HOLY MOTORS TRAILER: Holy Moly!!! Just what is this film about?

Holy Motors is making many top-ten lists for 2012, although it’s made about 450K so far, according to Box Office Mojo. Above, you can watch an extremely unformulaic and impressionistic trailer for an extremely unformulaic and impressionistic film. What I admire about the trailer is how faithful it is to the film in tone and mood, sensibility and style. It tells the viewer what s/he needs to know in order to make an informed decision about a ticket purchase. It doesn’t mislead or misdirect, possibly because it doesn’t really lead or direct. It shows and evokes, rather than tells and engages. You won’t know what the movie is about, per se, from seeing the trailer, but then you probably won’t know what the movie is about after seeing it. Should you choose to see Holy Motors, however, you won’t be able to say you weren’t prepared.

Before considering the trailer formally and in terms of its construction, appeals and thematics, a description of the film from its official website may prove helpful:

“Join Monsieur Oscar on his rollicking, soulful journey by limousine through the streets of Paris as he transforms into multiple characters for a series of mysterious “appointments”. Melding monster movie, film noir, romantic drama, musical, crime thriller, anime, Léos Carax’s mirthful, mind-bending masterwork is a ravishing fever dream of becoming, unraveling and starting all over again.”

The trailer opens with a festival laurel, from Cannes. The action begins with an establishing shot of an contemporary, architecturally interesting industrial plant, through the elevated, enclosed walkways of which a motion capture artist passes en route to a session. He wears a black body-stocking dotted with receptors, a sword quiver slung across his back.

Inside the black box studio, he runs on a tread mill, firing an assault weapon cradled in his arms as the ramp speed increases. A title card interrupts, white text against a black screen. We return to the motion capture artist in a pas de deux with another motion capture artist who is clad in red-latex. She undulates sensuously; he approaches.

Cut to a shot of a white stretch limo cruising the streets of Paris at night. The chauffeur, Celine (Edith Scob) asks, “Are you OK Monsieur Oscar?” Oscar (Denis Lavant), our protean protagonist enigmatically replies that “Somedays, one murder is not enough.” Next, a fellow passenger in the Limo asks Oscar why he carries on in the job. “For the beauty of the gesture (the art, the act)” he replies, which may be about as much motivation as you are likely to glean from the film, its reviewers or the marketing.

As if to contrast with the word “beauty,” we see Oscar making up for his next appointment, inserting a contact lens that deforms his eye, rendering him hideous, as his interlocuter offers a meditation on beauty being in the eye of the beholder. We see Oscar, now as a barefoot, red-haired freak staring intently at a supermodel (Eva Mendes) being shot in Pere Lachaise cemetery by a stereotypically self-absorbed American fashion photographer.

Dance shots from the motion capture appointment succeed, followed by a ultra-quick-cut sequence that it all but indecipherable. We next see Oscar, in pajamas, bathrobe and grey wig on the roof of a shuttered Parisian department store overlooking the Cathedral of Notre Dame. He is saying goodbye to Kylie Minogue, who looks longingly after him.

Dialogue plays over various scenes, with other young and beautiful female actors (the subtitles appearing on screen). Oscar discourses on love and loss and life: “Life if better/for in life there is love;/ nothing makes us feel so alive as to see others die.” A woman, seen from behind, zips up her white dress, in a strobing flicker of frames, an echo of the film’s opening scene of audiences in a theater showing the earliest films ever made, flickering black and white images of a nude athlete.

A montage of Oscar in various guises and physical action follows, with a nighttime shot of the Pantheon rendered in thermographic filter. The card for Denis Lavant, the virtuoso physical actor who carries this film, appears on screen, as we then cut to a side shot of Oscar, now dressed as a middle-class Parisian, smoking and driving to vocals sung by Ms. Minogue; the lyrics go like this: “who are we, who were we, when we were, what we were, back then?” Celine is shown, clutching her face while staring out through the windshield at some fresh hell created in front of her, followed by her cast card. As Ms. Minogue angles toward the camera singing, her card appears on screen. Next, a glamour shot of Ms. Mendes appears, along with her card.

As the music swells, a woman climbs onto the sign of the building, high above the Paris street. Celine laughs loudly from the driver’s seat of her limo, Oscar positioned just behind her in the privacy window of the limo. Cut to a wide shot of the entrance to Holy Motor’s garage, where dozens of other limousines– having carried other persons to equally obscure and existentially fraught appointments around the city– arrive to park for the night.

As the neon sign above the entrance changes from Holy Motors” to “Coming Soon,” Oscar (Lavant) has the last enigmatic word: “Our Life’s about to change.”

As is evident from the rough play by play above, this is not a traditional narrative or coming attraction. There is no voice of God voice-over, no marketing copy to explain or guide the audience encounter. And yet, the trailer relies on traditional supports to complete its marketing mission: there is an appeal to stars and actors; to the director, Leos Carax, who is a distinguished member of the profession. Music cues provide emotional gravity, while lyrics offer an oblique commentary on what we’re seeing. The festival laurels are a guarantee of artistic significance, while the representative scenes testify to production value, interesting content (sex, death, romantic entanglement, disguise).

