MovieChat Forums > Irréversible (2002) Discussion > DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

posted 14 years ago by princessreject
206 replies | jump to latest

The film has disturbed me more than I could ever have imagined. I deeply encourage anyone thinking about watching this film no too, one of the biggest regrets I have. It was more grotesque, shocking, sick and horrible than any other film out there, and I cannot believe it got through censorship. Whilst the acting and thoughts behind it are brilliant, this by no means should have been a film - Rape is something more horrendous than anything in this world, and that scene will never leave my mind.

[–] chort 14 years ago

There is no place for censorship of art.

[–] ManFromSanFernando 14 years ago

WHEN It PROFITS OFF RAPE THERE IS ROOM FOR DESTROYING THE FILM and the career of it's creator

[–] zarathustra_777 13 years ago

Thousands of movies made each year profit from violence. I don't see why you should single this one out.

[–] girlfrom_ns 13 years ago

True fact. I agree completely!

[–] mrdylansavage 13 years ago

I think you're missing the point of the film.

Rape is not something that should be ignored and swept under the table. It is real, it is grotesque, it is horrifying. The fact that you have this reaction is the fact that this movie succeeds.

This film shows the audience the true face of what this crime is, it doesnt use it subtlety, but then what rape is?

[–] Superarcadia 12 years ago

There is no place for censorship in art and this film is Brave.

[–] dragonstephen-1 13 years ago

the reason why this film was made was and I qoute people were joking about rape!

the bitch is back

[–] swatkins-6 12 years ago

^ this

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thetruthisinhere 12 years ago

people willingly pay to see this,so your point is moot. People want to see this and they will if they want to. This film was made for people who are intrigued by the psychology of human consciousness. Not for the faint hearted.

[–] krsnik_33 11 years ago

Don't worry. "Time destroys everything" :D

[–] djfrancophilippe 11 years ago

It clearly doesn't profit from rape, in fact it very clearly outlines the tragic and destructive consequences. I understand people find this film difficult to watch, it should be, it's unsettling realism is what sets it apart from the reams of 'torture porn' trash that comes out these days. Drawing awareness to brutal human behaviour and indulging in it are two different things, and in my opinion this film delivers the former.

[–] bart-229 11 years ago

The movie doesn't profit from rape because the rape isn't real. It depicts rape, it does not endorse it. Indeed the very ugliness of the depiction deplores rape in unconditional terms.

[–] Jimmy91 11 years ago

ManFromSanFernando- we should outlaw rap, rock and roll and war movies too! I hate those!

[–] rob-949 10 years ago

What a ridiculous statement. Dramatizing the horror of rape SHOULD have just this effect instead of glossing over it and its effects.

[–] chamohlamb 9 years ago

A movie can feature rape in its story. That doesn't mean it's profiting off rape. Why in the world would you have seeks out and watched this movie?

[–] Thebobo. 14 years ago

Simply well put.Although,if I may add,there is no place for censorship at all.
It's all fun and games 'till somebody gets hurt!

[–] rkcarter 13 years ago

This was not art.

[–] vizigothe 13 years ago

This film is art. I think it is overrated and not particularly excellent but it depicts the horrors of rape and realistic consequences. Sometimes it is good to step out of your comfort zone and experience something challenging.

Dick Laurent is dead...

[–] luccaaafc 12 years ago

Yes, it is. And it's good art. Art must touch something inside of you, it's suposed to make you feel something, and that is exactly what this movie did. It makes you feel, and that is all art is about! I know this is a disturbing movie, but sometimes you need a MOVIE like this, so you can understand how horrific LIFE can be. I'm not saying everybody is wrong, and I don't want to sound like I'm starting a fight, I just don't like to see people misunderstanding such an incredible piece of art.
Greetings from Brazil!

[–] jblazebr1 12 years ago

maybe people who watch hollywood films should not even consider trying to watch such a masterpiece. Transformers and CSI are what you should be sticking to.

[–] katentek 13 years ago

Yes there is if supposed artists ignore their responsibility to humanity and see themselves as above common decency in an attempt to show us what?. And who says this is art anyway. Anything could be rationalised as art in desperate attempts to justify violent and exploitationist trash like this. To me this is way to try hard to be art.

