I've just finished watching the film, which really was an assault on the senses, as it were. I just can't help wondering why the writer decided to show the story in reverse. It seems to be something of a gimmick which doesn't enhance (or have any effect at all on) the power of the story.
I've looked through this board and can't see that this has been brought up recently, so I wonder if anyone could offer their thoughts?
[deleted]
Consider what Roger Ebert has said about the reverse chronology in his review for the film:
"The fact is, the reverse chronology makes "Irreversible" a film that structurally argues against rape and violence, while ordinary chronology would lead us down a seductive narrative path toward a shocking, exploitative payoff. By placing the ugliness at the beginning, Gaspar Noe forces us to think seriously about the sexual violence involved. The movie does not end with rape as its climax and send us out of the theater as if something had been communicated. It starts with it, and asks us to sit there for another hour and process our thoughts. It is therefore moral - at a structural level."
I appreciate your helpful response, but I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying.
'...one of the main themes of the film is causality, "Time destroys everything", as it is said at the end...' - I'm afraid this is lost on me! I get the 'time destroys everything' sentiment, and that this film explores causality, but I can't see how those are linked.
Also, while I appreciate what Ebert is saying, I'm struggling to agree with him. If the film had been shown in chronological order, that would've been an equally effective study of 'cause and effect' (among other things) and still given us time to process our thoughts afterwards. But as it was, I actually don't think I was given more time to process my thoughts, because I was concentrating on the intense exchanges between characters, expecting the story to unfold in an unconventional way.
As you say, 'That skewed sense of contemplation, that we reflect over as the other events unfold in reverse, creates a unique sense of understanding the chain of events.' - I agree that this is unique of course, but I can't resist sticking to my original point that it doesn't actually enhance the story. It's a powerful and harrowing sequence of events, no matter which order you see them in.
Of course this is only my opinion, which I'm not meaning to shove down anyone's throat - but I do appreciate the discussion.
'...one of the main themes of the film is causality, "Time destroys everything", as it is said at the end...' - I'm afraid this is lost on me! I get the 'time destroys everything' sentiment, and that this film explores causality, but I can't see how those are linked.
Also, while I appreciate what Ebert is saying, I'm struggling to agree with him. If the film had been shown in chronological order, that would've been an equally effective study of 'cause and effect' (among other things) and still given us time to process our thoughts afterwards. But as it was, I actually don't think I was given more time to process my thoughts, because I was concentrating on the intense exchanges between characters, expecting the story to unfold in an unconventional way.
As you say, 'That skewed sense of contemplation, that we reflect over as the other events unfold in reverse, creates a unique sense of understanding the chain of events.' - I agree that this is unique of course, but I can't resist sticking to my original point that it doesn't actually enhance the story. It's a powerful and harrowing sequence of events, no matter which order you see them in.
I'm sorry, I'm just not getting this at all. Sorry if it seems like I'm attacking your opinion, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions (if anything I'm just frustrated that I'm clearly missing something) - but so much of this is just making no sense to me.
"It's a tragedy that unfolds in reverse to make a statement about violence, murder, rape, morality and time and how there's nothing we can do escape the chains of fate." - I can appreciate that that's the idea of the movie, but none of that requires the story to be told backwards to become apparent.
"In the film Alex was reading a book about destiny and mentioned that she had a dream about a red tunnel or corridor. She had dreamt a few details from the scene of her rape." - Again, this is fine with me. That the writer is exploring the idea of destiny, etc. is an interesting facet to the story, but STILL doesn't have anything to do with the story being told backwards.
"Aside from being an artistic choice to present the story this way, it's also integral to all of the underlying themes and symbols of the film." - Artistic choice yes, an interesting and (reasonably) unique one at that - but 'integral to all of the underlying themes...'? In what way? I obviously need this explaining in very clear terms as I can't get my head around it.
"It's disorienting and alien to watch the film in reverse, and that's the point." - I can definitely get behind this. If this is THE point, then I'll happily accept the idea that the writer/director just made a stylistic decision to make us even more uncomfortable to reflect the nature of the story.
However, if there is a deeper reason that I've missed, then I'm desperate for anyone to fill me in.
I'm sorry but I've explained it as clearly as I can. I'm not sure what else I can say to make it more comprehensible but I'll try.