Indeed, the representative scenes perform a further service for the curious viewer: they model the non-causal relationship among the various visual pleasures of the narrative, the paratactic (here and here and here) quality of the spectacle and sensation on offer.

We can tell (the music helps too) from the cinematography, the color palette, the dialogue, the facial expression and physical gesture that this is a serious, personal, probing and interpretively demanding work of film art. Whether the ultimate product is fatuous or tedious, we can glean from the trailer an earnest of the ambitions of the filmmaker and the aesthetic milieu to which is aspires. Expressive, experimental, non-linear and impressionistic, this is French auteur driven film making, with subtitles, chain smoking, seemingly gratuitous behaviors and a steadfast resistance to impose closure or meaning.

In retrospect, based on my recent and enjoyable viewing of the film, what the trailer signally doesn’t do– perhaps as a bridge too far– is describe just how hilarious and entertaining the film is, over and above its self-importance and philosophical pretensions.

Creative Commons License
movietrailers101 by Fred Greene is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in Readings | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EARLY TRAILERS: Notes & Insights

I’ve spent several hours lately (with a few more to go) in the Archive Research & Study Center at UCLA, on the second floor of glorious Powell Library, watching dvd’s and vhs’ made from what remains of the relatively few trailers that survived from first decade or so of the industry.

In my post today, I wanted to offer some notes and then a few insights about what takes place in these early trailers. As regular readers may remember, I’ve been looking at the role of film and film marketing in emerging discourse of social control, mass psychology and propaganda, so I was especially attentive to rhetorical and visual modes of emotional and non-rational persuasion. (Spoiler: I found very little subtlety–but lots of bald attempts to persuade would-be audiences to part with the price of a ticket.)

Relative to the feature films that were then being produced, a/v film marketing of the 1910’s (1915, onward) is rather simple and unsophisticated. Nonetheless, the fundamental appeals of stars, spectacle and genre were already cemented in place. Notably absent from the trailers that I’ve studied (and UCLA has the best collection in the world) is concerted attention to the vital matter of story, a topic and an appeal considered essential by modern audiences.

While story elements are implicit in genre and in the scenes of spectacle or sensation that these trailers foreground, very little effort is expended to establish the situation–whether through graphic copy or subtitles–the conflict or the likely outcome. In this early period, it was felt that the audiences needed to pay to learn what happens, and that if they knew the plot or (heaven forbid!) the outcome, they’re curiosity would be sated before having parted with money.

Instead, Star power, glimpses of spectacle and sensation and their expectations of genres were considered sufficient inducement to those confirmed movie goers who watched a trailer in the theater. (Yes, this was the era before TV and the Internet. Trailers were only seen at the cinema, by the self-selected and repeat customer.

Of course, for many of the cine-plays, the plot was not especially interesting or essential to the enjoyment, despite notable exceptions, as in the film advertised above.

Copy is intensive in early trailers. Promises about what the viewer will see and what the producers have gone through to provide the entertainment in question fill the screen. The rhetoric of the copy is, as film scholar Lisa Kernan has so persuasively argued, derived from roots in vaudeville and circus advertising, featuring bombastic verbiage from the stage and the ring.

The vaudeville approach offers “something for everyone,” and this you see most obviously in copy treatments that promise “drama, action, comedy and romance” with respect to any particular film. Such appeals are rather common–at least in the eclectic and accidental archive of trailers that have survived. The Circus approach, for its part, is hyperbolic and “singles out the film’s attractions as the phenomenon or event that will draw audiences to the theater.” (pp. 18: Coming Attractions)

You can see both styles in evidence in the trailer above, and you will notice that the marketers have no shame and no hesitation about their role as promoters and pitch-men. There is nothing especially tricky or insinuating about their assertions: they are superlative: the best, the finest, the greatest, the most, etc. and so forth. Presumably, by the 1920’s, a seasoned movie goer would understand that this was the game being played and not fall for the same kind of promise being offered on behalf of so many different features.

Of course, then as now, films that delivere hitherto unseen spectacles and revolutionary new ways of capturing experience and imagination do come along regulary. The difficulty is getting an audience to believe you when the the rhetorical bar has already been raised to the roof. Trailers offer one kind of visual evidence to a savvy audience, who can compare the spectacle or sensation being advertised with those they’ve seen elsewhere. Movie magazines, trade publications and review also provide paratextual support for the claims the marketers presume to make on behalf of the projects they represent.

In the courses I’ve taught and the lectures I’ve given, I make a point of describing continuities in the history of movie marketing across 100 years of development and experimentation. Sound, optical printing, projection, editing and other technological innovations have changed the look and sound of movie marketing, but the basics still apply. Audiences want to see scenes from the film, the “sample” as it were. And we–then as now–want to see the actors that we idolize or admire. We rely on the prior accomplishments of the writer, director and producer to persuade us of the quality of the present offering, and we feel confident knowing that a major distribution company (studio) is releasing the picture.