It is a disgrace that the constant inculcating of women as to their physical vulnerability is still as prevalent as ever under the guise of "entertainment".

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

[–] lucas_lmgv 13 years ago

That scene was not meant to be entertaining in any way.
It was meant to disgust and shock people, and must I say, it reached it's purpose quite well for me and obviously with you.

[–] dolores_medina 13 years ago

Agreed. We all decide with our money what to support and what not to. We vote for things we like by buying or renting them, and do not support what we do not like.

It amazes me that some people will say." this movie should be destroyed. " etc. Why? If his movie was offensive to anyone, no one is forcing those people to view it. If people do not view his material, then the marketplace will destroy his career. But if there is a market for his ideas, then those people will pay and watch. Those that do not like it...Just....do not watch it. It was not made for you.

Know what I find offensive? Censorship. Especially when someone tries to couch their arguments as " sensitivity" Political correctness is just a polite way to express desires to burn and destroy art that timid people find offensive. " it's offensive..." so what? people get offended all the time, as a comedian once put it." Nothing happens when you get offended it's Not like..." I was at the comedy show the other night and a man told a joke about The Lord... I was offended...the next day I had leprosy."" me? I'm offended by Boy bands."

Seriously... people saying that they get to decide what is ok for others to watch...offends me... but they have a right to spout their nonsense, and I get to call them morons and idiots. Free speech, ain't it grand?

[–] katentek 13 years ago

I also find censorship highly offensive and political correctness is hardly better. I'm not saying people should decide what other people can watch but that a; artists should be more responsible about their work and that b; people should think about what they see (in this case).

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

[–] djfrancophilippe 11 years ago

I imagine Gaspar Noe would take full responsibility if anything bad were to happen directly from someone viewing this. The film does not glamourise rape and violence, in fact it does the exact opposite. It's a deeply dark unsettling and realistic account of a tragedy. The fact that we see everything uncut as a 'fly on the wall' makes it much more effective than if the scenes had been edited or simply implied.

[–] sinan-chevik 12 years ago

The funny thing is, people say 'this movie should be destroyed' AFTER they watched the movie. They got the full experience of the movie and want to spoil it for others.
They won't say that by reading review articles and hearing about it. If you know what you're getting yourself into, then don't blame the director. You were looking for it!

[–] graham-167 13 years ago

Interestingly, I had never heard of this film but the fact that people are here telling me not to watch it means I will, of course, watch it the next chance I get.

Genuine anger provoking the opposite reaction from the hoped one, or a successful marketing ploy? Who can say.

Look forward to seeing what the fuss is about though.

[–] archeaopteryx 13 years ago

There's actually a term for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[–] interloperux 13 years ago

An artist only has a responsibility to himself.

[–] katentek 13 years ago

I don't think that's true. I think artists must to be true to themselves (their ideals, beliefs, morals, etc.). I think arts raison d'être is to contribute, consciously or unconsciously to the progress of the human race.

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

[–] interloperux 13 years ago

I wouldn't say that art contributes to progress. Maybe some art, but most is simply self-expression. What does that do for humanity, in itself, compared to an invention, scientific research, or the advancement of such? But nevertheless, my views are pretty much antisocial: The artist's only "job" is to express, the businesses only responsibility is to make profit, the animals only responsibility is to survive, and by extension, the human's only responsibility is to continue being *beep* awesome, in comparison.

[–] katentek 13 years ago

Hmmm, I get what you're saying and you're ideas definitely got me thinking. After some thought though I think how art contributes to the progress of society is through getting us to reflect on ourselves or our society and/or by inspiring us through the emotions it arouses in us. But perhaps that is only a result but not the aim ... I don't know ... I'll think on it some more. And in any case I'm clearly generalising and I guess every artist would have their own aim for their work.

Surely though there must be a distinction between true art and simply graphic design, etc.

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

[–] interloperux 13 years ago

Well I think that difference would be most easily represented through say.. abstract painting vs. advertising.

