Irreversible (2002)
Gaspar Noe made a name for himself
as one of the most brutal and uncompromising filmmakers
of the new millennium with his 1998 film "I Stand
Alone" ("Seul contre tous"). His fame has continued
now with "Irreversible," a film so vile as to cause
physical reaction of nausea and fainting among some
filmgoers. Noe himself has stated that he is trying
to provoke a physical reaction with the film. At the
theater where I saw the film, the Dobie in Austin,
they have even went as far as to emulate William Castle's
promotional techniques and put up a large sign stating
that the film uses "gyroscopic camera techniques"
and may cause nausea to some viewers. It also informs
us in has a "ten minute scene of rape." And, at the
bottom, "No refunds. No passes" the large sign also
states.
But for all it's sickening violence,
I found myself leaving "Irreversible" having no reaction
whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, the film's much ballyhooed
"10 minute rape scene" is indeed one of the most unpleasant
things I've ever seen in a movie. But this film doesn't
glamorize or poeticize the violence. It simply is.
It is harsh and brutal and realistic and sad and sick
and utterly dull. I could have cared less watching
this part of the film - because I knew it was a film.
It was just 10 minutes of emulated rape that took
great pains to be as realistic as possible. So what.
More unpleasant was the brutal scene
of violence earlier in the film. A man bashes in another
man's face with a fire extinguisher. Repeatedly. The
effect is gruesome. Again, it looks real. Even knowing
that the film was a film and not reality, I had to
turn my head away during this scene. It is one of
the most gruesome images you will ever see in your
life. Fratboys who think "Fight
Club" is ferocious will puke at the scene of unchecked
violence here.
Noe films the scenes in long segments
that do not cut, much like Hitchcock did in "Rope"
50 years ago. This is what is cinematically fascinating
about his film. When the acts of violence and sexual
violence (rape) take place here, there is no cutting
away. So when a man has his face brutally bashed by
a fire extinguisher, with no edits, and it turns into
a bloody pulp, we struggle to understand just how
this was done technically. (I'll be honest, I turned
my head away from this scene several times. I just
couldn't take it. I wanted desperately to watch but,
alas, couldn't control my reaction. Sorry).
Noe wants to have an interesting
idea on time here too. His film begins with the main
character of "I
Stand Alone" and another man having a conversation
while nude in an apartment's bedroom. When Phillippe
Nahon says "time destroys all things" we understand
what he means because we've already been told that
this film takes place in reverse chronological order,
like "Memento" or that episode of "Seinfeld." But
this film is vastly different from those in that the
camera never cuts except when it moves back in time.
Even then, it almost appears not to do so because
Noe's interconnecting tissue of brick walls and flashing
lights in gyroscopic motion which makes the whole
film seems utterly seamless.
But this device also deflates all
tension from the film. Having been forewarned about
the film, I entered the theater much the way I might
get on a roller-coaster ride into a haunted house.
I had to catch my breath and mentally prepare to be
assaulted cinematically. All the tension slowly leaked
out of me because, like Hitchcock's "Psycho," the
film becomes less and less violent as it goes along.
The film ends (and the story begins)
with a totally contrived bit of supposed irony that
made no sense and left me feeling nothing. I won't
ruin the surprise here, others have already done that.
But it truly was stupid. More important in the closing
(actually the supposed opening) of the story is a
conversation the (future) rape victim and her ex-lover
have where she tells him that if he only concentrated
on his needs, instead of focusing on hers, he would
be a better lover. This, again, is supposed to be
ironic because we've already seen her raped by a repugnant
assailant who indeed fucks her in this manner before
brutally pummeling her face.
"Irreversible" is misogynistic and
homophobic. The opening scenes take place in an S&M
gay sex club called "The Rectum." Need I say more?
For everyone who thought "Cruising" was sick homophobia,
the bar has been yet again raised.
But even with this sick sadomasochism
throughout the film and it's brutal ironies that play
out as it reverses time, the film said nothing of
importance to me. Men are cruel. Revenge is blind.
That's about it. Big whoop.
To bad I couldn't go back in time
and get my money back. That big sign at the entrance
of the Dobie that said "No Refunds" was now tinged
in irony for me as I left the theater. Time destroys
all things. Noe's "Irreversible" destroys about two
hours of your life. And leaves you feeling nothing.
Note:
In French with English subtitles.
Oddly, when someone speaks Spanish here, the subtitles
simply spell out the Spanish words being said.
Noe has a cameo as a masturbating
gay man in The Rectum. He did this, he has said, to
prove he is not homophobic.
The film has several references
to the films of Stanley Kubrick.
The film's ending has confused several
people so I will give my interpretations: (Spoilers!!!)
She finds out she is pregnant. Cut back in time to
her in the park where she is pregnant but only has
an inkling of that idea. Cut to the black and white
strobing effect, which, in my mind, simulates conception.
This is the beginning of life. (The film ends with
the beginning of a life and begins, somewhat, with
the end of a life).
The film begins with the end credits
running backwards.
The bloody faces of the rape victim
and the murder victim were added digitally in post-production.
Much of the film was improvised.
Viewed in Austin in April 2003.
