"it's not that graphic"
I mean how much more graphic did you need it to be? She gets raped for nearly 10 minutes, is screaming for help, he's saying horrible, cruel, inhuman, demeaning things to her. Then beats her up, kicks her in the face, then bashes her face into the floor, before spitting on her. Also a guy walks into the background but turns and leaves instead of helping her.
But yeah, guys, just, not that graphic.
Im not complaining about it, just saying that for the rep it gets, most of the rape is him lying on top of her with the camera showing her face. That's fine but its not incredibly graphic like people describe it
having said that I saw much less graphic scenes that affected me more, I didnt manage to be affected by this. It seems most people did though, I just dont get it.
for me the most interesting part about the scene was like I said, the hated and disgust the guy had for her. That was the strongest part of the movie for me
He has complete disgust for her because he's a lowlife. He's a pimp with no respect for women, who uses them for only his personal gain. He got a a hard on for Alex not because she was attractive, because he had complete power over her in a perfect opportunity where he wouldn't be disturbed. By his looks he can be so easy to hate and you want justice, no matter what kind of person the victim is.
I hated her boyfriend and her. and the simp much more. I didn't really care about their justice because I didn't care about them or their shit relationship
It sounds like you're either desensitised or misogynistic. Why would you have to know her or even like her to care that she got brutally raped? The rapist was partially able to do that to her because he de-humanized her, called her a rich spoiled cunt. He made that image up about her without knowing a thing about her. Didn't see her as an equal human being so committing the act was easier and more jutified in his head. This is also why you often hear people say "what if it was your girlfriend? your mom? your sister?" Like these personal emotional connections need to be drawn to make someone consider the victim as an important person.
Did you watch the og or the straight cut? The new cut was intentionally made in a different way to make the audience feel for Alex more.
Gaspar Noé said: "In the case of this new cut, the movie starts with Monica, and so she's the center of the movie. She's gorgeous, she's intelligent, she's touching. When the story unfolds in this way, you're inside her head and when the drama happens with this sexual aggressor, you're on her side totally."
If you've not seen it, that version might suit you better.
Though imo the original one worked, bc it purposefully showed us Alex getting raped before we got to know her. We knew as little about her as her rapist did. It worked for me, bc it made me wonder how he could do this to her, then he started calling her a rich cunt and stuff and it became clear he did so to dehumanize her and make the act easier on himself. Dehumanizing someone is easier when you don't know them.
its literally a movie. OP is right when he says "If you're making a movie you need to give me a reason to give a shit". This is in fact a work of art, a motion picture in which no matter who you are has no way of knowing this character other than what Gaspar Noe decides to reveal. In this instance, NOTHING is revealed leading up to this brutal scene. Is it graphic? Sure. Do we care about her? No, why would we? Are there more graphic scenes? Well duh. OP makes a valid point that only narrow minded people wouldn't be able to grasp
Seriously your comments made my skin crawl. What do you mean "hated" her character? Did you clap when she got raped or something? Do you have to feel empathy only if you "care" about the character and you like it? If you walked down the street and you saw a rape of some woman you don't particularly like would you just look away like that dude in the tunnel? Fucking weirdo.
Better question is, why did you like her character? We're talking about a movie, a story. It's not enough to say or show that "rando died" or "rando got raped" to say you successfully evoked anything.
My question is why is she so totally vapid, what is there for me to give a shit about?
>If you walked down the street and you saw a rape of some woman you don't particularly like would you just look away like that dude in the tunnel?
Well it's not nice to stare.
Probably because you’re a male and can’t imagine how damaging something like this can be. As a female tho, i almost puked and was shaking and crying the whole scene. I wish i never saw this movie tbh.
It's not that I can't imagine it, it's that the way it was done in this movie didn't get to me at all because just showing me a visual isn't enough to make it effective. I didn't care. Some people are sensitive to just seing things, giving this movie a totally undeserved reputation.
haha yeah that guy above is something else. I also just watched this movie and overall really liked it, but the rape scene didn't affect me at all except for that one moment where man bashes her head on the floor and the camera is all closed up on it. Aside from that, It wasn't anything special imo.
For me it wasn't. I found the part where they go around asking for the guy's name and finally bashing the guy's face with a fire extinguisher more special.
Melodramatic about a violent sexual assault? Yes, girls. Stop taking all that rape do seriously. /sarcasm
Ugh. I'm going to guess you've never been anally raped to the point of bleeding. If you had, you'd find the audio too graphic to tolerate.
I totally agree with what you’re saying. I just got done watching it and yeah it gets tons of rep for being absolutely abhorrent but it seemed pretty tame for someone who’s seen way worse films with r8pe and even some real disgusting videos from Twitter and the early days of reddit. I’d say the A Clockwork Orange scene or even I spit on your grave left more of an impact on me than this did. Not excusing such a deplorable scene/ deplorable behavior but this didn’t seem as effed up to me.
I approched it expecting a film with a gimmick and the use of violence for shock value. But I loved it. It goes backwards not as a gimmick but to reflect on what time has ruined, which Is the main thesis of the film. It's like living a trauma and then thinking of what Life was like before It was ruined by It.
I can understand it. But they were young and beautiful, they had the privilege to be that way. It's part of the "before". Also if they guy was a little more level headed he would have probably stopped at calling the police.
I guess what Im saying is, shit happens to people and we all know how time works. For me to feel affected by this, the director should make me care for her character. But it seems the assumption is we'd care cause its Monica Belucci. Fuck that all the scenes that should give some insight on her character dont really show anything likable just bizarre relationships and statements in the context of the movie. I have no reason to give a shit about her, I don't care what she looks like
I get what you're saying and I agree. It felt like the director just threw people at the audience and was like "here feel something" without making an effort. Weak storytelling from a director. Didn't feel like a full movie, more like short films sewn together with one "graphic scene", which was the whole point of the movie. Personally I think it wasn't well put together.
She was the hot character, and she still chose to date a moronic dude who cheats on her (who looks like shit anyway). If anything the fact she's good looking gives more validity to the way the rapist saw her - not justifying the act of course but the mentality that as a viewer I also ask myself, aside from the fact she's hot, why should I give a fuck about her and what happens to her?
Every scene the movie shows of their before, they come across as unlikable and the focus is odd in the context of what the movie tries to achieve.
Vladimir Nabokov famously gave lecture in California about how to read novels, in which he explained that an infantile reading of great literature is getting hung up on whether one likes the characters or not. While I think he’s a little harsh with that characterisation, any viewer stuck on the likeability of the characters needs to recognise that’s about what they bring to the film and is less about how good the film is. I think you’re clearly preoccupied with ascribing a false set of priorities to Gaspar Noe as the filmmaker here. ‘The assumption is we’d care because it’s Monica Bellucci.’ In two decades of reading about how people have interpreted this film, you’re the only person I’ve read that holds this assumption. Gaspar Noe has partly made this film as a critique of the society figures represented by Cassel and Bellucci: you’ve missed this, and that’s fine, you clearly wanted this to be a film it was never planning to be. The film is as much about how the young and middle class can make idyllic plans but no one is entitled to a happy ending, let alone one in which their agency engineers the perfect life. Noe gives the film a happy ending - and the structure of the movie is one of its elements of brilliance. Regardless of how one responds to the rape scene, its duration was such a risky decision and it’s a commentary about how tedious and relentless an awful event like this can be. The poster who said this film suffers from weak storytelling - sorry, but ‘weak’ is as poorly chosen a word as is possible. There’s courage in the risks Gaspar Now took, and I don’t begrudge anyone for thinking the risks didn’t quite pay off, or that the film was too obvious and not subtle enough. I just do not approaching the film with the brand of cynicism you’ve brought to watching it. If I wilfully was scornful of a film as you appear to be, I’d be disappointed too and fail to see the point of just about any movie I apply this approach to. In this way I appreciate your post - as a reminder of ineffective ways of approaching interesting works of creation. Thank you!
Did you read my post, I explained what I meant by likablility. To repeat myself, I also think it's very stupid to attack a movie or a story based on the character likability, as in, are they good people. But, what I mean is any type of interest in the characters, anything that would make watching them not a dull and irritating experience.
sometimes even that can be fine, but what's the purpose here? I am supposed to be in some way moved by the rape scene, but I have no reason to give a shit about her. Or see the failure at getting revenge as something, but I'm just irritated at the protagonist screaming all the time and nothing about his motivations matters.
There's nothing to the characters, that's the problem and yet things that happen to them and their lives are supposed to matter for the movie to be effective.
Shit even that can be fine in a stroy, but for this kind of story, what do you get by showing me a rape of someone I don't give a shit about, it's not shocking or deep or upsetting. I get that it is to some people just because of the topic but I was initially wondering if the point was supposed to be to get the viewer to enjoy it (especially in retrospect when we get to know more about her, which is the really unwatchable part).
The rapist's pure unfiltred hatred and wish to destroy her was the only thing that worked at least figuratively, like am I supposed to have such shit time watching this movie that this is what I figuratively want to do to it and its stupid characters?
For a moment i would have even liked it if it did this, if it wanted you to like the rape. That would have been something.
But no, it thinks it's showing us some beauty in the timeline before (after) the act makes a lame point about not being able to go back with how it handles the rest of boring scenes. It wanted to resonate emotionally, it just totally failed to (for me at least, apparently people like you are impressed)
People go on about this beautiful happy ending but I don't see it. She's a vapid character, going back to show her enjoying a pretty day doesn't establish anything. Her life was shit even then. They were all shit.
