In Memoriam: Kietze

Today my undeniably favorite cat, Kietze, died. Because of her old age and her deteriorating condition over the last month I knew her end would come sooner rather than later. It did not come as a great surprise, nor was it as shocking a loss as Ronnie's sudden demise only last week, but it is still a cause of great sadness for me personally.

Kietze has been with me for most of my life, since she first entered it some 20 years ago. A small kitten, escaping from an abusive household, we lovingly took the wild and frightened animal in. Her harsh first few months in life were revealed in her aggressive and belligerent nature, but under our wings she slowly grew out of all that. As she got older, she became increasingly mild and good-natured. The old cat who lived with me closely for the last two years wasn't anything in character like the temperamental, semi-feral cat we accepted all those years ago, having changed her attitude because of the love and care she received from us. She appeared noticeably thankful for the alternate life style we offered her. Especially when she moved in with me to enjoy her last years at old age in a peaceful, quiet environment where she was the only cat around and where she had my full attention.

Old age made its mark on her the last few months. She had become largely incontinent, which I accepted without complaining. She was deaf and her eye sight wasn't what it used to be. Her breathing and purring sounded uncomfortably unhealthy of late. Her hair was a genuine mess. She grew ever more skinny, though she had a fairly healthy appetite until two weeks ago, and she drank quite a lot of water on a daily basis. Despite all these signs of rapid deterioration, she still liked to be shown affection though, and returned the feeling vith vigor. Her sweet tooth remained until her last day (whenever butter was in her presence, she would appear not a day over fifteen), as did her stubbornness to do things she has better not considering her frail body. That last character trait seems to have been her undoing. I returned home tonight to find her with one paw entangled in an awkward position to my couch, as if she had tried to jump on it but missed her mark and took a bad fall. It was quite a shock to come home and find her like that, her lifeless body not showing rigor mortis just yet, as if it had occurred only an hour before. I blame myself for going to the movies tonight, thinking I might have prevented this from happening. But I know full well that it was definitely only a matter of weeks, days even, before she would succumb in some other way. I accept she has lived a full life, to an age none of my previous cats had the fortune of reaching, but doubt will haunt me for quite a while concerning the possibility of a gentler death.

Where do I go from here? Kietze was sort of a "substitute" for my previous (personal) cat, Draco, who died two years ago at too early an age because of a terrible illness. Kietze was lucky enough not to die of disease, but sure needed rest in her senior years. My parents recognized her need for solitude and we decided she would live her last few years in greater confort at my side. She did, and now her life has finally come to its natural end. But there are no substitutes for Kietze. The strong bonds I formed with both Kietze and Draco took years to develop, and though I love the cats that still live with my parents, I don't feel that connection with any of them, so they will stay where they are. I live in hope I can find another cat, in an asylum maybe, for whom I could ever care as much as for his/her predecessors. But Kietze was with me for such a long time, we basically grew up together. It's unlikely I will ever love another cat as deeply and heartfelt as I did her.

Farewell, dear cat.

 

In Memoriam: Ronnie

Tonight our cat Ronnie succumbed to an illness that had weakened him severely over the course of a week. Though we knew it could end up the way it did, we were hopeful he would show improvement, as his older brother suffered the same symptoms a few weeks earlier and he recovered apparently completely. He lived. Ronnie, sadly, did not. Unwilling to eat or drink and plagued by a harsh fever and continuous bloody diarrhea, Ronnie finally died of his exhaustion early this morning.

Unlike his siblings from the same nest, Ronnie was somewhat wilder, more timid and harder to fully get to appreciate than his much more amiable and sweet-talking brothers. However, those he knew and trusted he let in completely, allowing them to pat him just as lovingly as his brothers, except he wasn't afraid to show his affection in a more violent manner by using his claws and teeth if you weren't careful. Though not the most typically affectionate cat in the household, Ronnie very much anticipated the needs of his humans, and accordingly followed his own routine perfectly in sync with theirs. He'd escort my father on his way to the bakery and made sure my mother went to bed on time. The three red cats formed a beloved part of our family, each with his own personality, completing each other perfectly. They also had formed a good bond amongst themselves, instead of aggressively disliking their siblings as is more usual among cats. Like his older brother, Ronnie was the adventurous type, and he went for much further walks than his brothers who generally stuck closer to home.