[–] andresdetovar 12 years ago

I don't think the director made that scene with the intention of profiting of rape, he doesn't fictionalizes it, he didn't made it look sexy, or fun, not even interesting, he didn't even move the camera the whole while, he depicted it like a brutal, shameless, terrible, ugly thing, in other words he depicted it honestly, and if that isn't the work of a responsible artists then what is?

[–] Thetruthisinhere 12 years ago

It is definitely the aim of some artists,to inspire in order to move the human consciousness further,to evolve and expand awareness,evolution of the soul and of God itself,as the source consciousness and all spirits being aspects of 'God'',if you will. Some use art to just express oneself with no further goals.Others from the get go share their art in hopes of provoking an expansion in consciousness and to move people inwardly and ultimately,over their lives and over humanity's existence it helps evolve human consciousness,and expand God Consciousness itself,for all Is God,if we choose to use that word for our essence and source consciousness.

''true art'' is subjective,no such thing.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jasmith909 13 years ago

If it wasn't for rape, the human race wouldn't exist. Before the advent of civilization, and especially before the advent of language (and in effect, consent), men raped women in order to spread their seed and perpetuate the species. And of course, this can be observed in nature and the animal kingdom (more specifically, amongst mammals, in which males tend to be larger and stronger than females). It's right there in front of our faces. So, the idea that women are being inculcated as to their vulnerability by the media is BS. Nature does that well enough. That's reality. And filmmakers aren't making it any more real by examining the subject.

I would ask, if a film focuses upon animal instincts, or an animal act, does that mean it can't be art? If a film makes you feel uncomfortable, or disgusted, or angry, does that mean it can't be art? Is art solely reserved for happy feelings and safe thoughts? I think not. I find that some of the most unsettling films are often some of the most thought-provoking, and thinking, for the most part, is good (even thinking about bad things).

Granted, if you go to the movies to escape from reality (as many people do), this probably isn't the film for you. If you're the type who averts their eyes and covers their ears whenever the news comes on, definitely do not watch this film. But, if you're interested in some of the darker aspects of human nature and animal instinct, this movie will stick with you for a long time.

As for the idea that this film can't be called art because of the negative subject matter, I'd use this analogy; Some artists paint pictures of butterflies, some paint pictures of trash heaps. But regardless of your taste in art, they both still paint pictures. Perhaps this director has painted an ugly picture, but it's a picture nonetheless.

[–] kdp90125 13 years ago

prove that men raped women before civilisation and we wouldnt exist without it

[–] ClintJCL 12 years ago

You can't prove something that you can't observe, because society wasn't around then to observe it. But that IS how nature worked, and we ARE animals just the same. Are you aware of the evolution of duck genitalia? Look it up sometime. There's no reason one species is different than all the others.

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

[–] serialkicker66 13 years ago

You just typed so much *beep* in your post it's insane and i don't have time nor will to comment further because such discussions always takes forever and at the end everyone still has the same opinion...

[–] tzogas 9 years ago

I'm going to be brief for now, because this thread looks pretty tippy and unwieldy as it is. And it's slightly nauseating to have to tackle once again the "animals rape, so it must be natural!!" ...uh, "argument".

jasmith909 said:

If it wasn't for rape, the human race wouldn't exist

Which suggests that rape originated as a "natural" phenomenon, performed solely by males upon females; a behavior without which our species would have become extinct.

This is rape apology 101.

If this poster wants to argue an absolute equivalence between how humans and animals perform mate selection, they should have observed that it is males in the animal kingdom who first compete with EACH OTHER to become procreational candidates, followed by a female's final determination of the winner. And sometimes the process is more direct:

For example, you can observe this in the mating behavior of some species of birds, wherein the males perform an identical (at least to the human eye) dance for the benefit of an interested female watching nearby. She makes her selection based on criteria known only to herself. It seems that brute strength is the only aspect of mating-based behavior that some people are willing to go on - especially when positing that rape is somehow a "natural" behavior.

Rape is not what kept/keeps animal or human species going; it is the female group's ability to select for the best traits in a potential mate which will ensure the survival of her offspring. Physical strength is not the sole criteria.

