Filmski događaj godine. Onaj tip filma za koji je pitanje je li dobar/loš i "o čemu se radi" potpuno neprimjereno. Nije pak ni film koji "otkriva nove mogućnosti medija", nego prije služi brisanju onoga što smo dosad mislili da je film.
Matthew Barney bi ga volio.
holymotorsfilm.com/
Holy moly
On our way out of Holy Motors, my editor and I bumped into someone he knows. After introducing me to his buddy, my editor mentioned the title of the movie we’d just seen and briefly explained that it was the latest from the enigmatic, sui generis French auteur Leos Carax (whose three-decade, five-feature career Elbert Ventura explores on Slate this week). The two perfectly reasonable questions the friend proceeded to ask—“What was it about?” and “Was it any good?”—made my editor and me look at each other and laugh out loud. We’d just been enthusiastically concurring that, though we were thrilled to have seen Holy Motors, neither of us had the slightest idea what it was about or whether we could say we enjoyed it.
Holy Motors is one of those evaluation-transcending, plot-summary-rejecting “experience movies.” I’d need a personalized flow chart of each reader’s cinematic tastes to know whether to recommend it. Do you accompany David Lynch into his twistiest, least narrative, most second-season-of-Twin Peaks places? Do you regard each new David Cronenberg film as an event, whether the subject is the Freud/Jung rivalry or a head-exploding virus? Have you willingly seen at least one Matthew Barney movie? If so, you’ll probably enjoy a bracing plunge into Holy Motors’ vortex of narrative fakeouts, shifting identities, and gleefully juvenile sight gags. If nothing else, you’ll come out of it feeling perceptually refreshed, as if you’d just had a ride on an aesthetic and philosophical log flume.
In its structure and basic setup, Holy Motors bears some uncanny (and surely accidental) similarities to a Cronenberg movie released earlier this year, Cosmopolis. In both films, a mysterious man in the back of a tricked-out white stretch limo—in Cosmopolis the role was played by Robert Pattinson; here it’s Carax’s longtime muse Denis Lavant—cruises through a vaguely futuristic city at night, moving through a series of bizarre, often violent encounters with seemingly unrelated characters. But where Cosmopolis was coldly cerebral, Holy Motors is emotionally labile to the point of hysteria, with a tone that careens from sentimentality to bitterness to cheekiness to despair.
As if to prepare us for those whiplash shifts, Carax quite explicitly sets up the movie as his and our collective dream. In the very first scene, we see a film audience sitting in the dark, every member fast asleep. Just after, a man in pajamas—played by Carax himself in a brief cameo—gets out of bed and goes to a wall covered in tree-patterned wallpaper. One of his fingers suddenly sports a keylike extension, which he uses to unlock a hidden door in the wall, stepping through the two-dimensional trees as if into a forest. This image, which eerily captures that “oh, of course” logic familiar from dreams, is at once disorienting and enticing. Carax is inviting us into his dream, or at the very least, into a hidden world that only he has—or rather, is—the key to. However wary we may be of what’s on the other side, how could we not step through with him?
Once Carax breaks through that tree-patterned wallpaper, all hell breaks loose, in the form of the astounding French actor Denis Lavant. Slight in stature but powerfully built, with the face of a pockmarked clown, Lavant plays, according to the credits, 11 separate “characters.” But are they separate people, or just successive disguises being taken on by the man in the limousine? Does the little bald man in the limo—or for that matter, any of the people he impersonates and/or encounters—even possess a single stable identity? At least Lavant’s limo driver, Céline (Edith Scob, exquisite in the way only a septuagenarian French actress can be), seems to have some handle on who the man behind the ever-changing wigs and latex prostheses really is. As they glide through the streets of a luridly lit Paris, she addresses him as “Monsieur Oscar,” alluding to an obscure organization that provides them both with briefing dossiers for his daily “appointments”—existential paid errands that require, to put it mildly, a unique skill set.
Over the course of a very long workday, Oscar (if that is his name) will ably impersonate an old beggar woman, a wall-eyed, gibberish-spouting troll who kidnaps a supermodel (Eva Mendes) from a photo shoot in a cemetery, and a dying old man saying a poignant goodbye to his niece. He will don a motion capture suit for a bout of impossibly acrobatic sex with a woman also wearing a mo-cap suit, as their images are transformed on a computer screen into rutting futuristic monsters (one of many moments in which Holy Motors’ experiential labyrinth resembles a video game, avatars and all.) At one point, he’ll be sent on a mission to kill a man who seems, in turn, to be Denis Lavant in another disguise. Later, he’ll leap out of the limo to join the Australian pop singer Kylie Minogue in the abandoned hulk of Paris’ legendary Samaritaine department store, where they sing an aching duet of lost love that’s like something straight out Jacques Démy’s The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.
I don’t want to reveal too much more about what happens in Holy Motors, a movie that teaches you how to watch it as you go along—like the hand of the man played by Leos Carax in that opening, it contains its own key, several of them in fact. In another early scene, the film even conjures a wickedly funny negative portrait of its own worst viewer, the one it doesn’t want you to be. It’s that scene in which the troll seizes Eva Mendes in the graveyard—the longest, most elaborate, and most deliberately grotesque of Monsieur Oscar’s identity-morphing “appointments.” An American photographer in shorts, snapping photo after photo of the magazine-perfect Mendes, exclaims over and over again in English, “Beauty! Beauty! Beauty!” As the abject, snaggle-toothed hunchback played (or embodied?) by Oscar limps into the shot, the photographer changes to a different, equally unilluminating term of aesthetic judgment: “Weird! Weird! Weird!” It’s not until you’ve dissolved the distinction between those categories (or maybe discarded them altogether) that you can start to experience the unholy magic of Holy Motors, a movie that’s beyond weird, and beyond beautiful.
Holy Motors – review
Some may find it deeply irritating, but Leos Carax's dreamlike and richly allusive movie is destined to become a classic
Now 51, the French enfant terrible emeritus Leos Carax is an immensely talented and highly self-conscious filmmaker who has made a mere five features in the past 28 years. His nom de plume (or as he might put it, using a term popular once among the Nouvelle Vague directors he admired, nom de caméra stylo) is an anagram of the first two parts of his real name, Alex Oscar Dupont, and the title of his last film, Pola X, made in 1999, has a similarly solipsistic origin. Pola X is an acronym derived from the French title of Herman Melville's novel Pierre; or, the Ambiguities, which Melville wrote to cope with the failure of Moby-Dick. Carax transposed it from 19th-century New England to late-20th-century France because he saw parallels between the popular and critical rejection of Moby-Dick and his own masterpiece, the 1991 movie Les amants du Pont-Neuf, which went wildly over budget.
All Carax's pictures hitherto have been about young people choosing to live outside conventional society. And except for Pola X, which starred Guillaume Depardieu and was set in Normandy, they took place in Paris and starred the raw, wiry, somewhat sinister Denis Lavant (always playing a character called Alex), an exact contemporary of the director. With Holy Motors Carax has returned to Paris and Lavant, but they are both older, though scarcely more accommodated to bourgeois life except in the parodic manner with which the film begins and ends.
It is, I think, a marvellous movie, vivid, witty, varied, puzzling, though not without its longueurs, and it uses the cinema itself as a metaphor for the journey of life, which some level-headed Anglo-Saxon audiences may find deeply irritating.
The film begins with Carax himself waking or dreaming in the early hours, and opening a door in the wall of his bedroom that is papered in the form of a dense forest, a reference, so Carax tells us, to the first lines of Dante's Inferno ("Midway on our life's journey, I found myself/ In dark woods, the right road lost"). He finds himself in the circle of a cinema, looking down on an audience of dead people in the stalls. The first historical image we're shown is one of the studies of animal locomotion made in the 1880s by the French physiologist Etienne-Jules Marey. The picture's last image evokes Cars, the Pixar company's CGI-animated movie. We are thus looking at the world through Carax's movie-educated eyes, and focusing throughout on Denis Lavant, who leaves home in the early hours to drive into Paris from his white art deco house shaped like a ship. He's formally dressed like a businessman, and one of his daughters calls from the roof: "Travaille bien" ("work hard"), a comic reference to Claire Denis's film Beau travail (aka Nice Work), a reshaping of Melville's Billy Budd set in the French Foreign Legion, in which Lavant played the Claggart figure.
By an odd coincidence, Holy Motors and David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis (a version of Don DeLillo's novel) were both shown in competition at Cannes in May, and in each a strange figure makes an allegorical urban journey in a white stretch limousine, in one case across Manhattan, in the other around Paris. Lavant's chauffeur is a handsome, middle-aged woman (Edith Scob, famously the permanently masked daughter of the demented scientist in Georges Franju's classic horror film Eyes Without a Face). She's called Céline, a hefty nudge to inform us that we're to be taken on a symbolic Voyage au bout de la nuit. Rapidly we discover that Oscar, the Lavant character, is a man of numerous aliases and identities, who with great dexterity transforms himself in the back of his car, using an actor's dressing-room mirror.
As the cinematic and literary references (to everyone from Cocteau via Buñuel to Godard) are scattered around town like confetti at a wedding or ticker tape at a hero's motorcade, Lavant/Oscar becomes (among other incarnations) an old crone begging beside the Seine; a menacing avenger from a Feuillade silent serial; a crazed, barefoot troublemaker in an ill-fitting green suit kidnapping an American model during a photo shoot and carrying her away as if he were Quasimodo or the Phantom of the Opera; a hitman hired to kill his doppelgänger; a father concerned for his daughter's safety; and the cheerful leader of an accordion band performing in a candlelit church.
He's Lon Chaney, the movie's man of a thousand faces, and Sherlock Holmes, the master of disguise. He's also possibly the manipulated anti-hero of some kind of game on CCTV. Why does he do it, he's asked by an interrogator (the chilling, charismatic Michel Piccoli making an indelible intervention). "For the beauty of the gesture," he replies.
What is certain is that he's getting old, heading towards the grave, and images of death and decay are everywhere – a spectacular suicide at night in central Paris; a romantic reunion with an old lover (Kylie Minogue) at a once grand, now abandoned art nouveau department store; a superbly staged sequence in a cemetery (possibly Père Lachaise). Borrowing from many sources, Carax's film has an atmosphere all its own, a combination of the mysterious and the lucid, of troubling nightmare and pleasing reverie. It's a happy return to the cinema for Carax, and likely to prove the classic he has been hoping to make.
It is, I think, a marvellous movie, vivid, witty, varied, puzzling, though not without its longueurs, and it uses the cinema itself as a metaphor for the journey of life, which some level-headed Anglo-Saxon audiences may find deeply irritating.
The film begins with Carax himself waking or dreaming in the early hours, and opening a door in the wall of his bedroom that is papered in the form of a dense forest, a reference, so Carax tells us, to the first lines of Dante's Inferno ("Midway on our life's journey, I found myself/ In dark woods, the right road lost"). He finds himself in the circle of a cinema, looking down on an audience of dead people in the stalls. The first historical image we're shown is one of the studies of animal locomotion made in the 1880s by the French physiologist Etienne-Jules Marey. The picture's last image evokes Cars, the Pixar company's CGI-animated movie. We are thus looking at the world through Carax's movie-educated eyes, and focusing throughout on Denis Lavant, who leaves home in the early hours to drive into Paris from his white art deco house shaped like a ship. He's formally dressed like a businessman, and one of his daughters calls from the roof: "Travaille bien" ("work hard"), a comic reference to Claire Denis's film Beau travail (aka Nice Work), a reshaping of Melville's Billy Budd set in the French Foreign Legion, in which Lavant played the Claggart figure.
By an odd coincidence, Holy Motors and David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis (a version of Don DeLillo's novel) were both shown in competition at Cannes in May, and in each a strange figure makes an allegorical urban journey in a white stretch limousine, in one case across Manhattan, in the other around Paris. Lavant's chauffeur is a handsome, middle-aged woman (Edith Scob, famously the permanently masked daughter of the demented scientist in Georges Franju's classic horror film Eyes Without a Face). She's called Céline, a hefty nudge to inform us that we're to be taken on a symbolic Voyage au bout de la nuit. Rapidly we discover that Oscar, the Lavant character, is a man of numerous aliases and identities, who with great dexterity transforms himself in the back of his car, using an actor's dressing-room mirror.