Considering this, it may not be a coincidence that the both of them caught this illness, the type of which remains unknown (but hopefully will not spread to the rest of our pets!). Like his mother and his older brother, you could often find him welcoming you home on the street after a hard day's work, even though you would prefer if he stayed in the safer confines of the backyard and alley. Also like his mother, Ronnie died of a heinous disease at much too young an age, not even seven years old yet in his case. He was in his prime and should have had many more good years to follow, but it was not to be. He will be sorely missed by us all, likely even by his brothers who will now have to play together without him. Hopefully they will be able to do so for many years to come at least.

Today's Double News: apes and agents

Old news by now (I was busy these last few days I'll have you know), but since I wrote it I post it here today regardless:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152961/_rupert_friend_vervangt_paul_walker_als_agent_47

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152922/reeves_terug_voor_planet_of_the_apes_3

The signs of the impact of Paul Walker's demise continue to reveal themselves as recuperation is in order for a second project that he signed on for but obviously is unable to complete. In this case little actual work had been done on the film in question so the damage his death hath wrought is not nearly as severe as on Fast and Furious 7. And since it was a reboot with no ties to the previous incarnation of the cinematic Hitman legacy (in terms of casting at least), recasting was the most simple and cost-effective of solutions. One actor known for his expertise when it comes to action sequences replaces another as Rupert Friend has filled Walker's boots. No biggie, really? The general public probably won't realize or care about this switch when the movie 'hits' theatres (see what I did there?). Was another Hitman movie necessary or something the public was clamoring for? Not really, otherwise the studio would have made a sequel to the 2007 movie sooner. Since that movie wasn't received all that well and video game adaptations are still a much maligned phenomenon, I doubt this reboot will fare that much better at the boxoffice, but that doesn't stop the studio from trying its luck. Odd thing here is the fact the guy who wrote the previous film is also scripting the new one. He must have done something right if the studio doesn't bother with finding a different writer.

Speaking of people who are doing things right in terms of making movies (look at me, applying effective segues all of a sudden!), it seems Matt Reeves is one of them. Fox apparently liked what he made of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes so much they signed him on as director for a third film, six months prior to the release of his current project. So other than studio bosses, nobody has had the chance to deduce whether the current cut of Dawn is indeed any good, we'll just have to take it on good faith. Happens a lot in Hollywood these days, movies being geared up while their predecessors haven't even been finished yet, because the studio is convinced the movie is awesome, and so the finanical results will be. If Dawn proves a dud at the boxoffice (I personally doubt that, but the possibility is always lurking around the corner), you'll see the third movie will be swiftly scrapped despite ample dollars having been spent on it already. Also an increasingly common occurrence. Hollywood nowadays just doesn't dare risk losing the audience's attention if they got a good franchise going. Wait too long and the public might lose interest after all. Mindless consumers have no memory, they might as well say. It seems they instead opt for rushing sequels into production, in hopes that tactic pays off. Rise of the Planet of the Apes did better than expected, so the same could very well be true for Dawn (I sincerely hope so, since I too liked Rise). Reeves in my mind is a very capable director, so if the studio says he's making a good film out of Dawn, I'm inclined to believe it, even if it proves to be just a marketing tactic. You've got intelligent apes in a post-apocalyptic world fighting humans, so what are the odds of a screw-up here anyway? Okay, so the original concept wasn't explored so satisfactorily in the Seventies with Battle for the Planet of the Apes (I blame the mutant element of that film), but let's have a little faith here. So far every project featuring Andy Serkis donning a goofy mo-cap outfit has turned into a major success.