And ALL of this cannot occur if the female is not interested in mating/is not in estrous. A species male's willingness to ignore and/or forego the female's crucial role in that selection process, is a way to ensure that species' destruction.

**Have an A1 day**

[–] Thetruthisinhere 12 years ago

you missed the point of the movie. This film serves as an enlightening tool to show people what happens to some people and to not bury your head under the sand and pretend this does not occur. Many people do pretend and ignore unfortunately. The filmmakers do not owe the audience anything beyond providing a vision and you pay to see it,that is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to watch it or not,already knowing in advance what this movie is about.

Do not shift your own responsibility to others,you and only YOU are responsible for watching this film.Period. Art is subjective,art is anything that moves something inside,in whatever way it moves.If it made you feel,think or ponder,then it is art IMHO.

This film is enlightening and bold in tackling this subject matter. Not for everyone,but then again it wasnt made for everyone.

[–] karaladh 11 years ago

I think it was Agnes Varda who once said that she wanted to make films " that are not all that pleasant to watch, but that people will think about later. "

You're not a vegetarian, are you? I've never met a vegetarian I liked.

[–] logicalskeptic 13 years ago

Many of the posts here tend to refer to the work under discussion as "art". I can only say to this that one man's art can be another man's bowel movement. I consider this to be pretentious French fried merde. And, as far as censoring is concerned, I do not believe in censorship, but I do feel justified in self censoring and as such have disposed of my own dvd in the trash. It is certainly not something which I wish to ever view again. That is not just because of its interminable scenes of violence, unbearable dialog and misguided camera work. The ghastly screen play and the horrible sounds offered by these artistes as music is most offensive to MY sense of aesthetics.

Only two things are actually knowable:
It is now and you are here. All else is merely a belief.

[–] basewick552005 13 years ago

ART???

I can't believe you just called this trash "art." Its more of a snuff film. Very poorly done and the people who made this film should be disappointed with themselves.

There was no point to making this garbage. And it just sucks people were paid to make it.

[–] interloperux 13 years ago

You said it.

Is rape horrible? Yes, its horrible to watch, and experience. The same for a guy getting his face beat in with a fire extinguisher. But this **** happens everyday in the real world, and I kind of like that some movies reflect reality.

If you want fairy floss escapism, go back to your ****ing Disney movies.

I highly doubt that the inclusion of these scenes, in this movie, helped Gaspar Noe to make any money. Only the most miniscule percentage of the human race would enjoy these scenes in any sort of gratuitous way. I liked Irreversible because it was powerful, uncompromising, and effective in telling a dark story, in a unique way. If you couldn't appreciate it, too bad for you, leave it for the rest of us.

[–] lastreghetta 9 years ago

Absolutely the rape scene made money. It was the centerpiece of the film. Without its controversial length and torture-porn appeal there is very little else for people to talk about in this movie except for the other scene of extreme violence and the disgusting depiction of gays. This movie sold tickets on the basis of voyeuristic homophobic and misogynistic fantasies being played out on the screen.

[–] lee1888 13 years ago

I agree with you there is no reason to show such brutality in a movie. We don't need to see such vicious acts on them to understand them. I actually have laughed at some of the comments some people have made on here like ( there should be no censorship and art ) well first of all you evidently no do not know what art is. The other comment I found extremely funny was that you have to experience this on film to get the true effect of rape. Well if that is the case, then I guess we need to see someone get killed own them to get the true effect, I think they call that snuff films, and I think a few of these people would love to see it because after all you should never censorship art. lmao lmao.

[–] chiluvr1228 12 years ago

"There is no place for censorship of art."

Art is a matter of opinion. This crap was not art. It was made for the soul purpose of shocking people.

[–] kidjay83 11 years ago

This is art ? hahah this is garbage.

"If you want art, don't mess about with
movies. Buy a Picasso"

[–] gwydno 10 years ago

No censorship is intended. A boycott, maybe. And it is a legitimate option.

[–] plurality-1 10 years ago

The poster did not advocate censorship. If I tell you I read a book and it stunk, don't bother, am I being a censor?