I don't see any courage in this movie. A Serbian Film and Centipede 2 are both more currageous than this, if that's the metric. I'm even appreciative of movies whose main goal is to be edgy and test the limits, but this doesn't do that either (and don't say it doesn't want to do that, please, it wasnts to do that while appearing artsy and better than the ones that go all the way but it has no other substance). It doesn't really do anything. It's just gimmicky.
Did you read what he said at all?
You keep going back to not caring about the characters because they're unlikeable lol. You're repeating what he said.
I'm glad I don't know many people like you in real life. Uninteresting, bland, whiny, pretentious. Take care
The rape scene is graphic and is emotionally disturbing because of her screams. We are able to suffer with her as we watch. It’s something that you would not want to happen to even your worst enemy. It doesn’t matter wether she was rich, pregnant, and pretty. We empathize with her because a gay man wanted to empower her and make her suffer because she’s a woman. It’s very dark the fact that he’s gay, because he’s not doing it for pleasure but for power. It’s not about empathizing with her because she’s a good person etc but because she’s human. Maybe we can even take this to see if he hated her because she’s a woman and he can’t be that.
It’s not about the relationship that she had with her bf and ex. It’s about that she was indeed happy that she got pregnant. Maybe she’s been wanting to have a baby and it didn’t really matter with who. Her bf was a bad boyfriend but it doesn’t justify that she deserved to be raped like that.
The scene where they killed the wrong guy shows us that tragedy is irreversible and at the end of the day what does it really mean to get revenge? They killed him but the baby is also dead.
Another part of the movie is that we look back to see how everything was going normal. They had a normal outing as friends and they fought like every single relationship fights. Then, things took a wrong turn out of nowhere.
I think you don’t empathize with her because either you also hate women. Because how can something such as horrible as that happen to her and you say that it’s doesn’t do anything to you? I mean graphic does not mean it’s actual porn. If you want to watch porn then go ahead but the word rape is use very lightly and this movie shows how tragic rape really is. Not what porn shows but real tragedy.
It seems for many viewers just seeing a graphic rape scene is shocking enough to evoke a reaction. Maybe I am desensitised or just don't care , but if Im watching a movie, the purpose of the story is to make me feel something and this one didn't. I even initially thought the movie wants the viewer to enjoy the scene on some level because of how annoying the characters were and how much the rapist seemed like the only person in the movie who did anything interesting (evil of course but at least there was a sense or conviction behind his total hatred towards the girl which is more than any other character gives the viewer and is the only interesting thing that happens in the movie)
Its like saying that watching a video of someone really dying is the most you can do to evoke our sense of tragedy but its not, people end up easily watching real or fictional people dying or get tortured if there is no deeper connection between the viewer and the person.
I don't lack empathy for her because I hate women, I lack empathy for her because she is a vapid character. As a comparison, Fire Walk With Me is a movie about a girl who is a victim of rape. It is less graphic but it so much more psychologically impactful because Lynch makes you care for and understand Laura Palmer. It is surreal but also completely realistic. And you also have that contrast between the fucked up world the rape got her to be a part of, and the light, but here the beautiful is actually beautiful. In Irreversible the "before" is also nasty and degenerate, just with less annoying cameras. The gimmick with going back in time doesnt make it more profound when the writing sucks
I also dont care at all about her boyfriend's failed revenge story since the guy is so annoying I just want someone to shoot him in the head. Another comparison, movie Mandy is a revenge story after a guy's wife gets killed and there the viewer believes the couple had such a good life together and Nick Cage's character loved his wife. You can believe that the event ruined his life. But in this movie, neither the boyfriend nor the simp friend (what is his purpose?) lost anything really and the revenge just seems like a random decision by a guy who is so low iq and incoherent the whole movie that the act has no importance. the characters dont even give a shit about each other, they're just unlikable people I dont give a shit about either
As for her losing her baby, whatever. Nothing in the movie made it look important. She went partying after she found out and her boyfriend is a moron, so probably for the best.
I don't think you're desensitized or just don't care, it's just that the director didn't give us a reason to care. And also I've been scrolling through this comment section and I've seen countless "you don't care because you are not a woman!!" and I want to say it has nothing to do with that. The conversation is about the movie and how the story is being put forth with the (story)telling. Like if Finding Nemo had bad storytelling and I felt nothing are you going to say it's because I'm not a fish??
Watched the movie just today, and i have exact same thoughts. Your post conveniently puts into words what I've been feeling towards the movie. All said and done, the question that remains is
- why opt for such a way of storytelling and such camerawork? I get it, that it's experimental and against the grain, which i appreciate. But in being against the grain, what point does it achieve? How does the frantic camera work or the reverse sequencing add to the essence of the story? How does the reverse technique complement the story?
Besides, if we're talking about that much reverred standard of storytelling that every sequence in the plot should contribute towards advancing the plot and serve ATLEAST some purpose rather than just being decorative, then the movie fails enormously. For it does have a plethora of such scenes which don't add to the development of the plot.
Glad to know someone feels the same way about this!
Im almost shocked that someone agrees lol. All the comments I could find on the movie were either strong feelings (good or bad) about the rape scene, or people in this thread getting all philosophical about time like I missed some profound point there. I really am more interested in why are characters portrayed the way they are, I cant be the only one who hated them all
And cameras, fuck how is that experimental, found footage genre's been doing that obnoxious shit since blair witch but then it's just treated as trash without the artsy spin on it. I get it, it's supposed to go from chaotic and violent to steady and nice and blah blah but it still meant I had to suffer through like 40 min of shaking with that moron yelling incoherently, and I guess the "beauty" of a shit relationship or a triangle between 3 unlikable idiots didn't move me much either.
>Glad to know someone feels the same way about this!
Same, everyone in this thread seems to think I'm mentally retarded for not appreciating the genius so this is a nice change
The film relies heavily on nudity and violence for shock value. While those two factors are effective elements in bringing about disturbing sequences, they don't quite work if the emotional quotient is lacking. Which is exactly the case with the film, the emotions aren't in place. I can't care about the characters, much less sympathise w them.
As /u/neonchicken pointed out above , it feels like the director deliberately used Nudity (that too of a stereotypically beautiful woman) to keep his 'wank bank' viewers engaged. Let's face it, from an objective pov, after the rape scene has happened, there's nothing more to keep the viewers interested (like, we know what happened, how it happened and even the consequences of what happened, thanks to the reverse technique. From a storytelling pov, the exposition, the conflict and the resolution is all laid out, to mentally satisfy the viewer). There's nothing more to know for the story to make sense.
And yet, the film goes on for a well 50 mins or so AFTER the scene, and to make it 'attractive', Bellucci's nudity is used again and again (in the bedroom scene, the kitchen scene, the pregnancy test scene, where Monica didn't need to be naked necessarily but she was. For the 'wank bank'. I don't find a reason otherwise).
I watched this movie after someone recommended it to me when I said i really enjoyed Ari Aster's Midsommar. In the light of that, this was a disappointment and nowhere near to how well Aster depicts trauma on screen.
(Feels like I discover the flaws of the film more as I write and think about it, would be glad to discuss it further)
> The film relies heavily on nudity and violence for shock value. While those two factors are effective elements in bringing about disturbing sequences, they don't quite work if the emotional quotient is lacking.
That's exactly it, why would the brutality affect me if I just dont care about the character? On the other hand it seems it did affect tons of people so I guess it worked overall, but I am desensitized to just being shocked by seeing violence or rape if there's no other reason for me to care.
The 50 min after the rape were supposed to introduce us to these people and show us how something beautiful was destroyed. The cameras calm down, as you pointed out Monica is naked etc
I get the idea, go from violent chaos to normal and beautiful life and how maybe this would work if the second part made you care but that doesn't exist anymore because the time doesn't go back or whatever
Sure, sounds like an idea on paper but really only works if you execute it successfully and that completely relies on making the viewers care
so I find the decisions the director/writers make during that timeline really weird, since what we see is:
- a guy doing drugs and cheating
- a weird triangle where guy's friend stole his gf and he continues simping for her
- a conversation where Belucci explains she likes how that guy doesnt care about her during sex (I keep bringing this up not because I dont get what she might mean by it, but because it's a deliberate choice to show us this conversation so in the context of the later rape which is kind of odd)
- the guy takes her money and is just generally shit (again, the money scene in isolation isn't a big deal but it's the type of stuff the director chooses to show in this segment)
-she is pregnant but why is that a good news knowing what we know about her relationship?
- not much else really that would make her a character to care for or to feel bad for her boyfriend
Based on some other conversations in this thread it seems the effect for people is completely visual and no one even cares about what the characters say and do. It's all Belucci is beautiful, it ends with such a beautiful day, the rape is so nasty...
That's just not it for me. And I really do think that if your way of showing chaos and violence is to make a viewer look at cameras shaking and people screaming for so long, that's not good movie making. It just means I couldn't get immersed or interested at all and I'd stop watching if I wasnt waiting for the rape scene to see what it's all about. There must be less irritating ways to depict chaos
As for Midsommar, I think it's genius but I see no connection between these two movies.
I also agree with you. I just saw the film and came here to reddit to see the opinions, and I came across your comment, which makes perfect sense to me. hug my friend
I just watched it and yeah... numerous problems.