On a sidenote, something that doesn't seem to have been such a success (there I go again!) this week turned out to be a fabulous little show called Boardwalk Empire, which I thoroughly enjoyed as it happened. We'll get one more season to round things up and that's that. They better give the show a decent send-off, or I might go al(l) Capone on HBO (the witticisms continue). Fortunately we'll always have Game of Thrones. New teaser for the trailer was released this week, the actual piece will follow tommorrow. Hear me cheer!

Today's News: Walker may be dead but F&F lives on

Some more news from everybody's favorite Dutch movie news site, posted by myself:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152815/lot_paul_walker_in_fast_and_furious_7_bekend_gemaakt

Let's face it: if one of your lead actors dies in real life, you can't just kill his character off too in the movie he plays in because that might feel a tad disrespectful of and ungrateful to all his contributions. Paul Walker starred in all but one of the Fast & Furious flicks, the same amount as the other franchise protagonist Vin Diesel, so he surely deserves better, especially in the eyes of the fanbase. Cutting him out was never an option either; the footage he had already shot needed to be used to ensure the project didn't lose face. It seems the writers/producers/director thus optioned for the only way open to them that would honour both Walker's memory, please the fans and keep the story going without losing credibility. And so Walker's character will retire from his current life of fast cars, gorgeous dames and high speed robberies. He deserves it after surviving no less than five of these films, wouldn't you agree? The question now is whether the material of Walker shot so far will accomodate this change in scripting, as both his character and the plot of the film itself are taken in a new direction nobody would have foreseen (or do you think they have a list of back-up plans in case of emergencies like these?). I wouldn't be surprised if relatively little of Walker's scenes get through the cutting room unscathed and I don't think his character as a result will feature that much screen time at all to be honest. Unless they create a digital version of Walker to bridge the gaps. Why not after all: if they did it with Oliver Reed in Gladiator 15 years ago, they should be able to pull the same thing off now.

Walker's death makes you sit and think how much depends on the good health of the main cast and the difficulties presented by the departure - especially from life - of one of them to everybody else involved in the making of a movie. Studios lose a lot of time and money over such tragedy, as everything done for the film so far comes to a full stop, while much of what was shot ends up being either a bitch to craft into a new smooth and intelligible whole, or worse, just totally worthless. In the case of an original movie recasting would be in order, but not so where a hugely successful franchise is concerned, since the audience knows and loves these characters and will take umbrage when one of them is brisquely set aside without a decent explanation or respectable final aria. So naturally Universal is walking a thin line here, as people still couldn't get enough of F&F even after six films (to each his own, though I myself was also pleasantly surprised by the energetic vigour of the fifth film), and Walker is partially responsible for said box office triumphs. Thankfully for those fans, Fast and Furious 7 is swiftly regrouping, and future installments in this cycle of fast paced action flicks are still a work in progress. After all, that other leading man Vin Diesel is far from dead yet. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Universal execs hid his sports car and encouraged him to take trains to work for the next few years.


Speaking of life and death, I survived yet another Christmas break at work. Just so you know.

Today's News: turns out there are more horrible bosses out there

Here's some more MS news from mine own hand:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150434/horrible_bosses_krijgt_vervolg

