Irreversible - Gaspar Noe *SPOILERS*

Enzian · 06-16-2004, 07:07 AM

On Frank and Marq's recommendation, I checked out Irreversible. The following assumes that the reader has already seen Irreversible or doesn't care one way or another. This is a discussion of the movie and will be spoiler fraught.

=======
DISCLAIMER:
I am not an art student. I do not want to be an art student. I do not pretend to be an art student. I am a guy. I have technical degrees and a technical job. I am your Average White Suburbanite Slob. I like football (kinda) and baseball and books about war. I have a three bedroom house and a couple of cars. I have a couple of kids and would rather play with them than appreciate art for art's sake.
Since they're not here, I guess I'll take my shot at appreciating this film.
========

This movie has a very simple plot, or, better described as "story arc", I imagine. Animalistic Markus is dating Alex (Monica Belluci) who get together with Alex's "cerebral" ex-boyfriend, Pierre. They go to a party where the couple get into a fight and Alex goes home. In an underpass, she is brutally raped and beaten. When Markus and Pierre find out what happened, they are approached by two men claiming to have a lead on the perpetrator, and inducing them in their shocked and volatile state on a revenge mission. After a brief chase, they track down the man, El Tenia, to a homosexual sex parlor called El Rectum. Markus approaches El Tenia and is defeated, and then sneakier Pierre kills El Tenia with a fire extinguisher to the head.

The film is shown backwards, scene by scene, ala Memento, to further illustrate the "irreversible" nature of the story.

The film opens with "cerebral" Pierre in a prison cell, sharing a couple anecdotes with his fat, naked cell-mate. No introductions. No nothing. The viewer is lost.

The easiest thing to do is discuss the graphical nature of the movie, so I'll get that out of the way: this film is a fucking brutal assault upon the viewer, and is obviously intended to be that way in an attempt to shock the viewer "irreversibly". The opening scene shows Markus and Pierre walking through a horror show of homosexual sexual deviance. Perhaps this belies an unrecogniz,ed deep-seated unease with homosexuality; perhaps many homosexuals would agree with me by labelling it "deviant". Perhaps, in a counter-twist, by me even thinking what goes on in El Rectum may not be deviant, shows an even deeper deep-seated, unrecognized uneasiness with homosexuality. You can draw your own conclusions.
Anyway, this Average White Suburbanite Slob was pretty grossed out during the mind-numbing minutes (felt like hours) spent probing El Rectum and seeing snippets of homosexual acts. Seeing a leather-clad man chase Markus screaming, "Fist me!" is not only disgusting, but disturbing. My lack of open-mindedness is vindicated - this was clearly the intent.
Markus gets his arm broken with a grisly snap. Disturbing. Thankfully, it was quick.
The death of El Tenia is particularly brutal. I'm saving the cinematography for later, but the jump cuts of fire extinguisher meeting skull, accompanied with the crunch of bone and makeup makes the word "grisly" seem wholly inadequate. Ghastly, hideous and sickening.
And mother-fucking long. Torture to watch.
Markus is wheeled out on a stretcher and Pierre is booked by the cops. End scene.

I could go through a scene-by-scene replay, but I'm going ot skip.

A quick cab ride.
A questioning of hookers - until the viewers are allowed to see they're in a homosexual district. One very convincing tranny points them to El Rectum and El Tenia.

The Rape. Long, brutal and realistic, I imagine. I'd go on, but I think I spent my disgust describing El Rectum. I'm tapped. To see the violation of Alex is so disturbing. While I could watch, flichingly the death of El Tenia, there are times I could not watch this rape. It's not even that graphic - there's no visible penetration - it's just the realistic depiction of the indignity, horror, violence and destruction of the act of rape that makes it unwatchable to me.

When I think of words to use, I often imagine something happening and then try to describe it. Imagine a tight, newly sprouted tulip flower. Now imagine destroying it by ripping out the petals, tearing at them. Leaving nothing but a loose cluster of shedded petals attached to the crushed stem. But we're talking humanity. This movie is disturbing.

We're shown the falling out between Markus and Alex, we're shown the romp of animalistic Markus pushing cerebral Pierre through the party, trying to get him to loosen up with drugs and women. Pierre remains steadfastly uncomfortable throughout the party.

We're shown a subway ride to the party, with Markus, Alex and Pierre discussing the sexual differences between Markus and Pierre. Markus has a je ne sais quoi - an animal lust in bed, whereas Pierre is too focused on pleasing a woman, which is a turn-off. According to Alex, Pierre needs to enjoy sex for himself, in order to allow he to enjoy it. We are shown that Alex has a very comfortable association with sex, and is unafraid.

We're shown Markus and Alex in a bedroom discussion, naked on the bed languidly playful. Alex discussed a dream she had where she's in a red tunnel that gets broken in two.

We're shown Alex taking a pregnancy test, and finding out she's pregnant.

We're shown Alex reading her psychology book on dream interpretaion on a blanket in a park on a vibrantly green expanse of lawn. This closing scene, the beginning of the story, is the only shot of vibrant color we've gotten this whole time.

I recently broke my toe - I'd rather do it again than watch this movie again. Which probably one of the greatest compliments Noe could garner.

The cinematography. Orson Welles couldn't pull this off. Each scene is virtually unbroken. Start to finish - one take. It is brutal, unfliching and raw. It gives each scene an organic realism that is lacking in modern movies. We see life from our own viewpoint, it never changes. But, in the art of moviemaking, we're constantly shown new viewpoints. Hell, how many cuts are there in a single music video? We're accustomed to the non-linear pattern a simple discussion creates on film - three shots: two; one over each shoulder and one far enough back to encompass both speakers. We're inherently disassociated.
By Noe choosing to film each scene in one take, that customary disassociation is gone, and in it's familiar place is pronounced association! We are there for the ride.

The film is in color, but it could easily be in black and white. The everyday vibrancy is dampened by night shots, distorted by florescent lighted yellowed scenes, the hazy dinginess of the party, the dank blackness of El Rectum. While Alex remarks of a red tunnel dream, I don't remember how the underpass of her rape scene was lit. I seem to remember a yellow, sodium lamp lit scene, but I could be wrong.

