Irreversible

[Tom Chick]

After you've seen Irreversible, you will never look at a fire extinguisher in the same way.

This isn't just a movie. It's a brutal and offensive assault on the audience by a director named Gaspar Noe. It was originally called Time Destroys All Things, which is its essential message, but the title Irreversible is an ironic twist on the fact that the story is told backwards.

Whereas this was a psychological device in Memento, it's purely a narrative device in Irreversible, which opens with a mirrored image of the credits scrolling backwards and then skewing to one side, a hint that everything is going to go wrong. Well, actually, it's going to start out wrong before everything repairs itself by moving in reverse to the starting point. The story unfolds backwards from its frenzied climax to its sweetly mundane opening, made sinister by everything we know that will follow.

The movie can be difficult to watch, partly because of the camerawork, which is like something Kubrick would do if the laws of gravity were suspended. Noe's camera soars around like a curious insect. The movie consists of about a dozen long shots with a single handheld camera, sometimes mounted on a crane. There are long stretches where the screen is just a blur of color in which you can occasionally glimpse a silhouette or maybe a head. It's also difficult to watch because of the digital effects used to recreate some astonishing and horrific violence. And even aside from the violence, Irreversible has one of the most brutal sequences I've ever seen. Or, in this case, never seen. There are, literally, a few minutes of this movie that I have not seen because I had to look away from the screen.

Is it gratuitous? Yes. But it's not exploitative. It's central to what Noe's trying to accomplish: namely, to present a nihilistic view of what can -- and does -- happen in the world. You might not learn anything from Irreversible, which is arguably a pointless exercise in cruelty to the audience. I can think of very few people to whom I would recommend it. But you can't deny it's ultimately a successful and powerful piece of filmmaking that belongs alongside similar exercises like Requiem for a Dream and Clockwork Orange. Although I can’t say I particularly enjoyed it, I would say this was my favorite movie from Sundance this year.

-Tom

[Jim Preston]

[this moive] is arguably a pointless exercise in cruelty to the audience...But you can't deny it's ultimately a successful and powerful piece of filmmaking...

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. Calling a film pointless and cruel is pretty damning, yet you then think it is some how successful and powerful and I'm just not sure why. You also say that "You might not learn anything" from this film. So if it was neither entertaining because you had to look away from the screen, and it was not enlightening because the message seems to be quite facile, and it was not particularly good filmcraft because the camera was spinning wildly out of control at some points, then what about it was successful and powerful?

This isn't meant to be sarcastic, I am genuinely curious as to why in the beginning of your post you called the film brutal and offensive, but then suddenly at the end you recommend it.

[Jack]

I didn't find this statement contradictory. I believe Tom is saying the film is successful in what it set out to do, which was leave a lasting impression on the audience -- therefore, "powerful." You're confusing "successful and powerful" with "good." A battle can be "successful and powerful," but still an atrocity.

[Jim Preston]

I didn't find this statement contradictory. I believe Tom is saying the film is successful in what it set out to do, which was leave a lasting impression on the audience -- therefore, "powerful." You're confusing "successful and powerful" with "good." A battle can be "successful and powerful," but still an atrocity.

I think I understand. But then doesn't "success" and "powerful" become drained of some of their meaning? If "success" doesn't mean having achieved some level of artistic excellence, but instead is simply a utilitarian concept that means "achieves what the filmmakers wanted to do" then could Kangeroo Jack be considered a successful film? Every pornographic film would ipso facto be "successful." The same would go for "powerful". I understand Tom Greene's Freedy Got Fingered left a lasting impression on its audience, but I doubt many would consider it "powerful" in the sense Tom meant about Irreversible.

Also, I think your analogy doesn't work, IMHO, because a battle and a film are two entirely different things, so words like "success" and "powerful" have two entirely different meanings or have to be used equivocally.

[Jack]

It seems you're applying your own assumptions about what those terms mean rather than in the context of the film's goals. Yes, a porno would be "successful" if it pleases the target audience; that doesn't mean it's going to get a thumbs-up from Ebert -- well not a thumb, anyway.

You're trying to abstract the film into some pre-conceived idea of quality, based on what you think is good. There is another form of critiquing which takes the art form in its own context. I think we're just approaching this from different angles.

You may disagree with the analogy, but compared to a violent film, I think it works just fine.

[Bub, Andrew]

After you've seen Irreversible, you will never look at a fire extinguisher in the same way.

I've felt that way ever since I saw "Nice Girls Don't Explode."

[TimElhajj]

Tom just means it's a fun film.

[Guestacy]

Is it gratuitous? Yes. But it's not exploitative. It's central to what Noe's trying to accomplish: namely, to present a nihilistic view of what can -- and does -- happen in the world. You might not learn anything from Irreversible, which is arguably a pointless exercise in cruelty to the audience. I can think of very few people to whom I would recommend it. But you can't deny it's ultimately a successful and powerful piece of filmmaking that belongs alongside similar exercises like Requiem for a Dream and Clockwork Orange. Although I can’t say I particularly enjoyed it, I would say this was my favorite movie from Sundance this year.
So it's gratuitous and pointless nihilism that's an act of cruelty against an audience, yet it was your favorite movie? Either that means it was a lousy Sundance or my definition of those terms is messed up.

Why is nihilism even worth filming? How hard is it to film awful things and present a nihilistic viewpoint? It's considerably more radical to find the good in the world and present something incredibly positive than to say, "Wow, it's a really fucked up world. Here's a bunch of awful images for intellectuals to sit around and derive great meaning from." At least if it had zombies, there'd be better reasons for gratuitous violence. Everyone likes zombies.

Requiem for a Dream and Clockwork Orange were neither pointless nor nihilistic in their viewpoint.

[Guestacy]

Oh, and I wonder if it wasn't French if it would be called exploitative and crass. Like if it was made by somewhat without indie cred (a French film shown in the US typically already gets its cred because, hey, it's French).