Apparently Horrible Bosses was so successful a sequel was warranted. I get why it made money, it was a fun comedy flick. Does it need a sequel, or does the audience want one? Not at all. But that doesn't stop Hollywood from ramming it down our throats, in the hopes of capitalizing on a name that makes us fondly remember one of the few worthwhile comedies in recent years that have come out of the studio system. It's The Hangover all over again. We get a good comedy and we award it by paying to see it. Afterwards the studio suits think we want more of exactly the same and they present us with one or more sequels that follow the precise same formula of the first movie ad nauseam, thus giving that good first film a sour aftertaste. Not every fine film ought to be turned into a franchise, but franchises are what keeps Hollywood alive these days. As for Horrible Bosses 2, though no official plot information has been released, so far it seems to be an exact carbon copy of the predecessor. The three oppressed employees are back (including, unfortunately, that terribly obnoxious Charlie Day, who ruined every attempt at comic relief in Pacific Rim) and so is the incompetent hitman offering them bad advice on how to terminate their employers. But who are the latter in this case? I'm hoping the writers will add some originality and turn the threesome of former wage slaves into bad bosses themselves as a nice little role reversal. But most likely some new employers will be found to terrorize our heroes, and they'll be played by equally surprising bits of casting (so not Colin Farrell again, but like him someone you wouldn't have expected to see in that particular role either). Though that too is to be expected now, as we're in all-familiar territory.

Horrible Bosses 2 is gonna happen, whether we want it to or not. If we're lucky, it turns out to be a pleasant experience after all. But don't count on that. If it is gonna end up a dud, best thing we can do is not spend our money on it in theaters so this would-be trilogy dies a quick death on its second attempt, sending a clear signal to Hollywood that this blatant enfranchisement needs to stop somewhere. And we ought to do the same thing when Bridesmaids 2, We're the Millers 2 or The Hangover Part IV hit theaters in the future.

Today's Review: Kid

Wrote this review for MovieScene the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146055/kid_-_recensie

So overall, an interesting concept, but not the best execution imaginable. It's a rather inaccessible and at turns downright dull film, but it's surprising to see the climax works as well as it does regardless. Does it help us better understand the inner mind of children after an intense trauma like the violent death of a parent? Not particularly. Does the plight of the main haracter(s) compel us enough to feel a sense of shock at the unpredictable conclusion of events? Apparently so. Considering we spent most of the time watching at people staring at each other in overly drawn out silent close-ups, Troch must have been doing something right after all. But that doesn't make for a fully satisfying cinematic experience.

In Memoriam: Draco

Today is January 30. Exactly one year ago today, my beloved cat Draco was put to sleep because of an untreatable liver illness. She was only eight years old and spent most of that time in my company. It's safe to say she wouldn't want it any other way, since she had a hard time getting along with anybody else, be it cat or human, but me. This of course was the reason she moved in with me and we had a great, though in hindsight all too short, few years together before her health turned ill. After two months of increasing suffering, my mother eventually decided to end her misery while I was away. Unfortunately this meant I was not there at her end, a fact I will regret forever. I took her death pretty hard and will always be feeling sad at this particular date. However, Draco's demise led me to the creation of this blog to help me put my mind to other things than her absence. Death can apparently lead to constructive creativity.

Thanks for the fond memories, dear cat. And thanks for those four great sons of yours that continue to be a blast to hang around with, even though none of them live at my place.

Breathing new life into Tim Burton

Frankenweenie: ****/*****, or 8/10

Moviebuffs familiar with Tim Burton's oeuvre will probably remember how one of his earliest projects for Disney backfired on him, though it ended up setting him in the right direction for a very fruitful career. In 1984 Burton directed a 29 minute family film named Frankenweenie, an homage to the iconic original Frankenstein films from the Thirties, involving a boy who loses his beloved dog but revives him via electricity, to the shock of his neighbourhood. Though it was a simple horror story for all ages, Disney was dismayed and deemed the short film too disturbing and scary for its target audience, denying it a theatrical run (but for some reason still giving it a home video release). Burton was fired from the studio and looked for jobs elsewhere, soon setting himself on the right track as he directed a number of smash hits, including Batman (1990), Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Batman Returns (1992), eventually becoming a major player in Hollywood despite (or because) continuing to utilize his own unorthodox visual style and displaying his love for outcasts and their encounters with the bizarre. Leaving Disney may have been the best thing that ever happened to Burton, but it didn't stop him from revisiting the failure that basically started his career, remaking his own short into a theatrical movie in an even darker and more off-beat fashion 28 years later, but still for the same Walt Disney Studios that didn't think much of him or his work all those years ago. Apparently Burton's acclaimed career, plus an earlier cooperation between the pair when doing the highly successful Alice in Wonderland (2010), ensured Disney gave Burton the benefit of the doubt and the chance to bring Frankenweenie back to life in an even more spectacular way than the dog in the story is reanimated.