As the cinematic and literary references (to everyone from Cocteau via Buñuel to Godard) are scattered around town like confetti at a wedding or ticker tape at a hero's motorcade, Lavant/Oscar becomes (among other incarnations) an old crone begging beside the Seine; a menacing avenger from a Feuillade silent serial; a crazed, barefoot troublemaker in an ill-fitting green suit kidnapping an American model during a photo shoot and carrying her away as if he were Quasimodo or the Phantom of the Opera; a hitman hired to kill his doppelgänger; a father concerned for his daughter's safety; and the cheerful leader of an accordion band performing in a candlelit church.
He's Lon Chaney, the movie's man of a thousand faces, and Sherlock Holmes, the master of disguise. He's also possibly the manipulated anti-hero of some kind of game on CCTV. Why does he do it, he's asked by an interrogator (the chilling, charismatic Michel Piccoli making an indelible intervention). "For the beauty of the gesture," he replies.
What is certain is that he's getting old, heading towards the grave, and images of death and decay are everywhere – a spectacular suicide at night in central Paris; a romantic reunion with an old lover (Kylie Minogue) at a once grand, now abandoned art nouveau department store; a superbly staged sequence in a cemetery (possibly Père Lachaise). Borrowing from many sources, Carax's film has an atmosphere all its own, a combination of the mysterious and the lucid, of troubling nightmare and pleasing reverie. It's a happy return to the cinema for Carax, and likely to prove the classic he has been hoping to make.
Holy Motors – review
A gorgeous furry teacup of a film, Leos Carax's first feature in 13 years is a gripping surrealist odyssey that makes most other films look very buttoned-up
The French film-maker Leos Carax, director of Les Amants du Pont Neuf and Pola X, has made his first feature in 13 years, and it is a bizarre surrealist odyssey whose magic ingredient is comedy. This is a gorgeous furry teacup of a film, preposterous and filled with secrets; it is itself one big secret. Holy Motors is simultaneously immersive and alienating. The audience is forever being encouraged to forget about narrative sense and slip into a warm bath of unreason, but persistently jolted back out of it with non-sequiturs, accordion interludes, gags and unexpected chimps.
Carax's star is his longtime collaborator Denis Levant, playing Monsieur Oscar, an enigmatic businessman employed by a shadowy organisation run by a moustachioed boss (Michel Piccoli), who makes a brief and disgruntled appearance. Oscar is being ferried around Paris in the back of a white stretch limo; at the wheel is his trusted driver, Céline, played by Edith Scob. Levant's face is as inscrutable as Buster Keaton's, but its unreadability is all his own: it is a ruined-cherub face, or the face of an alien possessed of unearthly powers. Monsieur Oscar has a number of "appointments" to complete by the end of the day, whose specific needs he assesses by scanning various case folders. For each appointment, he gets into a new disguise: the back of the car is like a theatrical dressing room, and like Jim Phelps in TV's Mission: Impossible, he uses latex face masks.
But what on earth are these appointments? For one, he dresses as an old beggar woman, shambles around for a bit – apparently without talking or making contact with anyone – and then climbs back into the car. For another, he becomes a motion-capture acrobat, dressed in a skintight black catsuit with white balls, contorting around a hi-tech studio with a red-leather-clad woman in a daring and erotic routine that morphs into the very on-screen CGI animation they are creating. In another guise, he becomes "Monsieur Merde", the priapic, green-suited, flower-munching imp Carax and Levant created in a short piece for the 2008 portmanteau film Tokyo. Merde kidnaps an unsmiling fashion model played by Eva Mendes and holds her captive in a cave. He even has a poignant, even tragic encounter with Eva, a woman who appears to be his lost love – a stylish yet gentle singing performance from Kylie Minogue.
Carax gives us cinephile allusions to Jean Cocteau, Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Demy and Georges Franju in the course of the film; with a chilling mask, Scob reprises her own famous persona from Franju's 1960 film Eyes Without a Face. But more potent influences are perhaps JG Ballard, Lewis Carroll, Fritz Lang or David Lynch, whose Eraserhead and Inland Empire hover over the weird introduction, in which the director himself awakens and wanders through a darkened cinema auditorium accompanied by the unsettling sound of seagulls. Perhaps Oscar's guises are an exhibition of grotesques, a satirical commentary on our yearning for logic and progress in our lives, a yearning for stability and identity, or the exact opposite, a yearning to escape the prison of identity. It could be punk Buddhism, a set of wacky reincarnations, or maybe the film is in fact a literary adaptation of two lines from TS Eliot's Prufrock: "There will be time/ To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet."
Yet the absurdity and dream anti-logic give an unexpected force to the serious and passionate moments, which are the more moving and disturbing because they come out of nowhere and are so overwhelmingly real. At one moment, Oscar is a dying, wealthy old man making a tragic farewell to his devoted great-niece Léa (Elise Lhomeau), whom he has made rich, but in so doing evidently caused her to attract a man who has broken her heart. In another gripping scene, Oscar becomes a grumpy dad, picking up his unhappy teenage daughter from a party. His treatment of her is one of the scariest things I have seen at the cinema all year.
Holy Motors could be a multiple-personality disorder of the spirit, a tragicomic shattering of the self, caused by some catastrophe that has happened just out of sight, just beyond the reach of memory. But it's quite possible it's just bravura, imagination, fun. This is the theory I favour. It's pure pleasure.
Jean-Luc Godard famously suggested that the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. With Holy Motors, the year’s most electrifying whatsit, Godard’s fellow French filmmaker Leos Carax has taken that idea one delightfully absurd step further. On its surface, this absurdist ode to analog’s death at digital’s hands seems to echo a number of recent essays eager to perform the last rites on cinema, or at least on its status as our dominant dream factory. Yet Holy Motors is such a bravura, go-for-broke exploration of what movies can do—is so thrillingly, defiantly alive—that it contradicts its own mournful thesis at every turn. (Critics who saw its world première at this year’s Cannes Film Festival cheered with unaccustomed vigor, as if Carax had just single-handedly saved the medium.) Taking its cue from its chameleonic lead actor, Denis Lavant (best known in the U.S. as the lead in Claire Denis’ Beau Travail), the film giddily reinvents itself scene by scene, suggesting infinite possibilities even as the superstructure insists they they’re all heading for the same dead end. It’s a glorious dream-epitaph.
A mysterious prologue sets the tone: Awakening in his bedroom, a middle-aged man (Carax) discovers a secret door hidden in the wall, beyond which lies a dilapidated movie theater filled with sleeping spectators. Then Lavant emerges from a mansion early in the morning and rides around Paris in a white stretch limo, keeping various appointments. He initially appears to be a high-powered businessman of some kind, but on his first stop, he steps out of the limo dressed as an ancient bag lady, without explanation, and spends an indeterminate period on a bridge, begging for spare change. For subsequent appointments, he transforms into an athletic motion-capture performer, a frustrated father, a demented troll (previously seen in Carax’s contribution to the omnibus film Tokyo!), a professional assassin, the assassin’s doppelgänger, and several other roles. There’s even a climactic musical number, performed by a fellow operative (for lack of a better word) played by Kylie Minogue and staged in the huge, vacant La Samaritaine department store.
For fans of Carax’s previous work, the appearance of La Samaritaine is a sort of homecoming, as it was prominently featured in 1991’s majestic folly The Lovers On The Bridge, starring Lavant and Juliette Binoche. That film, shot on a massively expensive replica of Paris’ Pont-Neuf bridge, earned Carax a reputation as a profligate perfectionist and a bad risk; when his subsequent effort Pola X (1999) failed to ignite the box office, funding for his projects dried up. Holy Motors is his first feature since, and Carax has admitted that its micro-stories represent various ideas he’s been unable to make over the past 13 years. He was also forced to shoot it using a digital camera, for economy’s sake, even though the film sides squarely with the fast-disappearing world of projectors and other great lumbering machines, as per its title. Thankfully, Carax has a sense of humor about this—one of the film’s best throwaway gags involves a brisk stroll through a cemetery featuring headstones that all urge mourners to visit the deceased’s website.
While Holy Motors can be disorienting (especially for those who go in cold), it never feels disjointed—each episode is self-contained. A slow accumulation of weariness gives the film an overall emotional trajectory, albeit one belied by the film’s antic energy. One question that’s never expressly answered is the nature of Lavan’s true profession. Conversations with his chauffeur (Edith Scob) suggest that the camera is following his regular routine, and Michel Piccoli makes a mid-film cameo as his employer, complaining that Lavant no longer seems to have his heart in his work. (It’s worth noting that Lavant’s character is named Mr. Oscar, and that Leos Carax is a pseudonym-by-anagram; the director’s real name is Alex Oscar Dupont.) Lavant replies that he preferred the old days, when the cameras were clearly visible, and that’s he’s always been primarily motivated by “the beauty of the act.” This exchange vaguely implies that we’re seeing some sort of near-future form of entertainment, in which actors infiltrate the everyday world for the benefit of an unseen live audience, but the details aren’t that important. What’s clear is that Lavant has lost any semblance of an identity in the modern world, and he longs for home.
It’s miraculous that this doesn’t come across as a Luddite scold, a testament both to Lavant’s unceasing ingenuity and to Carax’s boundless imagination. Even when Lavant dons his motion-capture gear and pantomimes a sexual encounter with a woman—animated in real time as two boning monsters straight out of a bored high-school kid’s math notebook—there’s a sensuous beauty to the images, and a lithe grace in the performances, that precludes snide dismissal. For all its underlying melancholy, Holy Motors is mostly a crazy-joyous experience, reaching its peak of euphoria during a fantastic entr’acte in which Lavant heads a marching street band featuring multiple accordions. Even at the end, when it seems like Carax has provided a suitably lovely finale, there turns out to be a fillip so inspired it’s hard not to bust out laughing (even though it’s really quite sad), and then another magical coda that refracts the movie’s themes through Scob’s performance in Georges Franju’s 1960 masterpiece Eyes Without A Face, while also providing a goofy alternate take on a Pixar movie that’s best left unnamed.
Put it this way: Eva Mendes appears in the film as a model in a burqa singing a lullaby to a naked man sporting a full-on boner, after he munches on her hair… and that’s perhaps the least interesting moment in this visionary, jaw-dropping spectacle. It’s the kind of bugfuck cliff-dive that’ll still be celebrated decades after most of 2012’s prestige awards-bait has been forgotten. Carax may fear that the cinema he loves is dying (though in interviews, he claims the movie isn’t about cinema at all—a likely story), but serving up a near-unbeatable contender for the year’s best film doesn’t make the most eloquent case. - Mike D'Angelo
It’s Not About the Destination, but About the Dizzying Ride
‘Holy Motors,’ From the French Filmmaker Leos Carax
By MANOHLA DARGIS
“Holy Motors,” from the French filmmaker Leos Carax, is a dream of the movies that looks like a movie of dreams. It is a reverie that begins, appropriately, with a seated audience waiting in the dark (like us) and then cuts to a dimly lighted room, where a man (Mr. Carax) rises from a bed that he shares with a dog. He lets the sleeping dog lie (no need for trouble just yet) and creeps over to a mysterious door hidden in a wall. With a strange metal key that’s apparently grafted to one of his fingers, he unlocks the door and — like Little Nemo tumbling into Slumberland, Dorothy crossing over the rainbow and Alice falling down the rabbit hole — leaves one world for another.
That world is full of laughter, horror, rapture and eddies and swells of despair. It’s an episodic work of great visual invention — from scene to scene, you never see what’s coming — that reminds you just how drearily conventional many movies are. You want three acts? How dull. A pretty protagonist? Oh, please. The triumph of the human spirit? Go away. Mr. Carax has nothing for you. What he has are weird tales; beautifully whirling, gyrating bodies; an anguished song, a sense of drift and the steady (heart) beat of lament. And still, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet: at one point a diabolical creature crawls out of a Paris sewer, bites off a woman’s fingers and then licks Eva Mendes’s bare underarm, painting her creamy skin red with his tongue.
Ms. Mendes, as a fashion model kidnapped from a shoot, scarcely seems to notice. She comes across as an almost indifferent damsel in distress, even after a sly wardrobe change, and she’s one of several characters or types who circulate throughout, sometimes briefly. The most important of these is a chameleon of a thousand faces played and sometimes just pantomimed by Denis Lavant. An extraordinary physical specimen, with a lumpy, pockmarked mug suggestive of volcanic stone and a body that’s jumpy with sinew and muscle, Mr. Lavant has appeared in most of Mr. Carax’s movies, including as an acrobatic fire eater in the 1991 gorgeous swoon of a film “Les Amants du Pont-Neuf.” Here Mr. Lavant plays male and female, old and young, the living, the dying and the dead.