[Jason McCullough]

What in gods name *happens* in the movie? You realize you didn't include a single bit of commentary on the content?

[Tom Chick]

Jack did a pretty good job of elaborating on what I was getting at, but just to respond to a couple of things from Jim and Guestacy:


and it was not particularly good filmcraft because the camera was spinning wildly out of control at some points,

Just to clarify, the camerawork was great, but at times it made the movie difficult to watch. There was some really good handheld stuff going on and some truly weird crane shots. When it needed to settle down, it did. But I think most people find excessive camera movement disorienting. This was definitely the case during long stretches of Irreversible.


This isn't meant to be sarcastic, I am genuinely curious as to why in the beginning of your post you called the film brutal and offensive, but then suddenly at the end you recommend it.

Actually, as I said, I don't think I would recommend it. A lot of people will simply find it offensive and pointless. Fair enough.

To me, it was a catharctic experience in the ancient sense of the world: a group of people sit down in the dark and watch something terrible, thereby purging their emotions. As a powerfully told story that's difficult to watch, it's a successful movie.


Why is nihilism even worth filming? How hard is it to film awful things and present a nihilistic viewpoint? It's considerably more radical to find the good in the world and present something incredibly positive than to say, "Wow, it's a really fucked up world. Here's a bunch of awful images for intellectuals to sit around and derive great meaning from."

You're implying it was an easy movie to make. You're also implying a movie should try to be radical by presenting positive things. I disagree with both points.

For the record, Irreversible isn't "a bunch of awful images". It's a story with developed characters, reveals, and plot points. It's a narrative construct built around the title "Irreversible". It's a trio of great performances from three established French actors (including the woman replacing Alia in the upcoming Matrix movies) and a controversial director. To reduce it to "a bunch of awful images" is a weak straw man argument.

Also, Irreversible isn't terribly intellectual. It's a very visceral movie.


Requiem for a Dream and Clockwork Orange were neither pointless nor nihilistic in their viewpoint.

I never said Irreversible was pointless. I said that's arguable. I don't feel it was pointless, but I imagine a lot of people who see it will think it's pointless. The dozen or so people who walked out of the screening seemed to think so.

I also didn't say Clockwork Orange and Requiem for a Dream were pointless or nihilistic. I said they were similar to Irreversible.


a French film shown in the US typically already gets its cred because, hey, it's French

Until Stefan pointed out the fairly obvious fact that it was in French, I had mistakenly thought Irreversible was a German film. I blame the director's shaved head and his first name, Gaspar.

-Tom

[Jim Preston]

To me, it was a catharctic experience in the ancient sense of the world: a group of people sit down in the dark and watch something terrible, thereby purging their emotions. As a powerfully told story that's difficult to watch, it's a successful movie.


Fair enough. From your initial description it just sounded like your really suffered through it. Anywho, I think this is one I'll take a pass on.

[Tom Chick]

What in gods name *happens* in the movie? You realize you didn't include a single bit of commentary on the content?

Intentionally. It's basically a revenge story. If you want to know more...


[SPOILERS]










Early in the movie, a man is beaten to death with the butt of a fire extinguisher. It's one shot, no cuts, with the camera in close and every impact to his face clearly visible.

-Tom

[Tyjenks]

What in gods name *happens* in the movie? You realize you didn't include a single bit of commentary on the content?

Intentionally. It's basically a revenge story. If you want to know more...


[SPOILERS]

Is it Resevoir Dogs, Michael Madsen, ear slicing uncomfortable? That was disturbing without any actual ear loppage being shown. I may be a bit tougher than I was when RD hit the scene, but what you spoiled I may have turned away from.

[Desslock]

Is it Resevoir Dogs, Michael Madsen, ear slicing uncomfortable? That was disturbing without any actual ear loppage being shown. I may be a bit tougher than I was when RD hit the scene, but what you spoiled I may have turned away from.

No where close to comparable -- as you indicated, that movie omitted any actual display of the violence (check out the special edition DVD for some goofy proposed scenes showing the actual cutting). Irreversible shows a couple of extended scenes of extremely graphic, horrific violence, all the more affecting because the characters are otherwise so well developed and likeable.

It's an amazing movie -- the best movie I saw as well, although not one I'd recommend to most people. Masterfully crafted, with great acting. The "memento" gimmick of showing the movie backwards worked very well (again), and this movie is much more coherent. It is unduly nihilistic, and I think it would be a better movie if it were less so, but it is absolutely unforgettable.

[Tyjenks]

Is it Resevoir Dogs, Michael Madsen, ear slicing uncomfortable? That was disturbing without any actual ear loppage being shown. I may be a bit tougher than I was when RD hit the scene, but what you spoiled I may have turned away from.

No where close to comparable -- as you indicated, that movie omitted any actual display of the violence (check out the special edition DVD for some goofy proposed scenes showing the actual cutting). Irreversible shows a couple of extended scenes of extremely graphic, horrific violence, all the more affecting because the characters are otherwise so well developed and likeable.

Did you two have any idea what you were in for and to what extremities the violence went to prior to the screening? I am not sure, knowing what you have told me, that I want too subject myself to that now. Resevoir Dogs stuck with me for a while as have many others including a brief nightmarish image in Event Horizon with a guy holding his own eyeballs in his hands. I am not sure I need more of that in my skittish little noggin.

As to the Special Ed. Res. Dogs, that and Glengarry Glen Ross are next on my list.

[Jakub]

To me, it was a catharctic experience in the ancient sense of the world: a group of people sit down in the dark and watch something terrible, thereby purging their emotions. As a powerfully told story that's difficult to watch, it's a successful movie.

Sounds a lot like my experience with Very Bad Things.

I've never been in a theater so quiet (and remember, I live in Canada), nor have I laughed so hard, so abruptly after I left. It was mass catharsis. The 35% of the audience who remained for the duration of the film burst spontaneously into laughter once we hit the parking lot.