This film is as Irreversible as it's name. It's a dirty, greasy movie. It's a violation of the viewer, from the opening shots of El Rectum, complete with dizzying swirls of the camera to the closing dizzying swirl of the camera on a running sprinkler with children running on the lush grass. Even the credits are shown running up the screen at the beginning of the movie. The title "Irreversible" is shown backwards and reversed, spinning, but with each spin it remains reversed. Get it? Huddla huddla.

While this movie is a like a reprehensible touch from a shriveled priest, it has plenty of discussion fodder. Just writing this has helped me put this film in it's place. I despised watching this film, but I like having seen it. How's that for weird?

As for Frank's owning this movie... I dunno. Renting this movie is one thing - owning is something else entirely. I have no idea what more could be gleaned from watching this movie. Certainly nothing worth the violation of having to sit through it again. I'd rather walk through Dorchester dressed like Hitler. If I ever bought this movie, it would be like owning a snuff film without the moral baggage. Not my cup of Average White Suburbanite Maxwell House any way you pour it.

So, there you have it. My thoughts, as roughed out in post format off the top of my head. I feel I have more to say, but can't structure it, right now. Hopefully, further discussion will produce more.

Enzian · 06-16-2004, 10:33 AM

I forgot to mention a mojor plot point:

I believed the guys who give Markus and Pierre the tip off that El Tenia was the perpetrator were using them to kill one of their enemies. I'm saying that El Tenia wasn't the rapist, but just a scumbag. Markus and Pierre were played.

HOWEVER - I was just informed by a sleepy Lostwire that the rapist was indeed at El Rectum, but that Markus and Pierre simply got the wrong man. I was told that the rapist, El Tenia, can be seen in the crowd gathered around Pierre's murder victim smiling.

Also, I might have the name of El Tenia spelled wrongly. My bad.

Phreak · 06-16-2004, 01:24 PM

If you look closely, when Markus & Pierre approach the man that they beat the shit out of, the man standing next to him is the rapist.

Frank Gunn · 06-16-2004, 02:00 PM

El Tenia bears a striking resemblance to De Niro in 'Raging Bull'.

Enzian · 06-16-2004, 02:24 PM

What does this movie illustrate? Horror and indignity? Why does that need illustration? Does it need illustration for the sake of illustrating?

Who is the intended audience? What was Noe trying to elicit from them?

Is this worth it?

orf · 06-16-2004, 08:13 PM

I'm also an owner of Irreversible and I've seen it three times, and it hasn't really lost its potency after the third viewing -- it's a fine movie.
In any case, I like to look at Irreversible like I do musical compositions about tragedies. Krzysztof Penderecki composed Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima for 52 Strings in the 1950's and, though dedicated to a horrific tragedy, it is a masterpiece of atonal modern composition. John Zorn released Kristallnacht, his representation on the Night of Broken Glass (November 9, 1938), in 1993; it is an extremely violent and intense piece of Zorn-patented avant-garde Jewjazz and it is a powerful reflection of the "calm before the storm", the storm itself, and the shock and the rebuilding after the storm. Though both compositions are about destruction, they are extremely beautiful.

Noé has done nearly the same thing, except dedicated his time and passion to a fictional event of similar violence, except directed to one person. Yet, it's not exploitative--it's not an ultra-modern, French ripoff of the exploitation of the Italians or Japanese of the past. This is not Guinea Pig -- instead, like Zorn, Noé created a beautiful piece of art of destruction. It's hard to record, much less film, beautiful destruction, as the risk of it becoming ugly is rather high, but Noé succeeded in filming nihilism itself. And a pretty view of nihilism it is. What is it trying to illustrate? Like the previous examples I have given, it is trying to illustrate an account of a rape, the peace before such an event, and the chaos that ensues afterwards. I don't think there's a specific abstract meaning behind Irreversible, but instead, an event. However, Noé illustrated such an event with a beautifully nihilistic view of the violation and violence that befalls Alex.

I don't find Irreversible as violating to the viewer, or a disgusting movie. Instead, it is beautiful in its own way, and it allows the viewer to experience such a personal horror in a way that is not romantic or exploitative, but just realistic. It is disturbing, but it is not at the same time. I've flinched at the exploitative because it aims to make me flinch. But, instead, Noé's composition never has. It is, like as how Penderecki's composition is an ode to the victims of Hiroshima, an ode to the victims of rape and its byproducts (in Alex's case, the adventure through El Rectum). People might think, "why would anyone want to film a movie about a rape? That is disgusting and wrong!" But again, couldn't you say the same thing about, say, Saving Private Ryan? Actually, war movies are far more disturbing than Irreversible is. War is torture to more than one person, and the movies are a representation of such mass torture, whether it be pychological or physiological -- Irreversible is only the representation of one woman's experiences and the byproducts of such. The representation might be considered gruesome, but there is no other way to compose an ode to a one victim of rape (or victims) -- romanticizing rape is, like romanticizing war, a worse crime than what it is trying to represent.

(Of course, I believe that every war movie I have seen that AIMS to create an ode to the soldiers of a war has romanticized war. There has yet to be a true representation of such horrors, and I think there never will be.)

Enzian · 06-17-2004, 09:06 AM

Orf, you've amazed me! Thank you.

I can certainly understand what you've said, and as art, the movie remains "open for viewing". To experience art, one needs to look for it. One needs to be aware. There can be art in anything, but is everything art?

As a work of art, an atonal piece of music can stand in it's own right as a testament to destruction. When viewed in that light, a person can listen to it and attempt to understand it's chaos in that context.

Without that context, is there anything in it that moves the human spirit? It may be created by human thought, but human emotion seems, if not raped, than wholly discarded.

Can any medium that seeks to show us the range of emotions provoked by war, rape, or other tragedy do so in a completely detached and remote manner without addressing the emotions and still be considered valid? When the listener listens to the atonal cacophony of Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima for 52 Strings (never heard it) are they supposed to feel emotions and passions? Or is it entirely theoretical, to be bandied about in words and thoughts only?

A - If it is to be felt, than it is playing on our emotions without normal musical constructs. I can get the feeling of "annoyed" by listening to fingernails on a chalkboard, but is that music? Or does it just need a title for it to become "valid" in some measure?
Regardless of how it is supposed to evoke emotion - it is doing it artificially. We, the listeners, are not being raped, incinerated or otherwise mutilated as we listen. We are being induced to feel emotion despite our surroundings. While a melody would ruin the "theme" of an atonal composition, would it hurt the message the theme is being used to illustrate?

B - If it is entirely theoretical, than why have emotions crept into it at all? If a viewer is annoyed by an atonal barrage, or disgusted at a rape scene, then the pristene theoretical aether in which the message floats is destroyed. When speaking of such theoretical matters, such emotion becomes baggage that must be shed before proper thoughts can be concieved.

After all is said and done, I think it's extremely tough to criticize what "Irreversible" has done. It displays a theme of destruction, and in my views, it does so in a destructive manner. I believe it was intended to do so due to the unfliching nature of the violence and the one-take, one-pass style of filmmaking which draws the viewer in and places them at the scene. I think that the theme of destruction was played out very well because the viewer - me - felt violated. It was intentional and thematic. Hard to complain about - art typically strives for such cohesive wholesomeness.

By failing to see it's emotion, I think you are missing an integral part of the movie Noe sought to create. That's not to say what you are experiencing is inherently wrong, but I don't think it's what Noe intended. Only Noe knows for sure.

It's a shame that such thematic wholesomeness isn't applied to prettier topics. What properties would such a piece have?

Enzian · 06-19-2004, 05:50 AM

Hey, guys - drop me a one-liner, or something.

Orf, do you have nothing to say or did I just annoy you?

reapersaurus · 06-27-2004, 07:19 PM

Enzian - thank you thank you thank you.

You just saved me and my wife from watching a movie would not have enjoyed.
I was considering trying this out (mainly for Monica Belluci), but I know we would not like it from what you describe.
The last thing we need to watch is a brutal depiction of human ugliness and tragedy. :flush:

Frank Gunn · 06-28-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Enzian - thank you thank you thank you.

You just saved me and my wife from watching a movie would not have enjoyed.
I was considering trying this out (mainly for Monica Belluci), but I know we would not like it from what you describe.
The last thing we need to watch is a brutal depiction of human ugliness and tragedy. :flush:

To avoid fainting, keep repeating:

It's only a movie.
Only a movie.
Only a movie.

stiles · 06-28-2004, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

To avoid fainting, keep repeating:

It's only a movie.
Only a movie.
Only a movie.

I have to disagree, and I know where this is going to lead, but I figure something is worth saying.

I write scripts, I even run a website for screenwriters. I've written nine scripts, and I'm working my ass off to try and get them sold. But one thing I would never include in a script is this kind of brutality. It could be used, without being seen, as a character development tool... that's true. But it also alienates the audience, I find. There's such a large number of women who've gone through this, why would you want to remind them of it?

It could be said that, reading that last paragraph, that I wouldn't include such a thing because, alienating the audience, you would be losing money... but that's not the case with me. It's a moral decision.

These things happen, this brutality, and I think that once you decide to film a thing like this in such detail, it ceases to be just a movie.

There's certainly a hypocrisy involved with film, where murder and torture and all other sorts of nastiness is accepted, but this is often more taboo than, well, pretty much anything else, so I agree with you, Frank, in theory.

There are films that I watch and enjoy which have rape scenes in them... I'm not particularly fond of the scenes like in A Clockwork Orange, Thelma and Louise or Once Upon a Time in America. But I get past them... but this film centralizes on the issue, and I think that it crossed a line, whether for the sake of shock value or art, and became a little disrespectful of victims who went through something similar.

It's just my opinion, and I don't want to take away from the film what people have gotten, nor do I want them to change their minds about enjoying it. I'm just speaking my piece (peace?), that's all.

I try and steer clear of films like this, and along the ilk of Boys Don't Cry. People make money off of the films, they win awards, but none of the proceeds go towards victims, or shelters... it's like making a profit off of human misery... and here's that hipocritical view again... being desensitized to violence is one thing... but I don't want to be desensitized to this type of violence. To me, it's the worst of the worst.

reapersaurus · 06-28-2004, 07:43 PM

Thank you, stiles.
I agree - very eloquently put.

While I understand that it's not real (thanks for the tip, Frank

What would we do without you informing us of what's real and what isn't?), the point is that for many people (obviously not all), brutality like this is not something they want to bring voluntarily into their viewing life.

But then, I don't understand why people want to hear about so many tragedies on the evening news all the time. Why do I need to be informed about some robbery/stabbing/shooting/murder/rape in some distant town, that happpened to someone I don't know about?

If I want to find out info, I'll look it up about those tragedies.
I don't want it force-fed to me during my attempt at keeping up to date with current events. I am thoroughly knowledgeable that such tragedies occur. I don't need them sensationalized and used as lead-ins to get people to tune in, nor do I prefer them used in such a way in my choice of movies, as Irreversible apparently does.

Frank Gunn · 06-28-2004, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Thank you, stiles.
I agree - very eloquently put.

While I understand that it's not real (thanks for the tip, Frank

What would we do without you informing us of what's real and what isn't?),

It was the tagline from 'Last House On The Left', another movie that revels in brutality, but not nearly as effectively.

Quote:

the point is that for many people (obviously not all), brutality like this is not something they want to bring voluntarily into their viewing life.

But then, I don't understand why people want to hear about so many tragedies on the evening news all the time. Why do I need to be informed about some robbery/stabbing/shooting/murder/rape in some distant town, that happpened to someone I don't know about?

If I want to find out info, I'll look it up about those tragedies.
I don't want it force-fed to me during my attempt at keeping up to date with current events. I am thoroughly knowledgeable that such tragedies occur. I don't need them sensationalized and used as lead-ins to get people to tune in, nor do I prefer them used in such a way in my choice of movies, as Irreversible apparently does.

The only difference between 'Irreversible' and myriad horror films that hope to inspire terror by revelling in brutality is that 'Irreversible' is far better at it.

stiles · 06-28-2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

It was the tagline from 'Last House On The Left', another movie that revels in brutality, but not nearly as effectively.

Ahh, that's right! Forgot about that, and that movie... never saw it, but I remember the tagline.

Marq · 06-28-2004, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

the point is that for many people (obviously not all), brutality like this is not something they want to bring voluntarily into their viewing life.

I certainly don't want that and yet I still found Irreversible to be one of the most compelling, heart-wrenching and powerful films I've ever seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

nor do I prefer them used in such a way in my choice of movies, as Irreversible apparently does.

So therefore, it's just not within your "choice of movies". We all make choices in regards to what films we prefer or want or choose to watch. I largely avoid some Hollywood blockbuster films and I often seek out smaller films that touch on subjects rarely examined in popular film. That's a very broad generalization of my viewing habits, but it's one way of looking at it. That doesn't mean I'm open to all and any depraved film that uses suffering for profit or other non-artistic reasons, but I suppose it does mean I'm more open to challenging cinema that doesn't hold back from examining the more difficult realms of societal behaviour.

My least favourite film of all time is perhaps "I Spit on Your Grave", which is completely and senselessly brutal - and for some they automatically categorize Irreversible as being in the same league as it solely because it involves a rape scene. Not taking into consideration that one artlessly uses it as pointless shock-value (I Spit) while the other contains it as a way for the audience to meditate on such unfortunate victimizations and human brutalities that are even more tragic as the film unfolds after that scene (Irreversible).

I certainly understand one's apprehension to see the film, or to simply avoid it because they don't like seeing such things in movies. I just disagree with your assumptions about it.

Enzian · 06-28-2004, 10:03 PM

"Irreversible" is an artful movie. I can't deny it. I may not like the art, but it is much better at being art than the art I like. Did that make sense?

"Irreversible" is not just another horror movie. I wouldn't even think it's in that genre. It is horrific, but it's a tragedy. A horrific Tragedy.

Marq hit the nail on the head: that's cool you don't want to see it. We all make our choices. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that, for me, the pain in watching "Irreversible" outweighs any artful appreciation I have for it. But, now that I've suffered through it, I might as well squeeze as much appreciation as I can from it.

{------------------*------------------}

As far as profiting from Tragedy... it has to happen. If it wasn't profitable, we wouldn't have Hollywood cranking out kick-ass war movies and theaters wouldn't be running "Antigone". Tragedy is an integral part of the human experience, and it's no shocker to find art reflecting that, like "Antigone". Reveling in it, like "Saving Private Ryan". Examining it, like "Irreversible".

"Irreversible" examines the tragedy that is rape and puts it in front of the viewer as if it were happening in their living room. There's no soundtrack. There's only one camera. It is as brutal as you can get without performing or enduring rape.

The only blemish I can see on this movie - and it detracts from the overall experience, IMO, is the plunge into El Rectum. (maybe that was the point - a joke?) The long minutes spent searching for El Tenia inside El Rectum was gratuitous. I can think of no artful explaination. I would have left it on the cutting floor.

The actual bashing of the wrong man can stay as-is, of course. The irreversible tragedy wouldn't be complete without it. It brings the tragedy full-circle in the classic Greek sense. I'm surprised there's not a scene of Pierre getting raped in prison - perhaps that was a post-coital cigarette Pierre was enjoying?

@2------------{8}------------2@

Desensitized. Hmm. It's a valid point. I'm inclined to disagree, but since I can argue either for or against it, I'll have to let my head and heart duke it out for a moment. Heart says you're right; head says you're wrong.

And now, for a moment of levity, I'll leave you with my depiction of an asshole.

*

Frank Gunn · 06-28-2004, 10:16 PM

I'm curious to know what makes 'Irreversible' so much different than 'Saving Private Ryan'. Noe gets ostracized for his realistic approach, Spielberg gets lauded.

stiles · 06-29-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

I'm curious to know what makes 'Irreversible' so much different than 'Saving Private Ryan'. Noe gets ostracized for his realistic approach, Spielberg gets lauded.

Well, again, this is part of the hypocritic thinking, where one kind of violence is acceptable, and another isn't, to a particular viewer.

The main difference is subject matter. In regards to their realistic approaches... I don't think anyone is arguing that. I think it's the choice Noe made to include such a scene, in such detail, in his film.

Marq · 06-29-2004, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stiles

The main difference is subject matter. In regards to their realistic approaches... I don't think anyone is arguing that. I think it's the choice Noe made to include such a scene, in such detail, in his film.

If he didn't include such a scene, in such detail, he wouldn't have any film really. Well, certainly not one trying to make the points he wanted to make. So perhaps you mean to argue against such a film dealing with such subject matter, in such detail as a whole.

Lex M · 06-29-2004, 09:53 PM

I'd love to wholeheartedly throw my support behind Marq and Frank in this thread, because I think IRREVERSIBLE is brilliant on a visceral level and one of the few recent films that I can't get out of my mind.... but I don't think Noe is beyond reproach here. I wish I could link you to it, but registration is required, but LA TIMES critic Manohla Dargis did a splendid review of the film in which she dubbed Noe's half-baked nihilism "Nietszche for Numbskulls," or something to that tune. And I can't really disagree....I mean, "Time changes everything"???? "TIME CHANGES EVERYTHING"?????

Seriously, I'd think folks with as fine-tuned a bullshit detector as Frank, Marq, and orf would throw a giant-sized beverage at the screen and hit the floor rolling with laughter at such a naive, obvious notion. It's akin to David Lynch walking into frame during one of Frank Booth's tirades and declaring, "Bad People Do Bad Things!!!!" then disappearing from frame, a la Keenan Ivory Wayans' absurdist "MESSAGE!" appearances in DON'T BE A MENACE...

I can't help but think Noe is thinking he's being a lot more profound than he is, even if his technical skills and penchant for grueling imagery is certainly astounding. The movie's basic point is kind of a "No shit, Sherlock," and while we can certainly empathize with the characters, the dime-store wisdom their tale is supporting comes through as more than a bit obvious. It's to Noe's and the actor's credit that the movie stands well enough and is involving on its on, but the director's look-at-me asides -- the reversed credits, the totally unrelated side moments such as the beginning with the old men, the roaring bed of noise over strobe image at the end -- smack of a would-be "edgy" bully trying a little too hard to rub our noses in contrived unpleasantness.

I realize my above points are hardly original, but anyone with access to the LA TIMES, LA WEEKLY, or SLANT MAGAZINE reviews ought to give them a quick perusal for some nice readings of the film's and Noe's frustraing mix of visceral skill and weakness for snide pontification.

Frank Gunn · 06-30-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex M

I'd love to wholeheartedly throw my support behind Marq and Frank in this thread, because I think IRREVERSIBLE is brilliant on a visceral level and one of the few recent films that I can't get out of my mind.... but I don't think Noe is beyond reproach here. I wish I could link you to it, but registration is required, but LA TIMES critic Manohla Dargis did a splendid review of the film in which she dubbed Noe's half-baked nihilism "Nietszche for Numbskulls," or something to that tune. And I can't really disagree....I mean, "Time changes everything"???? "TIME CHANGES EVERYTHING"?????

Seriously, I'd think folks with as fine-tuned a bullshit detector as Frank, Marq, and orf would throw a giant-sized beverage at the screen and hit the floor rolling with laughter at such a naive, obvious notion. It's akin to David Lynch walking into frame during one of Frank Booth's tirades and declaring, "Bad People Do Bad Things!!!!" then disappearing from frame, a la Keenan Ivory Wayans' absurdist "MESSAGE!" appearances in DON'T BE A MENACE...

I can't help but think Noe is thinking he's being a lot more profound than he is, even if his technical skills and penchant for grueling imagery is certainly astounding. The movie's basic point is kind of a "No shit, Sherlock," and while we can certainly empathize with the characters, the dime-store wisdom their tale is supporting comes through as more than a bit obvious. It's to Noe's and the actor's credit that the movie stands well enough and is involving on its on, but the director's look-at-me asides -- the reversed credits, the totally unrelated side moments such as the beginning with the old men, the roaring bed of noise over strobe image at the end -- smack of a would-be "edgy" bully trying a little too hard to rub our noses in contrived unpleasantness.

I realize my above points are hardly original, but anyone with access to the LA TIMES, LA WEEKLY, or SLANT MAGAZINE reviews ought to give them a quick perusal for some nice readings of the film's and Noe's frustraing mix of visceral skill and weakness for snide pontification.

Come on, Lex, there are plenty of great movies with one great big obvious bludgeoning point (the entire Oliver Stone catalogue, for instance... well, his great ones, anyway). Worse still, there are plenty of movies that try to have such a point but lose the meaning in a lot of muddle and are praised regardless ('American Beauty'... can you believe people once found that movie profound?).

Yes, the 'Time Destroys Everything' mantra is a bit overbaked (I seem to remember posting something to that effect when this was first released... yeah, she's pregnant, life is cruel, we got it), and I usually cringe at art-house tricks like backwards credits, but such flourishes and oppressive obviousness are a staple of modern Euro-shock cinema, and for a film as powerful as 'Irreversible', I'm a bit more forgiving.

Marq · 06-30-2004, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

Yes, the 'Time Destroys Everything' mantra is a bit overbaked (I seem to remember posting something to that effect when this was first released... yeah, she's pregnant, life is cruel, we got it), and I usually cringe at art-house tricks like backwards credits, but such flourishes and oppressive obviousness are a staple of modern Euro-shock cinema, and for a film as powerful as 'Irreversible', I'm a bit more forgiving.

What he said.
The "Time Destroys Everything" ploy is definitely an eye-rolling moment to have so obviously driven home, but I was easily more willing than usual to grant Noe some leeway because of the otherwise great film that preceded it (including the stylistic touches and plot asides you mentioned).

I have an LA Times registration, so once I find the password for it somewhere I will go looking for that article you mentioned, Lex.

06-16-2004, 07:07 AM	#1 (permalink)
Enzian Producer/Admin Emeritus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Fort Phoenix	Irreversible - Gaspar Noe SPOILERS On Frank and Marq's recommendation, I checked out Irreversible. The following assumes that the reader has already seen Irreversible or doesn't care one way or another. This is a discussion of the movie and will be spoiler fraught. ======= DISCLAIMER: I am not an art student. I do not want to be an art student. I do not pretend to be an art student. I am a guy. I have technical degrees and a technical job. I am your Average White Suburbanite Slob. I like football (kinda) and baseball and books about war. I have a three bedroom house and a couple of cars. I have a couple of kids and would rather play with them than appreciate art for art's sake. Since they're not here, I guess I'll take my shot at appreciating this film. ======== This movie has a very simple plot, or, better described as "story arc", I imagine. Animalistic Markus is dating Alex (Monica Belluci) who get together with Alex's "cerebral" ex-boyfriend, Pierre. They go to a party where the couple get into a fight and Alex goes home. In an underpass, she is brutally raped and beaten. When Markus and Pierre find out what happened, they are approached by two men claiming to have a lead on the perpetrator, and inducing them in their shocked and volatile state on a revenge mission. After a brief chase, they track down the man, El Tenia, to a homosexual sex parlor called El Rectum. Markus approaches El Tenia and is defeated, and then sneakier Pierre kills El Tenia with a fire extinguisher to the head. The film is shown backwards, scene by scene, ala Memento, to further illustrate the "irreversible" nature of the story. The film opens with "cerebral" Pierre in a prison cell, sharing a couple anecdotes with his fat, naked cell-mate. No introductions. No nothing. The viewer is lost. The easiest thing to do is discuss the graphical nature of the movie, so I'll get that out of the way: this film is a fucking brutal assault upon the viewer, and is obviously intended to be that way in an attempt to shock the viewer "irreversibly". The opening scene shows Markus and Pierre walking through a horror show of homosexual sexual deviance. Perhaps this belies an unrecogniz,ed deep-seated unease with homosexuality; perhaps many homosexuals would agree with me by labelling it "deviant". Perhaps, in a counter-twist, by me even thinking what goes on in El Rectum may not be deviant, shows an even deeper deep-seated, unrecognized uneasiness with homosexuality. You can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, this Average White Suburbanite Slob was pretty grossed out during the mind-numbing minutes (felt like hours) spent probing El Rectum and seeing snippets of homosexual acts. Seeing a leather-clad man chase Markus screaming, "Fist me!" is not only disgusting, but disturbing. My lack of open-mindedness is vindicated - this was clearly the intent. Markus gets his arm broken with a grisly snap. Disturbing. Thankfully, it was quick. The death of El Tenia is particularly brutal. I'm saving the cinematography for later, but the jump cuts of fire extinguisher meeting skull, accompanied with the crunch of bone and makeup makes the word "grisly" seem wholly inadequate. Ghastly, hideous and sickening. And mother-fucking long. Torture to watch. Markus is wheeled out on a stretcher and Pierre is booked by the cops. End scene. I could go through a scene-by-scene replay, but I'm going ot skip. A quick cab ride. A questioning of hookers - until the viewers are allowed to see they're in a homosexual district. One very convincing tranny points them to El Rectum and El Tenia. The Rape. Long, brutal and realistic, I imagine. I'd go on, but I think I spent my disgust describing El Rectum. I'm tapped. To see the violation of Alex is so disturbing. While I could watch, flichingly the death of El Tenia, there are times I could not watch this rape. It's not even that graphic - there's no visible penetration - it's just the realistic depiction of the indignity, horror, violence and destruction of the act of rape that makes it unwatchable to me. When I think of words to use, I often imagine something happening and then try to describe it. Imagine a tight, newly sprouted tulip flower. Now imagine destroying it by ripping out the petals, tearing at them. Leaving nothing but a loose cluster of shedded petals attached to the crushed stem. But we're talking humanity. This movie is disturbing. We're shown the falling out between Markus and Alex, we're shown the romp of animalistic Markus pushing cerebral Pierre through the party, trying to get him to loosen up with drugs and women. Pierre remains steadfastly uncomfortable throughout the party. We're shown a subway ride to the party, with Markus, Alex and Pierre discussing the sexual differences between Markus and Pierre. Markus has a je ne sais quoi - an animal lust in bed, whereas Pierre is too focused on pleasing a woman, which is a turn-off. According to Alex, Pierre needs to enjoy sex for himself, in order to allow he to enjoy it. We are shown that Alex has a very comfortable association with sex, and is unafraid. We're shown Markus and Alex in a bedroom discussion, naked on the bed languidly playful. Alex discussed a dream she had where she's in a red tunnel that gets broken in two. We're shown Alex taking a pregnancy test, and finding out she's pregnant. We're shown Alex reading her psychology book on dream interpretaion on a blanket in a park on a vibrantly green expanse of lawn. This closing scene, the beginning of the story, is the only shot of vibrant color we've gotten this whole time. I recently broke my toe - I'd rather do it again than watch this movie again. Which probably one of the greatest compliments Noe could garner. The cinematography. Orson Welles couldn't pull this off. Each scene is virtually unbroken. Start to finish - one take. It is brutal, unfliching and raw. It gives each scene an organic realism that is lacking in modern movies. We see life from our own viewpoint, it never changes. But, in the art of moviemaking, we're constantly shown new viewpoints. Hell, how many cuts are there in a single music video? We're accustomed to the non-linear pattern a simple discussion creates on film - three shots: two; one over each shoulder and one far enough back to encompass both speakers. We're inherently disassociated. By Noe choosing to film each scene in one take, that customary disassociation is gone, and in it's familiar place is pronounced association! We are there for the ride. The film is in color, but it could easily be in black and white. The everyday vibrancy is dampened by night shots, distorted by florescent lighted yellowed scenes, the hazy dinginess of the party, the dank blackness of El Rectum. While Alex remarks of a red tunnel dream, I don't remember how the underpass of her rape scene was lit. I seem to remember a yellow, sodium lamp lit scene, but I could be wrong. This film is as Irreversible as it's name. It's a dirty, greasy movie. It's a violation of the viewer, from the opening shots of El Rectum, complete with dizzying swirls of the camera to the closing dizzying swirl of the camera on a running sprinkler with children running on the lush grass. Even the credits are shown running up the screen at the beginning of the movie. The title "Irreversible" is shown backwards and reversed, spinning, but with each spin it remains reversed. Get it? Huddla huddla. While this movie is a like a reprehensible touch from a shriveled priest, it has plenty of discussion fodder. Just writing this has helped me put this film in it's place. I despised watching this film, but I like having seen it. How's that for weird? As for Frank's owning this movie... I dunno. Renting this movie is one thing - owning is something else entirely. I have no idea what more could be gleaned from watching this movie. Certainly nothing worth the violation of having to sit through it again. I'd rather walk through Dorchester dressed like Hitler. If I ever bought this movie, it would be like owning a snuff film without the moral baggage. Not my cup of Average White Suburbanite Maxwell House any way you pour it. So, there you have it. My thoughts, as roughed out in post format off the top of my head. I feel I have more to say, but can't structure it, right now. Hopefully, further discussion will produce more. __________________ Ficht nicht mit Der Raketemensch! XBox Gamertag: Enzian 00001 Elitism is ok, so long as you keep it in your pants...or something like that.

06-16-2004, 10:33 AM	#2 (permalink)
Enzian Producer/Admin Emeritus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Fort Phoenix	I forgot to mention a mojor plot point: I believed the guys who give Markus and Pierre the tip off that El Tenia was the perpetrator were using them to kill one of their enemies. I'm saying that El Tenia wasn't the rapist, but just a scumbag. Markus and Pierre were played. HOWEVER - I was just informed by a sleepy Lostwire that the rapist was indeed at El Rectum, but that Markus and Pierre simply got the wrong man. I was told that the rapist, El Tenia, can be seen in the crowd gathered around Pierre's murder victim smiling. Also, I might have the name of El Tenia spelled wrongly. My bad. __________________ Ficht nicht mit Der Raketemensch! XBox Gamertag: Enzian 00001 Elitism is ok, so long as you keep it in your pants...or something like that.