[–] dargorrof 9 years ago

Eh, rape is not art.

[–] Remnant_Of_The_Abyss 14 years ago

Don't forget to warn our war heros returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Grow up, it's just a movie.

ROTA Top Foreign Language Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/qQvbXmXhhCU/

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bogwart-1 13 years ago

"Don't forget to warn our war heros returning from Iraq and Afghanistan."

It was their choice to join the military. Rape by definition is performed on an unwilling participant.

[–] Remnant_Of_The_Abyss 13 years ago

>>>It was their choice to join the military. Rape by definition is performed on an unwilling participant.

You seem to be obsessed with the rape scene, I am not. There is a LOT more to this movie than the rape scene.

I made my point about the OP's statement "It was more grotesque, shocking, sick and horrible than any other film out there, and I cannot believe it got through censorship."

This movie would not shock a returning vet, nor does this alarmist mentality need to be spouted for the average person.

ROTA Top Foreign Language Films List: http://www.imdb.com/list/qQvbXmXhhCU/

[–] bogwart-1 13 years ago

How on earth does one comment suggest to you that I am obsessed with rape? I could say with equal truth, on that basis, that you are obsessed by the grotesque, shocking, sick and horrible behaviour of some of your returning "heroes".

You think the average "returning vet" is somehow better than the average person? Because that's how it comes across. If so I invite you to grow a bigger brain. They may be hardened to horrible scenes, but who cares? What could possess someone to travel around killing largely innocent people? It's hardly surprising that such a high number return with mental problems, especially as one in 66 Americans have been diagnosed as psychotic anyway.

[–] TheAdvocator 9 years ago

Grow up, it's just a movie.

That's always the stupidest argument in regards to someone not being affected by a movie. Movies are meant to make you feel something and in this case it was the sickening nature of rape. Everything from the score to the cinematography is meant to make you physically ill.

Maybe if you can't handle that you should get off the internet where you'll be spared by people voicing their opinions.

The Legend of Korra Book 4 is the biggest dip in quality of any show ever.

[–] rml3-1 14 years ago

After reading the original post I was going to recommend A Serbian Film, but you beat me to it. Irreversible is incredibly tame compared to that movie.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vincentrevelations 14 years ago

Why shouldn't we talk about bad things? And just how bad bad things are, and how they are?

This was a very good scene. I've felt most textbook anti-rape stuff is quite corny, creating a "well, don't get raped..."-attitude. Or the idea that rape is cool and intense to watch. This movie showed banal a raping is, and how easily it can happen to anybody, anyplace, anytime.

It wasn't a scene to be enjoyed. It was a beautiful, naturalistic recreation of one of the most disgusting acts a person can do.

[–] ManFromSanFernando 14 years ago

Bad things shown DOESN'T stop them from happening. Film should be use for beauty not torture
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." Ronald Reagan

[–] illyrianX 14 years ago

Bad things shown DOESN'T stop them from happening. Film should be use for beauty not torture

It seems you just want everyone to follow your personal standards for how the medium of film should be used. But it's not up to you to decide that. You don't have to watch films that deal with serious real-world issues. In that case, I recommend not watching war films or dark dramas about drug use or child abduction either. Clearly, you can't handle it. That's your own problem. But it is many people's opinion that film SHOULD be used to tackle both beautiful things AND things that people don't necessarily want to think about. That's part of what makes it such a powerful medium. I think torture porn movies like Hostel are disgusting and have no desire to watch them, so I don't. But I don't b!tch about other people watching them or the fact that they're made (well...I find it sad that money is being put into such mindless garbage but I don't have moral issues with it just because it's not my cup of tea). It's not your place to dictate whether it's right or wrong. It's not like they commercially released a homemade rape recording. The rape had a purpose. The story had a purpose. Grow up.

Also your analogy to people taking a dump is ridiculous. First of all, many films HAVE shown that whether some of us like it or not. Secondly, it's not the same thing. People taking a crap don't die or kill themselves or have lifelong psychological or physical problems. Movies dealing with rape and murder or survival tackle those issues. It's not the same as showing gratuitous scat humor at all.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] illyrianX 13 years ago

There is absolutely NOTHING beautiful about rape whether in movie or real life. And shouldn't be used as an art-form in any movie.