For despite the film now running 87 instead of only 29 minutes, surprisingly little has changed in terms of story. Warning! Spoilers! The protagonist is still a little boy named Victor Frankenstein, a nerdy and imaginative kid whose best buddy in the whole world is his dog, called Sparky (there's more than a little 'nomen est omen' in there somewhere I reckon). Together they do anything from just playing around on the streets to making home movies wherein the canine stars as a dinosaur slayer protecting cardboard cities from plastic monsters. Of course with hobbies like that, Victor isn't the most popular kid in school, but as long as he has Sparky, he doesn't mind. But soon, tragedy strikes and Sparky is fatally run over by a car and laid to rest, leaving an inconsolable Victor all alone, despite his parents' assurances Sparky moved on to a special place in his heart. However, when he learns of electricity and its effects on dead tissue at school, the boy turns to the dark art of science to bring his pet back to life by having its soulless body struck by lightning. Against all odds, the experiment is a success and his best friend is given a second chance at life, though not in a perfect physical state as parts of him occasionally come loose. Despite his efforts to keep Sparky's resurrection a secret, the rest of the town soon finds out and is appalled by this abominable obstruction of everyday life, turning into a typical angry mob out to make sure the dead dog stays dead this time. Tracking the pair to an old windmill, the construction catches fire and traps Victor inside until Sparky gives his second life to save his young master. Touched by his courage, the townspeople are convinced Sparky deserved to live, after which they help Victor restoring him to life once more in a total feel-good happy ending only Disney can deliver (though it's maybe a bit too cheerful for a Tim Burton picture).

Though the plot has hardly changed, there couldn't have been a bigger difference in execution, as Burton turns to the much admired art of traditional stop motion animation for his second incarnation of Frankenweenie. Hardly a stranger to this type of filming, having produced The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and directed Corpse Bride (2005) before, Burton's use of stop motion turns out fully justified as it gives the movie a stylistic and visual edge over both the movie's predecessor as well as many a “regularly” animated Disney movie. The film's look is simply stunning, with some of the smoothest stop motion work to date, and it also fits into Burton's oeuvre in a completely consistent manner: the various characters, both human and animal, are all typically Burtonesque with their big eyes, pale faces and generally caricaturized physical features, while their brooding, often Gothic surroundings make no mistake Tim Burton's signature stamp is all over this film. Frankenweenie might as well be called Corpse Bride's twin sister, were it not for the fact that, unlike that film but like the original short, Frankenweenie is also shot in black and white to make it appear even more distinct, as well as perfectly in sync with the horror classics of old – particularly James Whale's brilliant original Frankenstein (1931) and The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), to which the movie knowingly owes more than a little, on the narrative side – the movie keeps referring to throughout the piece. While many a gag referring to such narrative and stylistic forebears, albeit visual or in dialogue, is undoubtedly missed by younger members of the audience, those even slightly versed in the genre will recognize a multitude of little nods and in-jokes softening the overall gloomy mood the style and story prescribe. That doesn't mean there's no fun to be had for the kids or the more uninformed spectators, as they too are treated to many an outrageously zany moment triggering a few good laughs.

At the same time, despite the many humourous occurrences, the movie isn't afraid to downplay its moments of grief, and much to the credit of the animation crew such instances are shot with the full range of emotion they necessitate, making even the toughest viewers feel sad as we witness Sparky's death – which fortunately remains largely obscured from vision, instead of seen in more detail than is necessary, underscoring the power of suggestion which Burton has also mastered – and the sorrow it inflicts on those left behind, the high point of tragedy remaining a simple shot of Sparky's neighbour dog, a female poodle with whom he used to play ball through a hole in the fence separating them: the poodle nods the ball through the hole, then waits for a return nod that never comes. Maximum emotional effect achieved through stylistic simplicity, and nobody ought to keep a dry eye.