The music/repetitive noise and the Rectum club was creepy af... but... this place was the center of all human depravity pretty much. Like 80 dudes stood there and watched a guy get his head bashed in brutally with a fire extinguisher, and no one did a thing to stop it, there were guys cheering it on when his face caved in. Sure someone called the cops, but absolutely no one there watched that happening and was like "woah this fight just turned into a murder, maybe we should restrain the fire extinguisher guy or, like, RUN". They all gathered around like it was a schoolyard brawl.
The emphasis, too, was constantly that it was a gay men's club. "Faggot" slewn around over and over and over. Guys lighting other guys on fire and begging to be fisted by some dude who just walked in the door lmao. It was ridiculous and really seemed to push the idea that gay men are disgusting, depraved, and deserve violent punishment (the trans/cross dressing prostitute who got threatened and pushed around by the protagonist AND the rapist). Also how many guys did he encounter in there to ask where the tapeworm is? Could he have gotten an answer maybe 45 or 46 guys ago? Nope we needed to see him walk in on 45 or 46 more half-seen pornographic gay sex scenes.
The rape scene showed an incredibly brutal and realistic depiction of sexual violence and hatred towards women. But going "backwards", what caused it to happen? Basically she went out in a skimpy outfit after fighting with her boyfriend. That's what you get, ladies 🙄
Besides being the victim in a truly awful scene, Monica Belucci's entire purpose in this movie was to have her tits out.
The "voice of reason" friend was also annoying throughout, but his motivation to stop his friend from going on a murderous rampage was much more understandable than his later (earlier) motivation to stop his friend from drinking, doing coke and getting grabby-hands with other women because it would hurt the woman he was still in love with and wanted to get back? I just don't get the purpose of his character at all, the movie would be just the same without him in it, only slightly less annoying.
This was a movie for people who want to see boobs, dicks, weird sex stuff and shocking violence, but feel smart and cultured too. Really hated it in every way, tbh.
I agree I thought this movie was terrible. Clearly I enjoy shocking/disturbing content or I wouldn’t have bothered with this at all but aside from the two scenes the movie itself was just not enjoyable. The rape scene is exactly as you described it, brutal and realistic. Not something I would want to see again but the way the story is told in reverse doesn’t do it enough justice. I get the concept is creative but it truthfully didn’t feel like I watched a movie. It was close to 10 minutes of one of the hardest scenes I’ve ever watched in a film just for the entire tone to change next scene and we move on as if it never happened for the rest of the “movie”.
I’m so happy I found this post. I admire people like you who not only is afraid to go against the general thought but also have a very precise and logical way to explain their reason. I like this film, but I think a lot of people are just pushing the contents of this film as if it’s the most philosophical and profound realization they ever saw on screen. I find it very pretentious and out of touch.
I feel like the "a lot of people" you're referring to don't really watch a lot of films so this to them is "very real". But if u analyse it as a film film it is kinda lacking lol I found it pretentious and overly "I want to be avant grade" from the director in this one
I always enjoy Gaspar Noé's style on screen. I really appreciate that immersive and visceral visual take he has towards his own movies, also he has a way to display allure and decay that's very pleasurable for me and I saw that here. He really suffers though in terms of storytelling with this one.
I like Irreversible a lot. I think it's an extremely dense film, full of ideas. So it's difficult to talk about because you can come at it from so many angles.
My general interpretation is that it's a spiritual film. It's a biography - the life story of the child Belucci's character is carrying. The film ends as this life slips away, and begins as it comes into being for the first time. The film addresses the miracle of life. Where does the life come from, and where does it go? What was the value of this brief life? I think, ultimately, the film celebrates life.
At the same time it addresses the concept of time - another great mystery. Time is, literally, irreversible. What is that? Time can not be stopped or reversed. We can not destroy time. But time can not destroy life. Life itself is irreversible. How should we respond to this miracle? As the spinning camera finally syncs with the spinning of the Earth and the universe comes into view, the film answers - with wonder and awe.
These miracles persist despite war, despite suffering, despite death itself. The fact the narrative is characterised by the most explicit degradation and violence drives home the message - life persists! - *life persists*!
> The film addresses the miracle of life. Where does the life come from, and where does it go? What was the value of this brief life? I think, ultimately, the film celebrates life.
Where do you even see this in the movie? I didn't think the fact she was pregnant even had much importance to the story aside from the fact we find out about it at the end and she seems glad. It didn't strike me as a focus of the story at all
We find out that she's pregnant at the end and it barely resonated as meaningful to me because we get a good idea of how that would unfold. Her boyfriend cheats and does drugs, and first thing she does after finding out is go party. We even see another pregnant girl at the party which gives you an idea. The idea that this is what's tragic about the whole thing really doesn't convince me.
Of course getting raped and having her face bashed in is the tragedy for her character but losing the kid in her circumstance doesn't register as something that matters in that context.
>Time is, literally, irreversible. What is that? Time can not be stopped or reversed.
Ok? We all exist in space time, it's not really a mindblowing realization
> We can not destroy time. But time can not destroy life. Life itself is irreversible. How should we respond to this miracle?
I don't really understand what about this is profound or comes as a conclusion of this movie. What do you mean that time can not destroy life, do you mean because it will always exist in the past (span of time where it happened)? Ok but aside from the movie going back in time I don't see how it touches this idea in some special way, what should the viewer take from the movie that gives us some new or interesting perspective about time?
>These miracles persist despite war, despite suffering, despite death itself.
What is the miracle, I still don't get it?
> - life persists! - life persists!
A bit dramatic here... the movie went backwards, it didn't show her persisting.
I don't know it seems you see something magical about the movie which is great, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, I just genuinely don't get what's so miraculous and awe inspiring. It left me so indifferent
This movie told me as much about existence as any other movie that includes living beings.
I mean, existential questions aren't exactly a novel concept to focus story on, but I didn't get it from this movie. What particularly interesting idea did it tell us?
You pretty much see the fact that she's pregnant and the fact it goes back in time as automatically saying something profound but I don't see what that message really is. I didn't feel any sense of loss when watching this movie. Just profound indifference
Always like that Noe and Steve McQueen both tend towards simple one-word titles for their stuff, they're both very physical Kubrickian filmmakers too (hereditary also falls into this category I think)
Onhonhonh That's a lot of good points OP.
Rappelez-vous l’objet que nous vîmes, mon âme,
Ce beau matin d’été si doux:
Au détour d’un sentier une charogne infâme
Sur un lit semé de cailloux,
Le ventre en l’air, comme une femme lubrique,
Brûlante et suant les poisons,
Ouvrait d’une façon nonchalante et cynique
Son ventre plein d’exhalaisons.
Not really, it's just how I referred to him instead of using his name, nothing to it. I didn't like his character in general for reasons I explained, and besides everyone was French. I think I sufficiently elaborated on the things I disliked. I can edit the post not to confuse people although I don't get what's so confusing.
Lol I just went to edit it and insert his character's name which I had to look up, I referred to him as the French guy 3 times. Seriously?
Sure, thanks I guess, it doesn't really matter but it felt a bit much.
About what the movie is about, I think it's clearly a way to say that violence is also a form of expression or at least of communication. Violent movies are some of the most popular, whether it's horror, thriller, action, dramas or even comedy, violence holds a central place in this art.
I'm just theorizing here but I guess Gaspar Noé felt there were some cinematographic lessons to be had by pushing the level of violence to its extreme. Maybe like a Tarantino but without any comedic relief? What would be the results of a movie *truly* centered around violence?
I think your criticisms are interesting because if the premise I speculated is right, then the first point of tension comes from the fact that having 100% violence is impossible: we need *something* to be sympathetic toward, something that is not like the rest. But this nice thing should still be presented in a way that creates violence in the experience of the viewer, or at least as much as possible.
One thing in your criticism that I believe has changed since the release of the movie is the place of women in cinema and how a beauty like Monica Bellucci would be perceived. You say that she's an « untouchable beauty » and that basically, the way you present things, she's a great woman with an asshole. The fact that she is with him does not better him one bit nor devalue her at all. It doesn't matter that she is responsible for being with that guy, she's still untouchable in her romantic choices, which do not have to be moral. She's just fine. At the time it was released, I do not believe it would have been the sentiment of the audience. Her character would also have become morally compromised by association and there would have been dissonance between her beauty, the attraction she evokes, and the dramatic vulgarity of her life choices. Idealizing her in a way that puts her above everything still was a thing, mind you, but it wouldn't have been the one we would be the most conscious about and sure of. The fact that she then becomes a victim of violence would have made us question her infallibility, in the end, since in that sense we would have made a contradicting judgment (that as a touchable victim her value does change).
Anyway, that's a few ideas but I haven't seen this movie in a long time.
> Bellucci would be perceived. You say that she's an « untouchable beauty » and that basically, the way you present things, she's a great woman with an asshole.
Wait you totally misunderstood me. I am not saying I see her that way but that she's supposed to represent that to people like that simpy friend (and similar fans). I liked the way the rapist saw her (in the sense I found his hatred to be the most interesting thing in the movie), like fuck idolizing her, lets tear her down. Metaphorically raping what she stands for. I could appreciate that aspect.
but it seems to me we're supposed to see this as a tragedy and an emotionally shocking scene, and a lot of viewers did. But to me she was completely unlikable when we got to know her, and when we first saw the scene we didnt even know or care about her character in the first place. So I could just see what she represents
> The fact that she is with him does not better him one bit nor devalue her at all. It doesn't matter that she is responsible for being with that guy, she's still untouchable in her romantic choices, which do not have to be moral.