You seem to be somewhat deficient. I never said that there was anything beautiful about rape. In fact, I said the exact opposite - that it's something most people don't want to think about or deal with.

That said, it's not your job to decide whether or not it should be used. I know people who have been raped and highly respect Irreversible for showing it for the horrific act that it is. They may not ever care to watch it again, but having actually gone through a similar ordeal, they don't have a problem with it being in the film either.

Everyone's opinions are different and you "deciding" that rape should never be written about or used in a film to tell a story is every bit as arrogant and self-centered as religious zealots who can't respect other people's beliefs. Just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't make it wrong or unacceptable. No one made you watch the movie, did they? No? Well then grow up and stop acting like your opinions and personal feelings should apply to everyone else.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] illyrianX 13 years ago

LOL are you kidding? My entire comment told you to grow up and stop acting like your opinions are "correct" or the only ones that matter and now here you are parroting it back to me as if I'm the one telling other people what to think. I clearly said that you are entitled to your opinion but to accept that it is not applicable to others. You, on the other hand, keep voicing your opinion as if it is a fact that everyone else should accept. This is the second time you have responded to my post in a way that makes absolutely no sense based on the comments I made (ie. the first time being snarky about rape not being beautiful when that is exactly what I already said). Either you are too young or unintelligent to read properly or you are just trolling. Right now I'm getting a vibe that it's a little bit of all three.

Furthermore, if you think that the rape scene in this film or, say, movies like Bastard Out of Carolina, are in any way "glorified," I have a hard time believing that you actually watched them. Or perhaps you're simply confused about what the word means.

Honestly, people like you should have their posting licenses revoked. Next time, read properly and actually respond to the comment instead of making unrelated statements. *Ignore*

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vincentrevelations 14 years ago

Bad things shown DOESN'T stop them from happening.

Actually, making people realize how bad it is (and not just showing corny Hollywood movie rape scenes) DOES stop things like this.

Sensibilisation is VERY important. NOT talking about bad things certainly doesn't stop them.

[–] filmfancy 13 years ago

Actually, making people realize how bad it is (and not just showing corny Hollywood movie rape scenes) DOES stop things like this

I think showing intense rape scenes can make women more aware that they need to be careful, but for those women who've already suffered rape these films are painful and they're better off not watching them.

"And all the pieces matter."

[–] mimi6000 13 years ago

"showing intense rape scenes can make women more aware that they need to be careful"

Perfect...yes, let's show women what can happen to them if they do not behave "appropriately", in case of course they were believing they could walk in the streets freely.. (does such a thing ever actually happened ?) no, woman, take care of yourself, or else rapists will take care of you and you see, this is no good. "We are going to show you 8 minutes of rape, in order for you to be aware of the "situation". It is difficult, but you will thank us afterwards".
I think this reasoning is utterly stupid, it says to women they have to watch themselves, it does not say to guys "hey buddies, you see, even if you feel the urge to do so, you do not rape a woman even if she's wearing something sexy, "provocative", and even if she's walking alone at night". No, it may say a lot of thing, but it does not say that.

To say the truth I watched this movie two years ago, and I did not find it very good. But sometimes I think about it, and each time I think to myself that it's true, it's making money and publicity with rape ; the rape scene is the main reason why people are still commenting, or why they want to see the film..here you find weirdos looking for other "extreme movies", or others wondering at length whether or not the scene was "realistic"..you can sense the small details are really bothering them, "can you really move while being anally raped", "does she fight back enough", "what is he saying while raping her", and so on..the thing is, a good "snuff" movie would be good to compare, that may be what they are looking for. (or the "real thing", who knows, in order to be able to know what it REALLY feels like)

I may be a boring feminist, but I say this film does not do any good to anyone. Some "poseur" will answer "oh my, but ART movies do not aim at being pleasurable for the audience", but I say this is crap. "Art" is becoming an useful word for people who don't want to face contradiction (and it's so presumptuous). Gaspar Noé's movie are full of heinous feelings, they may be his material, what he choose to work with, he is free to do so, but some directors manage to do it better, more subtly, and with more profoundness. They manage to make you THINK, instead of making you nauseous, shocked, and mentally raped. Please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it ? Noé may have attention issues or something, but he use violence to shock and to say "look at me , look at my work !" : it's sad when your only way to make yourself remarkable is by appealing to morbid / sexual curiosity, to shock people and then to say "you see ! what you're feeling right know, this dizziness, this disgust, the feeling that everything stinks : THIS is my ART !!".

well..no..this is not.