This early period of the film industry is referred to by scholar and critic Tom Gunning as the “Cinema of Attractions,” in order to underscores the near-universal appeal of those scenes, shots and spectacles that you had never seen before, or had only conceived of in imagination. Film was able to show us the world as if in a dream, a novel or an hallucination, and that magical power has remained an enduring driver of ticket sales and audience entertainment. Trailers, posters, publicity and promotion have exploited that appearl that from the beginning. Today, trailers let the visual evidence speak for itself. In the first decade or so of trailer history, marketers believed, perhaps rightly, that they needed to insist, verbally.

TRAILERS VIEWED FOR THIS POST:
“Hands Up” (1918, Serial)
“Greed” (1924)
“Ben Hur” (1925)
“Silver Flyer” (1926)
“Peg O’ My Heart” (1922)
“American Venus” (1926)
“Great Gatsby” (1926)
“The Patriot” (1928) A lost film; the trailer survives
“Garden of Allah” (1927)
“The Red Circle” (1915)
“Flame Fighter” (1925)
“Kellum Talking Pictures” (1921)
Spider & the Rose (1923)

Creative Commons License
movietrailers101 by Fred Greene is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in Introductory and Reference Post, Observations and Provocations | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PRODUCING A BOOK TRAILER (part 2): Creative Meetings

This above video is a specially shot book trailer which presumes to present the characters who populate the novel, violating what I understood to be one of the few rules of the genre: don’t interfere with the imaginative investment of the potential reader who is believed to want to make up his/her mind about what the characters look like. Of course, in a trailer, the marketing experience is preliminary to the literary one, and I guess the good people at Simon & Schuster assume that no one will remember how they portrayed the protagonists, their setting and their style.

In today’s post, I’m once again blogging about applying theoretical and practical knowledge to a new challenge: writing and producing a book trailer for an author who has admirably written what I like to call a Apocalyptic Gothic Romance, or alternately, an apocalyptic romantic thriller.

I’m so busy with the organizational and creative aspects of the project that I’ve decided to supplant my regular analysis of new and classic trailers with a diary of my hands-on-involvement in trailermaking, albeit for a work of literary rather than cinematic fiction. I hope it may be useful to anyone looking for an example of how it’s done. (Not done right or done perfectly or as a veteran book trailer maker might do it, but, nevertheless, done.)

I had a creative meeting last night. My editor and visual effects and story-board artist met with me to discuss a shot/scene list, to review scripts, to be apprised of the logistics of the project (pay, time frame, time commitment, working dynamics) and to correct, if need by, all my assumptions about what can (or cannot?) be done with editing and After Effects (and its ilk) tools.

I’m over-preparing, both as an expression of my excitement and as an outlet for anxiety, so I came armed with my wish list of footage and shots, my suggestions about editing, filtering and shot manipulation and my copy exploration of creative directions to consider. I presented 12 scripts that faithfully present the story and 28 shot/scenes that I’d love for my editor to have available to him. I shared the Key art that the client has already approved and discussed talent for our special shoot, as well as V.O. and compositional/library resources for the music cues we will need.

My creatives (who also have serious tech knowledge) educated me about the quality of the moving images we will need to license and capture in order to deliver the requested cinematic look. We then brainstormed solutions to the constitutive “problem” of a book trailer–that there are no dailies; that there is no film from which to grab visual elements–which also happens to be simultaneously and paradoxically, a goad to and a license for creativity.

We agreed emphatically to begin by storyboarding the approved script/direction as the first step in piecing together the trailer. As homework, I requested each participant choose his favorite approach in terms of story presentation, language, tone or attitude, but always with an eye to production practicality. I’m sending the client 3 or 4 directions this weekend for review, notes or approval. At the least, we’ll need a clear re-direction so that we can re submit and get an approved direction as soon as possible.

H, our storyboard hero, wants to get drawing. Me and D need to research the clips, music cues and begin negotiating licensing fees. From the storyboard, we’ll also confirm just exactly what we need to produce ourselves and capture on film. Special shooting is expensive, although it can often pay for itself in obviating the need to license the same footage from a stock house. And of course, there are some shots that you cannot beg, borrow or steal. You have to produce and film them yourself.

Today, a serendipity occurred. I was meeting with another client, when he called a friend on an unrelated matter. The voice that answered was the voice that I’ve been hearing in my head as the voice-over for the trailer. And this woman just happens to have done this kind of work professionally. We’ll see what the client thinks. I’m going to have her create an audition MP3.

Finally, I’ve got everybody connected via dropbox and we are going to work.

I’ll be back on Tuesday to report on progress.

Creative Commons License
movietrailers101 by Fred Greene is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in Introductory and Reference Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment