| Author | Message | ||
     James Armstrong (James_armstrong) Username: James_armstrong Registered: 10-2010 Posted From: 86.176.210.78 |
I’m extremely curious about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRNpSKsBKw8 Have any of you been lucky (or perhaps unlucky) enough to see it yet? Irreversible is one of my personal favourites and was possibly the most harrowing cinematic experience of my life to date. I’d be interested in hearing some other opinions on Gaspar Noé… | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
I have to admit I can't stand Noe. His films are showcases for the worst kind of obscenity -- contrived obscenity. IRREVERSIBLE packed a punch, no doubt, but to what end? To prove that rape is bad and has consquences? The moral is so obvious it negates the necessity for the film. That one horrible scene, the only one, it should be noted, that Noe filmed without that ridiculous unnecessary spinning camerawork, is clearly his central thesis -- the one scene, then, above all others, that Noe wanted in his movie. The rest was a justification for its inclusion, and a weak justification it was. All he wants to do is shock me, and in the end I won't be shocked by a film so simplistic in its aims. In my view, he's a hack, a freakshow barker incapable of subtlety or meaning. Ira Robbins once said of Marilyn Manson "No band around fails to shock with as much concerted effort as Marilyn Manson." Same goes for Gaspar Noe. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Chris - I have to disagree. The ending (beginning?) of IRREVERSABLE was luminous. I was greatly moved by the final (first?) scene. IMHO, there was more to that film than the rape scene. I recently saw his first feature, I STAND ALONE, and it's brilliant, like a sort of middle-aged sequel to TAXI DRIVER. Really powerful, wonderfully acted, and directed with a lighter touch than his more recent work. I have heard, though, that ENTER THE VOID isn't very good. Nicely shot, but vapid. | ||
| James Armstrong (James_armstrong) Username: James_armstrong Registered: 10-2010 Posted From: 86.176.210.78 |
It doesn’t surprise me if Irreversible is a film which divides opinion to the extreme. I’ll elaborate on mine: “The moral is so obvious it negates the necessity for the film.” This makes it sound as though a film is made solely to provide us with a moral lesson. I believe Noé knew he wasn’t teaching us new knowledge about the nature of revenge or the consequences of violence but was instead harnessing the power of cinema to demonstrate (and exaggerate) the boiling pot of emotions involved in such scenarios. “That one horrible scene, the only one, it should be noted, that Noe filmed without that ridiculous unnecessary spinning camerawork” The spinning camerawork (and I can understand how it may not be for some) is hardly used after (before, in narrative terms) the infamous scene. I thought it was extremely effective in portraying a worldview which has quite literally gone awry. I also thought the way the cinematic techniques became gentler towards the end (again, beginning) of the film was quite brilliant. I actually felt more shocked/devestated during its calmer moments knowing what was to be endured. Zed - I have also heard mixed opinions on Enter The Void but I'm staying optimistic. Here's hoping Noé hasn't fallen victim to sheer self-indulgence. | ||
| James Armstrong (James_armstrong) Username: James_armstrong Registered: 10-2010 Posted From: 86.176.210.78 |
Sorry, typo alert. *devastated. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
>> This makes it sound as though a film is made solely to provide us with a moral lesson. I can see little other purpose to the film. Unlike many other video nasties, which include extreme violence for purposes of suspense, IRREVERSIBLE is structured backwards, a structure that eliminates, rather than enhances, suspense. If played back-to-front, IRREVERSIBLE becomes a porn version of DEATH WISH, and its prurient nature becomes more obvious. The fact that it's structured backwards shouldn't redeem this. By going backwards, Noe invites us to view the characters with grim foreknowledge: isn't it awful to watch her choose the dress that will lure her attacker? Isn't their lovemaking yet more tender? Isn't it crushing to know she was pregnant at the time of her attack? If this is the only insight that elevates the story from pornography, I'm afraid it's not enough: It's shallow, worthless. Any violent act, when viewed from this perspective, becomes equally poignant. Again, all Noe is saying is that rape is terrible and has consequences? This is the insight of a child. The spinning camerawork may be used less at the end of the film, but it is used. In an interview at Cannes, Noe claimed that the spinning camera was included to make viewers feel "out of their minds." Thus: the scenes at the end (beginning), because of the reduced oscillations of the camera, must show the characters less "out of their minds" than the scenes at the beginning (end). And the one moment of sanity: the interminable rape scene. Again, it's quite obvious this is the only scene Noe really wanted. Everything else either supports this scene or evolves from it. >> t doesn’t surprise me if Irreversible is a film which divides opinion to the extreme. Indeed it does, although I should point out that I don't dislike it for the reasons so many others do. I'm a veteran, as it were, of extreme cinema. I don't think the movie fails because it's so unapologetically in-your-face. I think the movie fails because it cannot justify its violence and because it offers only the violence -- nothing else -- without the consolation of suspense or any other cinematic thrill. Zed likes it, and you do too, James, and that's as it should be. We're all different, obviously, and movies affect us all in different ways. For me, IRREVERSIBLE is a hamfisted film, one in which I see the wires and pulleys moving the mannequins, so to speak, and which I find stupid and obvious. If you see it another way, that's cool with me. | ||