Despite the overall story remaining largely identical to that of the original short film, a longer running time does warrant the inclusion of a few subplots to flesh things out just a bit more. The most noticeable difference in narration is the science contest dominating events in Victor's class as his school mates are all attempting to outthink each other in making the most spectacular contribution to science, encouraged by their new substitute teacher with his unpronouncable but decidedly Eastern European sounding name (impeccable voicework done by Burton veteran Martin Landau, who won an Academy Award for his role in Burton's masterpiece Ed Wood (1994)). When the word gets out on Victor's achievements, even though they were a personal project to be kept hidden from the rest of the town, the all too natural reaction of the other kids is imitation, as they understandably decide to resurrect their own deceased pets as well. However, their actions are motivated more by the desire for fame and glory than they are by heart, while their teacher explained to Victor the outcome of his experiment was fueled primarily by the love for his subject instead of the lust for self-enrichment. Naturally, the various rival experiments result in the creation of many monstrous mutations soon terrorizing the town, including a cat/bat hybrid and a giant dinosauresque turtle, enabling Burton and his partners in animation to go all out with the stop motion process, continuing the age old tradition of stop motion applied for breathing life into monsters, as pioneered by special effects legends like Willis O'Brien and Ray Harryhausen. It also results in a grander overall scale of the film, clearly setting it apart against the simpler original short movie, plus it adds some dynamic action for those audience members who find it hard to sit through all the genuine emotion the movie keeps evoking, if any. Ultimately though, Frankenweenie doesn't need such spectacle since its core plot about a boy and his dog is moving enough in itself and remains the picture's heart and soul, despite the additions made to make a short film longer.

Only a few months ago, I critiqued Burton's Dark Shadows and feared his signature style was overused by himself (and nowadays, by many others, too), which led to a deterioration of quality in his recent films, culminating in Dark Shadows ending up as one of Burton's biggest disappointments of the last decade. I'm only too glad to find myself positively surprised by Frankenweenie, one of his most delightful films to date, which has proven this director is still fully capable of delivering a satisfying viewing experience when his heart is truly in it. Getting even at Disney while coming full circle from the start of his career to the point where he is now clearly made sure Burton was fully invested in this project, and he is proven right after a quarter century: Frankenweenie was a thoroughly enjoyable short movie then as it is a full theatrical film now, for audiences both young and old. Apparently, in Burton's case revenge is a dish best served dead, and revived.

Sidenote: life is not without its cruel little ironies. For example, I got to watch Frankenweenie the same week I had to let go of (yet another) one of my cats. 2012 is not a good year for me, pet wise. Since I happen to like animals more than people – if you know me and this notion offends you, don't take it personally, it's just the way I am – I'm having some trouble letting go, even though it wasn't my favorite cat. In fact, the pet in question, poor little Akka, was always drooling, generally unhygienic and somewhat obnoxious, but I still loved her in her own right, and I will naturally miss her presence (unlike the other cats, who don't seem to miss her at all). Considering Frankenweenie revolves around the troubles of letting go of your beloved pets, it got me thinking. If I were a creative little boy and I lived in Tim Burton's imaginative world, I no doubt would go for the solution offered in the film and resurrect the hell out of my dead cat. However, I am not and I cannot, and even if it were scientifically feasible, I would not. Especially not after the animal in question had been rotting underground for a week (even if protected by the cover provided by a wooden box, as Sparky was given). After all, letting go when somebody or something dies is just a part of life, the dark side of life of course, but still life.