[Tom Chick]

Did you two have any idea what you were in for and to what extremities the violence went to prior to the screening?

Not really. One of the beauties of Sundance (or any film festival) is that you can go in without having been subjected to any marketing. I even shy away from reading the synopses in the festival programme. I go into some movies not even really knowing if they're comedies or what.

I knew Gaspar Noe was known for some disturbing movies. When he introduced the movie, he said something about about people walking out and someone having fainted in a previous screening. He implored us all not to leave. 'Okay,' I figured, 'violence...' Even then, I had no idea it was going to be as extreme as it was.

All offensiveness aside, it's a stunning example of how digital effects have advanced the power of filmmaking. Dinosaurs and superheroes got nothing on Irreversible.

-Tom

[Tyjenks]

All offensiveness aside, it's a stunning example of how digital effects have advanced the power of filmmaking. Dinosaurs and superheroes got nothing on Irreversible.

-Tom

You can't possibly be saying it is better than The Hulk is going to be!!! :wink:

[Desslock]

Did you two have any idea what you were in for and to what extremities the violence went to prior to the screening?

Not really. One of the beauties of Sundance (or any film festival) is that you can go in without having been subjected to any marketing. I even shy away from reading the synopses in the festival programme. ...All offensiveness aside, it's a stunning example of how digital effects have advanced the power of filmmaking. Dinosaurs and superheroes got nothing on Irreversible.

Tom actually goes to unbelievable lengths to avoid knowing anything about any upcoming movie -- I admire his dedication, but he's a bit of a zealot, and forced to occasionally chant "na na na na" loudly at friends discussing movies nearby.

All we knew about Irreversible going in was that it was not English language (there are actually very few non-English language films at Sundance, relative to the Toronto festival that I'm more accustomed to), and that a lot of people were disturbed by a prior viewing. We expected violence, but that's not something that's disturbed me in the past -- I dislike overly gory movies, like the Hellraiser movies, but this movie wasn't gory -- it just featured the most realistic, graphic violence imaginable. Absolutely terrifying.

As Tom indicated, it is a stunning example of how digital effects can be used effectively -- for those of you that have seen Adaptation, it's like the car crash scene, only imagine seeing the physical impact in graphic detail -- then imagine seeing it 10 times in a row.

It's obviously not a movie for everyone. I definitely wouldn't take my wife to it. The film isn't all graphic violence -- there's only a couple of incidents of violence (both prolonged) -- but their impact is unforgettable in a well-crafted film that otherwise features great acting, frivilous or joyous discussions and moments of tenderness, and excellent dialogue.

It's clearly intended to be an assault -- showing the horrific destruction of beauty -- and it succeeds brilliantly in that regard (violence without context would not have been as affecting), which made it the clear pick of both Tom and I (of the 19 or so movies we saw) as the best film of the Sundance Film Festival.

[Ron Dulin]

You two have me curious. Noe's "I Stand Alone" is easily one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. But also incredibly well-made.

Style (not plot) spoiler: I Stand Alone is famous for a moment, near the end, in which the screen goes black and a warning comes on the screen giving you 30 seconds to leave the theater. Then the seconds count down. It sounds silly but it's pretty terrifying because the film up to that point has had a few incredibly violent scenes (including what is possibly the most emotionally and phyically violent scene I have ever seen in a movie), and it's difficult not to get worked up wondering what could be so horrible that you'd need a warning.

I Stand Alone is basically a long internal monologue of an unemployed butcher as he wanders the streets of Paris. It's dark and horrifying, but never to a point that doesn't seem appropriate for Noe's overall purpose, and if Irreversible is anything like I Stand Alone, I can understand any seeming contradictions in Tom's description above. I Stand Alone possibly the most effective film about poverty and hopelessness I've ever seen. I think it was one of the best movies I saw last year, but I'm not sure I'd ever want to see it again.

But now I really want to see this one. Bastards.

[Desslock]

Noe's "I Stand Alone" is easily one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. But also incredibly well-made...I think it was one of the best movies I saw last year, but I'm not sure I'd ever want to see it again

That's exactly my feelings on Irreversible. You should definitely try to see it in Toronto or whereever you can, since the opening scene actually directly ties into I Stand Alone (featuring the same actor) and answers a somewhat ambiguous question from that movie.

Stefan

[Gundaliro]

Is this available on DVD? I missed it at the TIFF.

[Tom Chick]

Is this available on DVD? I missed it at the TIFF.

It's not on DVD, but Lion's Gate picked it up for a limited theatrical release starting in March.

-Tom

[Ergo]

I just purchased I Stand Alone on DVD from Amazon. I look forward to watching it.

[Jack]

I was just looking for that on NetFlix. No dice. I'm not too sure about purchasing, but it sounds damn interesting.

[Tom Chick]

I was just looking for that on NetFlix.

I've been keeping an eye out for it on NetFlix as well. I don't know why they don't carry certain movies, but I just sent a request for I Stand Alone. Click here for their title request form. (http://www.netflix.com/ContactCustService?subject=Customer+Title+Request&type=103)

-Tom

[Jack]

Thanks, Tom. I put a suggestion in for that title.

[Guestacy]

You're implying it was an easy movie to make.
Not at all, and I have no idea whether it was easy or difficult to make (and could care less), but plenty of films are difficult or draining to make for the people involved. How does that lend it more meaning beyond what's shown on screen? For all we know, George Lucas pours his entire soul into Star Wars and takes 2 years detoxing in Tibet to recharge his creative energies.

Unless you're talking about skilled filmmaking, and there are plenty of dumb, good looking movies. Lots of technique over substance. If anything, it seems to me a movie that wants to present a serious discussion of issues like violence and revenge would be considerably more effective if you turned down the style, because style tend to overwhelm everything else and become the focus instead of the topic at hand. Compare Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer to, I don't know, Hannibal. Which is ultimately more chilling?


