Final

 

 

 

A film can be indicative of human interactions and the events that occur within society; a series of what ifs or why nots. With that being said Holy Motors can be interpreted as the director and writer Leos Carax fantasy on the progression of society and how humans partake in socially aware roles. Actors, athletes, government officials exist in the public eye. How they are often portrayed is dictated by the media, more often than not it is all just an act. I don’t see this film as an accumulation of events of spectacle but a commentary on the relationship society often has with spectacle and those who initiate it, and how it affects the real lives of those who perform. If Holy Motors is a film about a man who is an actor performing different episodes that are shown to an intermediary audience within the film, it would mean the viewers enjoy acts of violence, death, music, sex, poverty, and fatherhood. How this film is constructed is a mind boggling endeavor, a cinematic feat. Holy Motors is an image of what fascinates society.

 

As Mr. Oscar is dressed as Merde eating a plate of Japanese cuisine he peers at a live stream image of the city of Paris, he then asks Celine his driver, “No appointments in the forests this week?” to which she responds, “Not this week Mr. Oscar.” Mr. Oscar solemnly peers downward stating, “Too bad, I miss the forests”. This exchange of dialogue between Mr. Oscar and Celine gives Mr. Oscar a normal human desire, to be in nature away from the people and the busy city. Although we know nothing about what happens in the forests, after all it is still an appointment, what we are witnessing is possibly a yearning for solitude by the performer or him wishing he had more control over his performances. In Guy Debord’s “Society of Spectacle” he states the “The individual who in the service of the spectacle is placed in stardom's spotlight is in fact the opposite of an individual, and as clearly the enemy of the individual in himself as of the individual in others. In entering the spectacle as a model to be identified with, he renounces all autonomy in order himself to identify with the general law of obedience to the course of things (Debord, 17).” Debord’s claim that performers are actually the opposite of an individual seem to coincide with the character of Mr. Oscar, he’s not asking when he is going to see his mother again, he’s asking when their will be another appointment he enjoys more than city appointments. If we compare Mr. Oscar to Tom Cruise it begins to make sense that performences set the tone for how art often imitates and influences real life behavior in society.  Why are we so fascinated by such vulgar emotional scenes? As Debord states “So long as the realm of necessity remains a social dream, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of modern society in chains, expressing nothing more than its wish for sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep.” Society seems to be conditioned to accept spectacle as the rightful norm. Unlike films Tom Cruise performs in, Lavant as Mr. Oscar brings to light the complexity of the illusion of spectacle in film and why none of it really matters, it’s all just an act.

 

“For one to whom the real world becomes real images, mere images are transformed into real beings ­­tangible figments which are the efficient motor of trancelike behavior. Since the spectacle's job is to cause a world that is no longer directly perceptible to be seen via different specialized mediations, it is inevitable that it should elevate the human sense of sight to the special place once occupied by touch… (Debord, 7). 

 

A top model (Eva Mendes) stands posed for a magazine spread in a cemetery. Merde parades violently through the cemetery, eats flowers off tombstones (which read www.vistme.com), steals a cigarette, bites a photographer’s fingers off and then carries the model to his underground lair. This scene is a spectacle not because of the grotesque bloody arm pit lick, but because of how the model interacts with Merde. The spectacle of a beautiful model being abducted while the public gawks alludes to how corrupt modern society can be. It becomes a passive consumption of spectacle rather than active participation in life.  The model is a critique of American beauty standards. Eva Mende’s real life persona mingles with the models character she is playing. She’s thin and bored standing there as she lethargically falls onto Merde’s shoulders. This scene is commenting on the agenda of American beauty standards and how incredibly objectifying they really are and possibly a notion to change them. Mendes never seems uncomfortable with Merde, she accepts of his alterations, he challenges our concept of beauty by covering most of Mendes sexualized body in Islamic style balaclava exposing only her eyes. This expression relates to the saying which is mentioned in the film “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.  Merde has changed the model from a sexualized, bored-to-death figure into a loving mother as he extends his naked body onto her lap. The scene ends with her singing softly to him as he continues to sleep.

 

Birth Mark- “What makes you carry on Oscar?”

Oscar- “What made me start, the beauty of the act.”

Birth Mark- “The beauty? They say it’s in the eye, the eye of the beholder.”

Oscar- “And what if there’s no beholder?”

 

Does the existence of an audience justify the performance regardless of the absurdity of the act? If performers are the opposite of an individual how do they carry on?  Holy Motors utilizes an implied intermediary audience to justify the acts being carried out by the protagonist. The director uses this technique to employ a film which bounces from one dramatic event to another to showcase what kind of content society expects out of films.