| Patrick Walker (Patrick_walker) Username: Patrick_walker Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 79.79.184.174 |
I should point out the spoiler alert in the above post and perhaps others but I imagine it's too late for that now. I personally love the film and I Stand Alone perhaps even more so. Contrary to your point of view, Chris, I think that the film offers more "suspense" viewed in "reverse" that it would have done in a conventional time sequence. Nor do I think such utterly bleak nihilism is without its artistic merits! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
Just as an aside: someone pointing out spoilers in a film which runs backwards is pretty amusing, n'est ce pas?  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
GF:  Noe is saying is that rape is terrible and has consequences? This is the insight of a child. It may be "the insight of a child" but it's terrifying how many grown men don't actually have that insight. For me, simply saying that rape is terrible and has consequences is reason enough for the film's existence. Sometimes one has to state the obvious to get people to realise that it is obvious. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
But, yeah: horses for courses. I don't care that someone doesn't like a film that I do, and I actually find the reasons why very interesting. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
Stephen Fry makes a similar point about Victorian morality fiction. Yes, it's all very obvious, but without being reminded of it every day, it's easily forgotton. I suppose the issue is that such a message doesn't necessarily need a work of art to convey it. Advertisement campaigns, which are supposed to be unsubtle, would do the job better. But . . . is that really the case? It's like that old saying: tell me and I'll forget, show me and I may remember, but involve me and I'll never forget. At the very least, I'd say Irreversable is involving. Mind you, the backwards narrative was only half-backwards, wasn't it? I mean, the events of each scene went forwards, they were just reversed in order. Unlike, say, Martin Amis's Time's Arrow, which truly uses the backwards narrative - that is, everything runs backwards in it - to make some pretty powerful points about another terrible human act. I'd need to rewatch the film to comment more, but I thought at the time that the backwards structure was interesting in relation to the film's title. Having seen the retaliation before the crime, it made the viewer (me, at least) think about whether seeking such revenge in the wake of such an act is indeed irreversable. Whether human beings have built-in a kind of need for closure and whether the way this closure is expressed in the film is a product of human nature or the tawdry culture in which it was practised. Whether the law fails in such episodes. Etc. Plenty of questions, perhaps some I've just put there myself. But that, I guess, makes the film successful (for me, at least). | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Is the Amis book actually written backwards, too? I mean the prose, and each word? If so, that strikes me as a bit silly. IRREVERSABLE and Nolan's MOMENTO use the reverse narrative in a way that only the scenes are reversed not the entire film. David Lynch used backwards dialogue and filming in TWIN PEAKS, of course, but that was something entirely different. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
MEMENTO, even... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
>>>Is the Amis book actually written backwards, too? I mean the prose, and each word? If so, that strikes me as a bit silly. Don't be such a fuckwit. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 81.152.74.159 |
I found Irreversible unendurable both for its nausea-inducing camera work and the endless and ugly rape scene. I'm someone who normally enjoys "experiential" cinema and I don't mind being manipulated by a director if he does it well. But - and maybe this is the point - Irreversible made me feel as violated as Monica Bellucci's character. It was just too much for me and I turned it off before the rape scene was over. I eventually did see the rest of the film, so I learned how it all begins/ends, and I remember reading a review (Ebert's?) that clarified things for me. By showing the rape/revenge story backwards, everything is made more poignant. We've already seen the rape, so when she puts on that ill-advised dress, we feel helpless. She has no idea what's about to happen to her, but we've *seen* it. By starting with ruined lives and tracking back to moments of innocence and happiness we realise how fragile everything is. Instead of a film about dread it becomes a film about regret. It's not a film I *like* and not one I want to see again, but it's most certainly a film I *respect*. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Oooh, was that a bite, Fry?  tiwkcuf | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Instead of a film about dread it becomes a film about regret. Ja. I agree. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
'Course it wasn't a bite, you tosser! But it was a stupid question. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I know...just pretending that I didn't know you were pretending to bite at my deliberately stupid question that I was pretending wasn't deliberate. This zany wind-up stuff's a lot easier face-to-face, innit?  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
Yeah. And it's easier to punch you in the chops then. ;) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
 | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
You still at death's door, faintingly sick, bed-ridden with . . . [shudders to speak the name] . . . man flu? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Feeling a bit better today, but am staying off the rest of the week to make sure I got shot of it properly. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
Why bring "of it properly" into it? The sentence was perfect satisfying without that. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Twat. |