You're also implying a movie should try to be radical by presenting positive things.
Not at all, but it's a lot easier for intellectuals to think a film is "radical" if you make it as downbeat and nihilistic as possible. It's easier to destroy beauty than it is to celebrate it. If you do the former you're generally considered a "serious" artiste. Doing the latter without making a Nora Ephron movie takes considerable skill. That's why I think it's more radical to make something amazing that celebrates beauty.


It's a story with developed characters, reveals, and plot points. It's a narrative construct built around the title "Irreversible". It's a trio of great performances from three established French actors (including the woman replacing Alia in the upcoming Matrix movies) and a controversial director. To reduce it to "a bunch of awful images" is a weak straw man argument.
Fair enough. What I've read about the movie makes it sound remarkably like an art house version of Death Wish. How is one exploitative and the other, er, artistic?

By the way, if you're talking about the ridiculously sexy Monica Bellucci, she plays Persephone in the next two Matrix movies.


I also didn't say Clockwork Orange and Requiem for a Dream were pointless or nihilistic. I said they were similar to Irreversible.
How so? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm familiar with the two most squirm-inducing scenes from Irreversible, and it seems to me that showing these events is gratuitous and exploitative since they only exist to show you that rape and violence are really bad things. Well duh.

Have you ever seen a movie called Pasolini's Salo? Now that's a brutal film, probably one of the most offensive major films ever, and its gratuitous sex and violence served his thematic purpose, which was essentially "Fascism is bad." Well duh.

I'm just rarely convinced that showing things is better (or worse, as the case may be) than holding back. Showing things is more obvious, but when you have to figure out the awfulness on your own, it seems like it becomes even worse. (Though I agree 100% with the comments about the car crashes in Adaptation, which were probably the most jarring and realistic scenes of violence I've seen in a movie in years.)


Until Stefan pointed out the fairly obvious fact that it was in French, I had mistakenly thought Irreversible was a German film. I blame the director's shaved head and his first name, Gaspar.
French, German... hey, if it's Turkish or Iranian, it'd be even better!

The director is actually Argentinian, I believe.

[Guestacy]

As a powerfully told story that's difficult to watch, it's a successful movie.
Oh, I forgot this. Have you ever seen Straw Dogs?

[Toddy]

But it's not like you need to go to Sundance to see an incredibly difficult to watch look at violence on film. I've obviously not seen Irreversible, but I can't imagine that its brutality is any more disturbing and realistic than the Sopranos episode this year where Tony and Ralphie have a drawn-out fight in the kitchen that ends with Ralphie's head being smashed into the tile floor until his face is bloated and his skull is misshapen. The whole episode is extremely hard to sit through, both for the sudden violence and explicit depiction of someone being beaten to death, and the up-close look at the whole tedious process of cleaning up the scene and dismembering the body. You get to see Ralphie's head and hands severed and placed in a bowling bag, but that's not as horrifying as watching Tony taking a snack break by eating peanut butter out of a jar.

[Guestacy]

but that's not as horrifying as watching Tony taking a snack break by eating peanut butter out of a jar.
(Shhh, that's not a foreign film. American films and shows are exploitative; with an accent, they're artistic.)

And yeah, it's not the violence so much that made that sense so terrible. It was the mundane "cutting up the body" part, and how matter-of-fact Tony and Christopher were about it.

[Desslock]

I've obviously not seen Irreversible, but I can't imagine that its brutality is any more disturbing and realistic than the Sopranos episode this year where Tony and Ralphie have a drawn-out fight in the kitchen that ends with Ralphie's head being smashed into the tile floor until his face is bloated and his skull is misshapen.

There's really no comparison -- the Irreversible scenes are much, much worse. There actually is one scene from the Sopranos that I thought was far worse than the one you mentioned -- the scene in Season 3 where Ralphie beats a stripper to death, which is made even more sickening because she's such a sympathetic character in the script. I love the Sopranos for many reasons, including the show's willingness to show explicit scenes of violence or sexuality, but the scenes in Irreversible are far beyond anything I've seen.

You could argue what's the point in showing something so awful (other than ensuring commercial success in Japan), but I don't think film (or any medium) should be obligated to avoid showing any aspect of human experience. It's obviously not something that is enjoyable to watch for almost anyone (the same could probably be said about some of the violent scenes in Scorsese films, like Casino).

Also, to be clear, Irreversible is a masterfully made film, with great performances, that also happens to have explicit scenes of violence. The film isn't made "artistic", or "art house", by their inclusion -- it's a choice that a lot of people will be offended by, no doubt about it, but I think it was necessary (and therefore not gratuitous), and really the point, of the film Roe wanted to make. Nobody is suggesting that's a good thing (let alone that those choices made the movie great or artistic), or that anyone who doesn't like this movie is an uncultured boor -- we're just stating that we were really affected by it, and thought it was an extremely well made (and we're not talking in terms of production values) film.

There's an interesting discussion of Irreversible at Jeffrey Wells's column at Kevin Smith's site: http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/index.html

[Jason Cross]

I came in late. Calling a piece of media or art "successful" is dangerous business because it assumes the intent of its creator. That's probably where we're getting hung up on Tom's statement. I know what he meant, though.

Sounds interesting. I would probably watch it. I can, when I'm in the right mood, seriously appreciate and even enjoy the experience of something that is interesting to an extreme, even if it's not particularly "good."

[Toddy]

Really? I'll have to see that to believe it. Not that I doubt you guys, but that Sopranos episode was really disquieting and personally, I can't imagine that anything could take it farther. Especially the blase stuff before and after the murder, which I think made this episode a lot tougher to stomach than "University," which featured the stripper death you mentioned. Though that one was also a great episode, for the way it showcased how women are disposable in Tony's world.

[Toddy]

One other thing...sympathetic character? Not really. The stripper didn't deserve to have her brains bashed out against a metal highway divider, but she's clearly shown as a piece of trash in her own right by that scene where Tony mentions how she'd got in trouble for burning her infant with cigarettes. And when she abandons her kid for days to hang out with Ralphie when she's "sick." She's more pathetic than sympathetic.

