Interesting the Grinch did not present the same dilemmas. Here with Hollywood's frightening disconnect. Immoral and indulgent not in a hedonistic but creative way in channeling the collective 'ghost' which I sense we have an almost duty to not do this and respect the illusions of theater.
The film seems opposite the truth in that it seems he actually found himself through Kaufman, not lost himself, and then attributed nothing because he didn't like what he found. Creatives simply do not realize the sensitivity of the human mind which clashes with the ruthless detachment of the gift. Guess which side wins? Young are especially vulnerable for desiring to prove themselves and seeing no difference between offering a part of themselves with the whole; Carrey being all these things plus 90s prosperity A-list power, ripped a hole so large in his psyche he became a mountain man guru. I don't personally see that as satiric, I think it was the inevitable trajectory polarity from Kaufman and that's the real him is the embodiment of transience. Basically he will copout conclude with anything but Carrey.
That 90s context at the time seemed so definitive while ultimately it was just a small era inside the expanse, which he is still wrestling to terms with being biggest in the world then, and now being 'After Carrey' and translating its consequences being unintuitive.
Kaufman here with the mirror on mirror effect, but the mirror is still the single image reflected ad infinitum, meaning it's the same problem in identity and who's playing who over and over, then the artform is the variety in reaction. Such as therapy for Kaufman's dead relatives.
I believe performers living in this method of voodooism trifle with a gift, forgetting that the benefits in craft are inherent. The theater reflects humanity already and chameleon reflecting chameleon does not reveal but violates.
The film seems opposite the truth in that it seems he actually found himself through Kaufman, not lost himself, and then attributed nothing because he didn't like what he found. Creatives simply do not realize the sensitivity of the human mind which clashes with the ruthless detachment of the gift. Guess which side wins? Young are especially vulnerable for desiring to prove themselves and seeing no difference between offering a part of themselves with the whole; Carrey being all these things plus 90s prosperity A-list power, ripped a hole so large in his psyche he became a mountain man guru. I don't personally see that as satiric, I think it was the inevitable trajectory polarity from Kaufman and that's the real him is the embodiment of transience. Basically he will copout conclude with anything but Carrey.
That 90s context at the time seemed so definitive while ultimately it was just a small era inside the expanse, which he is still wrestling to terms with being biggest in the world then, and now being 'After Carrey' and translating its consequences being unintuitive.
Kaufman here with the mirror on mirror effect, but the mirror is still the single image reflected ad infinitum, meaning it's the same problem in identity and who's playing who over and over, then the artform is the variety in reaction. Such as therapy for Kaufman's dead relatives.
I believe performers living in this method of voodooism trifle with a gift, forgetting that the benefits in craft are inherent. The theater reflects humanity already and chameleon reflecting chameleon does not reveal but violates.