06-16-2004, 01:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
Phreak Actor Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canton of Vaud	If you look closely, when Markus & Pierre approach the man that they beat the shit out of, the man standing next to him is the rapist. __________________ dvds \| xbl

06-16-2004, 02:24 PM	#5 (permalink)
Enzian Producer/Admin Emeritus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Fort Phoenix	What does this movie illustrate? Horror and indignity? Why does that need illustration? Does it need illustration for the sake of illustrating? Who is the intended audience? What was Noe trying to elicit from them? Is this worth it? __________________ Ficht nicht mit Der Raketemensch! XBox Gamertag: Enzian 00001 Elitism is ok, so long as you keep it in your pants...or something like that.

06-16-2004, 08:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
orf Actor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Harrisonburg, VA	I'm also an owner of Irreversible and I've seen it three times, and it hasn't really lost its potency after the third viewing -- it's a fine movie. In any case, I like to look at Irreversible like I do musical compositions about tragedies. Krzysztof Penderecki composed Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima for 52 Strings in the 1950's and, though dedicated to a horrific tragedy, it is a masterpiece of atonal modern composition. John Zorn released Kristallnacht, his representation on the Night of Broken Glass (November 9, 1938), in 1993; it is an extremely violent and intense piece of Zorn-patented avant-garde Jewjazz and it is a powerful reflection of the "calm before the storm", the storm itself, and the shock and the rebuilding after the storm. Though both compositions are about destruction, they are extremely beautiful. Noé has done nearly the same thing, except dedicated his time and passion to a fictional event of similar violence, except directed to one person. Yet, it's not exploitative--it's not an ultra-modern, French ripoff of the exploitation of the Italians or Japanese of the past. This is not Guinea Pig -- instead, like Zorn, Noé created a beautiful piece of art of destruction. It's hard to record, much less film, beautiful destruction, as the risk of it becoming ugly is rather high, but Noé succeeded in filming nihilism itself. And a pretty view of nihilism it is. What is it trying to illustrate? Like the previous examples I have given, it is trying to illustrate an account of a rape, the peace before such an event, and the chaos that ensues afterwards. I don't think there's a specific abstract meaning behind Irreversible, but instead, an event. However, Noé illustrated such an event with a beautifully nihilistic view of the violation and violence that befalls Alex. I don't find Irreversible as violating to the viewer, or a disgusting movie. Instead, it is beautiful in its own way, and it allows the viewer to experience such a personal horror in a way that is not romantic or exploitative, but just realistic. It is disturbing, but it is not at the same time. I've flinched at the exploitative because it aims to make me flinch. But, instead, Noé's composition never has. It is, like as how Penderecki's composition is an ode to the victims of Hiroshima, an ode to the victims of rape and its byproducts (in Alex's case, the adventure through El Rectum). People might think, "why would anyone want to film a movie about a rape? That is disgusting and wrong!" But again, couldn't you say the same thing about, say, Saving Private Ryan? Actually, war movies are far more disturbing than Irreversible is. War is torture to more than one person, and the movies are a representation of such mass torture, whether it be pychological or physiological -- Irreversible is only the representation of one woman's experiences and the byproducts of such. The representation might be considered gruesome, but there is no other way to compose an ode to a one victim of rape (or victims) -- romanticizing rape is, like romanticizing war, a worse crime than what it is trying to represent. (Of course, I believe that every war movie I have seen that AIMS to create an ode to the soldiers of a war has romanticized war. There has yet to be a true representation of such horrors, and I think there never will be.) __________________ Sadly, my porn collection is 2353% smaller than your mom's collection.

06-16-2004, 02:00 PM	#4 (permalink)
Frank Gunn Actor Join Date: Oct 2002	El Tenia bears a striking resemblance to De Niro in 'Raging Bull'.

06-17-2004, 09:06 AM	#7 (permalink)
Enzian Producer/Admin Emeritus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Fort Phoenix	Orf, you've amazed me! Thank you. I can certainly understand what you've said, and as art, the movie remains "open for viewing". To experience art, one needs to look for it. One needs to be aware. There can be art in anything, but is everything art? As a work of art, an atonal piece of music can stand in it's own right as a testament to destruction. When viewed in that light, a person can listen to it and attempt to understand it's chaos in that context. Without that context, is there anything in it that moves the human spirit? It may be created by human thought, but human emotion seems, if not raped, than wholly discarded. Can any medium that seeks to show us the range of emotions provoked by war, rape, or other tragedy do so in a completely detached and remote manner without addressing the emotions and still be considered valid? When the listener listens to the atonal cacophony of Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima for 52 Strings (never heard it) are they supposed to feel emotions and passions? Or is it entirely theoretical, to be bandied about in words and thoughts only? A - If it is to be felt, than it is playing on our emotions without normal musical constructs. I can get the feeling of "annoyed" by listening to fingernails on a chalkboard, but is that music? Or does it just need a title for it to become "valid" in some measure? Regardless of how it is supposed to evoke emotion - it is doing it artificially. We, the listeners, are not being raped, incinerated or otherwise mutilated as we listen. We are being induced to feel emotion despite our surroundings. While a melody would ruin the "theme" of an atonal composition, would it hurt the message the theme is being used to illustrate? B - If it is entirely theoretical, than why have emotions crept into it at all? If a viewer is annoyed by an atonal barrage, or disgusted at a rape scene, then the pristene theoretical aether in which the message floats is destroyed. When speaking of such theoretical matters, such emotion becomes baggage that must be shed before proper thoughts can be concieved. After all is said and done, I think it's extremely tough to criticize what "Irreversible" has done. It displays a theme of destruction, and in my views, it does so in a destructive manner. I believe it was intended to do so due to the unfliching nature of the violence and the one-take, one-pass style of filmmaking which draws the viewer in and places them at the scene. I think that the theme of destruction was played out very well because the viewer - me - felt violated. It was intentional and thematic. Hard to complain about - art typically strives for such cohesive wholesomeness. By failing to see it's emotion, I think you are missing an integral part of the movie Noe sought to create. That's not to say what you are experiencing is inherently wrong, but I don't think it's what Noe intended. Only Noe knows for sure. It's a shame that such thematic wholesomeness isn't applied to prettier topics. What properties would such a piece have? __________________ Ficht nicht mit Der Raketemensch! XBox Gamertag: Enzian 00001 Elitism is ok, so long as you keep it in your pants...or something like that.