What would be achieved by keeping dead animals alive? Sure, you can stick to their presence forever, but would it really be the pets you knew and loved? As Frankenweenie showed, Sparky's resurrection, instigated by love or not, was the result of a lucky shot, while the same experiment failed with all the other ex-pets. Monstrous mutations were the result, creepy crawlies and towering behemoths that looked nothing like their living predecessors. Moreover, if they had been healthy and happy like they used to be, death would lose its impact. You could just keep on recharging your dead pet to breathe a semblance of new life into it over and over again, which would keep you from letting go and forming new special bonds with other animals. But of course, new animals would still be born, and soon the number of zombified creatures would grow to excessive rates and leave less room for the living. Death may not be a nice thing, but there is a definite natural purpose to it. My cat had a decent life for over 16 years and she got to live to a fair old age. It's more than I can say for my previous cat, who succumbed to organ failure at age nine, which was far too young for my taste. Instead of focusing on resurrecting pets, it seems more reasonable to turn attention towards extending the natural lifespan of pets, which usually lasts for only one or two decades, while their masters' life outlasts them for many more years. For the same reasons as stated above I feel it shouldn't be attempted by artificial means though. Besides, natural human lives last far longer nowadays than they did centuries ago. I reckon the same is increasingly true for pets' lives, who receive better care and food than they did in days gone by. Who knows, with a little luck cats will eventually live for many more years than they do today. And if not, the memories of a good cat will last a lifetime in that special place in our heart. Even though we would have preferred them to stay here with us in the flesh...

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/frankenweenie/

The life of an actor, or something like it

Holy Motors: ****/*****, or 8/10

For those of you who were wondering whatever happened to Leos Carax after his last film Pola X (1999) sadly flopped, wonder no more, for Carax has returned from obscurity with a vengeance. Of course, you must have heard of him before having been able to miss him, and considering the general inaccessibility of his often experimental work in cinema, his mere existence will have gone unnoticed to many. His latest project, the hallucinatory Holy Motors, deserves to change such neglect, considering it's nothing short of a mesmerizing night drive through Paris. By limousine, no less.

The protagonist, if there is one specific protagonist to speak of, is a man referred to only as Mr. Oscar (excellent performance on multiple levels by Carax regular Denis Lavant). When night falls, this shadowy, enigmatic character is picked up by his personal limo driver Céline (Edith Scob), who takes him from one strange job to another, with little or no apparent connection between them. Successively, we see Mr. Oscar as Motion-Capture performer, madman, assassin, musician and deathbed mourner, among other things. For each outing, Mr. Oscar is supplied with the necessary make-up, costumes and accessories to finish his task, without the audience knowing who orders him around and why exactly he does what he does.

In his “exile” from the film industry, Carax on several occasions started to develop new projects and wrote material accordingly, but it always failed to materialize in a finished film, his ideas being turned down every time. Though his persistence at least produced a number of short features, the final product that is Holy Motors clearly reveals the diversity of ideas that haunted the director for over a decade, resulting in a kaleidoscopic two-hour piece that is open to as many interpretations as it offers story threads. This leaves the spectator ever unable to fully account for them all when suggesting a consistent story line that explains the lot of them, but such a loss to come up with a final solution for this film's narrative whole – something which clearly was never intended to be found – only makes the film a greater joy to behold. That is, for those members in the audience who want to be surprised and can swallow a lack of coherent diegesis. It must be said, this film surely is not for everybody: when viewing this picture, as many people left the room as remained in their seats, the latter no doubt utterly captivated by Carax's bizarre joy ride through their minds,while the former undoubtedly found themselves repulsed by this attack on their sanity, or proved just generally unable to cope with what they experienced. For those that stayed, it also helped to be treated to many a superb image of Paris by night, the director utilizing light and shadow to maximum effect to achieve a sense of constant ill-at-ease paired with total fascination, both 'Verfremdung' during and unquestionable acceptance of the full 115 minute trip we take as we escort Mr. Oscar from one sketch to the next.