He enters in a white wig and black suit, walking away from a large Streamline Moderne house, a swirl of curves and portholes that sits on a hill like a luxury liner. The joyful sounds of giggling children ring out: “See you tonight, Dad! Work hard!” (Earlier, the caws of complaining sea gulls fill the air.) It’s charming and sweet, or would be, if not for the armed guards. The house, it appears, sits on a compound with multiple cars and guards and a waiting chauffeur, Céline (Édith Scob), a sober beauty who opens the door of a white limousine for the man she calls Monsieur Oscar. (Mr. Carax's original name was Alex Christophe Dupont; Leos Carax is an anagram for Alex Oscar.)
Mr. Oscar is a man on the move and, you discover, a man of movement, motion and moving (as in pictures). After chattering into a phone, like a regular master of the universe, Mr. Oscar begins busily transforming himself in the back of his now improbably spacious limo crammed with boxes, bric-a-brac and a dressing room mirror. When he emerges a few beats later, for the first of his multiple, magical metamorphoses, he looks like a shriveled old woman and almost unrecognizable. Bent over, he wobbles along the bank of the Seine, tapping a cane and muttering, as if to himself, instead of the bodyguards trailing him. He ends up shaking a beggar’s tin on a bridge, ignored by the passers-by who surge around him like a pitiless current.
“No, nobody loves me, nowhere” the old woman murmurs. “But I’m alive anyway.”
Within minutes she has disappeared into the limo, and Mr. Oscar is on the move again, scanning another dossier for what he and Céline cryptically refer to as appointments. The nature of these appointments and his role(s) in them are an abiding, beguiling mystery. Mr. Carax never explains his intentions — and why Mr. Oscar appears like a demon in one scene and a mustachioed baldie with a knife in the next — leaving you to piece together meaning, or meanings. All movies demand interpretation, but Mr. Carax doesn’t seem interested in your solving his puzzle, which allows you to solve it as you like. About all that’s clear is that Mr. Oscar works for an entity, perhaps God, which also makes this a movie about filmmaking and the ecstasy of creation.
(And lo! Enter Michel Piccoli, a god of French cinema, as a kind of reproving manager.)
It’s a gift for moviegoers to have this much freedom, and exhilarating. In “Holy Motors” you never know where Mr. Carax will take you and you never know what, exactly, you’re to do once you’re there. Sometimes you may be amazed or delighted; other times, you may feel restless or uninterested. No matter: there’s always another new vision coming up. If that sounds confusing, it isn’t. Although the movie doesn’t have an obvious narrative through line, its episodes are nonetheless deeply connected by mood, visual style and Mr. Lavant. They are connected, in other words, by Mr. Carax’s singular, fluid artistic vision. And while at times it feels as if “Holy Motors” had been cobbled together from a million movies, it mostly, wonderfully, feels unlike anything else: it’s cinema reloaded.
Leos Carax’s Astonishing “Holy Motors”
Making movies is like playing a musical instrument—it helps to stay in practice. That’s why it’s such a wondrous surprise that Leos Carax’s new film, “Holy Motors”, seems at once so precise and so freewheeling, so exactingly conceived and yet so spontaneous. It’s the work of a filmmaker past fifty who hasn’t made a feature in thirteen years, and who at the start of the film, he dramatizes his own isolation and reëmergence in a scene that shows his hesitant, discreet return to a movie theatre. Despite or perhaps because of the passage of time, Carax has made a film of an extraordinarily youthful vigor. It’s all the more astonishing in that his subject is age, along with its inevitable frustration, degradation, disappointment, regret, and loss. It’s also a paean to a life in the cinema—not one devoid of sentimentality, but one in which the sentimentality is intensely and precisely motivated, like old war stories, by the price it exacts. It’s a movie that arises after the end of cinema, a phoenix of a new cinema. Few films have dramatized as wisely and as poignantly the art that, like the two reels at each end of the camera and the projector, gives with one hand and takes with the other. And few films give so harrowing a sense of staring death in the face and so exhilarating a sense of coming back to tell the tale with a self-deprecating whimsy.
It’s apt that “Holy Motors” tells the story of an actor. I remember an interview from decades ago in which Carax—one of the meteoric geniuses of the modern cinema, whose second feature, “Bad Blood,” from 1986, made when he was twenty-five, is an unrivalled profusion of precocious poetic virtuosity and romantic vision—said that the great privilege of making films is the possibility of working with actors. Most great directors are also expert at casting and, for that matter, at styling, costume, and makeup. Jean-Luc Godard (in whose “King Lear” Carax plays a small role) may be one of the cinema’s great philosophical intellectuals, but he also has also invented several great stars and picked clothing and hairstyles that remain iconic. So it is with Carax, who chose Denis Lavant—magician, mime, and acrobat— for his first feature, “Boy Meets Girl,” and, in “Bad Blood,” put him alongside two young women, Julie Delpy and Juliette Binoche, who made decisive impressions. Lavant is one of the key actors of recent decades, one who, like classic-era movie actors, conveys an entire world of inner fury in perfect immobility—but who is no Methodical thespian but a hurricane of physical energy and an epicure of grace.
Here, Lavant is the very subject of the film. He plays Monsieur Oscar, a potentate who, leaving home in the morning to the loving farewells of wife and children, enters a stretch limo under the watchful eyes of bodyguards and, once securely inside, talks via cell phone with a colleague about matters of high finance until, receiving a dossier from his driver, the elderly platinum beauty Madame Céline (Edith Scob, the star of Georges Franju’s 1959 drama of uncanny horror, “Eyes Without a Face”), he removes his disguise and dons another costume—as a broken-down elderly beggar who wanders onto the street and seeks help from passers-by. The deliberate indirection sets the film’s template: Oscar is actually an actor—albeit one who plays his roles and performs his scripted action in actual settings in and around Paris. He gets his roles and scripts in the back seat of the limousine, where he does his own elaborate makeup, eats his takeout meals, and, en route from location to location, engages in sharp and friendly banter with Madame Céline, who is also something of a personal assistant and a source of moral support. Oscar transforms the world into movies minus cameras, and Carax, unseen, supplies the camera.
For Carax, it’s not the cinema that’s done but just the old cinema (one that’s old not in years but in assumptions). His new one is as full of stories and plot lines as any classical drama, and it reprises many of the tropes of classical cinema (a hit man, a family saga of money and marriage, a topical and engagé political thriller), but it does so toward prismatic ends. On the one hand, the stories bursts onto the screen like the inner projections of a director’s imagination. On the other, they reveal the devastating sacrifice of an actor’s energy that these wild imaginings demand. The deepest and widest possible approach to life—namely, cinema—imposes the most hermetic of disciplines.
The filmmaker, in his solitude, contains multitudes, but it’s the actor who makes those multitudes real—who bears the emotional burden of each transformation, of each role, and who, in finding his many identities, runs the ultimate risk: losing his own. The devastating moral effect of costume and makeup becomes evident from the very first quick-change, and gives rise to a surprising comparison. Sofia Coppola’s “Somewhere” is also the story of an actor who spends lots of time in a car; that actor—an alienated one, who never successfully unifies his work and his private life, and for whom performing is mainly a means to a mercenary end—faces a primal moral terror and glimmer of enlightenment as he sits for a test of a full-head mask that turns him, under the camera’s gaze, into an old man. Oscar, by contrast, is an artist of consummate devotion, a master of disguise who finds terrifying reserves of passion in each character, not least in a character of exactly the kind of goofy fantasy that’s so often an object of derision. If Carax shows himself in a sort of monastic isolation, it also comes off as a variety of penance: he alone knows what he has put his actors through.
Entering a movie studio, Oscar dons a motion-capture suit that’s spangled with reflective sensors that lock into beams of light. The tumbles he does alone in scenes of fighting and evasion and the fury of his running on a comical treadmill make for some of the most glorious scenes of onscreen dance since the age of the great musicals. But the point is clear, and it’s similar to the one suggested by Coppola’s depiction of an action hero off-screen: even a C.G.I. fantasy, played persuasively, extracts from its performers as much of a psychological exertion as a physical one.
The anarchic gnome called “Merde”—the sewer-dwelling beast that Lavant played in a short by Carax for the compilation film “Tokyo”—passes through the Père Lachaise cemetery and interrupts a fashion shoot by the American photographer Harry T. Bone. With a signal act of comic violence, he carries off the model (Eva Mendes) with whom he’s instantly smitten. Here Carax doesn’t just mock the vulgar debasement of women by frivolous predators but, as in the motion-capture dance, he locates the authentic core of beauty and inner force that even those debased representations depend on. Once more, he seeks and finds the moral triumph of the performer.
Carax puts Oscar through nine (or ten) changes of character, and the ambiguity is itself a crucial part of the movie, which depends on the very question of what constitutes an identity, and whether there’s any such thing, for a movie person, as a true and livable life away from movies. For Carax, identity is a matter of imagination, and cinema is a crucial forge for imagination. The actor who leaves home in the morning to the halcyon calls of wife and children is already in costume and acting, and he returns home at night to give another kind of performance.
Running through the film are traces of Carax’s previous movies—the glossly elderly woman, as seen in “Boy Meets Girl” and “Bad Blood”; Michel Piccoli, here (as in “Bad Blood”) seen with a disarmingly blatant bit of makeup; the presence of the (now-shuttered) department store La Samaritaine, which was featured prominently in “The Lovers on the Bridge”; a performance by Nastya Golubeva Carax, his daughter with the late actress Katerina Golubeva (to whom the film is dedicated); and, of course, the character “Merde.” These are only a few of the insider references that give “Holy Motors” the feel of an artistic life being relived. Oscar’s scene with Carax’s daughter is a father-daughter fight of a searing poignancy, a vision of the kind of tiny but devastating soul-deaths that, in quick and passing moments, mark a child and a parent forever.
The wild joy of music comes in an interlude featuring a blues-slamming accordion-and-percussion band parading exuberantly through a church while playing (thanks to Mike D’Angelo for identifying it) a version of R. L. Burnside’s blues burner “Let My Baby Ride,” as captured in long and swinging tracking shots. Its tragedy comes to life in a performance (at the vestiges of La Samaritaine) by Kylie Minogue, another icon of the late eighties whose very presence, along with her role, conjures a return from the burning-up of lost time—and, again, its terrible price.
One aside in the film satirizes the making of movies with small digital cameras, yet the movie’s liberating and liberated spontaneity owes much to them (and, of course, to the cinematography of Caroline Champetier, who, having worked with Godard in the eighties, learned about lapidary filming on the wing). For all its visionary grandeur and technical wizardry, “Holy Motors” has the feel of handicraft. For all of its theatrical confection, it has the immediacy of a documentary. The long wait for its creation and the rapidity of its production conjure a sense of astonishing temporal density.
Carax sends viewers home with an extraordinary vision that answers the very question of the movie’s title. The primordial romantic Wordsworth wrote, “Dear God! The very houses seem asleep.” Carax shows, in a conceit as antic as wondrous, as goofy as transcendent, what if, before they dozed off, those walls could talk… This comical animism—a twist on a classic children’s movie—offers a glimpse at an atheistic beyond, at the physical world’s metaphysical dimensions. These images and sounds that reveal the mind in matter and the soul in bodies suggest Carax’s ultimate definition of the cinema, and it’s one of the best and grandest that a movie has ever offered.
Elegantan i očito bogat bankar gospodin Oscar (Denis Lavant) na početku novog radnog dana ulazi u dugu bijelu limuzinu čija je vozačica Celine (Edith Scob), smirena i ozbiljna zrela gospođa. Klizeći pariškim ulicama, razgovaraju o sastancima koji Oscara čekaju tog dana. A onda prestaje sva logika i realnost, te počinje ono što nas čeka ostalih gotovo dva sata: bizaran art film koji postavlja puno pitanja, uskraćujući odgovor na ijedno od njih.