06-19-2004, 05:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
Enzian Producer/Admin Emeritus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Fort Phoenix	Hey, guys - drop me a one-liner, or something. Orf, do you have nothing to say or did I just annoy you? __________________ Ficht nicht mit Der Raketemensch! XBox Gamertag: Enzian 00001 Elitism is ok, so long as you keep it in your pants...or something like that.

06-27-2004, 07:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
reapersaurus Don't phear the reaper Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sacramento, CA	Enzian - thank you thank you thank you. You just saved me and my wife from watching a movie would not have enjoyed. I was considering trying this out (mainly for Monica Belluci), but I know we would not like it from what you describe. The last thing we need to watch is a brutal depiction of human ugliness and tragedy. :flush: __________________ "You mean you killed off REAL heroes so that you could PRETEND to be one!?!"

06-28-2004, 07:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
reapersaurus Don't phear the reaper Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sacramento, CA	Thank you, stiles. I agree - very eloquently put. While I understand that it's not real (thanks for the tip, Frank What would we do without you informing us of what's real and what isn't?), the point is that for many people (obviously not all), brutality like this is not something they want to bring voluntarily into their viewing life. But then, I don't understand why people want to hear about so many tragedies on the evening news all the time. Why do I need to be informed about some robbery/stabbing/shooting/murder/rape in some distant town, that happpened to someone I don't know about? If I want to find out info, I'll look it up about those tragedies. I don't want it force-fed to me during my attempt at keeping up to date with current events. I am thoroughly knowledgeable that such tragedies occur. I don't need them sensationalized and used as lead-ins to get people to tune in, nor do I prefer them used in such a way in my choice of movies, as Irreversible apparently does. __________________ "You mean you killed off REAL heroes so that you could PRETEND to be one!?!"

06-28-2004, 10:03 PM	#16 (permalink)
Enzian Producer/Admin Emeritus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Fort Phoenix	"Irreversible" is an artful movie. I can't deny it. I may not like the art, but it is much better at being art than the art I like. Did that make sense? "Irreversible" is not just another horror movie. I wouldn't even think it's in that genre. It is horrific, but it's a tragedy. A horrific Tragedy. Marq hit the nail on the head: that's cool you don't want to see it. We all make our choices. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that, for me, the pain in watching "Irreversible" outweighs any artful appreciation I have for it. But, now that I've suffered through it, I might as well squeeze as much appreciation as I can from it. {------------------------------------} As far as profiting* from Tragedy... it has to happen. If it wasn't profitable, we wouldn't have Hollywood cranking out kick-ass war movies and theaters wouldn't be running "Antigone". Tragedy is an integral part of the human experience, and it's no shocker to find art reflecting that, like "Antigone". Reveling in it, like "Saving Private Ryan". Examining it, like "Irreversible". "Irreversible" examines the tragedy that is rape and puts it in front of the viewer as if it were happening in their living room. There's no soundtrack. There's only one camera. It is as brutal as you can get without performing or enduring rape. The only blemish I can see on this movie - and it detracts from the overall experience, IMO, is the plunge into El Rectum. (maybe that was the point - a joke?) The long minutes spent searching for El Tenia inside El Rectum was gratuitous. I can think of no artful explaination. I would have left it on the cutting floor. The actual bashing of the wrong man can stay as-is, of course. The irreversible tragedy wouldn't be complete without it. It brings the tragedy full-circle in the classic Greek sense. I'm surprised there's not a scene of Pierre getting raped in prison - perhaps that was a post-coital cigarette Pierre was enjoying? @2------------{8}------------2@ Desensitized. Hmm. It's a valid point. I'm inclined to disagree, but since I can argue either for or against it, I'll have to let my head and heart duke it out for a moment. Heart says you're right; head says you're wrong. And now, for a moment of levity, I'll leave you with my depiction of an asshole. * __________________ Ficht nicht mit Der Raketemensch! XBox Gamertag: Enzian 00001 Elitism is ok, so long as you keep it in your pants...or something like that.

06-28-2004, 10:16 PM	#17 (permalink)
Frank Gunn Actor Join Date: Oct 2002	I'm curious to know what makes 'Irreversible' so much different than 'Saving Private Ryan'. Noe gets ostracized for his realistic approach, Spielberg gets lauded.

06-29-2004, 09:53 PM	#20 (permalink)
Lex M Actor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Los Angeles	I'd love to wholeheartedly throw my support behind Marq and Frank in this thread, because I think IRREVERSIBLE is brilliant on a visceral level and one of the few recent films that I can't get out of my mind.... but I don't think Noe is beyond reproach here. I wish I could link you to it, but registration is required, but LA TIMES critic Manohla Dargis did a splendid review of the film in which she dubbed Noe's half-baked nihilism "Nietszche for Numbskulls," or something to that tune. And I can't really disagree....I mean, "Time changes everything"???? "TIME CHANGES EVERYTHING"????? Seriously, I'd think folks with as fine-tuned a bullshit detector as Frank, Marq, and orf would throw a giant-sized beverage at the screen and hit the floor rolling with laughter at such a naive, obvious notion. It's akin to David Lynch walking into frame during one of Frank Booth's tirades and declaring, "Bad People Do Bad Things!!!!" then disappearing from frame, a la Keenan Ivory Wayans' absurdist "MESSAGE!" appearances in DON'T BE A MENACE... I can't help but think Noe is thinking he's being a lot more profound than he is, even if his technical skills and penchant for grueling imagery is certainly astounding. The movie's basic point is kind of a "No shit, Sherlock," and while we can certainly empathize with the characters, the dime-store wisdom their tale is supporting comes through as more than a bit obvious. It's to Noe's and the actor's credit that the movie stands well enough and is involving on its on, but the director's look-at-me asides -- the reversed credits, the totally unrelated side moments such as the beginning with the old men, the roaring bed of noise over strobe image at the end -- smack of a would-be "edgy" bully trying a little too hard to rub our noses in contrived unpleasantness. I realize my above points are hardly original, but anyone with access to the LA TIMES, LA WEEKLY, or SLANT MAGAZINE reviews ought to give them a quick perusal for some nice readings of the film's and Noe's frustraing mix of visceral skill and weakness for snide pontification.