Holy Motors premiered at Cannes in May 2012. The initial response was very favorable with no more than a couple of negative reviews. The general consensus is that the film is mysterious, highly energetic and highly referential, which also prompts the question across the board – “What does it all mean?” Although being a competitive choice during Cannes, the film did not win any awards at the festival, nor did it win anything at the French Cesar Awards. By October 2012 when Holy Motors opened in the US, most of the mainstream media has reviewed the film and besides a handful of mixed reviews, all others were very positive. Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5/4 and called the film “exasperating, frustrating, anarchic and in a constant state of renewal,” which summarizes the general sentiment as well. Even in the more negative reviews, those qualities still persist, only those reviews find the frustrating and anarchic aspects to be detrimental to the film.
Taking Roger Ebert as an example, I would like to point out a commonality shared by most of the reviews – they are extremely descriptive yet not evaluative. Some reviewers take great lengths to describe the extraordinary encounters portrayed by the film, the motion-capture episode being one of the favorites. In a way, the film inherited the cinema du look’s critical reception that focuses significantly on the spectacles. Eric Kohn’s review captures that attitude perfectly, saying that “Carax’s true message matter[s] less than the startling manner in which he expresses it.” Many reviewers also addressed Carax’s penchant for referencing other films in history and his own filmography. This is usually classified as part of the film’s eclectic themes, but some do find the self-references to be self-indulgent and narcissistic. Overall, the reviewers find the film to be cryptic yet exciting to watch. It was something very new and different, presented in a visually stunning and compelling fashion, which prompted the good reviews in the first place.
I find reading the reviews to be unexpectedly uninteresting because they all failed to articulate what exactly was “good” about the film. However, this really speaks to Carax’s next-level craft which indeed moved people while rendering them speechless. The loss of words in the face of a truly powerful artwork really attests to the sublime effect of the artwork. The film is to a large extent left unbranded and undefined, which not only gives freedom to the audience, but also, most importantly, liberates itself to be something against established labels and critical norms.
Anderson, Melissa. “Hark, Behold, Watch: Holy Motors Creates the Cinema History It Laments.” The Village Voice. The Village Voice LLC, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Bradshaw, Peter. “Cannes 2012: Holy Motors – Review.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 23 May 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Dargis, Manohla. “It’s Not About the Destination, But About the Dizzying Ride.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Ebert, Roger. “Holy Motors.” RogerEbert.com. Sun-Times Media Group, 07 Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Hornaday, Ann. “Holy Motors.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Jagernauth, Kevin. “Cannes Review: Leos Carax’s ‘Holy Motors’ Is an Anything Goes Stew of Big Ideas That Doesn’t Always Work.” IndieWire. Penske Media Corporation, 24 May 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Kohn, Eric. “Leos Carax Makes a Nutty Comeback With ‘Holy Motors,’ But Don’t Expect Easy Answers.” IndieWire. Penske Media Corporation, 23 May 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Lehmann, Megan. “Holy Motors: Cannes Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media, 22 May 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Nelson, Rob. “Review: ‘Holy Motors’.” Variety. Penske Media Corporation, 22 May 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Phillips, Michael. “Denis Lavant Is a Shape-shifting Wonder in ‘Holy Motors’ ★★★ 1/2.” Chicagotribune.com. tronc, Inc., 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Not a Dinner Blog 