[Bub, Andrew]

Ralphie's death, and the stripper, didn't bother me half as much as when Melfi was raped.

[Guestacy]

You could argue what's the point in showing something so awful (other than ensuring commercial success in Japan), but I don't think film (or any medium) should be obligated to avoid showing any aspect of human experience.
They shouldn't be obligated, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that's ever experienced real violence would want to see it digitally recreated as realistically and brutally as possible on film in such an ultimately shallow film. I suppose there's probably some context that makes it morally acceptable (like zombie movies), but I'm not sure what seeing a bunch of men masturbating while another breaks a guys arm, right before pounding him in the head with a fire extinguisher is part of human experience.

I suspect for the audience for this type of film, ast least in North America (intellectuals, upper classes), it's some journey into the forbidden. Where does it stop? What exactly is taboo? If it's shot well and is the point of, is graphic pedophilia acceptable, so long as its simulated and/or done with of-age actors? (I know, this is a dumb argument because it's a different topic, but intellectually, how is it that different?)

I saw the movie via a perfect DVD rip I downloaded from e-donkey, and my French is extremely bad, so I didn't pick up some of the dialogue, so perhaps I missed a lot of it. It's beautifully shot, though I really dislike that kind of showy camera work because it draws so much attention to itself. Which is probably the point, since there was no substance to this movie at all. There's barely any plot, and he cheapens the what would have been a beautiful ending by piling on a very Hollywood-style "oh, now it's REALLY tragic" contrivance. (Pregnant women, children in peril, the old standbys.)

I can see how it would affect a person, and if anything, the structuring of it in reverse makes your experience leaving the theater considerably different than it had been had it been shown linearly. But I find it really hard to imagine anyone thinking it's a particularly powerful story that would cause, as Tom says, a "purging of emotions." Unless you're talking about disgust. At least Salo, which is even more disgusting on many levels, has a higher purpose.

I realize that below you said it had excellent dialogue, and if that's the case, then it's entirely possible I missed a lot of the movie since, as I said, my French is terrible and my bootleg isn't subtitled. But I still find it odd that the three major scenes are critical to the movie, if only in the sense that they're gratuitous and extreme, and that's normally a criticism leveled at every Hollywood movie with sex or violence. How is this film above that criticism? I joked about it being due to its foreign accent, but if it was "Jerry Bruckheimer presents, a Michael Bay film: Irreversible," would the reaction be the same?

[Tom Chick]

Ah, so you have seen it. Sort of. You mention that you missed the dialogue, which seems to me a pretty crucial part of a movie. But if you just watched a DVD rip on your desktop, you also probably missed out on the movie's sound design. Very atmospheric disturbing stuff in a theatre.


There's barely any plot, and he cheapens the what would have been a beautiful ending by piling on a very Hollywood-style "oh, now it's REALLY tragic" contrivance.

Yeah, there's barely any plot to Hamlet either. Dude can't decide whether to kill his uncle. They should have put in dancing elephants.

FWIW, the narrative of Irreversible is less about the plot, which as you said is pretty simple, and more about the manner in which it unfolds. If you're looking for some sort of Gabriel Garcia Marquez epic that unfolds over a few generations, you're not watching the right movie.


But I find it really hard to imagine anyone thinking it's a particularly powerful story that would cause, as Tom says, a "purging of emotions."

Straw man argument. Among the many adjectives applied to the movie as a whole, the experience of watching Irreversible rather than just the story alone, is the word 'powerful'.

Here's a good question:


If it's shot well and is the point of, is graphic pedophilia acceptable, so long as its simulated and/or done with of-age actors?

If part of your goal is to create disgust in your audience, go for it. Whether you can put that disgust in any meaningful context is another question entirely. Would Happiness have been a better movie if we'd seen Dylan Baker's character raping the children? I don't think so. It would have been a very different movie.

Would Irreversible have been better if the scenes you object to were cut out? I don't think so. It would have been a very different movie.

All I can say is that I'm glad I saw the movie Gaspar Noe made rather than the one Guestacy wanted it to be.

-Tom

[Anonymous]

"I saw the movie via a perfect DVD rip I downloaded from e-donkey, and my French is extremely bad, so I didn't pick up some of the dialogue, so perhaps I missed a lot of it. "

But I did chat up three women outside the theater after it to discuss it, so I guess that's a good thing.

[Toddy]

As an aside, the Guardian's film critic savaged Irreversible the other day. Completely shredded it for being sensationalistic and nonsensical. Hits on some plot points that really make the movie seem pretty, well, dumb.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,885577,00.html

[Desslock]

As an aside, the Guardian's film critic savaged Irreversible the other day. Completely shredded it for being sensationalistic and nonsensical. Hits on some plot points that really make the movie seem pretty, well, dumb.

Interestingly, the review seems to have been written by someone who Guestacy indicated would like the movie - an "upper class intellectual". Maybe Irreversible's appeal isn't that simple.

I'm not surprised, at all, that people didn't like the movie -- let alone Guestacy who saw it without dialogue. Viewing just the sound and pictures, it would seem like a pointless depiction of violence and noise. The dialogue really does add a lot, including, in particular, any empathy the viewer would have for the characters in such a terrible situation.

As to whether or not anyone who has experienced violence would want to see it recreated -- probably not. I don't think that necessarily makes depictions of violence unwatchable, or inappropriate, however. It is a simple movie, which is unduly nihilistic, in my opinion -- the original title was something like time destroys all beauty, and there's plenty of beauty destroyed in the movie. The charactizations are great, and the characters are really interesting, which is what makes the scenes of such horrible violence so affecting. Seeing a zombie get bitten in half is nothing more than maybe a cool effect -- seeing someone you perceive to be a really sympathetic, interesting, intelligent and beautiful character being violated is a much more affecting experience. Again, I completely understand people not enjoying witnessing such violence, or prefering to watch a tale (more simple or complex) that centers around something other than extremely violent acts.

That said, I thought Irreversible was an incredible film, which I've thought about a lot since I saw it -- I don't know why Noe felt compelled to make it, and I'm not sure that I'm glad I saw it, but it certainly was an incredible assault on sensibilities, which I think was the primary intention of the movie. There's nothing more complicated to the movie that the nihilistic view that horrible things happen to even beautiful people, which is a morbid, cynical view, but it was interesting to see that view expressed so vividly in a movie that was so well acted and which featured such narrative ambiguity.

[Gundaliro]

Just saw the DVD minus subtitles and luckily my French is decent. I'm not sure which aspects of the dialogue were so crucial that they weren't mostly conveyed through gesture and body language.

I have to agree with that Guardian column, especially this line: "Noé's movie is not the smallest bit interested in the woman's experience, but in male rage, and Noé the film-maker has a distinct macho swagger in the shocks he dishes out." It really does feel like a simple revenge story at heart, albeit one that goes awry in horrific ways. I don't think that the film managed AT ALL to explore the theme of "time destroys everything" either -- how exactly was this "time"? I think a more accurate statement of the theme would be "irrational violence destroys everything".

Furthermore, the reverse narrative, though cool, managed to inject a weird note of optimism when this film really shouldn't have had one -- I think it would have been much truer to its purpose if it was shown forward. You'd still have the sense of the destruction of beauty or happiness or whatever, and it wouldn't have you leaving the theatre with this kind of false "happy" ending. (Apparently Noe considers it such, see here (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=irreversible+noe&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3E36C748.9CD36F81%40worldnet.att.net&rnum=11).) The effect of the last half hour on me and others, from what I've gathered reading reviews on the web, is one of soothing, which seems absurd given the concept of the film. Maybe this stylistic choice was an experiment in seeing if a movie with terrible scenes in it can still end "happily"?

I definitely thought the cinematography and sound design (you get a fair sense of it, actually) were terrific though, and it definitely was a visceral film, but I fail to see the aspect of time destroying everything.



There's an interesting discussion of Irreversible at Jeffrey Wells's column at Kevin Smith's site: http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/index.html

I can't take seriously a guy, who in the current column states: "How else to explain bee-stung-nose types like Claire Danes, Julia Stiles, Chloe Sevigny and THE BOURNE IDENTITY's Franka Potente snagging lead roles over the last few years? Women with their features would have never made it fifteen or twenty years ago. If you run into a woman who's super-delectable in an almost Barbie Doll way, it's a fairly safe bet she's either a model or a trophy girlfriend or wife...and is almost certainly not an actress." Is he normally this idiotic?

[Anonymous]

All of em except Franka suck, so I agree with him to that limited extent.

[Tom Chick]

I have to agree with that Guardian column, especially this line: "Noé's movie is not the smallest bit interested in the woman's experience

I disagree. The movie begins (i.e. ends) with the woman's experience. She is the focus of the movie until she's rendered comatose. Her experience (i.e. backstory RE: pregnancy, relationship to the two men, premonitory dream) is a significant part of the movie's impact.


I don't think that the film managed AT ALL to explore the theme of "time destroys everything" either -- how exactly was this "time"? I think a more accurate statement of the theme would be "irrational violence destroys everything".

Good point.

There's definitely something to be said for the way the movie plays with time and the way it destroys everything. Put the two together and, voila, Time Destroys Everything.

Seriously, though, I imagine Time Destroys Everything is more of a general outlook. I'd say the Irreversible's worldview is that the world invariably turns to shit.

RE: the ending:

You'd still have the sense of the destruction of beauty or happiness or whatever, and it wouldn't have you leaving the theatre with this kind of false "happy" ending. (Apparently Noe considers it such, see here.)

The poster you linked to is incorrect. I was at the same screening and Noe explained afterwards, during the Q&A, that he didn't really think the movie had a happy ending.

-Tom

[Raife]

My brother and his wife walked out of it at Sundance (he said people were leaving in droves).

They love independent films, but didn't care for Irreversible at all.

He also said Noe seemed like some sort of a freak -- wearing a uniform or something.

I don't mind violence/gore when it's not the focus of a film, but I've just seen way too much blood to have any urge to watch this one.

[Desslock]

I'm not sure which aspects of the dialogue were so crucial that they weren't mostly conveyed through gesture and body language.

Well, you essentially lose the whole performance. How many best actor/actresses performances rely solely on gestures and body language? Uh, Holly Hunter in the Piano, I guess, but in general dialogue and the manner in which it's conveyed is a pretty key component in developing any characterization or empathy with the characters in the movie.


I don't think that the film managed AT ALL to explore the theme of "time destroys everything" either -- how exactly was this "time"? I think a more accurate statement of the theme would be "irrational violence destroys everything".

I agree. As I mentioned to Tom at the time, the original title made no sense. Uh, maybe something's lost in the translation (and it should have been something like "even beauty is eventually destroyed"), but I don't think Roe was going for anything particularly deep. The whole movie is just an assault, and that's abundantly clear both from the content and the abrasive style of the film.

The French are weird, and have this current obsession with films with explicit violence/sexuality (Baise Moi, Romance). I think most North American viewers wouldn't like any of those movie (and I also don't think most of them are particularly watchable for any reason).


...wouldn't have you leaving the theatre with this kind of false "happy" ending.

As Tom indicated, we were at the same screening at the poster you linked to, and Noe expressly said in the Q&A that he wasn't being sincere when he said it had a happy ending -- he was just trying to prevent people from walking out. A few people left our screening, but apparently at least half the theatre left one showing (which may have been the one Raife's brother was at).



There's an interesting discussion of Irreversible at Jeffrey Wells's column at Kevin Smith's site: http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/index.html


I can't take seriously a guy, who in the current column states: "How else to explain bee-stung-nose types like Claire Danes,." Is he normally this idiotic?

heh, good call and no. The Irreversible discussion is in the previous column if anyone is still interested.


