As that not though still the evolution of film? I'll copy something Jim Emerson wrote about Holy Motors:
" "Holy Motors" is about movies -- about making them and watching them and living them -- and it's about acting, not just for the camera but the roles we all play every day, the faces we put on and take off for different audiences, and for ourselves. "Holy Motors" is about movies -- about making them and watching them and living them -- and it's about acting, not just for the camera but the roles we all play every day, the faces we put on and take off for different audiences, and for ourselves"
I don't think the film was as pessimistic and about death as you say, although maybe I should watch it again. And are you saying then you don't see similarities about what I mention 'digital film making, identity, the roles we play, characters and relationships', because they definitely both deal with them, even if it's in different ways, although I feel that the blur between reality/acting is quite similarly shown.
I've read Emerson's take on it (it's a shame he hasn't been writing recently) and I agree that
Holy Motors is very much about film and acting and life as art (and vice versa). What I don't see is how
Inland Empire relates to that. Yes, the film has its moments where the boundaries between film and life are crossed, and its where the film takes a dive into Lynch's brain, but the lines here blur too much for the film to simply be about the way we act in life or any cinematic connection to life. Lynch's meta-film is just another Lumberton in
Blue Velvet or City of Dreams in
Mulholland Dr. It's a seemingly sweet and innocent thing that actually turns out to be sinister. If the film ended with the revelation that the Dern's death was in the film, the case would be more clear to single out a similar theme. But it ends in its strangely cathartic way with the observer in the beginning. A case could be made about Lynch's feelings on film at the time via the observer's role, but I think that misses the core of the film's tale that is exactly as Lynch said it is, a woman in trouble.
I also thought that the two were very tonally and visually different.
Inland Empire is all about experimentation. He pushes what many believe to be the negative components of digital shooting (poor lighting and grainy imagery) to their limits with uncomfortably lit shots like this:
+3.JPG)
And he frames and distorts characters faces in uncomfortable ways:
Pushing it to its obvious extreme as well:
Carax, on the other hand, shoots his film very soberly. Besides goofy iris shots and on stage (instead of in the camera) distortions like the motion capture scene, his camera is very calm and observant. Carax's effects are all physical, while Lynch's are all digital. A similarly uncomfortable image like the rose eater character's big reveal is framed slightly askew, but besides that, the shock comes entirely from the makeup:
If this says anything about Carax's view on the new technology (as well as the motion capture scene with the woman) it's that he prefers the old, hands on methods, and prefers the camera to be just an observer. Don't et me wrong, I love both films, but I think that
Holy Motors is purely and uniquely cinema while
Inland Empire is purely and uniquely David Lynch.
Reply to Topic