Oscarovi sastanci zapravo su uloge koje mora odigrati, a za koje unaprijed dobije upute u tajnovitim fasciklima iz nepoznatog izvora. Sve što znamo jest da postoji neka misteriozna tvrtka u pozadini dugačkih limuzina koje kruže Parizom, a koja se zove Sveti motori. Celine, koja za Oscara gaji očite simpatije i poštovanje, vozi ga od jednog do drugog dogovorenog mjesta dok se on, pravi majstor prerušavanja, priprema na stražnjem sjedalu limuzine u kojoj se nalazi sva potrebna kostimografija i ostala oprema.
Tijekom filma Oscara vidimo u devet različitih uloga u devet nepovezanih priča, od kojih je svaka nova još čudnija od prethodne. Odličan glumac Denis Lavant kameleonski odrađuje lik stare prosjakinje, gimnastičara u trikou sa senzorima koji simulira seks s misterioznom i natprosječno savitljivom platinastom plavušom (za kompjutersku igru, čini se), ubojice iz gangsterskih krugova, starog umirućeg bogataša, itd., ali od svih je najupečatljivija i najbizarnija priča u kojoj Oscar kao čudovišan i tek poluljudski stvor na groblju otme fotomodel Evu Mendes sa snimanja te je kao hipnotiziranu odnese u svoj podzemni brlog, gdje upriliči čudnu scenu: njezinu haljinu zubima prekroji u tradicionalnu nošnju muslimanke tako da joj se vide samo oči, te joj gol legne u krilo, posipajući se pri tom laticama cvijeća dok mu Eva pjeva uspavanku. Ova priča sadrži još zanimljivih momenata koji je čine aluzijom na kazalište, ali i na priču Ljepotice i zvijeri ili na mit o otetoj Perzefoni koju je Had odveo u podzemlje. Fotograf koji brzo odustane od Evine ljepote, ali i sigurnosti i života, te počne fotografirati Oscarovu čudnost, satiričan je komentar na ljudsku glupost. Ali sve ovdje napisano ni približno ne može dočarati urnebes i začudnost ove scene dok je ne vidite svojim očima.
Drugo svjetski poznato ime u filmu je Kylie Minogue, koja tumači ulogu Eve Grace, odnosno Jean, Oscarove stare poznanice i potencijalno bivše ljubavi. Eva se vozi Parizom u limuzini sličnoj Oscarovoj te se bavi istom djelatnošću kao i on. U nostalgičnoj sceni u staroj robnoj kući gdje svud uokolo leže potrgane glave, ruke i noge lutaka, Kylie se u formi mjuzikla pita „tko smo bili, onda kad smo bili ono što smo bili, nekad davno“. Sve u svemu, ništa spektakularno. Za jednu priču koja je trebala biti nabijena emocijama, Kylie nas ostavlja indiferentnima. Odradila je to korektno, ali hladno i distancirano. Stoga, Mendes vodi 1-0.
Jedina konstanta koja povezuje priče zapravo je sam Oscar, koji nema svoj identitet ili neki život izvan limuzine. On jednostavno jest svih devet priča odjednom, uz očitu sumnju u smisao vlastitog postojanja i poslanja. On je metafora za uloge koje čovjek u životu odigra. Uostalom, nismo li i svi mi na neki način samo uloge koje u životima imamo? S time da su Oscarove daleko dramatičnije. U nekoliko priča tematizira se smrt, i to u različitim okolnostima, ali ne može se reći da je smrt glavna tema. Teško je zapravo reći čime se točno film bavi jer je svaki pokušaj jednostavnog tumačenja Leos Carax unaprijed namjerno osudio na propast. Priča ne postoji. Postoji samo više priča na jednom mjestu. U ovom filmu samom sebi doslovno je dopustio sve – i odbacivanje svake logike i povratak povremenoj iluziji smisla, neočekivan crni humor tamo gdje ga se najmanje očekuje i nježne ljudske emocije (bilo da se radilo o romantičnoj ili obiteljskoj ljubavi), pojavu čudovišnog bića iz legendi, ali i futurističke elemente. Carax je u svakom slučaju napravio jako ambiciozan film, samo je šteta što je usput i predugačak te ne isporučuje ono što prešutno obećava.
Sveti motori mogu se shvatiti kao filmski nadrealni eksperiment. Brojne su reference na stvaranje filmova i na kazalište – scene publike u kinu na početku, umetnuti crno-bijeli isječci, pojava tajanstvenog lika (evocira lik redatelja) koji u limuzini priča s Oscarom o tome zašto više ne uživa u svom radu, Oscarovi komentari kako su kamere ovih dana sve manje, pa i nevidljive, te zanimljiv glazbeni intermezzo, uklopljen u film kao jedna od priča i jedan od njegovih najsvjetlijih trenutaka (po mom mišljenju), u kojem Oscar predvodi harmonikaški bend, a onda i referenca na mjuzikl u priči s Kylie Minogue. Šteta je u Svetim motorima to što Carax također eksperimentira i s gledateljskim strpljenjem, a na tom planu mu ne ide dobro (čovjek koji je sjedio do mene napustio je kino čim je pojeo kokice) jer nakon početnih šokova naš apetit za apsurd i neshvatljivo toliko je prezasićen da se nadasve uvrnut kraj i Oscarova posljednja uloga za taj dan ne čine nimalo nelogičnima nakon svega što smo vidjeli.
Što još reći o filmu o kojem ni sama ne znam što reći? Konfuzan je, urnebesan, šokantan, apsurdan i na neki način fascinantan. Gledatelji koji traže priču i smisao izgubit će dva sata svog života, a ljubitelji art filmova s pozadinskim filmskim znanjem ipak mogu naći nešto za sebe u barem nekoj od vinjeta, ako već ne u svima. Carax želi podsjetiti na film kao umjetnost, gdje je sve stvar naše osobne interpretacije, a on nam daje samo neke (često varljive) smjernice. Sveti motori film je koji će vas potpuno zbuniti, ali istovremeno i natjerati da o njemu razmišljate još nekoliko dana nakon gledanja – u kojem god smislu da to bilo. - Ana Zupcic
‘Weird! Weird! It’s so weird!’ That’s not a quote from a punter leaving a screening of French eccentric Leos Carax’s first feature film in 13 years (he’s still best known for 1991’s ‘Les Amants du Pont-Neuf’), though it could be. No, they’re the elated words of an on-screen photographer after encountering perhaps the most alarming of the guises adopted by the film’s shape-shifting anti-hero, Oscar (an astonishing Denis Lavant): this version of Oscar is a Rumpelstiltskin-type grotesque who bites off two of the photographer’s fingers before dragging supermodel Kay-M (good sport Eva Mendes) underground to dine on her hair in the nude.
This is one of many such vignettes in Carax’s hypnotically inscrutable story, a cinematic revolving door constantly entered and exited by Oscar, who may or may not be the subject of an invisibly steered reality show. Or make that a sur-reality show: Oscar inserts himself into a series of role-playing scenarios of escalating outlandishness, his instructions fed to him by a stoic limousine driver (Edith Scob).
A day’s work finds Oscar enacting CGI frottage with an actress in a motion-capture bodysuit; begging on the street dressed as a bent-backed crone; and pursuing an ex-lover (Kylie Minogue, surprisingly affecting) around the ruins of a derelict department store.
Weird, yes. But even at its most absurd (chimps are involved), there’s something tender and truthful about Carax’s hall-of-mirrors irrationality, the sense of an artist so weary of human realities that he has no choice but to twist them into the more beautiful shapes afforded by cinema. By the time Scob references the character she played 62 years ago in the seminal French horror ‘Eyes Without a Face’, you might feel a shiver – it’s hard to say what forces are propelling this ecstatic, idiotic, fizzy, frightening provocation, but we’re moved by them too. - Guy Lodge
Tokyo! (2008)
bonus:
Mauvais Sang (1986), ulomci
L'Amur Fou - The Films of Leos Carax:
Hail Holy Motors John Conomos – Paul Hammond – Saige Walton – Girish Shambu – Eloise Ross – Cristina Álvarez López – Adrian Martin – Nicole Brenez – Fergus Daly – Sarinah Masukor |
Dear Amigo
You have asked us to just write a few words about Leos Carax’s astonishing new film Holy Motors (2012). Ah, such cruelty, dear Professor: a Surrealist parlour game? A chain letter, perhaps, written across our one, shared, turning planet – and inked in our engulfing fever dreams of ‘yesterday’s cinephilia today’? Is this still possible? What if this ageing enfant terrible of contemporary French cinema is demanding of his contemporaries (don’t be fooled by his mirror-shade persona of nonchalant indifference!) that cinema must dance, make music, speak to itself, speak to us in tongues (which it does, and how!), and awaken us poor, working, Langian stiffs anchored in Henry Miller’s Air-Conditioned Nightmare that life so often is, but does not have to be.
Quite clearly, Carax, after thirteen years of wandering in the wasteland of unfinished projects and missed opportunities, took Luis Buñuel’s advice: he closed his eyes and dreamt this very daring manifesto of a cinema hovering beyond the liminal horizons of multiplex orthodoxies. A cinema that reminds us, from its very opening scenes, of Carax himself, discovering the ‘classical’ in situ truths and poetics of a medium that, once upon a time, dared call itself CINEMA. And to hell with the witless buffoons who parade themselves as cemetery auteurs craving for something a little strange à la Diane Arbus!
Forget the endless, apocalyptic saga of spotting the Russian-dolls-within-Russian dolls film quotes, references and hints to cinema history; sure, great, for those who can spot them, well and good as we sing along with Dino, ‘ain’t that a kick?’ – but what about those among us who are ignorant? Is this untimely masterpiece something, perhaps, to serve as a Japanese Pillow Book for future mutant cinephiles? Deep in my bones, I believe so.
How does one begin to sing the praises of Carax’s thunderclap of chameleon, cinematic imaginings? Nietzsche once desired to have the honeycomb eyes of a fly. Carax has such eyes, that effortlessly evoke Cocteau, Griffith, Murnau, Lang, Welles, Renoir, Godard and Franju (ah, Édith Scob with a mask! How could Carax get away with this?), among countless others, all forming a cabal of sorts (above and below ground: including Max Ernst’s favourite creature, King Kong) who dared to INVENT cinema.
For that is precisely what Carax has done in spades with Holy Motors. Cinema has been reborn in this film: make no mistake about it. When Orson Welles said that ‘the absence of limitation is the enemy of art’, he must have had Monsieur Oscar/Denis Lavant/Carax himself in mind. Or when Cocteau stated, ‘Film will only become an art when its materials are as inexpensive as paper and pencil’ – yes, Carax again. And speaking of paper and pencil: just add a box of matches, as Godard once did, and we will have cinema.
Cinema that dares call itself by that name – this is what Carax has given us. When Michel Piccoli steps into Monsieur Oscar’s white stretch limo and they speak of ‘the beauty of the act’ (beauté du geste) that has driven (pardon the expression) them in their careers, and how cameras today have significantly shrunken to the size of a doughnut or a wristwatch (shades of Dick Tracy!), our heat skips a beat. For both of them are talking about how cinema sheds its skin like a snake – it has been doing so since the late nineteenth century. Only, something is lacking for these two, caught in the hurly-burly whirlwind of technological change. Yet something also remains in the twilight embers of their lives: a realisation that cinema is, for those who care, ‘another good reason for living’ (Blaise Cendrars).
There is a photo, circa 1967, of an elderly Michel Simon and a young Claude Berri having a picnic together – quite a Renoirian scene in itself – that has haunted me for years. They seem to have a fraternal understanding of the sheer, ontological necessity to dream of an elsewhere, here and now. Carax is the kind of dreamer who belongs in such company.