"It's a tragedy that unfolds in reverse to make a statement about violence, murder, rape, morality and time and how there's nothing we can do escape the chains of fate." -I can appreciate that that's the idea of the movie, but none of that requires the story to be told backwards to become apparent.
"In the film Alex was reading a book about destiny and mentioned that she had a dream about a red tunnel or corridor. She had dreamt a few details from the scene of her rape." - Again, this is fine with me. That the writer is exploring the idea of destiny, etc. is an interesting facet to the story, but STILL doesn't have anything to do with the story being told backwards.
"Aside from being an artistic choice to present the story this way, it's also integral to all of the underlying themes and symbols of the film." - Artistic choice yes, an interesting and (reasonably) unique one at that - but 'integral to all of the underlying themes...'? In what way? I obviously need this explaining in very clear terms as I can't get my head around it.
"It's disorienting and alien to watch the film in reverse, and that's the point." - I can definitely get behind this. If this is THE point, then I'll happily accept the idea that the writer/director just made a stylistic decision to make us even more uncomfortable to reflect the nature of the story.
I think the answer is pretty simple:
The film has a "happy" ending, the characters are in a good mood, off to a party, la di da everything is wonderful... NO... we've seen what is to come later this night.
If the story was told chronologically we would have a slow boring beginning, scenes of gratuitous violence, and the end would have us cheering on the heroes as they attempt their revenge (although they actually get the wrong guy).
Instead we are disorientated by shocking violence and ambiguous characters, we find out that a woman was raped, we watch this woman unknowingly walk towards the danger that we are aware of, then the characters are developed and we begin to like them and pity them due to knowing their fates which become all the more tragic due to the "happy" ending.
In a nutshell if the story was in the correct order we would have "I Spit on Your Grave", instead we get something much more powerful.
Very well said and explained. This film is disturbing and hard to stomach but, without the reverse chronological order it would probably just be some shocking movie while, the way it is shot, the story makes you think at every turn and cut - in summary: a masterpiece.
By the way, people heavily affected by violence should maybe indeed avoid this one but, for the others that are simply scandalized or disgusted by the display of brutality humans are capable of, I want to remind them of other milestones in cinema that disturbed the heck out of audiences. Just a small selection in no specific order: "Psycho", "Clockwork Orange", "Deer Hunter", "Deliverance" and it all started, of course, with "Un Chien Andalou".
I agree with this post. Not to mention, a HUGE theme presented in this film is that the past, present, and future are fixed and they all exist at the SAME instance. Since our very existence functions sequentially (cause --> effect) I think Gaspar Noe decided to tell this story in reverse in order to allow this theme to truly sink in. By telling the story in reverse, I had a semblance of what it felt like for the past, future, and present to exist all at once. It really added another layer of understanding that couldn't be done with simply words. For instance, I can tell you what rain feels like on the skin but until you actually EXPERIENCE it you may never fully grasp what I am talking about. Therefore, I think the non-linearity of the film was a brilliant decision, it would be a completely different film without it.
shareI think we can put it in this way :
As it's said at the end of the movie,"time ruins everything". The end of the story( getting raped and seeking revenge etc.) is already magnified in the audiences' minds by the brutality and the strong graphic violence that we have watched and witnessed.
on the other hand, I think the beginning of the story and all the romances, peace and happiness ... can be easily neglected and forgotten by the audience in few minuted . showing the beginning of the story at the end boosts and magnifies the past events in the audiences' minds enough to compare it to the devastated and ruined current events. I think his really helped to prove how real "time destroys every thing".
I know, my English is bad .
I've just finished watching this movie and I am really having a hard time digesting it. I know in the end, its a work of fiction and these were all just actors, but it disturbed me to no end.
The effect the reverse story telling had on me was really emphasising the horror of the whole story.
Starting with the brutal murder by Pierre, the director allowed me to view that incident in isolation.
Without the background of the horrible events that preceded it chronologically it asks the question, is this kind of violent act ever justifiable.
Then watching Marcus behaving like a maniac in the scenes that follow, it showed me a man behaving without reason and again, I was wondering is this kind of behaviour justified.
It also emphasised that it was actually Pierre who murdered the man in the
club. Yet in the scenes that follow, he is the one trying to reason with Marcus to think rationally and calm down.
But faced with the thought of killing the man who attacked Alex, he too could not control himself and killed him violently and without hesitation.