What do I think is going on here plot wise? I must firmly state that I believe Holy Motors does never intend to deliver us a full-fledged narrative which allows itself to be entirely rationally explicable. That said, I believe the film revolves around the act of seeing and being seen as an actor, the question remaining who but ourselves is watching Mr. Oscar, assuming he's actually supposed to perform for anybody's pleasure at all. As Mr. Oscar, Lavant is being maneuvered from one play to another, having to rely on all his skills as an actor while often enduring excessive make-up and clothing, without ever being watched by an audience explicitly. Mr. Oscar is clearly acting, but he's not being filmed, as if he's simply running around practicing, trying to 'stay in shape' as any athlete would without there being an actual contest involved. At the same time, Carax seems to expose the lies of being an actor, as Mr. Oscar is moved from one project to another without time in-between to be himself, taking on so many roles but never living a life of his own. His roles are as variable as are his multiple personae, and considering he should have died twice in his line of duty, as he is both violently shot and stabbed, it's certain this can't be anything but acting. Certain actions Mr. Oscar plays out serve no true purpose for anybody: in the role of the horrifying madman, Oscar eats flowers, bites off fingers and subsequently abducts and sexually assaults a beautiful model (Eva Mendes' most oddball role ever), but such actions are devoid of reason other than playing the madman. The only spectators enjoying them, or being completely freaked out by them, are we, Carax's viewers.

Anything conclusive about Carax's supposedly serious comments on the busy life of a professional actor we might think we can distillate from this film is inexorably shot down in the closing scene when Oscar's limo, along with many others limousines from other people sharing his incoherent occupation, is collected back by the Holy Motors company and stored in their huge warehouse until further notice: using their lights, the cars communicate about their day and the various roles their occupants played, some of them at the same time urging their peers to be quiet because they want to sleep. Whatever philosophical or metaphysical message you thought you could discern in Holy Motors, this ending makes it perfectly obvious there's no point to take this film overly serious. As this final scene clearly illustrates, the last laugh is for Leos Carax, who with this grotesque but terrific film proves there's still room left for inexplicable, near-experimental cinema.

Directed by Leos Carax

Starring: Denis Lavant, Edith Scob, Eva Mendes

France/Germany: Pierre Grise Productions, 2012

And watch the trailer here:

http://www.filmtotaal.nl/artikel.php?id=26135

Corpse Bride

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Tim Burton's love for traditional stop motion animation, already evident in The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), is further displayed in Corpse Bride, which also sees his fifth collaboration with his muse Johnny Depp (and the third with his lover Helena Bonham Carter). A young man (Depp) is forced to wed a woman (Emily Watson) by both their obnoxious greedy parents, though the pair carries genuine affections for one another. When practicing his vows alone in the dark woods, he accidentally places his ring around a female corpse's finger, after which he finds himself married to this woman (Carter) in the afterlife. Though it's a far more cheerful and colorful place than the one he just left behind, he wants to return to the world of the living to finish the marriage before his bride is suckered into marrying a ruthless impostor out for her money. Meanwhile the corpse bride herself has some unfinished business up above. Applying his typical dark Gothic visual style to every aspect of the animation process, the movie is first and foremost a celebration of life, love and (the unavoidability of) death (which makes it ironic the movie is done with puppets instead of real actors, save for the voice work). Why be gloomy over death when you can't escape it anyway? Stop worrying about it and learn to love life instead! Such life lessons are most effectively, and wonderfully devoid of cheesiness, delivered via a series of swinging songs, courtesy of Burton's regular composer Danny Elfman (11^th collaboration) which provide the most fun in this delightful movie. However, the off-beat look to the animation and a decent number of visual and dialogue gags also make for a great time to be had by young and old alike. Burton would return to stop motion for Frankenweenie (2012).

Starring: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Emily Watson

Directed by Tim Burton and Mike Johnson

USA/UK: Warner Bros., 2005