I also agree with people saying the film is homophobic. It's obvious.
In its own way, and behind some "avant-garde" label, I think the film conveys a very reactionary view on human relationships, society and the human nature in general. I'm sorry but society is what you think it is, because you're part of it, and if you want to see it as a jungle where everyone can be raped or murdered, because you know, this is "human nature" and it can't be changed, (very practical point of view for lazy people) it's true it gives the envy to buy a gun, to mistrust your neighbour, to live fueled by feelings of insecurity and to vote for politics telling you they will take care of all these terrifying threads you're surrounded with.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dolores_medina 13 years ago

"Film should be use for beauty not torture "

Who says? you? Film should be used for whatever the filmmaker wishes to use film for. If he wishes to show beauty that is up to him.... if he wishes to show uglyness that is also up to him. The choice you have is whether to support what the filmmaker shows, you do not have a right to decide what film is for. you only get to decide what your film is for.

[–] chamohlamb 9 years ago

"Film should be used for beauty not torture"

Maybe stop telling the world what film should be used for.

[–] ManFromSanFernando 14 years ago

SO U THINK A DIRECTOR WOULD BE JUSTIFIED SHOWING SOMEONE POO,IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY?!?
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." Ronald Reagan

[–] SuperFlange 13 years ago

Dumn reply, pooing has no message, there are loads of points to this film, the most important one is probably that lynch mentality is irrational, and that whenever a shocking crime has been committed, you should not act on your impulses because that will only lead to more crimes being committed. People who don't want to face the harshness of real violence are like ostriches, just want to bury their heads in the dirt and pretend the world is perfect.

[–] GeneralBuck 13 years ago

SO U THINK A DIRECTOR WOULD BE JUSTIFIED SHOWING SOMEONE POO,IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY?!?

I had to comment that this is a bad analogy, since the two subjects are really not comparable. First, your suggestion is for something that is not interesting since all humans experience it first hand on a semi-regular basis. Second, the subject of this movie at least examines conflict between individuals. There is simply very little, if anything, of merit that can be discovered by artistically examining your example.

[–] fergywiththelurgy 11 years ago

Actually there's a scene in Wim Wenders' film Kings of the Road where the guy gets out of his truck in the middle of nowhere, walks into a field, crouches down and has a poo. It's shot from a distance, but you can actually see the 'log' landing on the ground. I found it amusing and touching as he had been travelling on the road and obviously, like anyone in that situation, needed a dump. I thought it was a great scene and fitted well with the rest of the film.

[–] chamohlamb 9 years ago

Yes a director should be able to show someone poo. Why not? Don't go seeking out films that feature people pooping.

[–] enbilal 13 years ago

"Rape is something more horrendous than anything in this world"

Worse than the Holocaust then? Little kids dying in gas chambers? Srebrenica?

E.

[–] myturn21 13 years ago

Censorship SUCKS. And it's illegal in the United States, thank the gods!!

This is what scares me the most: people seem to be accepting censorship as a legitimate practice & it's totally WRONG to. If you want to ban this film then you have to ban the Bible, Qur'an, Talmud & EVERY other book that talks about religion. You'd have to ban books about sex education, philosophy, law, history...

And that's only to START with!! Read about censorship sometime, there are plenty of books out there about it. I'm sure you'll definitely find out that even the things YOU like or deem appropriate to society have been challenged or banned in some way.

-----------------
"WHOOPSIE DAISY!!!!" - Bill the Butcher

[–] mierluin 13 years ago

You think that censorship is illegal in the US?

Amazing....

There's no more room in hell...