Yours in friendship,
|
John Conomos
|
A First Look
Marey locomotion studies, animated > man (Leos Carax) on bed with dozing dog in anodyne hotel room > ‘enchanted forest’ wallpaper < Last Year at Marienbad starts with camera moving down corridors with plant-form cornices < main protagonist (Monsieur Oscar/Denis Lavant) will later say he ‘misses the forest’ > man finds keyhole, opens hidden door in wall < Alice in Wonderland? > looks down on motionless movie audience < mirroring of we, the movie audience > with child walking down cinema gangway > girl < Alice? > behind the thick glass of a ‘porthole’ > Oscar, le banquier, says goodbye to his family (including little girl) at gate of 1930s functionalist house with porthole windows > enters stretch limo, which will be his prop store-cum-changing room with makeup mirror > his driver, Céline (Edith Scob, she of Les yeux sans visage) < second stretch limo in 2012 cinema, after Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis > Oscar has dossier of day’s tasks > first one disguised as crone-like beggar, la mendiante < Lon Chaney in Tod Browning’s The Unholy Three (1925) comes to mind; Chaney, ‘the man of a 1,000 faces’, as is Oscar with his silicone masks, contact lenses, wispy beards and wigs < Fantômas, too? Or Zelig (aka l’homme caméléon)? > Oscar’s limo always seems to be taking a long curve, almost going round in circles: ‘I’ll take a turn’, he says at one point > second job: as acrobatic actor in motion-capture session < white dots on black costume, as in Marey > are he and his red-clad, contorsionist partner making a porno video game? An SF feature? < images-surprise / film-puzzle > limo’s number plate: 202 DXM 95 > next ‘part’: the crazed M. Merde, who abducts model (Eva Mendes) in Père Lachaise fashion shoot < the film a paean to Paris as the site of thanatoid, uncanny beauty; the city of the Surrealists < Surrealist artist Jean Benoît used to eat roses and cigars > throwaway sequences, like the shuffling file of refugee women in the sewer > the way the polyglot Oscar slots seamlessly into the life of others; as the lumpen father of a melancholic teenage girl, for example < can’t help thinking of the narrative swerves and deadpan absurdities in Raúl Ruiz / late-period Buñuel / Alain Resnais > there’s an upbeat, ‘irrelevant’ entr’acte with Oscar as l’accordéoniste > in the next segment he’s both le tueur and le tué (they’re twins), but Oscar (who is also them) walks away unscathed < mendacious images, miraculous reversals < what is a truthful lie? < elaborate mises en scène / playacting (but to what purpose?) / shifts in genre (le fantastique / noir / screwball comedy / musicals) > Oscar is involved in scenifying the final moments of others; imitating people in the throes of death (‘in at the kill’) > le mourant segment, again with a dozing dog on the playacting moribund’s bed < I think of Alps (Giorgios Lanthimos, 2011) > the sumptuous, derelict Samaritaine building (with its diorama built into the round handrail, I’ve read) as setting for a musical quasi-finale: Kylie Minogue as Jean Seberg; her tragic chanson refers to ‘the dream’ < Carax, at the beginning, is le rêveur > Oscar’s final ‘suburban’ avatar, and the site gag of going home to a family of chimps < ‘it’s all in a day’s work’ > at end Scob masks herself à la Les yeux sans visage > final discoursing of cartoon-film-like talking limos in overnight garage: they lament contemporary man’s indifference to machines (to them) < at some point, insert of magician’s hands making a tour de passe-passe < the movie, an accumulation of enigmas, of discontinuous continuities < recurring father/uncle and daughter image: Carax dedicates his film to a (defunct?) young woman (I didn’t catch her name) > in final credits Carax thanks Franju and Henry James (why him?) < impossible for me to sum the film up: sumptuous but hermetic? Forbidding? At all events, I couldn’t bring myself to go and see it again, hence the tentative, errant scrappiness of these first notations in the dark …
|
Paul Hammond
|
Action! The Overture
|
And when I film this body on the move, I feel the same pleasure I imagine Muybridge felt watching his galloping horse.
– Carax
|
In the Cannes press notes for Holy Motors, Carax explicitly invokes the 19th-century chronophotographic experiments of Étienne-Jules Marey and Eadweard Muybridge as a vital historic precedent for understanding his own ‘man of the cinema’ – Lavant/Oscar – as he acts out and alternately embodies a series of pre-scripted ‘roles’ well into the Parisian night. Carax’s comparison is not unexpected, for Holy Motors opens with one of Marey’s musculature studies of a man in motion, while similar recreations of this pre-cinematic inheritance are also glimpsed throughout. By way of the cinema’s own technological ancestors, the overture of Holy Motors fuses our longstanding desire to animate the static image – as a dreaming of the cinema, before the fact – with the phenomenological lures of gesture, bodily comportment and kinesthetic action, especially insofar as these function as the motor for events yet to come.
As Carax observes, like those ‘athletes chronophotographed by Marey’, the sculpted physique of Lavant/Oscar is at the forefront of Holy Motors – oozing an insistent physicality and an arresting sense of energy and presence across the wildly disparate personas that make for a traversal of film history (beggar, monster, gangster, lover). For Carax, as for myself watching Holy Motors, it is action – the elusive magic of a ‘body on the move’ – that spurs the alchemical life-force of the cinema. Instead of the bodily pleasures of Muybridge’s galloping horse, however, Carax concludes with a scene of stretch limousines suddenly coming to life at the film’s close – recounting to us their own existential exhaustion and possible extinction.
While action clearly animates the mechanical object into life, liveliness and affective expressivity – like the overture, the garage is another of Carax’s explicit figurations for the motorial power and potency of the cinema – it is simultaneously tinged with the elegiac. As if all cinematic action is, once enacted, in the process of ghosting; fading away, forgotten, added to the stockpile of the past and oriented towards an uncertain future …
|
Saige Walton
|
Still Life
Holy Motors is a film about movement, a fact consecrated in its very title.
But what haunts me today in this film is stillness – in fact, one unnaturally frozen moment. When the sleeping man, played by Carax, wakes and finds a secret door in the wall (a wall that flashes me back to the birch forest of Tarkovsky’s Ivan’s Childhood, 1962), the door opens out on to a movie theatre. In one shot, we become the screen, and we look out into the audience. Mobile pools of light reflect from the screen on to the crowd, but the audience itself is utterly immobile, completely frozen.
In his fascinating 1989 essay ‘Du défilement au défilé' (translated as ‘From Movies to Moving’, ‘From Projector to Parade’ or ‘From Defilement to Filing Past’), Serge Daney notes that, in order for the public to perceive moving images, it had to be locked into place, made immobile, captured and fixed in a state that Pascal Bonitzer called ‘blocked vision’. For Daney, the audience needed just this ‘domestication’ in order to see and absorb the extraordinary varieties of movement of which cinema was capable.
If we were to track Daney’s notion through the history of modernist cinema, both of extended duration (Antonioni, Akerman, Tarr) and of challenging density (Godard, Makavejev, Marker), we could see, with particular clarity, the way this cinema strongly encourages an attitude of intense and motionless concentration in the spectator.
But Daney goes further, by hazarding a hypothesis: that if the history of cinema can be characterised by the gradual immobilisation of the spectator, we can also see a recent reversal: viewers are becoming more mobile (think of TV’s interrupted viewing), and images are becoming more immobile (for example, cinema as a shop window, presenting commodities to attract a consumer audience).
If this is true, the still audience in Holy Motors is two things. First, it is a throwback to the earlier, transfixed audience in thrall to a rich, complex, demanding cinema. But second, it is also us: a sisterhood and brotherhood of cinephiles (a word that could equally mean ‘lovers of movement’, if we recall its etymology) who express our cinephilia in movement, upon leaving the theatre: through writing, reading, conversing and gathering into international communities, like the one that has coalesced on this website in tribute to Holy Motors.
|
Girish Shambu
|
The Same Thing Behind the Scenes, As In Life
Holy Motors derives much of its power from the way that its overture and finale are placed as its grand bookends. Each act in between is its own beautiful piece – self-contained, almost solipsistic – but works best when slotted into place. As it opens, Carax himself wakes from slumber and an oceanic expanse of sound surrounds him, a soundscape reminiscent of Paris and its busy metropolitan streets, but with calming seagulls and lapping water redolent of the seaside. So, although Holy Motors opens in darkness, in a claustrophobic space, it does not define itself, or close itself off to anything. And it follows: Carax is not here to tell us a story, to make us follow a straight path or head down a narrative one-way street. Instead he drives us all over Paris, through different worlds and characters, inexhaustibly boundless.
As Carax walks around his room, he passes a gloomy forest painted on the walls – a thickness of slender, bare trees that extend into the two-dimensional distance. Its ghostly mist is at once daunting and enticing. He opens a door in the forest wall and walks through it, immediately entering a movie theatre – it is another kind of darkness, another forest perhaps, where an audience sits and is intrigued by a series of images emanating from elsewhere. Later, as Lavant/Oscar is sitting in a limousine being driven around Paris by Céline (Édith Scob), he tells her that he misses the forest. He has not had an appointment there for a while – but what exactly does he miss? Perhaps, speaking for Carax, he misses the cinema’s powerful mystique, its ability to invite him into the unknown and surprise him.
In Pola X, Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu) is tempted by the forest, losing his way before his life completely changes direction. For Pierre, the forest serves as a gateway into a new state of being, beyond the stasis of family and responsibility. These two forests – dark, endless, unnavigable – could almost be the same space. In Holy Motors: beyond the forest painted on a wall is a cinema; this is a portal to a world of possibilities that the somnambulist spectators do not appreciate. It is more than obvious that the film is a most wonderful celebration of the glory of cinema, while also being a requiem for its demise. Monsieur Oscar laments: ‘Sometimes I, too, find it hard to believe in it all’. And still Carax makes it happen, and we believe it. If we do not believe that what we see in front of us is real, at least we know that it really belongs to the cinema, to its geniuses and champions – and that is just as important.
One of my favourite moments in Holy Motors occurs when Céline is escorting Monsieur Oscar to his final appointment. He hums the lyrics to ‘My Way,’ the song defiantly immortalised by Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, and Sid Vicious with an undeniable slant of anarchism. The end is here, so now we face the final curtain. For a brief time, Céline sings along, her mouth shaping to form the song’s words, but making no sound. This brief moment expresses Carax’s impossibly chasmic beliefs regarding our involvement in the cinema: we are reaching the end, and are such slaves to it that we will go along with it, powerless – we, too, are subconsciously mouthing the words to a song. The end of Monsieur Oscar’s day, the end of Holy Motors, the end of cameras that were bigger than we are – and the end of something more intangible than all those things put together.
For his last appointment, Monsieur Oscar must return home to his ‘family’. His appointment portfolio directs him to a house, a wife, his children; when he gets there, Carax opens up a joke that we never realised we were in on. It’s like Nagisa Oshima does in Max, mon amour (1986), when Charlotte Rampling’s Margaret has an affair with Max, a chimpanzee. ‘It’s always fascinating to watch monkeys – it’s like catching sight of your own past in a mirror’, says Margaret’s husband Peter (Anthony Higgins), trying to accept Max as part of their lives. The interlacing of both these Parisian lives with humankind’s evolutionary and symbolic ancestors ties them all together, and leaves Holy Motors in a much more ambiguous position than it might otherwise seem. Evolution is only part of life, an ineluctable journey that projects constantly forwards, with the occasional default back to the past. We are living the same thing, over and over, changing with the times but still failing to realise the process. All moments are necessary. The world, our lives, travel in and out of spaces, emotions, pathways – through forests, oceans, and cities. When Carax walks into the cinema at the film’s beginning, there is a glowing neon sign SORTIE, leading to the exit. We can leave if we want. By the end, that option has gone. There is no exit left.
|
Eloise Ross
|
An Opening
I. In an early scene of Inland Empire (David Lynch, 2006), the character played by Krzysztof Majchrzak stubbornly repeats: ‘I need an opening’. His attitude captures well my own attitude when confronted with works like Lynch’s, or Holy Motors. Films that declare they are reluctant to be interpreted but that, simultaneously, we cannot help but interpret – since they are full of possibilities that encourage us to do so. These are the films that exceed us. Their multiplicity is the sure sign of this – and perhaps that is exactly where their greatness lies. However, these are works that demand, even more fervently, that we gain entry to them from a small, intimate corner. And, if we can find that spot – that opening – then probably everything that the film is, or can be, will vanish before the experience, unique and secret, that this work gives us, and that we can give to it. All this explains why, in a film like Holy Motors – which is so full of sublime moments – it is the opening sequence that obsesses me the most.
Carax himself has remarked (in an interview with Eulàlia Iglesias in the November 2012 issue of Caiman) that it was Katerina Golubeva who gave him a short story by E.T.A. Hoffmann to read; a story ‘in which the leading character discovers that his hotel room leads, through a secret door, to an opera theatre’. The story in question is 'Don Juan', and what Carax does not say in the interview is that the relationship between Hoffmann’s work and the opening sequence of his film is much deeper than this simple detail lets on. The principal character of ‘Don Juan’ is a traveller who, in the middle of the night, wakes up in his hotel room: a cry that announces the beginning of some celebration has disturbed his sleep. Strangely, he calls the waiter who informs him that his room connects, via a hidden door, to a passageway leading to a theatre balcony. On this very night, Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni is being performed – so the waiter invites him to pass through the door and witness the event from seat number 23, reserved for distinguished guests.
Hoffmann’s tale is divided into three quite distinct parts. In the first of these, we encounter a detailed description of the emotions experienced by the hero as he observes what might be described as an ideal representation of Mozart’s opera: faithful to the spirit and to the original language of the work, musically sublime, and featuring a group of performers who fully embody their roles. During the performance, the hero feels a strange presence behind him; but he decides to ignore it and goes on, immersed in the pleasure that the opera gives him. However, at intermission (the entr’acte), something extraordinary happens: we discover that, during Act I, the actress playing Doña Ana has been, at once, both in the spectator box and on the stage. Speaking with her, the hero feels, for the first time in his life, that he is truly uncovering the work’s secrets. It is only then that the reader realises – also for the first time – that this traveler, of whom we know so little, is also himself a composer.
The second part of ‘Don Juan’ takes the form of a letter penned by the hero who, overwhelmed by the experience he has just been through, retires to a solitary spot and, by the light of twin candles, writes to his friend Teodoro. This letter is an interpretation of the essence of Mozart's work, of the profound intuition that our hero believes himself to have experienced, thanks to that ideal representation. When 2am arrives, the traveler ends his letter, and feels suddenly intoxicated by the scent of Doña Ana’s perfume. The third and final part of the story takes place a day later and offers a short Appendix in the form of a conversation, where we discover that the singer has died the previous night, at exactly 2am.
Doubtless, we can view the hero of this tale as an alter ego of its author (Hoffmann himself was a composer and music critic; before writing this story, he had studied Mozart – for whom he felt a genuine passion – and had attended various performances of Don Giovanni in German). The fact that only the hero of the tale appreciates a representation that the rest of the audience rated negatively, suggests that Hoffmann saw himself as the ideal – and perhaps sole – spectator capable of grasping the ultimate meaning of a work that is beyond everyone else. Hence the personal interpretation he makes of the opera, far from the general idea that the majority audience would form. (For more on the Hoffmann/’Don Juan’ relation, see Ricarda Schmidt, ‘How to Get Past Your Editor: E.T.A. Hoffmann’s “Don Juan” as a Palimpsest’, in R. Langford [ed.], Textual Intersections: Literature, History and the Arts in Nineteenth Century Europe, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009).
II. Holy Motors’ first sequence opens on a shot that lasts a bit more than half a minute. In it, we see a packed movie theatre – but the audience is asleep, or with its eyes closed. On the soundtrack we hear street noises, a door that opens and, after a brief silence, the terrified voice of a man who shouts three times: ‘No!’ Then, the noise of a gunshot, the flash of which momentarily illuminates the spectators’ faces. But they do not seem to feel anything at all: they remain in a frightening state of immobility, as if they are statues. On an upper level, there is a man (Carax), who has awoken in the middle of the night in his hotel room. He lights a cigarette, illuminates the room and dons his dark glasses. Film sounds are clearly heard in his room, and he begins to move in their direction, trying to figure out where they are coming from. He stops against a wall that is covered with wallpaper simulating a forest full of bare, thin trees. The man inspects the wall and discovers a lock. His ring finger is attached, as if by prosthesis, to a key that unlocks this door. Then he pushes hard against the door, breaking open an entry. He passes through a corridor lined with red walls – followed by his faithful dog. An emergency exit light flashes in front of him. He opens a second door, climbs a set of stairs, and emerges in the empty amphitheatre section of a cinema. From there, he looks at the spectators in the audience. A child and a dog slowly moving down the aisle seem to be the only visible signs of life.
This sequence of Holy Motors presents a situation that is quite similar to Hoffmann’s ‘Don Juan’, but subject to small, critical variations: the theatre has become a cinema, and the person who crosses the threshold is not a privileged spectator, but the director himself. Even though we never see the images projected onto the screen, we know that it is Carax’s film because the sounds we hear (lapping waves, birds, a horn) are stretched out to cover the beginning of the next scene – the first in which Lavant appears. However, in the opening sequence, the emphasis is not on the representation (as it will be for the rest of the film), but the spectators. From his elevated position, Carax takes in an audience that appears totally inert. It is a truly terrifying image: a mass that is motionless, inexpressive, devoid of any emotion. Hoffmann’s dream of an ideal representation has here been transformed into nightmare, and the romantic communion between spectator and artwork that was at the heart of the original tale has been replaced by the mise en scène of an amputated exchange.
As in Hoffmann’s story, with the actress who plays Doña Ana, in Holy Motors the only moment in which we witness the life of Mr Oscar beyond the various characters he plays is in the ‘intermission’. But, before we figure this out, how many times do we imagine that we are seeing his real life? Carax has not only made a film about the beauty of gesture; he has made a film in which the beauty of that gesture is equivalent to its truth. This is the fundamental emotion that Holy Motors stirs in us. Just like in ‘Don Juan’, the link here between actor and character is absolute: the wrenching suicide, the irreversibility of death, the intensity of the father-daughter relationship, the shed tears … If all this moves us, it is because of the burden of truth it carries. Carax has, in effect, made a film on the beauty of gesture, and has delegated to Lavant the task of driving it, gloriously. But he has also filmed the awful, terrifying reverse shot. And, in a moving gesture of honesty, he decided that he should himself be the star of this opening sequence. For, after all this exertion, irrational and disproportionate, in pursuit of beauty, how can he avoid the fear that there will be nobody to watch it?
Carax, romantic film director par excellence, has dedicated his film to Katerina Golubeva, and declared (in the Caiman interview): ‘We make the films for the dead, but we show them to the living’ – a sign of his profoundly Garrelian side. Like Inland Empire, Holy Motors is a film that functions as a passage between two universes. A film on cinema as a vehicle of transport; and on the spectator as an essential part of this mechanism. After all, Carax gets to superimpose the green letters of his film’s title on the bodies of those zombiefied viewers: a gesture at once both ironic and hopeful.
|
Cristina Álvarez López
|
(translated from the Spanish by Adrian Martin)
|
Premise
In cinema, a narrative premise is usually something that you like (or not) for its ability to get everything else in a film moving. It is (at best) the seed, the matrix, the germ of an idea. But it is not the film. In Holy Motors, by contrast, the premise, all by itself, provides endless fuel for wondering and speculating and figuring. Carax may well have arrived at it through a David Lynch-style (day)dreaming or free association; however it came about, it ended up gaining an hallucinatory hyper-logic that is unique in cinema.
It resembles Raúl Ruiz’s oft-played twist on the Groundhog Day (1993) idea, in his films including The Blind Owl (1987) and Three Lives and Only One Death (1996): you will live an infinity of lives, of parallel stories and worlds, all in one momentous day – but then you are condemned to live that very same, accursed day all over again, for every day of your life. Wonder and surprise thus do the Moebius Strip into misery and banality: it is the perfect Ruizian equation/dialectic of Mystery and Ministry, one always, eventually, giving birth to the other. Or, in Holy Motors’ terms, and its magnificent final song by Gérard Manset: to live will always be to relive.
The fictional premise is beautifully minimal and elusive. We gather that Mr Oscar is performing, always performing. We listen to a discussion about small digital cameras, and thus deduce that there is filming, and some sort of edited projection or live broadcasting going on (the EDtv [1999] or The Truman Show [1998] idea) – a Reality Show extravaganza of some kind. We assume there are spectators for this show – those transfixed creatures discovered by Carax in the prologue, maybe? (Shades here of Paul Bartel’s 1968 The Secret Cinema, remade in 1986 for TV’s Amazing Stories.) But no cameras, edit suites or audiences are ever shown to us. In our placid state (it is an oddly quiet, calm, non-hysterical film), we never even look for them; this is not a Haneke-style mind-game of impossible, hidden camera-positions, as in Caché (2005). Those cameras constitute the invisible outside to the story – like, again, the occult (and occulted) Mabuse-style controllers behind many a Ruiz tale, or the scientific surveillance teams at each further-out ring of the narrative situation in a J.G. Ballard short story. The one place where Oscar could be perfectly easily surveilled and recorded – inside the techno-limousine – appears, paradoxically, to be the one haven where he is not performing, or being seen (and this is what creates the tender, intimate, private bond with his driver – who, in a striking inversion of normal logic, puts on a mask to return to her own real life!). But then, how does the mysterious, sinister Mr Big figure of Michel Piccoli get in and out of this limo?
If you’ve ever wondered what an anamorphic fold is in film narrative, here it is: Mr Oscar begins by farewelling his family. Ordinary family, ordinary scene. Near the end of the film, the chauffeur gives him his dossier for the final appointment of the night: another family, a new family – with the identities of its members almost cornily hidden from us by an obvious sleight-of-hand in the shot. When we reach that family – the perfectly blissful nuclear family unit of monkeys – we realise that the first, seemingly real, personal and biological family of Oscar was not that at all, that each night he beds down with a different wife (animal or human, no matter) and in the morning bids adieu to new kids. The initial scene of commonplace human/social intercourse unfolds, at the end, its monstrous – or rather, indifferent – truth, its exposed double: every father is a fake, and every family is a let’s-pretend simulation (by anyone at all, whatever their species), a hollow shell. Suddenly – for the first time in a long time, and far better than in Zizek – we understand again what ideology is and how it interpellates us all.
But hang on. It could be, according to the open logic allowed by the film, that one of these families – one or the other, human or animal – could indeed be ‘his’. (A kid in the opening, after all, gleefully exhorts his Dad to ‘work hard’.) This equivocation sets up many delicious ambiguities in the film – and it is fascinating to gauge, in reviews and conversations, how keen viewers are to pinpoint the ‘real’ moments of Oscar’s existence. So, some assume that the scene with the teenage girl is an authentic family scene (even though Oscar wears a wig for it, as he dresses in costume for everything!). What about the seemingly spontaneous moment when our strange hero spots ‘himself’ as the banker, goes berserk and tries to kill him(self), terrorist-style? And the sublime accordion ‘intermission’ in Saint-Merri Church – is this really a moment ‘off’, or only ever ‘on’?
We must then begin to question the status of every other character we see, according to this logic: we come to know that the woman with whom he plays the ‘dying old man’ scene is another actor in the generalised spectacle-game, with her own ledger of appointments. But what of the teenage girl? Eva Mendes? Kylie Minogue/Eva/Jean too, is an avowed player, being chauffeured in a mirroring limousine – and might that not mean that, when she falls (unseen and unheard) to her death, she is just faking, part of yet another elaborate mise en scène? Oscar himself, after all, seemingly dies and resurrects two or three times (the number is fuzzy because, in the meantime, he splits into two characters in the shady warehouse scene, just as he does in the banker-attack – and which one of him, exactly, stumbles out of that warehouse?) – thanks to the marvellous ellipse-cuts that literally pick him up and send him on his way to the next scene, the next appointment.
And don’t forget the cars, those ‘holy motors’. They start yapping in the finale, but that must mean, retroactively, they have been sentient beings for the whole movie! Remember, two limos crash to initiate the reunion of Oscar and Eva … Cars, by the way, are having a truly remarkable time in the movies of 2012. At the start of Cronenberg’s curious Cosmopolis – which could almost be spliced to the end of Holy Motors – the affectless hero actually wonders, after a loving tracking shot along a line of limos, where the cars go at night and what they do. And in João Pedro Rodrigues’ short Morning of Saint Anthony’s Day, another line of (more ordinary) automobiles comes loudly to life whenever a zombie-like survivor of the night-before merely floats by. Animism is a contagious force in contemporary cinema …
|
Adrian Martin
|
Image-Circuits
Every film organises circulations of images: but to orchestrate these circulations in circuits, to think their variety, to work their junctions, eurhythmics, and short-circuits – to convey their differential, opposing and indeed disparate energies – constitutes the beginning of a poetics in the formal sense of the word: an art of the assembly line. The history of French cinema is punctuated by masterpieces that are poetic in a dual sense: both structural and enchanting. Alberto Cavalcanti’s Rien que les heures (1926), the first and most experimental of the great city symphonies, is the direct ancestor of Holy Motors: a journey-critique, twenty-four hours in Paris, which begins by deploying the plastic arsenal cinema has at its disposal for destroying bourgeois clichés, then sets out in search of the most exciting, kinetic situations (carnival, dance hall, embrace, gestures of work …), and culminates in the moment where the 35mm film self-destructs, as proof of the violent death of the protagonist – just like, nearly a century later, the way the mass of pixels collapses in on itself at Père Lachaise in Holy Motors.
Between these twin tracts, in 1950, Jean Genet’s Un chant d’amour devotes itself to the representation of psychological images, inventing an economy that avoids exchange in order to develop other types of traffic. A voyeuristic warden, a lecherous old prisoner, a frustrated young prisoner, a population of captives in their cells transformed into reliquaries of desire; spurts of looks, of beatings and, above all, of fantasies: prison liberates the images. Un chant d’amour weaves three figurative regimes: realistic approximation (the prison filmed/treated in gestures and fragments/sections/pieces); fantasy as the gearshift/transmission of scenarios (the linear, rustic reverie of the prisoner); fantasy as fetishisation of a phenomenon (the fragmentary, erotic visions of the warden). Thanks to this heterogeneity, the masculine body multiplies its modes of appearance; it occurs sometimes in beautiful form and sometimes in prosaic physiology, in verist bas-relief or dreamlike silhouette. But these three regimes (realistic construction, idyllic fancy and colossal fixation) – apparently hermetic and opposed – more secretly capture, divert and infiltrate each other, entangling themselves and causing narrative short-circuits.
By abolishing all usual distinctions between psyches, between the one and the many, between the fragment and the totality, the underground economy that structures the desiring fury of Un chant d’amour prefigures a definition of the human being given in a short text by Genet from 1967, the magnificent title of which refers to the destiny of the stereotypes depicted in Cavalcanti’s film: ‘What Remains of a Rembrandt Torn into Four Equal Pieces and Flushed Down the Toilet’. Triggered by the mystery of a blank look in the enclosed space of a railway car, Genet’s text summarises the dramaturgical protocol of Holy Motors:
|
In the world there exists, and there has only ever existed, one man. He is in each of us in entirety; thus he is ourselves. Each is the other and all others. Except that a phenomenon, for which I do not even know the name, seems to infinitely divide this single man, splits him into the accidents of appearance, and renders each of the fragments foreign to ourselves. |
Nicole Brenez
|
(translated from French by Felicity Chaplin;
originally appeared in Cahiers du cinéma, no. 682, October 2012, p. 84. Reprinted with the author’s permission) |
Faces Are Masks Anyway
1. ‘Faces are masks anyway’, wrote Cornell Woolrich in Deadline at Dawn (1944).
2. There is a lot of talk today about ‘stolen identities’, but is there really anything to steal, beyond the paperwork?
3. There is nothing remarkable per se about an actor playing many parts in a film; Buster Keaton, Alec Guinness and Tony Randall are all precedents that must have inspired Carax and Lavant.
3. Is Holy Motors really considered ‘difficult’? For anyone who has a sense of our culture, wherein each individual self has, at every moment, to be laid out on a platter ready for imminent media-consumption, there are so many emotional and intellectual entry points into the film. As for the film's ‘meaning’, Carax has been so beautifully articulate about his intentions, there is little more to add.
4. What might be difficult about Holy Motors is to accept the thought that Carax might finally have been able to shoot a feature only because of the general 1980s revival in popular culture.
5. Carax is the great filmmaker of exhaustion. From the outset, his concern has been to counteract the forces that produce blockages in bodies and that wind down the world's machinery – his characters and their milieux have always veered between the poles of frozen and exaggerated movement.
In Holy Motors this problem is treated in the context of today's CGI-driven cinema, hence its nostalgic tone. As Carax says: ‘The film is a form of science fiction, in which humans, beasts and machines are on the verge of extinction – “sacred motors” linked together by a common fate and solidarity, slaves to an increasingly virtual world’.
This is most evident in the motion capture segment. At first it recalls the ‘Modern Love’ sequence in Mauvais sang (1986), wherein Alex is saved from petrification by the ‘movement of world’ that carries him along when he can no longer propel himself; his body and the world are simultaneously re-ignited so that we, too, can know (along with Judy Garland in Meet Me in St Louis, 1944) ‘how it feels when the universe reels’. In Holy Motors' replay of the ‘Modern Love’ sequence, Lavant is on a treadmill, out of breath, gamely running on the spot but without producing any real movement, the green screen behind him merely providing a pathetic simulation of the movement of world – there is no longer a passage to the ecstatic transcendence to which the sequence led in the earlier film. The un-earthly speed of the dispositif sends Lavant tumbling to the ground.
6. ‘After all, can we really use technicist terms to describe camera movements in animated or CGI films that have become metaphorical? In a live-action film it sort of makes sense to talk of a tracking shot, because that was what was used to achieve the movement we observe. But in a CGI-driven film, where the whole visual enactment was computer-generated, it might look like a tracking shot to us as we view it, but has nothing to do with a tracking shot in actuality. Can we still use film language that has become metaphorical – where a shot is like a tracking shot?’ (Tony McKibbin)
7. The contemporary film that Holy Motors seems, above all others, to be in dialogue with, is the criminally underrated Mister Lonely (2007) by Harmony Korine.
8. The delicious moment late in the film when the fake starry sky from Boy Meets Girl (1984) seems to reappear in the overhead shot of the Limo. Until you realise that it has been there all along, since the moment it clung to the suit Lavant donned for the motion capture sequence.
9. Carax has often been termed a Mannerist filmmaker, for taking cinema history rather than life as his source of reference. It is partly true, and Holy Motors continues to explore the Mannerist aesthetic. The Mannerist Carax does not just reference Marey, Franju, Demy and so on; he must re-work their images and stagings. In this, Carax is like a musician sampling another’s song, but creating something entirely new from a mere detail in the original. Therefore, he is not fatalistically pointing to a crisis, to the exhaustion of new cinematic forms in our Dantesque CGI hell, but offering a highly creative response to it. ‘Pour la beauté du geste’. Et du mouvement.
|
Fergus Daly
|
Mixed Pairs
1.
In the middle of an abandoned, half-built shopping mall, a man sits fishing. Around him, the bones of the building sit exposed to the elements, weathering, wasting, an empire decaying pre-emptively. He won’t catch any fish.
In an abandoned department store, a man meets a woman he used to know. Remnants from that past era – is it our era? – litter the set, sunk in dust and cobwebs like Miss Havisham’s wedding cake.
2.
An orchestra of deranged accordionists screech through a labyrinthine set of stone passageways, lurching toward the camera and passing and coming round again in a ferocious wheeze. The emotional intensity of the original blues takes a physical turn, as the squeeze boxes gasp to keep up with the fire of notes.
A magnificent water dragon frolics in a skyrise water tower. Or rather, he is part man, part dragon, unmistakably a man dressed up as a dragon. Narrative is suspended. The man performs dragon and croons a song of love and forgetting.
3.
Can a man in a coma have an erection? It’s a thought that doesn’t worry one devoted mother. As her son lies unconscious, she jerks him off in a frantic gesture of incestuous compassion.
Merde is happy. He has a beautiful model to play with. His powerful bent erection springs forth, and like a child or a kitten, he rests his head in her lap.
4.
A man wakes up in a room lined with intricate forest wallpaper. He feels his way across the forest. There is a door. He passes through into a huge old cinema filled with sleeping people. The screen lights their faces. Are they dreaming the same dream?
A woman, bent-backed, climbs with excruciating slowness, up the stairs of an empty cinema. Her walking stick clicks against the concrete. Click. Click. Click. Click.
Sarinah Masukor
|
Screen and Surface, Soft and Hard: The Cinema of Leos Carax
So, I’m Leos Carax, director of
foreign-language films. I’ve been making foreign-language films all my
life. Foreign-language films are made all over the world, of course,
except in America. In America, they only make non-foreign-language
films. Foreign-language films are very hard to make, obviously, because
you have to invent a foreign language, instead of using the usual
language. But the truth is, cinema is a foreign language, a language created for those who need to travel to the other side of life. Good night.
The World Cinema politics of this wonderful statement by Carax are
impeccable; however, what is most inspiring here is Carax’s fascinating
remark about cinema being “a foreign language, a language created for
those who feel the need to travel to the other side of life”.The need to travel to the other side, a fantastic voyage, a journey through Alice in Wonderland’s looking-glass … or to break on through to the other side, like Jim Morrison and The Doors. It is seductive, on a first experience of Carax’s films, to tie them to this romantic, surrealistic vision of overcoming, of transcendence, of magical fusion and transformation. There is much in his films, especially in Les amants du Pont-Neuf (1991), which corresponds to this type of hallucinatory metamorphosis, an experience which cinema can give us so well – a divine transport.
Think of Denis Lavant (Carax’s favourite actor) in Les Amants du Pont-Neuf, a film that Serge Daney described as a sensorium, a house for the senses: as his character Alex pilots a fast motor boat along the Seine in Paris, he looks not forwards, ahead of him, but backwards – and then he crashes through a great wall of water: it is a moment of strong release that makes you jump in your cinema seat. Or, in Pola X (1999), the long journey on foot by Guillaume Depardieu and Katerina Golubeva into a dark, nocturnal forest – and thus into a whole new life. Or the appearances and disappearances of the anarchic, animalistic Merde, in and out of sewer drain openings, in the anthology film Tokyo! (2008), and then again in Holy Motors – always accompanied by the violent sound of crows. Or how, at the beginning of Holy Motors, Carax himself, suddenly with a metamorphosed finger-key (Cronenberg-style), takes us through a door, along a corridor, and into a secret cinema … Passages, corridors, entranceways everywhere. Are they doorways to a magical realm, an alternate universe?
However, the more we look at these films, we intuit a different, rather darker logic in them – a logic that finds its culmination in Holy Motors, a movie that manages (like much of Carax’s work) to be both bleak (as a testament, a kind of seismograph) and exhilarating (as a sensory and narrative experience) – at exactly the same time. It is this deep, poetic logic of Carax’s cinema that we seek here.
The inaugural image of Carax’s first feature, Boy Meets Girl (1984), is mysterious, ambiguous, rather indiscernible, and without sound. It is an image – experimental in nature – on which we will see many variations throughout his oeuvre. It could be lights: distant lights of a city, or along the bank of the Seine as seen from the water and reflected, dancing there; or lights from a fairground, a technological exposition … These are the kinds of examples that eventually take identifiable shape and form along the narratives of his films. But the chain of images begins from this initial, abstract presentation of a luminous form. It could also be stars in the sky: another obsessive, fixation image for Carax. Maybe it is an image of Unidentified Flying Objects, alien spaceships in the night sky: several films, Mauvais sang (Bad Blood, 1986) and Holy Motors, come quite close, after all, to being pure science fiction.
Whether the image conjures lights, stars or UFOs, these points of light must be far away – far from the camera-eye; far from the onlooker inside the fiction; and far from us, the cinema spectator who enters this viewpoint.
But these emanating points of light are, most often, not far away at all in Carax’s movies. They are dots on flat surfaces, images on walls, in screens of various kinds – all of which are, usually, very close by. But they do not form the kind of screen-wall that the philosopher-essayist Vilém Flusser once wrote about – the flexible and permeable wall, welcoming our projections and our stories; they are more like what he described as the hard, Gothic wall, shutting us into our little, miserable lives and subjected histories.
Carax is obsessed with walls, and pictures stuck on them, such as in the small Parisian apartments of Boy Meets Girl, the extravagantly painted lair of Marc (Michel Piccoli) in Mauvais sang, or a café in the same film. This is a pictorial trait derived from Jean-Luc Godard in the 1960s: one or two striking, cut-out images on an otherwise bare, white wall. But these figures imprinted on walls do not, in fact, open up an alternative reality, as for Alice in Wonderland. These screen-walls tend to mock us, just as they mock the characters, because they block us. They lock people in, rather than releasing them.
There are walls with stars at the start of Boy Meets Girl, framed next to a closed door; and hotel wallpaper with forest trees at the start of Holy Motors, hiding a secret entrance. Always a promise of depth, travel, transport – met with the flatness of a two-dimensional image and a hard object-support, such as bricks and mortar. Look for the cruel, artificial stars which are imprinted all over the place in Carax: from the floor where Mireille (Mireille Perrier) tap-dances in Boy Meets Girl to the roof of the limousine that transports Mr Oscar (Lavant again) in Holy Motors.
