Tuesday, 20 January 2026

Peter Greenaway as the Visual Analogue of Wakean Continuity

Introduction: When Narrative Gives Way to Organisation

If Finnegans Wake abandons episodes because episodicity itself becomes a limiting fiction, Peter Greenaway abandons narrative for a closely related reason.

Greenaway’s films are often described as baroque, mannered, overly intellectual, or perversely anti-story. These descriptions miss the point. Greenaway is not rejecting narrative because he cannot tell stories; he is rejecting it because narrative closure misdescribes how meaning actually operates.

Like Joyce in the Wake, Greenaway shifts from storytelling to continuous organisation.


1. From Sequence to System

Classical cinema presupposes:

  • temporal progression

  • causal continuity

  • character-centred motivation

  • narrative payoff

Greenaway replaces these with:

  • lists

  • catalogues

  • numerical constraints

  • taxonomies

  • formal symmetries

This is not aesthetic excess. It is a structural decision.

Meaning no longer unfolds primarily through time.
It unfolds through simultaneous relations.

In this, Greenaway is doing visually what the Wake does linguistically: dissolving the primacy of sequence.


2. The Draughtsman’s Contract: Rules Without Resolution

The Draughtsman’s Contract is often read as a puzzle to be solved. This is a mistake.

The film establishes:

  • rigid rules of representation,

  • precise perspectival constraints,

  • obsessive visual repetition.

Yet the accumulation of detail does not yield clarity. It yields overdetermination.

Each drawing is locally coherent.
Together, they do not converge.

Like Wakean language, the system is too productive to stabilise. The rules generate meaning, but they do not guarantee truth.

This is not epistemic failure.
It is ontological exposure.


3. Images That Refuse to Settle

Greenaway’s frames behave like Joyce’s sentences in the Wake:

  • densely layered

  • internally structured

  • resistant to prioritisation

There is no privileged element:

  • foreground competes with background,

  • text overlays image,

  • image becomes diagram,

  • diagram becomes ornament.

The eye cannot decide where to rest — because resting would be a false closure.

Meaning remains in motion.


4. Characters as Functions, Not Agents

Greenaway’s characters resemble Joyce’s Wakean figures more than classical protagonists.

They are:

  • placeholders for formal roles,

  • nodes in systems of inheritance, desire, violence, or decay,

  • vehicles for constraint rather than psychological depth.

They do not develop.
They recur, mutate, recombine.

Identity becomes procedural, not personal.


5. Non-Commutativity Without Episodes

Unlike Ulysses, Greenaway does not divide his films into stylistically discrete episodes. Instead, he creates continuous visual non-commutativity.

Each new frame:

  • reconditions the previous ones,

  • alters the salience of earlier details,

  • retroactively shifts meaning.

There is no stable “order of viewing” that would make the system converge. Even repeated viewings do not settle interpretation — they intensify instability.

This is Wakean continuity rendered visible.


6. The Viewer as Ethical Participant

Perhaps the deepest affinity between Greenaway and Joyce lies here:

neither allows passive consumption.

The viewer, like the reader of the Wake, must:

  • choose what to attend to,

  • tolerate excess without synthesis,

  • abandon the hope of final understanding.

This is not aesthetic cruelty. It is an ethics of participation.

Meaning is not delivered.
It is co-generated — and never completed.


7. Why Greenaway Is Often Resisted

Greenaway is frequently accused of being cold, cerebral, or inhuman. These reactions are revealing.

What is resisted is not complexity, but the loss of:

  • narrative reassurance,

  • emotional hierarchy,

  • interpretive closure.

Greenaway removes the comfort of being told what matters.

In doing so, he exposes the viewer’s own habits of sense-making — exactly as Joyce does.


Conclusion: Seeing the Wake

If Finnegans Wake is language that never pauses long enough to become an episode, Greenaway’s cinema is vision that never pauses long enough to become narrative.

Both enact the same ontological insight:

  • meaning is generative, not stored

  • coherence is local, not global

  • closure is optional — and often dishonest

Greenaway does not illustrate Joyce.
He converges with him from another medium, arriving independently at the same refusal of final form.

What remains is not confusion, but play — serious, structured, inexhaustible play.

And like the kaleidoscope:

  • the fragments are fixed,

  • the relations keep turning,

  • and no final picture was ever the point.

No comments:

Post a Comment