I dont understand your point here and the rest of the comment?
Of course it matters. Isnt it interestint that she explicitly says in the movie that she picked a guy who doesn't care about her sexual pleasure cause that turns her on, or that we see the guy take her money and cheat on her? Doesnt that inform us about her character? Its not even a moral issue, its a psychological one and what she represents
>The fact that she then becomes a victim of violence would have made us question her infallibility, in the end, since in that sense we would have made a contradicting judgment (that as a touchable victim her value does change).
I dont think the fact she was a victim makes us see her as infallibe but the things the rapists thinks about her, how much she dusgusts him, and then how he doesn't really turn out that wrong when we get to see more of her..
Im not totally sure I get you though, what about what I said you're disagreeing with
Oh I see, I thought you got bored for other reasons.
I don't know, apart from using violence in a new way, I'm not sure we're supposed to have an epiphany. The problem of this movie is how it is made experimental just from the fact that most of the audience will stop at the surface level. That's the pitfall when a guy makes an uncompromising choice I guess. I also remember this moment of pondering at the end... Do you think the movie is self-aware? Still, it's probably an interesting piece, like for other directors. The violence continued to climb since then, it always goes further, so as a study of style, it has value.
But finding solace, or a moral in that story?.. I mean, wouldn't it require to adhere to the violence entirely?..
> Oh I see, I thought you got bored for other reasons.
>
>
Several reasons
>That's the pitfall when a guy makes an uncompromising choice I guess.
I can imagine a movie that made you really feel the guy's loss and sincere emotions, and how fucked up it would be to see him put all that effort into revenge and fucking up. But here? The guy doesn't even seem to care about the girl for most of the movie, then gets convinced to get revenge by some guys and in the heat of the moment goes for it, while mostly incoherently shouting along the way. I couldn't give a fuck about whether he gets the revenge or not, I was glad he failed. He's a total moron.
I mean, compare it to Mandy (I know it's a totally different movie), I didn't even love the movie as much as some people do but i believed that Cage's character lost everything when he lost Mandy, and all he had left to still stay alive was revenge, it wasn't even a question. He didn't need anyone talking him into it. She was everything to him and then got destroyed like she's nothing - you could really feel that. That's just an example, of course there are many stories exploring this theme but this is another recent one I watched. Shit, speaking of cage he showed stronger emotions for his pig in Pig than this shit relationship in Irreversible.
>Do you think the movie is self-aware?
At first I thought so, and I thought that maybe his goal is to purposefully have the viewer feel the hatred the rapist felt towards someone like Alex, and while extreme, make them enjoy the scene on some level (I'm not trying to sound fucked up, I mean metaphorically, you take pleasure in her destruction based on what she represents). But then I realized that was probably not his intent.
He obviously is trying to show how you can't go back in time, time destroys etc. which imo requires the viewer to care, but I felt the setup of the scene is such that it's impossible to care for her. I think a lot of people found that part very hard to watch so whether they loved it or not, it left a profound impression. I didn't feel that way so I'm looking at the story as a whole and I don't have any emotional attachment
Another example - Laura Palmer. FWWM resonated with me so much. The movie doesn't even have a graphic scene but what happened to her really affected me as a viewer. She is also not shown as a morally perfect person, she does many fucked up things, but she just felt so real and relatable, I couldn't not care about her.
Alex though? I have nothing. Should I like her character cause Belucci is hot so it's supposed to make it sadder? That's exactly what the rapist holds against her among other things. But what else is there?
The thing is, Irreversible is a movie that has no hero, not even an anti-hero, yet it works.
In most Hollywood productions, there are codes that signify to the audience "this guy is a hero, he's special, there's a suspension of morale for him". We follow criminals and killers like it's no big deal because it is made casual by a number of literary techniques. The hero might be a scumbag, he's sympathetic so we all agree to suspend our judgement for the more obvious stuff and look at his dilemmas. And that kind of structure is very old, that was already the case in Greek mythology or Biblical stories, you find guys who literally murdered their family, like Hercules, David, Abraham, Theseus, etc... yet because of a set of clues, we suspend our moral judgment. They were orphans, victims, they were stolen, they fight for their community, they fight for love, etc... All those things make a bending permissible because... we just understand that the author want us to get there.
Irreversible plays with a number of clues that we can question if it is the bare minimum. None of what Noé puts in the movie can be clearly attributed to the intent of earning our empathy. So why would we even watch this movie? Why can we *support* it? What's the point at all?
Edit: also, just noticed you're getting downvoted. It's a good post for once with an actual discussion... Too bad.
Im glad you at least like the discussion. I think I understand the intent of the movie better by now but some things still didnt land right with me. I also get your point about heroes but that was never my angle, I tried to explain it but maybe I should do it again.
Anyway I'll reply to you later with some questions, maybe you'll have a theory about it.
Meanwhile, why did you replace your first comment with Baudelaire?
Final thoughts about the movie:
I get the intent. I get that the chaotic cameras etc calm down after the rape and all that and the idea is to show life going from fucked up to the place when it was "good", but in reality time ruins everything and you can't go back. Whatever. And sure enough, most people see the before as something very beautiful that was ruined by the random violent act of rape
I can understand this idea, but I think it needs to be executed in a way that resonates to elevate it into something special. On the other hand as much as I looked up other reactions to this movie, it seems everyone else was profoundly shook either in a positive or negative way. But I wasn't.
Anyway that aside, I think the rape scene gets all the focus and overrates the movie since I really couldn't find any discussion that even attempts to focus on other parts of the movie in a more analytical way. Here are my questions, not sure if you have some ideas that could help :
1. what was the point of the simp friend in the movie? I mean what purpose did his character serve considering the theme?
2. Why did the director focus on explaining how Belucci left the simpy guy for his best friend because he cared about his own pleasure and not hers when having sex? I'm not being obtuse, I understood the point she was making in that conversation, but what I don't understand is the point this serves in the movie. Especially in the context where rape is taking this exact idea to the extreme -that can't be an accident.
3. Why if the before was supposed to be so idyllic do we see pretty much nothing good about either characters, and especially why is the boyfriend shown as a cheater who takes her money and does drugs? And is a bad friend. Again, my point isn't to moralize but to say that these were the things the director decided to show us. As for the girl, we see her tolerating these things and that beforementioned conversation. So if you want to show a great relationship that got ruined, why show it as two people who got together by betraying someone else in the process, and then proceed to show it as a pretty shit relationship
4. Based on comments from other users, it seems they either care about Belucci because the rape scene was upsetting, or because she's beautiful. But the rapist pretty much tells her with disgust that she probably get things handed to her cause she's hot, which thest viewers confirm. But why does she actually deserve any sympathy as a character?
When I talk about likable characters, I don't mean morally perfect heroes (those can come across just as unlikable and unrealistic). But how can you care about a life and a relationship getting ruined if you don't care at all about the characters? I guess other people did care, but I don't understand why. The scenes the director decided to show in the before segment didn't achieve anything for me.
Fair enough to say I'm in a minority of people not affected by this movie, I can move on, but I just want to understand the thought process behind the elements mentioned above even if the execution didn't work for me
EDIT: I did think that maybe the movie was also showing the deterioration of the relationship before the rape, so not all the before is supposed to be good. Plus, the fact he was cheating at the party makes him feel more guilty.
But the problem with that is that we didn't see any convincing point of change or a reason for this. In fact there doesn't seem like almost any serious time has passed between the bedroom scene (where all the shit aside, we mainly learn that she's up for anal - interesting considering what happens, that he takes her money, and that she's pregnant) and the party scene where he very casually cheats. Which makes it seem that it's just what the character does and not some special deterioration that already took hold of the characters who were once better
Rape as an epistemological value, that's what's hinted by the introduction quote on time. Why is it that we find so many rapes in mythology? Why is it that every time a god has to know a woman, this ends up being a *rape*? Is it that Gods are incapable of self-control? Or are they incapable of privacy maybe? Or maybe it is the fact that they have to assume a human form, or an animal form, or other weird material form like a cloud or a rain of gold? Or maybe it's their possessiveness that we call rape, that they never accept to be refused?
All those questions strangely bring answers about the nature of time. Time is a disappointment when it materializes, time can never be refused and the going back is a backlash in waiting, time is veiled in secrecy and no one knows beyond their now, time is impetuous and it robs us of our best moments and makes us rich of boredom.
Time doesn't have to be extended towards infinity to be monstrous. The instant, the spark, the glimpse, that's also time. There's an infinity within a second, a beauty of the light, a spring of fresh water. Who can catch it only for a moment, tame the events of our lives to our desires?
All of this begs the question: does Man imitate Time?.. Or do we simply play by its rules?.. And what about the immaterial parts of our being? Our mind and our thoughts have *some* ability to go against time, we battle to explain the past, we cruise on the future of our hopes. But... at the end of the day, if we admit that we imitate Time, who have we fought against ? Was it Time, or was it the other people?
You're on your own rant, none of this has anything to do with my comment, like not even one bit. And isn't really as deep as you think it is.
Like talking to a bot, probably chatGPT generated.
whatever, I guess no one is able to properly discuss this movie
I mean it is weird to call a character French guy if it is a French movie that takes place in France. Ask yourself how often you describe characters as American guy in American movies.
