MovieChat Forums > Irréversible (2002) Discussion > Was this film, at least in some extent, ...

Was this film, at least in some extent, meant to be a criticism of its audience?

posted 4 years ago by TheMan18 (13015)
9 replies | jump to latest

Sort of like director Gaspar Noe's rougher and less subtle take on something like Michael Haneke's Austrian original film "Funny Games" (1997) which was meant to be a criticism of voyeuristic audiences and consumable violence but in its own way and with revenge, sexual violence, rough adult content, adult themes, very strong language and even a commentary in some ways on the destructive nature on time?

Also, and of course I don't mean no offense but I kinda wonder. Was one of the main reasons he also included quite a lot of explicit and strong gay sex in this movie, besides it being set in a gay sex club, was because Gaspar Noe wanted to question audiences, particularly ordinary straight white men, about why they would be too put off (and more likely dislike the movie as a result) or even just as put off by it when there's a disturbing murder and brutal rape also on display?

And the fact that, besides the film being shot backwards, he also added that riot quelling sound to make the audience queasy, or the creepy score in that club, or the constantly spinning and rotating camera work, as in, it was done intentionally to make audiences uncomfortable?

And during the notorious scene he also added lots of disturbing and vulgar dialogue that goes beyond profanity level featured in the works of Scorsese and Tarantino.

And the film even had homophobic language used more than a bit in it and audiences could dislike the movie and be put off by it on ground that they think its homophobic.

And basically, add all those elements, the disturbing content, the adult and at times provocative material (some people may not be too shocked by it, but they may not like it either and thus dislike the movie) and the rough and dizzy techniques used in the movie, was it also that way meant to be a criticism and an address to the audiences about why they watch what they watch, what do they expect and what they are supposed to take away versus what they (may) incorrectly take away from it, thanks.

P.S. I read at least some people state things like "its just director's own vision and opinion, and its worth nothing" but those comments and others STILL have praised this movie and in many circles Irreversible is considered an absolute masterpiece of disturbing or even otherwise cinema, and it is definitely among the most difficult, disturbing and depressing films I and many have ever seen. So that means Noe's opinions ARE worth something, cause many people and comments I read have found this film also to be helpful and even possibly life-changing, and that by showing disturbing things in an ugly way, it battles against them, the rape and the violence of course, as was featured and how it was shown in this movie.

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

I can certainly see how one could make the argument that Funny Games and Irreversible are an indirect criticism of the voyeuristic audience that implicitly accepts the violence occurring on screen. I hold that the films and their depictions of violence are more of a testament to humanity and a lack of a discernible entropic threshold, erosion of social institutions, and uninhibited progress.

With Irreversible, I believe Noe does an excellent job at highlighting the culmination of hedonistic jubilation. The way homosexuality is depicted is particularly interesting, as the characters are represented as depraved, debauched, and amoral. In a functional sense, homosexuality represents pleasure absent responsibility (i.e., child-rearing). The gays in the film have no moral qualms, no moral compass, and are guided only by their animal instincts. There is no sense of civility in the club, only humanity stripped of its culture, revealing the inner beast.

The uneasiness of the film symbolizes this entropic element. Just as the events are sequenced out of the order, so too are the actions of the characters lacking order. They accentuate the destructive elements of the world. The rape scene in the tunnel is viscerally gut-wrenching not only because of the horrifying aspect of the act itself, but because it is Alex being scarred. Alex (Monica Belluci) symbolizes beauty in a world that has become saturated with the dark and grainy colors of the film. When she is sodomized, she then becomes part of that decay, instead of being a symbol of contrast. This is accentuated perfectly in the sequence: as she enters the tunnel, she is in a white dress, with the tunnel visibly red; afterwards, she is bloodied and blends in with the tunnel.

Keeping this in mind, the tunnel scene is so horrifying precisely because it carries a subtext that is far more terrifying than the rape itself—Alex's ruination is an extension of the destruction of good, beauty, and order.

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 4 years ago

Remember also Alex having that dream about the red tunnel splitting in two and Marcus getting his hand numb, foreshadowing the terrible events to happen later.

Also, I am still, for instance, personally, a little vivid about remembering my personal days of 2000 and 2001 when me and my school mates for instance had a habit of watching various films including very much those with adult content etc.

And I thought to myself, well, a movie like this, whether in 2002 onwards and otherwise, would be TOO MUCH for them for many reasons but also, they may not like it either as well as or at best also because of its spinning camera work etc. But then, they may also, for instance, not be mature enough to try and understand and they may dislike it for the wrong reasons. As in, they may find at best those scenes in the club distasteful and off-putting and they may consider its attempts at realism to be too much and they will use angry words to tell about how rubbish it is etc.

Even if they may have liked or appreciated other films, maybe not by Gaspar Noe although maybe by him too, from the Extreme Cinema category, like works of Takashi Miike, Japanese surrealism, David Lynch's movies, some foreign works etc etc etc, a movie like this may still be at best not up their alley.

And yet online and in many of its circles including IMDb where to date it holds a 7.4 rating, many consider it a masterpiece as such and one of the greatest, disturbing and otherwise, films ever made. Not even just "OK, acceptable". And others, few or many, really dislike it.

In your opinion, should those people be left to their own devices and decide for themselves what to make of this movie?

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 4 years ago

I also remember how back in 2004 I read a very long message on this film by a user called "Puppet Master" or something to that extent, and he went seriously out of the way to talk about how much he found it to be a massive disappointment and he was deeply perplexed and disappointed that people found it impressive let alone on par with Kubrick, and he went out of his way to talk about how Kubrick had talent and didn't have to, unlike Gaspar Noe, rely on shock value too much.

And he also found that the movie was empty, provocative for its own sake, uninvolving, shallow and even unrealistic at times.

He also found the actual fire extinguisher murder to be fake-looking and not something he was bothered by yet he found the rape scene incredibly stomach churning and revolting but also too much in terms of it being shock value for shock value's sake.

And even though he claimed he is a fan of disturbing cinema, he also claimed that he felt that being unpleasant and disturbing alone does not in itself a great movie-make, and felt that Irreversible was pretty much that example.

And that guy at the time was around 17 or 18 but came across as a really clever know it all. And you know what else? His post and him to an extent has reminded me of some people I knew in real life too.

And another final thought provoking point, his tagline for his message board post, that was about 10 times longer than any longest review I've read - "Irreversible? Yeah, like trying to get your money back!"

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

In your opinion, should those people be left to their own devices and decide for themselves what to make of this movie?

The beauty of film is its subjective element, which allows for a diverse set of opinions to be formed on the themes and subject matter. I do not think anyone should be forced into a given mode of thought, even if it's the way a film should be interpreted.

At the end of the day, some people may find this film too crass and valueless, while others might see profound meaning in it. Neither are necessarily wrong, and it is not up to any one individual to "show them the light," as it were.

...man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.
-Jean Paul Sartre

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 4 years ago

Also, going back to that 2004 (long gone and in many ways forgotten) comment on IMDb message board for this film by Puppet Master, even though he did show (to put it mildly) LOADS of pretensions of intellectualism, and went quite out of his way to talk about disliking this film and being perplexed and put off by other people praising it, and many users did speak of his intellect at the time especially as the user revealed he was only about 18 years old at the time...

One thing the length of that message of his went against was, the popular phrase coined over 100 or so years ago, by classic Russian literature writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov - "Shortness is the sister of talent".

And yet perhaps unwittingly, I remember how one user, who also DID appreciate the movie, said that the main reason he was wrong to post as long a message as he did was not because it was full of rambling waffle etc but because, get this, some people are too LAZY to read it all, although he (and back then, even I for that matter, HAVE read it), as if "laziness" is some kind of virtue and a positive quality when in reality it has nearly always been a mark of shortcomings.

So maybe what he should have said was not LAZY but rather, it was UNNECESSARILY long, used also that Checkhov quote about "Shortness being the sister of talent", people may be BUSY (and often are) with other activities and that message board is not a BOOK etc, that his opinion is mostly just that and not a fact of life, that people can and often DO view art including films and even including downright disturbing and provocative films like this one differently etc etc etc. Oh well.

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

Thank you for sharing that piece of history. IMDB used to be rich with excellent commentary over the decades. It is truly a shame all of that information was lost. Although MovieChat is a nice substitute, it lacks the contextual concentration that was seen on IMDB. The scope of thought is limited by the scale of users, which is only a fraction of what was on IMDB. I argue it is precisely for this reason that you and I are the only ones in this thread. You have made four topics in this sub-section, with only a few people responding; I would be surprised if this forum had more than ~100 active users at any given time.

.....the popular phrase coined over 100 or so years ago, by classic Russian literature writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov - "Shortness is the sister of talent".

Shakespeare had a similar saying, stating that "brevity [was] the soul of wit." While most people may not want to read long, drawn-out threads, I believe everything can be parsed for value. I don't know how much of people's unwillingness to read long threads is associated with laziness, or just a lack of interest. Brevity has a purpose, but to dismiss a thread or post because it is verbose only reduces capacity for thought. Words add layers and nuance and allow for a greater appreciation of ideas. Even great novelists are not perfect in their ability to succinctly lay out thoughts without some level of redundancy.

That said, in debate there is such a term known as Gish galloping, which is an attempt to overwhelm the opposition by rapidly spewing off thoughts. The hope is that the person offering rebuttals will be unable to address every issue and will be vulnerable to counter-rebuttal such as, "well, you didn't answer this question."

If someone doesn't like the thread, they don't have to respond. Attacking the content of the thread because of a disagreement is great for dialogue, but dismissing it out of hand for simply being too time-consuming is disingenuous.

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 3 years ago

And on a somewhat related note, I wonder - is ALL the stuff that was said about the walk outs from this movie, including at its 2002 Premier at "Cannes" film festival, entirely true, including the fact that over 200 people walked out, some of them having fainted and were in need of ambulance assistance etc etc etc?

And was it as a result of disturbing, adult, controversial etc etc etc content or rough dizzying techniques or a combination of both or some for others and other for some as well?

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 3 years ago

In an odd other sort of way, in spite of the many praises it received, a film like this, with all of its aforementioned factors, is definitely not for the faint of heart or audiences below the adult age, and it has something in it potentially to offend everyone, including certain technical aspects that certain viewers may perceive as failure.

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 3 years ago

Also, 2 Fandango, you mentioned several times how this film was somehow emphasizing, in the case of all those men in that club engaged in sexual activities with themselves and each other, a kind of "sex without responsibility" for instance child birth.

But, for one, isn't it already obvious for instance and well known around the world that simply men, for one, cannot get pregnant? And that for them overall, it isn't even any kind of objective overall, as was also stated around 2004 by one IMDb reviewer (I think) Bryce David who wrote about "no life can be conceived, no matter how hard they try", implying perhaps a bit erroneously that THIS is why they engage in such an activity and that human life cannot be conceived for some other reason besides the well known fact that men cannot get pregnant?

Two - don't plenty of straight people, with for example men and women, also engage plenty of times in sexual activity without either a huge responsibility behind it (although most do say wear condoms and take pills as cautionary measures) and without a desire for pregnancy but simply because they love each other or enjoy the adrenaline that sexual activity gives them?

And in either case, and especially in the case of this movie, why is this theme of "sex without responsibility" so significant and important? And IS it really, thanks. :)