This “meta-cinema” concept has not been mentioned during classes, but I suppose it does relate to the course itself; so I did some research on it.

I came across this word during my other class after watching the movie “Holy Motors“. I personally liked the film instantly. The movie does not have a structured plot line with a major conflict involved in the story. With its acting and bizarre events taking place, audiences are constantly reminded that this IS a film.

So the definition of “meta-cinema” is “a mode of filmmaking in which the film informs the audience that they are watching a work of fiction.” [Found online] However, the definition is still not clear enough for us to grasp the true nature of “meta-cinema”. How does it work? What’s it like?

There’s this one page I find quite interesting. The discussion begin with the posed question: “what is meta-cinema?” One of the answers define films that are meta, are usually artistic, which “inherently reflecting on it’s own existence as a piece of art.” Those movies are usually self-referencing, indulging in that specific world. One criticizes work of meta as “overly self-indulging” and “works of ego” because they potentially are just whining about matters without opinions to say on them and “be a productive member of society”. The same person also points out that meta films can be produced even, surprisingly, sometimes without self-referencing due to the known circumstances that the audiences are aware of.

“Overly self-indulging”, as I see, is related to the “lesser self”. I suppose sometimes artists are obsessed with their own worlds otherwise they won’t be real artists. It should be criticized that they are just making films to make themselves content without true contributions; however, not all artist’s intention is like that. “Holy Motors“, for example, I just love how it brings me new sensations with films after getting really tired of the mainstream cinemas. It is, for me, though may be pointless, still daring, creative, interesting to watch.

Another page that I found had clarified the definition for meta-cinema for me. The author explained the concept in three points:

  • A film acknowledges its creator or the circumstances of its production.
  • A film acknowledges its audience.
  • A film acknowledges itself directly.

He talked of the term in theatre acting “breaking the fourth wall” and suddenly everything made sense to me. I liked his examples given in the page which really explained the concept.

Then I also watch another movie “Birdman” to try to understand meta-cinema more. Compared to “Holy Motors“, they are both exaggerated in both acting and the scenes being shot. Unrealistic the films seem, we are constantly informed that we ARE watching a movie.