Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Amour (Michael Haneke), Holy Motors (Leos Carax)

Love Never Dies









Big Wheel











JC said...

Haven't had the opportunity to catch Amour yet, so I won't comment on that.

I did watch Holy Motors twice in the past week. Given the words many critics used to describe it ("Exhilarating", for example), I didn't initially expect it to have such a sombre tone (overall). I guess I figured it would be a bit more, uh, whimsical. So I watched it again, with such tonal expectations set aside, to see if I responded more strongly to it on second viewing. I felt about the same, which is to say, that it's an intriguing series of vignettes, some considerably more compelling than others.

Anyways, given how open to interpretation the film is, I figured you'd have a field day with this review. Instead, you seem to be focusing more on the literal aspects of the plot (which is very unusual for you), such as how many "appointments" are in fact featured in the film. I guess it has some relevance, if one is determined to establish a dividing line between the "fantasy" and "reality" of the lead character, but given whom Oscar ends the evening with, it doesn't seem like "reality" ever really enters into it. And that's fine.

I kind of feel like the film's primarily concerned with the act/art of performance, and how it relates to the ever-evolving means of creation and distribution of said art. Sort of the line between what's physically/spiritually tangible, and what's not. Some "films" are being made on small handheld devices (heck, cell phones in some cases), and many folks are encountering films in a purely digital form (no hard copies required). And, over time, should that be considered a degradation or deterioration of the art form, just as the lead character of the film seems weary, and slowly dying, right before our eyes?

Now I don't want to reduce it to just that, but it does seem like an ongoing concern for the director, how a performance is created and received, and whatnot.

And I completely understand why a critic wouldn't want to try to spell it out like that, because that could diminish some of the film's visceral appeal.

I don't love it, but it's certainly a film worth talking about.

Noel Vera said...

Ah, but I do say what I think Carax thinks of people who try parse the plot.

I like it very much. Films don't need a conventional narrative (which Amour is, actually) to be interesting, or even moving.

Noel Vera said...

The somber tone brings out one theme I find in the film, that life is an endless work shift where you yearn to punch out. It shares that much with Amour.

JC said...


Oh, that goes without saying; Bunuel and Fellini proved that again and again in their films, and Holy Motors owes a debt to both of those filmmakers, particularly the former. And, for the record, by saying "I don't love it", I'm not suggesting that I don't like it. Basically, I'm very fond of some sections (Merde, motion capture, musical, accordian), considerably less fond of others (deathbed scene, argument with daughter).

Regarding the deathbed scene, it's such a well-worn dramatic cliche that, for me, even a postmodern approach is rather tedious. And that could be entirely the intent, but it doesn't make it any more dramatically interesting. The only unique element of it, IMO, is when he gets out of bed to bid adieu, and you get the sense that the other actress wanted to continue a while longer, as though perhaps she was working through some of her own "real-life" issues in the "staged" environment.

My general disinterest in/boredom with deathbed scenes (heck, even in real life, I'm borderline immune to them) has me a little concerned about Amour. I'm hoping it's not just two hours of the husband watching his wife suffer. At least in Sarah Polley's Away From Her, we had the added interest of the Julie Christie's character recognizing that her mind was fading, which helped elevate it above movie-of-the-week status.

Some of the themes of Holy Motors remind me of Synecdoche, New York. Both had aging, deteriorating, seemingly depressed protagonists; both dealt with "the world's a stage" motif without a visible audience; both had main characters looking to disappear into other personas, perhaps for cathartic reasons; both are very self-indulgent (not necessarily a bad thing!) films, given to a fair degree of mock sincerity (again, not necessarily a bad thing). Now, they're very different films, visually and structurally, and I'm not going to argue that Charlie Kaufman is a more accomplished filmmaker (how could he be, after only one feature?), but I feel like SNY had more emotional dimension and pull, particularly towards the end.

Noel Vera said...

See, I think Lavant getting up is the whole point of that death scene; adds a spark of artifice that doesn't necessarily take away from the scene, perhaps helps sell it better.

Amour for what it's worth is what I've described it: two hours of Haneke's camera bearing down on the two. There are walk on characters, and Huppert plays a significant part, but that's basically the movie, and the strength of the movie.

Synecdoche is I suppose more substantial. But Kaufman's suffering is so self-centered (it--the whole world inside that warehouse--is all about him) it doesn't do much for me. Plus he really needed a Gondry or at least Jonze to realize his ideas visually.

JC said...

I agree about Lavant getting up making the scene more interesting.

Kaufman's worlds are indeed self-centered, and I can see how that would turn some folks off. It certainly explains the mixed reviews the film got.


Noel Vera said...

I do enjoy Kaufman's works; they're entertainingly intricate and he's an original. They're just not to my taste. For metafictional worlds, I prefer the relatively simpler but more emotionally complex worlds of, say, Dennis Potter.

TopOfBlogs [Valid Atom 1.0] BlogCatalog