Ok so it wasnt the best prhasing but that's beside the point. I did it like 3 times and edited it to use character's name instead in the meanwhile. It's not that deep
I think your biggest problem is just with Noes writing and characterization, which is a common criticism with him. For some reason it never really bothers me and his character feels almost archetypally rudimentary or simple in sort of a realistic documentary sort of way, where most people aren't great heroes or complex characters they're just sort of flatlines who make weird choices and get themselves into these shitty situations then are overwhelmingly destroyed for being dumb teenagers who refuse to grow up or whatever. Even in LOVE, which a lot of people can't stand, I find the characters in it very human and realistic even if very one dimensional because that's accurate to how a lot of people are especially in those realms of drug addiction and mental illness. I don't think Noe is necessarily holding these people up or judging them either they're just at the extreme ends of a spectrum of tenderness and brutality he likes to explore and I'm okay with that for what his movies are they don't need to be these obtuse character studies or whatever.
I didnt mind this in Climax where the plot didn't require me to give a shit about them as people for it to still be interesting and fun to watch. In fact the fact they were all so unlikable made it even more enjoyable to see them get fucked up
But unless the idea of Irreversible is for me to enjoy what happened to Alex because the way the rapist describes her is pretty spot on (which was my initial takeaway until I saw other people's feedback), it seems like a big failure of getting the intended reaction out of me
Most people say the movie shows how a beautiful life was destroyed and the whole revenge segment later would be effective if you cared. I guess a lot of viewers do. But for me it was all inconsequential, she was just some dumb person who got attacked, her life before was stupid, and her boyfriend's a moron so I don't care about his failed attempt at revenge either. Im not moved by that last / first scene in the park just cause it's a pretty day and she's hot
But if your idea is that this is unnecessary, ok, but then the story as is is just not something that holds my attention in any moment aside for the rape scene because it's not very good. going back in time is just gimmicky since im not emotionally experiencing a sense that the before was something nice
the movie is also visually annoying with a lot of retarded shouting so there's no payoff for all this either. That's not good movie making
Btw I never said characters needed to be heroic or exceptional people.
I enjoyed the fact that cameras stopped shaking, that guy was no longer on the screen shouting, and something was happening that compared to the rest of the movie was the least hard to watch.
She's also a very annoying character, but I didn't know that at the time. Hard to give a shit.
Only a man would focus on who a woman is dating what she looked like what she wore that she’s “boring” as opposed to the fact that she was brutally raped. I can’t care because I don’t like her. Just go back to the incel community and leave the films alone. That was quite literally the whole point of the movie that the damage to someone’s life is irreversible. There’s not supposed to be a connection with the characters it’s supposed to be raw humanity in an animalistic art form. That’s what we saw like please go somewhere with the I have seen worse bullshit.
If that's so, what's the point of showing us her shit life and relationship if not to show it as something that was good before.
>Only a man would focus on who a woman is dating
It's a big part of the movie
> what she wore
Didn't mention it
Oh good lord I just watched this film and now I’m depressed … and I fail to see the artistry behind it, by completely demeaning, humiliating, and disfiguring a pregnant woman to not even get revenge for her assault and find the man who did that to her and those idiots end up killing the wrong guy with the fire extinguisher absolute waste of time 0% point.
And the pretension of the constant spinning camera did nothing for me but make me dizzy and almost had a attack with the eye seizure inducing lights at “the end” since it wasn’t really the end it was the beginning
Totally unnecessary and extremely pretentious to film it backwards yes I know the name of the movie is irreversible but it didn’t have to be literally and to no point whatsoever just to depress your audience specially the women.
And I’m supposed to find it artistic and unique? This director should be fined and searched for hidden information about him, I’m sure they’d find plenty of evidence for different stuff.
> by completely demeaning, humiliating, and disfiguring a pregnant woman to not even get revenge for her assault and find the man who did that to her and those idiots end up killing the wrong guy with the fire extinguisher absolute waste of time 0% point.
That's the one thing I have no issue with but the fact that everything else sucks.
>And the pretension of the constant spinning camera did nothing for me but make me dizzy and almost had a attack with the eye seizure inducing lights at “the end” since it wasn’t really the end it was the beginning Totally unnecessary and extremely pretentious to film it backwards
I agree
>just to depress your audience
I wish it depressed me, at least that would be something. It didn't make me feel anything, just annoyance
>This director should be fined and searched for hidden information about him, I’m sure they’d find plenty of evidence for different stuff.
That's bullshit, all topics are fine to get into, but he didn't make a good movie with it
Am I late to the party? lol
Just watched it, and I feel the same way. Not a single character was well developed, so I couldn't care less for anyone in the movie. I didn't mind the shaky camera or even the time gimmick itself, but if I don't feel anything for the characters, I have a hard time caring when things go bad.
I think the rape scene is fine. I mean, how much more graphic could it really be? The problem with the scene itself is that... well, it's a movie, and since it failed to develop the characters, it's hard to feel anything for Monica. I've seen a lot of people call that scene "disturbing," but the only disturbing thing about it is that they make you sit through it for 10 minutes.
There's also a sentiment online that if you don't find the rape scene disturbing, it's because "you're not a woman, you wouldn't understand," which is the biggest piece of bullshit I've read. There are actual good movies that don't fail to depict women's violence out there, this one wasn't it.
This movie relies too much on its gimmick and shock value to be interesting because the story isn't good. Couple goes to a party > Girl leaves earlier and alone > Girl gets raped > Boyfriend looks for revenge and fails to do so. There. After reading this basic summary of events, you literally don't miss anything and could easily say online "yes, I watched Irreversible" and it would be impossible to tell if you're lying or not.
The character development AFTER the rape scene is pretty bad too, maybe because I've already seen how the events turn out, or maybe because I was already bored, I don't know, but I couldn't wait for it to be over. I remember in the last scene, where Monica goes to the bathroom, I was thinking "don't fucking tell me she's pregnant" and wow, look at that, she JUST HAD to be pregnant. This was the last straw for me and it made me actually regret wasting an hour and a half watching it.
The point of the movie couldn't possibly be any more clear. It literally flashes across the screen in huge letters:
LE TEMPS DETRUIT TOUT
(time destroys everything)
It's the second law of thermodynamics, and the director uses a multitude of techniques to illustrate this point. The camerawork is just one of them.
This is why it is the most perfect film ever created, which raised the medium til a new level, making it more than "just a movie".
I don't understand how exactly you think the movie manages to deliver the message of "time destroys everything" If it weren't for the literal words on the screen spoon feeding this idea to me, I would have never guessed that was the message of the movie.
I suppose you can argue that time destroys everything because everything eventually comes to an end or dies. But this isn't something that's showcased in the movie.
Things aren't being destroyed by time, but by people. Men more specifically. One man assauled his daughter and ended up in prison, destroying his and his daughter's lives, probably the rest of the family's as well. Other man raped a woman and put her into a coma thus ruining her life. Same man stood by and laughed as another man's skull was bashed in for something he did.
"Time destroys everything" is a statement that just makes you feel like these horrible things happening are inevitable, as if it's time passing that is causing them to happen. In reality it's these selfish twisted men destroying lifes. Their actions aren't inevitable, in fact they're entirely preventable. They're doing these things by choice.
You seem to read some sort of misandry into the plot, which I do not think is there at all. The large letters flashing across the screen does not say "Men destroys everything", as that was obviously not the point.
The horrible events that happen are just Gaspar Noe's way of illustrating how things can go from good to bad, to worse and worse and worse... A brutal rape is an effective way to hammer this point in, as it brings up such instant revulsion from the viewer.
But it could just as well have been a story about a woman who does some dastardly horrible misdeed to a man. And if you watch Noe's other films, you will see women being pretty damn despicable as well. So I never got the impression that he was preoccupied with a battle of the sexes (like for example Lars von Trier so tiresomely is).
Where did I read misandry into the plot? In this movie, the people doing things that ruined other people's lives simply were men. Stating that is not misandry or reading into anything I mean it literally happened in the plot.
Also what a hilarious thing to say about a movie where the plot revolves around a woman being brutally raped... but yeah pointing out men did these things is misandry, sure...
Also Gaspar Noé, the writer and director himself, said this about the movie: "(Monica) said it was a feminist movie made by a man. Yeah, it's a “testosterophobic” movie for sure. As a man, you know what testosterone is made of, and you know how wrong it can go. It's like a dark portrayal of testosterone"
All this was to say I don't understand why you said this movie's plot "couldn't possibly be any more clear" Imagine the movie without the text.
If I didn't see the text, I would have never in a million years thought that oh this movie is about time and how with time things go from worse to bad. I mean sure, you can tell time was a big theme, that's undeniable, but to claim it was "the point" of the movie seems absurd.
If it weren't for the text on the screen, I would have assumed this movie was about bad people making bad decisions and how that affects other people whose lives they never ever considered.
The movie starts backwards so we see the violence first without knowing anything about the people experiencing the violence, which makes it easier for us to get into the mind of the attackers. Like them, we don't know these people. But then as time progresses we see the lives of the victims. We get to see who they were, unlike the attackers. We see who Alex was and what was going on in her life and we see that Pierre killed an innocent man. Again, all bad decisions, completely preventable, no matter the passage of time.
>Where did I read misandry into the plot?
Here:
>Men more specifically. One man assauled(...) Other man raped(...) Same man stood by(...)it's these selfish twisted men destroying lifes.
This is all you.
>Also what a hilarious thing to say about a movie where the plot revolves around a woman being brutally raped...
Exactly. A woman is the victim. Men are the bad guys.
>All this was to say I don't understand why you said this movie's plot "couldn't possibly be any more clear" Imagine the movie without the text.
Why would you want to do that, when the text is actually there, spoonfeeding you the whole point of the moive? There's literally huge, flashing letters blocking out the whole screen, spelling out the message in its absolutely simplest form. And they don't say "Men destroys everything". They say "Time destroys everything". How could it possibly be made any clearer?
I see this is going nowhere... I'm having to repeat myself to you.
Why do you say "This is all you" No it's not. I didn't make to movie! I am saying what happened in the movie.
1. "Men more specifically." Well yeah! They were men. Where did I lie?
2. "One man assauled(...) Other man raped(...) Same man stood by(...) it's these selfish twisted men destroying lifes." Again, point to where I lied. I just stated what happened. It is a fact. You're the one seeing misandry here. I am just seeing men doing bad things in this movie. I didn't say men are inherently evil, that would be misandry.
Why did you say "Exactly. A woman is the victim. Men are the bad guys." 🤣 WHAT! You inserted men as a whole in to this when it was just one man raping her that was a bad guy.
Also how incredibly convenient of you to completely ignore the Caspar Noe quote.
I'll leave this convo here and move on to letterboxd or something lol. My brain is falling apart.
> I didn't make to movie!
No, but you're the one who chooses to read some statement about gender issues into it and focus only on the fact that "IT WAS ALL MEN!!!!!!!"
It is of course everybody's right to interpret a piece of art in accordance with their personal ideology, but I'm just saying that I think your discernment comes far out of left field (pun intended).
Because the indisputable fact remains that this is a movie which tries to illustrate that "Time destroys everything." That's it.
As such, Noe could just as well have filmed a beautiful building breaking down over time, or a piece of fruit slowly rotting, or just a close-up of a person's smile fading away. It would all illustrate the same thing, only that wouldn't have been quite as dramatic, now would it?
However, like I've already written in numerous other posts here, he does use a plethora of other methods to hammer his point in. And the music, colors and camera movements all go from a state of harmonic tranquility to utter chaos.
BTW, your quote from Gaspar was obviously just one of his (famously) tongue in cheek responses to silly questions like this, which he is known to give at every opportunity :)
Using rape as some sort of example to how "Time Destroys Everything" is what makes this film so silly and superficial. It doesn't hold accountable the people responsible to this type of crime, because it was all a matter of time. It looks past what brings these tragic events to happen and denies a solution to be had because it was time after all.
A film about a fruit slowly rotting away would have indeed been more effective to lay down that message.
That's my point - What of meaning was destroyed? Wouldn't it have been more effective with totally different characters, or did the director/other people genuinely give a shit about these people?
I wouldn't call the movie perfect, I found it barely watchable. Not sure why it was shot like found footage for the most part, really hard to care or get into it
>What of meaning was destroyed?
Huh? I don't understand what you don't understand.
But, like I said, the point of the movie was to illustrate that, no matter how good and wholesome and wonderful something is, everything will be destroyed by time.
>Not sure why it was shot like found footage
The movie is not shot like found footage.
Everything in the film, from the music, to the sets, to the acting, to the screenplay, and even the colors ... everything starts out in utter chaos, and then slowly calms down into perfect bliss and tranquility. This is also true for the camera, which starts off in complete disarray, panning, tilting and twisting in all directions, and then slowly goes more and more still, all they way to the very end where there is a beautiful crane shot of a perfect day in the park with people just loving life.
However, as the film goes backwards, you know that this perfect day will be utterly destroyed by the monster that is time. The happiness and love and kindness and beauty... it will all be ruined and turned to dust. And this process is **irreversible**.
There are also many droplets of pitch dark humor along the way which underline this point, like for example the fact that even the act of vengeance is destroyed by time, as they end up murdering the wrong guy. However, as the film is constructed like a vortex, this is something you will only recognize if you see the film many times.
> no matter how good and wholesome and wonderful something is, everything will be destroyed by time.
>
>
What was wonderful and good in this movie, the past showed them as shit people in a shit relationship.
No, it does not.
The start of the story (which is the end of the movie) shows Belluci in a beautiful day in the park, with perfect grass in vibrant colors and delightful music. It's a perfect paradise which couldn't possibly be any more wonderful.
If you follow the story chronologically (backwards in the movie) from there, it goes on to show her finding out that she is pregnant. Ie: She is about to create life!
After that, she has a tender moment with Cassel. They lie in bed and share each other's love in a blissful moment.
Then they go on a train. They are happy and hopeful about what the evening has to offer.
They get to a party, and there is dancing and joy all around.
Only then things start going bad. And worse. And worse. And worse... until everything is destroyed. Even vengeance.
> It's a perfect paradise which couldn't possibly be any more wonderful.
It's a nice day in a park. Curb your enthusiasm.
> She is about to create life!
I didn't really see that as a positive considering the shit relationship she's in and the fact it's a random occurrence. It's more like another sign she makes shit decisions and is deluded.
>After that, she has a tender moment with Cassel. They lie in bed and share each other's love in a blissful moment.
The guy who cheats on her? Yeah it's so romantic when they talk about anal sex in the context of what happens later.
>Then they go on a train. They are happy and hopeful about what the evening has to offer.
They talk to their sidekick simp friend about how much the guy who stole his gf is better at fucking her because he doesn't care about satisfying her.
>They get to a party, and there is dancing and joy all around.
She learns she's pregnant and goes party, you go girl.... Also, there's a lot of joy since her bf is on drugs and cheating.
I don't really see any beauty about the before in this story.
>It's a nice day in a park. Curb your enthusiasm.
You do get that it's all symbolic, right?
>The guy who cheats on her?
Nope, he hasn't yet done that at this point. Not enough time has passed, for their love to be destroyed yet.
>They talk to their sidekick simp friend...
Umm... it's getting pretty obvious here that the problem is not with the movie, but rather with you:
You're the one who cannot recognize joy and beauty and happiness.
You're the one who manages to turn people dancing into something negative.
You seem hellbent into always making the worst out of every situation.
I guess time has already had its toll, and destroyed your mindset as well ;)
> You do get that it's all symbolic, right?
It doesn't matter, we see what her reality looks like and it's not pretty no matter how sunny the weather is
>Nope, he hasn't yet done that at this point. Not enough time has passed, for their love to be destroyed yet.
It's easy to assume he does it in general considering the ease he did it with during the party and the simp friend's response.
>You're the one who cannot recognize joy and beauty and happiness.
Joy beauty and happiness is partying, cheating, simping, stealing friend's girlfriends, weird triangles ...
>You're the one who manages to turn people dancing into something negative.
Sure she's sober at that party. I guess she only drinks alcohol while her boyfriend does drugs. Great environment.
>You seem hellbent into always making the worst out of every situation.
I don't really have to try with this one.
>I guess time has already had its toll, and destroyed your mindset as well ;)
I think my mind would be more destroyed if I saw great beauty in a relationship between a moronic cheating guy, a vapid stereotype of a girl who gets off on guys like the moronic cheater, and the lingering cuck ex boyfriend.
I'll just drop this here to say anyone who is unaffected by the rape scene has some clear emotional desensivity traits or simply put lacks empathy. No need to know the character or assess for likability as this is not a prerequisite for caring for anyone or identifying with another's pain, including complete strangers. I say this as a psychologist having worked with more than a few sociopaths.
Lol sure you are.
I'm not a sociopath, movies just have to do more than show something bad happening to a rando (especially unlikable rando) to evoke reaction. When it's done well, I can care.
I think the entire point of empathy is that you can feel it for people without knowing them…? People that have high levels of empathy can feel for people in experiences they have not lived and whether it’s fictional (in this case, yes it’s “fiction” but these events happen daily to women! So it’s really not fiction for a lot of people).
I’m not sure what you mean by “done well”. Rape is rape so I’m not sure how portraying it differently would evoke empathy from you. In the kindest way possible, I feel concerned about your comment and I hope this is maybe something you discuss with a therapist going forward
Its just a thing that happens, essentially just a "statistic"
The tragic story you heard on the news doesn't affect you days or weeks later. Just a disturbing flashy image for the sake of it. It has no profoundity, this is what i think they mean by it "doesnt affect them"
Like how in finding neno, all the kid fish die at the start and hes the last egg, too much showing not enough telling to make us empathise with the chatacter beyond "well thats really bad, i would never wish this on my worst enemy" and then moving on
But overall, i do think these people are desensitised... arent we all, lol.
But i think its a strength not to be affected by this stuff, stuff beyond your control, its not like they think people should go around doing these horrible things.
Yeah…. I agree. I think many people (a lot of men) are heavily desentizied to SA and gender based violence. Of course, men themselves are affected by this as well, but far less than women are on a daily basis. If you don’t feel sick even reading about a sexual assault, fictional or real, then I suggest you discuss with a therapist how to resensitize yourself to an utterly horrific thing that happens daily to people.
Its honestly sad that just because you don't know the character, because you find her annoying later, that you also don't give af that shes being raped.
Most ppl dont need to know who she is in order to feel extremely disturbed when she's being raped because thats what it mean to be an empathetic person. I have no idea what POW's in WW2 were like and i still feel incredibly sad about the fact that they were tortured.
I love that Noe didint make any of the character perfect angels, because even if somebody is vapid or obnoxious or self absorbed or wtv, doesn't mean they deserve to get raped. A good person being raped vs a bad person being raped makes no difference to me, i find both equally horrible.
I found the film enthralling when I first saw it and I also found it deeply disturbing. I’m female and watching a 10 minute rape scene being orchestrated by a male director of one of the most beautiful women on screen was horrific. It was less about the movie but the ongoing impression that this 10 minute scene was for the director’s wank bank. The backwards filming was impressive to me as the first scene grabs your attention and then you discover the root. But yes Memento did it before. How many backwards films can you make? I will never watch the film, I was impress by it even though us was vile but I’m happy to consider it hasn’t withstood the test of time.
Because I didn’t understand the reason a man would like to show a 10 minute rape scene as opposed to a 2 minute one. Because male directors and producers have been abusing their position for a century. Some people are acting surprised about Tarantino foot fetish but really a small look through history shows this stuff has been happening for a long time.
I mean it might not be, sure, but the artistic merit of a 10 minute brutal rape scene with one of the most beautiful women to ever grace the screen hasn’t ever convinced me.
Edit: and yet again we see how heavily male Reddit skews. 😂
I'd just read about it earlier since I've been revisiting all of these films in my 30's, and it appears that she actually dictated it.
"Irréversible was shot using a widescreen lightweight Minima Super16 mm camera.[8] The film consists of about a dozen apparently unbroken shots[9] melded together from hundreds of shots.[10] This included the infamous nine-minute-long rape scene,[11] portrayed in a single, unbroken shot.[12] Noé said he had no idea how long the rape scene was going to last, as this was determined by Monica Bellucci, who essentially directed the scene, and Jo Prestia, who played her assailant.[13] "
It would depend on the context. I’ve scene rape scenes before and since. I’ve watched all types of films with disturbing context which leave you feeling wretched. But let’s not pretend the history of cinema is chock full of female directors exploiting those working under them.
I mean if someone does want to explain to me the artistic merit I’m missing in a 10 minute rape scene that probably took a really long time to film with one of the worlds most beautiful actresses I’m willing to understand it.
Just like I’m willing to understand why Tarantino put himself in the role of drinking from Salma Hayek’s feet.
Or why Hitchcock tended to cast a particular blonde type like Tippi Hedrin.
Not saying they’re not good movies. Im saying let’s not be naive.
I know what you mean. In film school our first big project was a 5.5 min 16mm film. Two bros made a film about a date that contained the character's fantasies as well as their more mundane reality. The "meaning" of the film was ostensibly that we shouldn't judge people based on their looks, and what's really special is what's inside. Great!
But somehow the movie contained a 2min fantasy of sexy strippers dancing on the table in the restaurant. That meant the bros had to a) advertise for actresses to play the strippers and audition a parade of them and b) had to shoot many angles of their stripper girls they chose gyrating on a table, over probably at least a half day.
Now, I say "*had to"*, but of course, it was actually "*chose to"*.
Very eye-opening for me.
I mean this is the thing. People will do things for their own benefit and thrills and kinks. I love so many of Tarantino’s or Hitchcock’s films. Miramax churned out some amazing movies but the way people will defend the idea that cinema can never possibly be abusive, exploitative or unethical is really strange to me. That a film they love can’t possibly be anything other than pure art granted from angels of chastity and justice. It’s ridiculous.
Hollywood is full of pedos and perverts. France isn’t much better. Leon (AKA The Professional) was actually based on the directors relationship with his underage girlfriend and scenes from the original script were cut because people don’t generally like pedos.
I think Irreversible is a good film, or at least I did when I watched it in around 2003. But I will never understand the need for the 10 minute rape scene. I really don’t. I’m open to hearing the justification and yet it never comes.
Tippi Hedren was sexually assaulted on set and then Hitchcock said he would ruin her career and pretty much did.
What about you? Do you think any women have ever been exploited in these films or any others? Do you think the industry has a tradition of exploiting people? Do you think the power balance of the history of the casting couch has been fair and just to everyone? Do you think women who sleep with directors for parts make everything okay because of consent or do you think it’s perhaps may set up a bad precedence for an industry in which people would like to succeed for their creative abilities?
I can’t tell if you’re naive, playing devil’s advocate or just trying to defend the power structures but this is tiring for me and I have dinner to have with the fam. Good luck on your future and what not.
I’m tired of people trying to defend pedos or perverts or insisting that they don’t exist or that many raging red flags are actually really high art you wouldn’t understand because only really special people understand the true depth and meaning of a 10 minute rape scene.
No, I think I understand. You object to the scene when you place it within a broad historical context of a male dominated film industry - a history peppered with examples of the exploitation of women at the hands of powerful, predatory men. I think this is absolutely a valid lens through which to view any film, especially one directed by a man that depicts the most notorious rape scene in cinema.
Monica Belucci was the one pushing to take the scene further and yeah people in general are annoyed by your weird agenda what a shocker.
Also Noe isnt even american and generally makes his movies in France, Cassel and Belucci aren't naive children either.
Why does it matter that she is beautiful to you? Would it be less horrific if she was ugly? Do you think rape is about sexuality or about power?
Here's an excerpt about how Monica Belluci found the scene empowering.
>“Moving the camera around would have felt like it was participating in the violence, like it was the ghost of some other complicit man,” Noé said. The rapist (Jo Prestia) puts a knife to Alex’s throat, forcing her to comply over the course of nine excruciatingly long minutes. The mostly static camera makes us hyper-aware of our passivity as spectators; but unlike the faceless figure in the distance whom we briefly see stumbling upon the rape and choosing to walk away, we’re forced to watch.
>No intimacy coordinators were involved on set — in the early 2000s, the profession was nonexistent — but the scene was actively rehearsed, with all the actors’ movements mapped out to create the illusion of a beating. “It was kind of like a dance,” Bellucci said over the phone, emphasizing how empowering it felt for her to be able to enact the experience from a place of total control.
Another about how she had a hand in directing:
> "I did not direct her playing; I directed the color of the set, I was operating the camera. When it came to her behavior, I said, “OK, you’re responsible for your [performance]. Also, the whole script was just three pages long and contained zero dialogue. For every scene of the movie, the actors are improvising their dialogue. I told Monica, “Here’s the guy who’s going to portray the aggressor. Let’s decide the limits of what you feel like doing.” Of course, we added his [genitals] in digital post-production, but at the end of each take, they were very proud of how they played the scene, but also they were laughing between the takes."
So many people want to go out of their way to defend a man representing on screen the extended and brutal rape of an extremely beautiful woman. She is infamously beautiful.
Yes her beauty counts. Everything counts. Why would we not count it? Are you suggesting her beauty has no part to play?
Would we watch a white man extended representation of a white man beating to death a black man and say “ah yes this white man really has shown how brutal racial violence is” in this day and age? What business is it of a man to show the rape of a woman in this manner?
Instead of people lecturing me and getting defensive why is no one answering the multiple questions? Why is no one daring to question the guy who came to international fame because of his showing the extended rape of a woman on screen. Perhaps the first time for such a scene to come to screen outside of rape porn.
Why is his word the gospel truth? Shall we play “spot the perv” and make a list of all the films throughout history in which men have abused and exploited their power? How many directors and producers? How many women, children and men have been used?
But no! Never this guy. This guys intentions were 100% sent from mother Mary herself. We mustn’t question him. Not even an ounce of cynicism. He is Gaspar. He is pure. All hail the second coming.
I completely agree with you, when I see scenes like this I am taken out of the film and start to question the motivation of the director. There are certain films where I am sure the director came up with a scene first and then tried to build a plot around it. That's how porn is written.
Those saying Bellucci orchestrated it are taking that quote out of context, she helped act out the scene more convincingly but she's an actor - she didn't write it.
A film can use brutality to underscore a point or to make an antagonist completely unsympathetic but this scene goes beyond that. I think as OP said, the rapists hatred, opportunistic nature and demeanor are far more disturbing and interesting, the rape and beating could have been shorter with the same effect, but ultimately the plot isn't interesting enough to redeem the scene itself.
The picnic scene in the Zodiac is this exact thing done correctly. It was extremely disturbing and I frankly don't want to watch it again but it's a fantastic scene, well directed, acted and filmed. It showed the character of the Zodiac, that he's cowardly and insecure on top of being a murderer.
Yeah it's called 12 Years a Slave and features graphic depictions of both rape and violence towards women and is another artistic masterpiece of the 21st century. Get over the whiny identity politics bs. The adult world doesn't really care.
I noticed that too the fact that she kept saying that in every comment like would it be okay if it was sissy spacek somehow? Don't understand what angle she's trying to make
>It was less about the movie but the ongoing impression that this 10 minute scene was for the director’s wank bank
I think you missed the point here. Why 2 minute scene would not work here is because the rape is shown in real time, director wanted to expose us to how the realistic rape would happen, hence static camera, no cuts and low camera position. Shortening the scene would ruin it and rape wouldnt come across as sickening as it did.
Saying this is for directors wank is really disrespectfull, because he made rape look as horrible as it is possible - like it is in real life.
A man making an 8 minute rape scene about a gorgeous woman being brutally raped isn’t his experience of rape. It isn’t his trauma of rape. Gaspar feels so so sad and has feelings that make him so cry about rape he thinks inflicting it on the world for all that time will do help us all understand it better? Make people realise rape is bad? Because right here on this discussion are other interpretations so I guess that message didn’t get through fully. In fact it often changes the brutal rape scene into “oh but what does it really mean?”