Walls are surfaces, and Carax is fixated on surfaces – on their texture, their materiality, and the functions they adopt. He constantly brings us back to the fabric of clothing, or a blanket filling with blood, or a carpet. Indeed, that inaugural Boy Meets Girl figure is most likely an abstracted, blurred image of Alex’s coat, so central to the film on all levels. In a Children’s Magic Hour-type segment of Mauvais sang, Alex performs tricks and, in each close-up reverse shot, Anna (Juliette Binoche), as his delighted spectator, has her face covered in a different colour and texture of paper – green, yellow, red, grey. All of these surfaces, overlaid with imagistic or pictorial attributes, are effectively dream-triggers, portals to fantasy. Yet, as hard, unyielding surfaces, unlike Flusser’s idea of a wall in the wind (such as a kite), Carax’s hard surfaces also mark a limit, a bar. And physically coming up against a bar always hurts like hell in Carax – like in the moment of Mauvais sang when Lise (Julie Delpy) slams up against the shut glass of a train door after unsuccessfully chasing Alex.
This poetic system is inverted, reinforced in a different way, by Carax’s extensive use of glass, transparencies and reflective surfaces. There are few mirrors of a conventionally dramaturgical sort: the melodramatic mirrors of Douglas Sirk, Max Ophüls or Todd Haynes. Carax’s mirrors are not to see oneself in, to grasp a personal moment of destiny or change. Glass in Carax functions, rather, as blockage or non-vision – especially evident in Boy Meets Girl and Mauvais sang. Often, we find walls made purely of glass, from floor to ceiling, far beyond a simple window-function. In fact, windows in Carax are rarely used for looking through. In Boy Meets Girl, Mireille never sees, notices, acknowledges or gestures to the lovers just right across the way, through her glass wall; not even when she is dying there. Or, if characters do look through windows, it is to gaze at a scene they can neither enter nor share in. The vehicle, medium or support of vision – in this case, transparent glass – again mocks and blocks these characters.
Vision – human sight which can never be turned off, which must receive all inputs pouring in, which receives so many viewing-machines as optical prostheses (film, TV, billboards, computer) – is a type of curse in Carax. Which is rather paradoxical for an audiovisual medium like cinema – and this is, in fact, one of the key paradoxes that drives his films. The paradox allows us to understand why blindness, covered or obscured sight, often registers as an angelic, floating state in his work, open to all possibilities – a motif we see in Boy Meets Girl, Mauvais sang and, more complexly, in Les amants du Pont-Neuf, where Alex tries, against common sense, to keep Michèle (Binoche) in her state of encroaching blindness.
Let us revert to the infernal, glassed world of looking. Occasionally, in the anarchic spirit of contradiction or resistance, we find smashed or broken glass in Carax – like the punched hole in a telephone booth wall in Boy Meets Girl, or a bullet through a spyglass in Les amants du Pont-Neuf – but still, the hard, Gothic system of the world stays in place, quickly switches back to normal, despite the momentary interruption or shake-up. This is precisely the plot of Holy Motors: no matter what momentous drama of life and death that Mr Oscar enacts and participates in, there is always, in the blink of an elliptical cut, a return to routine, the schedule, the forward-moving limo, the make-up table with its ever-mocking and accusing mirror that can only say to Oscar: back to work.
Can we take a broader aesthetic and cultural perspective on this system of poetic motifs in Carax? The wellspring of both the energy and despair of his films is a tension we can identify with modern cinema itself, at least since the work of Michelangelo Antonioni: the tension between flatness and depth, between two and three dimensions in the image – and all that the image comes to express or allegorise through this interplay. This is the tension between the image or picture as a plane, created by the camera that frames it; and the image as the illusion of a world, an imaginary space that invites us to enter it, join with it, dream with it. A tension which, we might say, haunts our contemporary era of the digital, and that Carax addresses, ambivalently, in Holy Motors. Are our laptop images, our cell phone images (and so on), flat surfaces or dream-portals? This question preoccupies Carax today; it is condensed, in Holy Motors, in Mr Oscar’s eerily beautiful nightmare image of the pixels on his limousine screen coming apart, deranged.
Carax’s fixation on surfaces, walls and windows is part of a deep, elaborate engagement with flatness. In cinema, this has a special charge: when an image, withdraws, as it were, into frontality and flatness, we are faced with the screen itself – the movie screen we are watching – as a merely flat, two-dimensional surface. And this also creates the possibility of a drama or comedy of liberation: the liberation of image, fiction and characters into the illusion of a three-dimensional, depth-charged space. In Carax, this movement is always going back and forth; depth changes into flatness, flatness into depth. His quite particular depiction of architecture and living spaces – a key aspect of his work – always occurs on a continuum between spaces that are pictorially flattened, and then suddenly, strikingly deep. Depth explodes, for instance, when the camera tracks along the length of a corridor (Boy Meets Girl), or of a highly artificially constructed, Jacques Demy-style street (Mauvais sang).
A sequence of Boy Meets Girl devoted to the Paris métro begins with a poster, the size of which we only grasp when a small boy falls into the frame in front of it, trying to sneak onto a train. And there are sometimes completely obscure fragments of environmental space that remain obscure, unless a character arrives to place them, visually, into context and perspective (another Antonioni trait). There is also a powerful play on edging: the staging of a human action (sometimes involving death or near-death) literally on a diagonal edge that confronts (for example) the hard world of concrete with the fluid world of water – an opposition central to Les amants du Pont-Neuf.
In Carax, the all-important realm of interpersonal intimacy – in his depiction, between man and woman – occasions a particularly paroxysmic revolution of depth exploding from flatness. This is what happens in the shot/reverse shot couplet of low and high that is so surprising in the context of Mauvais sang. In both Boy Meets Girl and Mauvais sang, there are long sequences detailing (to use the title of a Philippe Garrel film) the birth of love. In each case, the sequence begins with the perfect distillation of Caraxian flatness: two people awkwardly positioned next to one another, a wall close behind them, and some image or design figure imprinted on the wall. At a certain point, as the emotional atmosphere gets warmer and more intimate, Carax varies every possible stylistic parameter – re-positioning of bodies, changes in the balance of light and darkness, inventively deframed angles – to open up the space, refigure it, banish flatness, and eventually work right around to a reversed, light-filled angle on the scene.
In the 1980s, Carax was frequently associated with a group of commercial French filmmakers to which he did not truly belong – the glossy ‘cinema of the look’ ushered in by Jean-Jacques Beineix’s Diva (1981). But if there is any useful point to be derived from this yoking of Carax to a trend in popular postmodernism, it is this: in Carax, we have gone far beyond a world in which pristine, human individuals are confronted with a world of images or media. They are not, as it were, full, rounded people in a flat world of images, screens and surfaces. That is precisely not the problem.
Rather, flatness has gone inside individuals, it has been internalised; they become images and live as them. This explains Carax’s sometimes absurdist taste for visual seriality: not just the thousands of identical posters of Michèle across Paris in Les amants du Pont-Neuf, but also, more intimately, the dozens of suburban houses designed exactly the same way at the end of Holy Motors, or the surreal image in Boy Meets Girl of the ‘baby room’, like the discreet cloakroom at a party. All things (human and otherwise) take on the quality and quantity of serially reproduced, mechanical images.
We are not terribly satisfied with accounts of Holy Motors that identify Carax’s artistic stance to be anti digital culture or the ‘computer age’ because he is (apparently) nostalgic: nostalgic for the way movies used to be, how stars used to be, how art used to be. Yes, you will hear Mr Oscar lament that cameras are getting so small in this digital era that we can no longer see them – unlike the grand 35 millimetre cameras of cinema’s past. And there is, indeed, an entire poetic system linking the holy motors of the first, hand-cranked movie cameras – the ones that the inventors-pioneers Muybridge and Marey used in the earliest days of the medium – with the holy motors of the limousines, facing their obsolescence and imminent junkyard retirement in a cruel, modern world. And lastly in this associative chain, the idea of the holy motor is linked to the internal engine of the human body itself, with its primal forces of walking, running, grunting, dancing, fucking – every kind of motion performance it can give, unaided by technological prostheses.
But Holy Motors is itself a film shot digitally, and treated extensively with digital effects in post-production. Its superb, hushed sound design can only have been done with digital audio layering and mixing. The film laments the loss of one thing, but embraces, enthusiastically, the arrival of another – and this is yet one more paradox at its heart. If we look back to the start of Carax’s career, we see in Boy Meets Girl the clear celebration of a technological fantasia: lights blinking inside a pinball machine that has been opened up for repair; or the symphony of pulsating lights along a bank of photocopy machines, reflected in another full-length wall-mirror. Always lights: mechanical and artificial, yes, but partaking of that burst of energy that comes with modernism’s industrial revolution – a revolution without which the cinema itself would not exist. The immense fireworks in Les amants du Pont-Neuf are the supreme embodiment of this dream; there, they are linked to the creation and projection of fire around Lavant’s own acrobatic, circus-performing, touchingly small body.
Carax’s project is, in this sense, to find ways to continue that first jolt of artificial light in the new world. As he testified in 1991, looking back at an era of popular music that was over by the time he made it onto the scene: “It’s not nostalgia, it’s just the idea that one arrives after something has happened. But on the other hand, the juice, the electricity that this movement once had, I’ve always sought it out in life, in cinema, in montage”. And Holy Motors is nothing if not, at all levels, a tremendous montage of 21st century elements.
We have pointed, earlier, to Carax’s alter ego as someone always sadly looking at what he cannot enter. This is the figure of the Stranger in Paradise, like Wim Wenders’ angels during the first half of Wings of Desire (1987). When Carax gives himself a cameo, it is exactly in this role or position, as we see in Mauvais sang. And what the Carax hero mainly wants is love, full romantic/sexual fusion with the woman he spies and adores. Jonathan Rosenbaum has summed up Carax’s first three features in this way:
‘Story’ in a Carax movie up to now has
basically been a matter of what becomes necessary to bring a couple
together and start fireworks (figurative or literal), and what ensues in
the world as a result of their remaining together or their drifting
apart. (“The Problem with Poetry: Leos Carax”, 1996)
However, in Holy Motors – arriving after so many unmade
projects for this great filmmaker, in some sense digesting and summing
them all up in a magnificent career gesture – we have advanced to a much
tougher stage. Whereas once the romantic agony of Carax’s cinema hinged
on the anxiety of whether love could stay the same, or whether (and
how) it should change, now there is a flat-lining of time and event. Mr
Oscar is no longer outside or detached from scenes; he is precisely inside
every scene, its centre, its star, the person who makes things happen –
without him, nothing could reach its drama or epiphany. Mr Oscar is, in the words of Judith Revault D’Allones, the individual of the spectacle: the entire society of the spectacle internalised, transformed into a sole person who generates and performs it.But to be inside, at last, for the Carax hero, is no fun: in fact, it is sheer, unending Hell, a truly Dantean vision. And there is no longer any surrealistic fusion or transcendence awaiting him inside this spectacle; no romantic couple on an island of two. There is only obligation, in the form of the nuclear family unit – and with a different family each night, no less. As Édith Scob (who plays Mr Oscar’s faithful chauffeur/minder Céline) has drolly commented in an interview for the Australian art magazine Discipline: “Family life with the female monkeys isn’t such a blast”.
How does Carax film the final scene of homecoming in Holy Motors – which is surely one of his greatest scenes? Precisely, once again, as an image: the camera cranes up, frames Oscar’s family through the window, backed by revolving, shocking-pink disco lights. As spectators, we cannot enter, through the mobile camera eye, the three-dimensional space of the home. And for Mr Oscar himself, it is surely nothing more than an equally flat image that he must live out, a pose he must adopt as husband and father at the window. Just as, in Pola X, the magnificent camera movement right up to a mansion’s window is blocked at the point of entrance: the flat, forbidding image it frames at the precipice.
The tension of the precipice, between the flat and the deep, between the old and the new, between the melancholic outside and the infernal inside: this is where the poetry of the cinema of Leos Carax, lyrical and harsh, resides.
© Adrian Martin & Cristina Álvarez López March 2013
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar