think that goes to show that the magical moviemaking techniques in this movie left a good imprint on my memory. the absurd tongue-in-cheek eccentricities of each case reminded me of classic british comedy. like the games in Drowning By Numbers, it was amusing to keep up with the humour.

after seeing several Greenaway movies, this one has left the biggest imprint. "The thief, the cook, ...." had a similar effect. however, the effects differ. one is of shock, the other is of brilliance.

I am not holding a drink in my hand at the moment, but if i were, i would be toasting Peter Greenaway in thanks for 3 hours of pure excellence.

Unbearable and indecipherable

[kdufre00 · 10 July 2000]

I consider myself a fan of Peter Greenaway, and maybe since I only sat through 20 minutes of this movie, I shouldn't be giving it such a harsh review. But I can't help myself.

I can't believe people actually liked this movie. I thought it was sheer torture! I went to a screening of this movie with my sister at the Harvard Film Archive a few months ago. After ten minutes of sitting through unintelligible dialogue and grainy photography, I thought to myself, "I have to sit through 3 hours of this?!" To my relief, my sister shared my feelings about the movie and we left the screening after another generous ten minutes.

I hope I am not offending any ardent Greenaway fans out there. I like his movies too! I even met him 3 years ago at the Boston premiere of "The Pillow Book." I consider myself an intelligent person, and I like to see plenty of experimental movies. After reading the above comments on "The Falls" however, I am amazed that other people understood what it was about....and actually sat through it!

An intricate, meandering, multi-layered fantasy where fiction is presented as fact

[ThreeSadTigers · 27 March 2008]

Greenaway's first feature length film after years of short, conceptual experimentation is a rich tapestry of absurd fabrication dressed up as fact. His prior experiments had developed this mock-documentary format with films like Dear Phone (1977) and A Walk Through H: The Reincarnation of an Ornithologist (1978), in which facts that couldn't possibly have any believable anchorage to reality, were presented to the viewer with the straight-faced, stiff-upper-lipped austerity usually reserved for the news at ten. Here, Greenaway's goal is to create a visual essay based around word games, numbering, bizarre family lineages and a random outburst of 'Violent-Unknown-Events'. With this in mind The Falls (1980) could be seen as not only the director's first stab at feature-length storytelling but also something of an introduction to a number of subsequent Greenaway trademarks, characteristics and idiosyncrasies that would become more apparent in the later, more superficially linear film.

So, we have the preoccupation with numbers and cataloguing, with 92 being our focal point (92 deaths that are chronicled throughout, 92 disparate languages, some fictitious, 92 different types of bird, and 92 known instances of Violent-Unknown-Events, or V.U.E.). Greenaway pieces the whole thing together over the course of the film's epic, multi-faceted narrative, which the director has himself stated can be enjoyed at the viewer's own leisure. This means that we can enter and leave the proceedings whenever we feel compelled, creating a form of cinema as encyclopaedia, with Greenaway creating a shattered mosaic of wavering strands and themes running parallel through the 92 various plots and sub-plots that are documented in the film. Though it clearly won't be for everyone, The Falls will certainly appeal to fans of Greenaway's other short form experimentations, such as the aforementioned Dear Phone and other films like Windows (1975) and Water Wrackets (1976), which create similarly intellectual, arcane and satirical scenarios rife with humour and imagination.