septimus_...@q.com
unread,Nov 10, 2012, 11:49:48 PM11/10/12You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
I wish I can summon the enthusiasm others have for Leos Carax's
_Holy Motors_, the only film I managed to see in New York. He
has always been an ingenius, innovative director, and it may be
churlish to ask him to exercise more discipline. Nevertheless,
_Holy Motors_ simply has too many ideas, no doubt because of Carax'
extended enforced hiatus from feature-film making. And it does not
have an organizing principle behind it, unlike _Pola X_ which is
loosely based on Melville(if memory serves). The main operating
principle seems to be that this is a movie and so anything goes
(playing with cinematic conventions). This is something Carax's
earlier fims do too, but they have such bubbling romanticism;
the overall elegiac tone and genre-subverting playfulness doesn't
somehow seem to mix. It is never boring to watch Dennis Lavant,
who has added tremendous depth to his craft. I must say that by
far the most genuinely moving moment of the film is the beginning
of the end credits, which pays tribute to the late Yekaterina
Golubeva (_I Can't Sleep_, _L'Intrus_, _Pola X_), probably Carax's
one-time companion. By the way, I never found out what she died
of -- seems very young at 45. I always suspect suicide, but
people do die of diseases and accidents at that age; a friend of
mine just did. In _Holy Motors_, the characters seem to be able
to regularly cheat death and treat the whole film as a joke. A
"science fiction" is supposed to be able to invent new rules but
should stick by them, and Carax simply doesn't.