They love independent films, but didn't care for Irreversible at all.
He also said Noe seemed like some sort of a freak -- wearing a uniform or something. I don't mind violence/gore when it's not the focus of a film, but I've just seen way too much blood to have any urge to watch this one

Heh, I don't recall Noe wearing a uniform, but anyone who seems to want to focus on explicit violence as much as Noe does is pretty disturbed. I actually hate gore in films (or at least the fact that gore and illegal, horrific violence is considered far more acceptable subject matter than basic depictions of normal, human sexuality), but I also hate films that feature violence but then sanitize it to make it seem less horrific.

Any war film that features depictions of combat less graphically than Saving Private Ryan since that film's release is sensationalizing the subject matter, in my opinion (cough, when we were soldiers, wind talkers, cough).

[Gundaliro]

Well, you essentially lose the whole performance. How many best actor/actresses performances rely solely on gestures and body language? Uh, Holly Hunter in the Piano, I guess, but in general dialogue and the manner in which it's conveyed is a pretty key component in developing any characterization or empathy with the characters in the movie.

Okay, I can agree with that, though I'd hardly call the plot dialogue-driven. I actually do think you can get a great deal of understanding of the relationships between the trio through the body language, especially the stuff going on at the party. There are definitely some scenes that will be confusing without knowing French, though, I admit.


I agree. As I mentioned to Tom at the time, the original title made no sense. Uh, maybe something's lost in the translation (and it should have been something like "even beauty is eventually destroyed"), but I don't think Roe was going for anything particularly deep. The whole movie is just an assault, and that's abundantly clear both from the content and the abrasive style of the film.

See, this is where I think Noe's intent breaks down. Obviously, from that moviepoopshoot column you pointed to, with the talk of the press kit, he THINKS he's making these grandiose, meaningful films that have all kinds of things to say, but his own movie subverts that. If, as Tom stated, the theme is "everything turns to shit" or as you state, "even beauty is eventually destroyed", I'm not exactly sure how either of those are particularly interesting. In the latter case, wouldn't it have been much more interesting if time actually did play a factor in the destruction of beauty? Instead, it was kind of the movie equivalent of watching the Bud Dwyer television suicide. It really does work as a shock film, albeit a strangely pretty and artfully conceived shock film.

[Tom Chick]

I'm not exactly sure how either of those are particularly interesting. In the latter case, wouldn't it have been much more interesting if time actually did play a factor in the destruction of beauty?

"Interesting" is one of those words kind of like "fun". You can't dispute it because its so subjective that it's meaningless. I don't really know how to respond to someone who ways Irreversible isn't "interesting", except to say "yes it is!". :)


It really does work as a shock film, albeit a strangely pretty and artfully conceived shock film.

Well put and I don't disagree in the slightest.

-Tom

[Gundaliro]

"Interesting" is one of those words kind of like "fun". You can't dispute it because its so subjective that it's meaningless. I don't really know how to respond to someone who ways Irreversible isn't "interesting", except to say "yes it is!".

Yeah, sorry about that. I have a bad habit of assuming people can read my mind from my shorthand.

By "not interesting", I meant that "the world is shit" theme is pretty simplistic for the core of a film with such grandiose intentions. In contrast, the recent film "Narc" has more depth in exploring that whole underworld thing -- lives destroyed and corrupted by violence -- but won't get the attention because it doesn't have a prolonged rape scene. (Incidentally, that scene is getting passed around as a clip on file-sharing apps -- warms the heart, eh?) I, personally, would have been much more interested in seeing something that used the "reverse time" device thematically, but as we agree, Noe didn't do that, which is why I felt it was a gimmick.

[Desslock]

In contrast, the recent film "Narc" has more depth in exploring that whole underworld thing -- lives destroyed and corrupted by violence -- but won't get the attention because it doesn't have a prolonged rape scene.

Actually Narc got much, much more attention at Sundance last year than Irreversible did this year. There is justice!

[Ron Dulin]

I finally saw Irreversible.

In regards to Brett Todd's post re: The Sopranos, I agree with Stefan and say that there is no comparison. The opening sequence of Irreversible (discounting the prologue) is possibly the most exhausting and disorienting assault on the senses ever committed to film. It is relentlessly manipulative and unpleasant. At first, it's just annoying. Then the two-tone* soundtrack kicks in and the camera becomes more chaotic. By the time extinguisher first cracks head, Noe has basically worked the viewer into the same state as Pierre and Marcus. This is, for me, what separates the fire extinguisher scene from seeing real violence, the Bud Dwyer suicide someone mentioned above. In Irreversible, you not only have to watch a very realistic act of violence, but you must do so in an already-agitated state. Of course, I am not comparing the two. Only stating that when presented with real acts of horror, whether legitimately real or Faces of Death "real," you see them without context. And, for better or for worse, Noe has created an effective context for the brutal act that ends the story.

What's interesting to me is that the rape scene is completely devoid of such manipulations, which shows, if nothing else, that Noe is an astute filmmaker when it comes to violent images. Irreversible has the two most disturbing scenes I have ever seen and, from a technical standpoint, they couldn't be more different. The rape scene is unwatchable. I don't mean this figuratively: I could not bring myself to watch the majority of it, and had my hands pressed tightly over my face so that I could only hear gutteral French punctuated by the sharp sounds of seats springing up around me as people left. However disturbing, I think that the scene is notable for erradicating Hollywood's typical notion that rape is just Xtreme Sex. The rape in Irreversible is not a sex scene; it is not a predatory fantasy. Rather, it is an act of horrifying violence, presently bluntly. For some reason, the image that most affected me during this scene was that of the blurry pedestrian who enters the underpass, sees what is happening, and then leaves.