Even after the horrendous scene of Alex's attack, I found only small solace in the thought that the man at the beginning of the film who got murdered was her attacker(I did not realise that it was the wrong the man until reading the posts on this forum and I could not bear to watch any part of this film again).
If the movie had been in the accurate chronological order, I suspect I would have been far more empathetic with Marcus and Pierre as they went on their quest to find revenge and even feeling satisfaction when they murdered the man who they(and I) thought was Le Tenia.
Also the impending sense of doom building up to the rape scene having known the outcome of events was immense. I don't think I have ever been affected by a movie to the point of actually being physically sick until now.
This continues throughout the rest of the film watching the characters interact and argue over what seems pointless in the light of the preceding scenes.
The ending of the film is so disturbing in the context of the film in that Alex finds out something wonderful, but as the audience we know what happens to her later that evening. I found it particularly chilling.
I actually came to IMDB specifically to read the forums about people's reactions to this film because the effect on me was so intense. I would never watch this film again nor would I ever recommend someone else to watch it.
In fact, I wish I had never watched it myself.
I'm going to have to spend the next month watching Disney Pixar movies to counteract the effect of this movie.
For many its a gimmick, for me it's necessary. I have been in situations where it started out fine but it quickly spun out of control, which lead to unfortunate circumstances and almost immediately afterwards I would reflect on the entire experience and struggle to remember how I had gotten there. Ya there may have been drugs involved but I would instantly gravitate toward the "lighter" side of things or a feeling of, what could I have done to prevent all of it.
This is how the movie worked for me. Almost as if someone was sitting in a chair late at night, by themselves, reflecting on the entire series of events, going back over it again and again, wondering (fantasizing) about how things could have been different, and what they could have done to prevent the unfortunate series of events.
From dream to dream....we have always been, like an ever flowing stream....
The film is obviously in reverse as a (somewhat trite) play on the title: "Irreversible". The irreversible is reversed, oh what a clever paradox - er, no, not really.
On the other hand I am left wondering if the device was also used to suggest some kind of significance to the pregnancy test denouement or whether that was just a way to end and bring impact to the end of the movie. The latter I think.
In any case, it doesn't work for me, I always find it hard to admire sophistry for the sake of it and a simple chronological revenge tale would have had far more impact and rather more to say about the complex web of morality that permeates but is ultimately obscured in this tale.
Playing in reverse gave it much more impact. My heart was pounding just before the rape scene because you KNOW what will happen and you've SEEN how she's left before it happens. You don't want to see it because you already know it's going to be horrible. But you have to.
It also felt really tragic when she tells about her red tunnel dream because we already know what has happened (or will happen) and she can't escape. For the viewer it's already done, can't be changed. Or, like the title, irreversible.
[deleted]
Something that always stood out for me, is a throwaway moment near the end [or the start] of the film. Bellucci and Cassel are in bed talking, when Cassel appears to get a pain in his arm. He shakes and rubs his forearm arm with annoyance as they talk for an extended moment.
This is the same arm that will be snapped later on in the night at the sordid club. It seems to be a precursor of horrible events to come. I noticed this moment, and realised that the broken arm that Cassel would receive, and the life altering events of that night lay in store for the protagonists, were predestined and unavoidable.
Although there's no definite reason why this movie should've been told in reverse, I think Noe is hinting at the unavoidable threat of extreme violence in our day to day lives, while never understating the irreversible damage these events can have on our lives and personalities, as in the case of Dupontel's reverse transformation from nervous introvert to vengeful lunatic.
In other words, only at the end of the film, do we realise the change that has taken place within the characters.
I believe, as others have stated, that showing the film in reverse made it that much more tragic. Not only do we have to start with a horrible opening in which a man is beaten to death in front of you, but you slowly learn that the guy who beat him to death is just a regular guy like you and me. The tragedy is that you slowly come to like someone who you know is going to commit a senseless act of violence. If it was the other way around, the story would make him sympathetic and have you root him on in his quest for vengeance. In reverse order it does the opposite - you pity him and wish things would turn out different.
shareBellucci and Cassel are in bed talking, when Cassel appears to get a pain in his arm. He shakes and rubs his forearm arm with annoyance as they talk for an extended moment.
This is the same arm that will be snapped later on in the night at the sordid club.
"To me, absurdity is the only reality."share
-Frank Zappa