Reviews I've read have made a big deal about the fact that the wrong man is killed, which seems like an inconsequential point. It would be more significant if Marcus did the killing. But more important than who they kill is who does the killing. Pierre who, as the film goes on, we learn is neurotically intellectual, who has spent the entire descent into The Rectum trying to convince Marcus to leave, to go to the hospital to see Alex. Marcus, who seems to be little more than a ball of animal emotions, rages through the club and then starts a fight and gets his arm broken. But Pierre is the one who, in the end, brutally murders someone, smashing his face over and over, long after the threat has been neutralized, and with a look of calm on his face. It seems to imply that the instigating factor for this act was not the rape, but the moment Alex said goodbye to Pierre at the party.

I liked the structure of the film. We cannot have any sympathy for the characters as they commit this act, and once the violence is all over, we are taken back through the night to understand why it happened - primarily a volatile mix of drugs and emotions. It is a clinical approach, but I thought it was effective. I felt sorry for those who left the film during the rape, because they missed the scene of Marcus and Alex getting ready for the party, which was sweet enough to act as a semi-effective decompressant, especially when he kisses her through the shower curtain. When it was over, though, I couldn't help but question the point of the film. There seemed to be no universal theme, only an analysis of a night which ruined four fictional people's lives. And I questioned the last scene, in which Alex sits in a park watching children play, because she looked pregnant. Perhaps it was meant to be a dream preceding the Marcus/Alex scene, but it confused me.

I am glad I saw Irreversible, if only because it let me know that I am not desensitized to violence. But I really hope that Noe doesn't try to top himself. He should pull a Graham Greene and make an "entertainment" next; he has a great talent, but after Irreversible and I Stand Alone, he's running the risk of becoming the French Todd Solondz.

*To clarify: The soundtrack is simply two rumbling tones repeated over and over; it was not made up of Two-Tone artists. Watching someone have their head obliterated to the skanking sounds of "A Message to You, Rudy" would have, I think, created a very different effect.

[Desslock]

For some reason, the image that most affected me during this scene was that of the blurry pedestrian who enters the underpass, sees what is happening, and then leaves.

I thought so as well -- we talked about that as well, after seeing the movie. It was maybe my favourite touch in the movie, because of because it seemed realistic and the fact that you already know that any hope it generates is a red herring.


Reviews I've read have made a big deal about the fact that the wrong man is killed, which seems like an inconsequential point.

Disagree with you here, and think that scene is consistent with the other one described above, at emphasizing Noe's obviously nihilsitic viewpoint. Those two scenes really highlight the film's nihilism.


he's running the risk of becoming the French Todd Solondz.

That wouldn't be a negative development, to me.

[Tom Chick]

RE: the wrong man being killed
While I understand what Ron means about the identity of the killer being more significant than the identity of the victim, I'm with Stefan about it's impact.

When I saw it at Sundance, I didn't realize that the wrong man had been killed until the Q&A with Noe after the movie. Maybe because I'd missed that fact, it really was a shock to me. And the rest of the audience, I think. There was a vocal reaction when Noe explained that the wrong man had been killed.

-Tom

[DrCrypt]

I finally saw this. One thing I haven't noticed anyone commenting on in the other threads is the manner in which Alex and Marcus' last scene together anticipates many of the most powerful moments in the film.

Of course, there's the obvious "I had a dream about a red hallway that was about to break in two" dream that Alex mentions, and that reveal is so amateur it almost sinks the entire scene, but Noe largely pulls it off. In the context of a tender late afternoon moment, as Alex and Marcus wake up from a nap after they've made love, the little, innocent things that foreshadow the rest of the film are deeply disturbing. The way Marcus' hand is draped over Alex's mouth, and how she keeps annoyingly tries to remove it in her half-sleep, which is - a few hours later, this same imagery will be used as Alex tries to peel the hand of her rapist off her mouth so that she can scream. When Alex gets up to walk around, she drapes a white towel around her that looks exactly like her party dress. When Marcus quips "I want to fuck your ass", Alex laughs, "You're such a romantic", and hours later, she's sodomized and beaten into a coma. There's more, but those (particularly the hand) were the ones that really stuck out to me.

Actually, I think the two last scenes in the movie (the scene between Alex and Marcus and the scene with Alex, Marcus and Pierre on the subway) are ironic foreshadowings of the rest of the film - one mostly visual, one mostly philosophical. I was surprised that I could find the rape scene any more sickening than I did, but all it took was for Alex to blaze up in a beautiful torrent of exhiliration and defiance and tell Pierre that pleasing a woman all depended on a man only concentrating on pleasing himself.

Also, I completely missed the fact that Pierre killed the wrong guy at the end of the movie. Knowing that, I think watching Irreversible a second time will be more disturbing, not less. During Alex's rape scene, my only real comfort was that the fucker who did this was about to be brutally beaten to death, and I even skipped back to the Rektum scene just to watch that again when it was over.

[DrCrypt]

It seems to imply that the instigating factor for this act was not the rape, but the moment Alex said goodbye to Pierre at the party.
I think that's very significant. The reason Pierre is the one to kill "Tenia" is because he was the one who walked Alex to the door and reluctantly accepted her desire to walk home alone. Meanwhile, Marcus simply let her go. Pierre's attempts to stray Marcus from the path towards the Rectum, the way he lingers at the club entrance while Marcus goes in, is his attempt to avoid doing a horrific murder that he knows, in the end, he must. This is the second time he's lost Alex to someone he considers an animal. Because I don't think Tenia is merely Alex's rapist to Pierre - when Pierre destroys "Tenia" with that fire extinguisher, he's also destroying Marcus.

[Joe O'Malley]

There was a lot of discussion of this film, oddly, in the threads for "The Office" (British version) as well.

Reflecting back, this movie may have spawned some of the more philiosphical movie discussions I've seen on the board.

[bobglob]

What was the point of meeting the pregnant woman in the party halfway through the film? Was this just a foreshadowing of her own pregnancy? Or did I miss something?