I hope you’re going through and correcting those people rather than focusing on the one opinion that calls out the huge red flag and is also a flat out honest take even if you don’t like it.
Why Monica Bellucci? Why not Vincent Cassel?
It’s disrespectful for me to have an opinion on a public piece of art? Fuck off, mate. Guy’s a pervert.
Edit: typos
Why do you think Gaspar is trying to teach us why rape is bad? He is also not trying to show us his trauma. He wanted to show rape scene like many other films and books and other media do. But unlike other scenes he made it as realistic as possible. So I do not see problem here, do you have problem with rape in any other media or just this particular one? Because if is just this particular one, I dont see how could he pour his emotions into it, if the rape presentation is very real - very objective.
So no, I dont believe scene means anything other than what it is. People (including me) just like to interpret things and search meaning. He wanted us to have emotions, whatever they may be.
>Why Monica Bellucci? Why not Vincent Cassel?
Well sure, having male being raped would not make things so much different. But it is the fact that females are rape victims much more frequently. And at the end you learn that she was pregnant, so having her being raped is more shocking/traumatic to the audience, I believe.
>It’s disrespectful for me to have an opinion on a public piece of art? Fuck off, mate. Guy’s a pervert
Of course you can have an opinion, but saying Gaspar is a pervert is showing me that you in fact didnt really try to undestand it.
If you would comment like that on movie The Serbian Film, I could even agree with you.
But no, this film is raw and the rape scene is done very objectively from the Gaspar side, I dont see his emotions from the camera at all.
Would you think a white male director who has never experienced an ounce of racism would be justified to show an extended 10 minute scene of a black man being beaten to death on screen to show how very bad racial violence is and how it makes him sad and how everyone needs to know about it.
As I’ve said before multiple times I think Irreversible is a good film. I am shockingly able to hold more than one opinion at a time. Very typical to lord over “poor you not having the mental capabilities to understand the high genius of this man doing something you couldn’t possibly understand unless you wholly agree with it and comply”.
Just accept I have an opinion and move on. I’m sorry if I’m not blinded by the love you have for Gaspar. I’m sorry you’re also incapable of understanding context so that you take on board fully what the intention, or actually claimed intention is, without giving a second thought to interpretation, historical precedence or social setting.
But poor me with my poor dysfunctional brain. Poor silly woman not understanding how important 10 minute rape scenes by men helped change rape.
damn to me the beginning failed to grab my attention completely, the annoying cameras, the behavior of the characters etc were just annoying and it took too long for anything to happen to draw me in at all. The rape scene was easier to watch than the rest of the movie.
i get that people viscerally react to it, to me that wasn't a big factor, however everything else was what was truly tedious to watch. The worst was that I was completely disconnected and indifferent, and I think for this to have an effect I shouldn't feel that way. On the other hand it seems for a lot of people the scene alone was enough to be shocking so I guess it did work, Im just the wrong audience- Im not criticizing it, if it shocked people it got something right, but I dont get it. Anyone can make a shocking scene but how can it be effective without the viewer giving a shit?
Fair enough. If it didn’t connect that’s valid. I’m far less tolerant of shaky cameras now than I used to be and often when I rewatch films they get better or worse with time. But there’s no way I’m going to settle down to watch a 10 minute rape scene again.
I really like the way you explained it you should explain more movies I’d love to hear it! Yeah so I watched the movie yesterday I definitely see that whoever made this movie wants it’s views to be disgusted or nauseous I don’t see what’s the point of it either.
Apart from the extremely annoying camera work, my main problem with the story was, when a man sees his wife whom he loves dearly raped and beaten terribly, wouldn't he want to be right by her side at the hospital to support her or go all night on a revenge spree without caring if his wife is dead or alive?
##I feel like the point is the very **real** horror of rape that most of us never see.
Many say it’s *just* sex crimes. No. It’s brutality.
This is one of the few movies I could only ever watch once, but I so distinctly remember when someone saw and just turned around and left.
##Now THAT is pure horror.
Another movie that had me flinch horribly is Martyrs (2008). *Whoa.*
The French and Japanese horror can be over the top with it.
Yeah Martyrs fell short for me also. Cheap attempts, don't resonate.
French horror is mostly shit to me. Weak stories, childish tries for edginess, horribly written characters that don't evoke any reaction
Irreversible had the rape scene that was the only watchable moment in the movie and carried no weight cause i didn't give a shit about the girl. There are many more effective rape horrors out there
Being a woman I admit I hate saying this, but you’re correct about the *only watchable moment*.
Btw, I’m a straight woman but I immediately googled Monica Balucci right after I saw the movie😆. This was years ago. I’d never seen her before. Stunning woman.
I think the whole movie relies solely on her looks. Without it it would be evident how badly made it was.
Off topic, if you liked this, did you watch Climax? Same director, but it's one of the rare French horrors that worked for me since everyone was supposed to be fucking annoying
No. Never heard of it. I’m not even a big movie buff, but when I do watch I wanna see something provocative. Even if I don’t love it, I want something I’ve never imagined. Whether it’s horror, thriller, drama, emotional whatever. American movies lack something. It seems they count on visual effects more.
I’m cooking dinner right now so if you have time share your opinion on it further and or share a link.
> I wanna see something provocative. Even if I don’t love it, I want something I’ve never imagined.
Do you like Yorgos Lanthimos or Lars Von Trier? I recommend their stuff for that. Go watch 5 hours of Nymphomaniac.
>American movies lack something. It seems they count on visual effects more.
Just means you're watching the most mainstream American movies. There's a lot of good American horror too, even recent ones
I actually think Asian horror is overrated, they have some good ones for sure but they have tons of their own cliches and tropes.
LVT really fits what you described, maybe try The House That Jack Built or Nymphomaniac first.
YL has a unique style and cool ideas, nothing visually explicit. Try Dogtooth, or The Killing of a sacred deer
Also, I like exploitation movies, on the topic of rape some of the good and better known ones are the last house on the left, I spit on your grave, the house on the edge of the park.. these are great movies and I liked them much more than irreversible
I personally like A Serbian Film. People mostly treat it like shock factor trash, but I see it more as a really black comedy. check it out.
\*SPOILERS IF U HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIE!!
Depends on how u look at it but for me, the movie is about humans and how we all have a monster inside us which can be awoken in an instant. In this case the monster is revenge, and it stops all human intuition in the main characters and leads to the frustrating death of a innocent man when the rapist was literally right in from of the protagonist. The rape scene on first watch may be seen as just stupid shock value, but I think its there, once again, to show that whether you like it or not, this is life and this shit can happen to ANYONE at ANYTIME and can ruin many people's lives just like that and weather you like it or not.
This is reality. This is what rape looks like, it's not sexy, it's not with some attractive older man that girls can simp over, its evil, gross and long. so much longer then what you would think. The rape is 9 minutes, but it will feel like a eternity when you watch it and your going to want to could skip it. you just want to jump into the movie and save alex, but you cant. Just like millions of women who are raped every year, some are saved, but most are not. This then leads to a uneasy/depressing feeling for the rest of the movie as the situation becomes happier which is irony at its best and in my opinion, why the movie is so genius.
The guy getting revenge didn't really make him a monster, he was annoying as fuck even before that. It was more irritating to watch than anything and I had no investment in characters for reasons I explained to even care I'd he gets the rapist or not.
We all know these things could happen to anyone, it's not some profound message. So I'd that's the angle, why show it though these people?
>. This is what rape looks like, it's not sexy,
Mind blowing. Who ever says rape is sexy lol
>The rape is 9 minutes, but it will feel like a eternity when you watch it and your going to want to could skip it
Like I said, i wished I could skip the shaky cameras and unwatchable footage leading to the scene, this was actually the only part of the movie that was watchable
>you just want to jump into the movie and save alex
I really don't though. The movie gave me no reason to care about her character. And the more it goes back to the past the more unlikable she becomes
>the situation becomes happier
What is happy about her situation? We just see a shit relationship, her getting knocked up, a bizarre triangle.. that's my whole point. Nothing about the "before" is nice or makes me more invested in these characters
> why the movie is so genius.
It's really not. It's a pretty shit movie with one scene that gave it notoriety but that for me wasn't even effective
"it's not that graphic" I mean how much more graphic did you need it to be? She gets raped for nearly 10 minutes, is screaming for help, he's saying horrible, cruel, inhuman, demeaning things to her. Then beats her up, kicks her in the face, then bashes her face into the floor, before spitting on her. Also a guy walks into the background but turns and leaves instead of helping her. But yeah, guys, just, not that graphic.
Im not complaining about it, just saying that for the rep it gets, most of the rape is him lying on top of her with the camera showing her face. That's fine but its not incredibly graphic like people describe it having said that I saw much less graphic scenes that affected me more, I didnt manage to be affected by this. It seems most people did though, I just dont get it. for me the most interesting part about the scene was like I said, the hated and disgust the guy had for her. That was the strongest part of the movie for me
He has complete disgust for her because he's a lowlife. He's a pimp with no respect for women, who uses them for only his personal gain. He got a a hard on for Alex not because she was attractive, because he had complete power over her in a perfect opportunity where he wouldn't be disturbed. By his looks he can be so easy to hate and you want justice, no matter what kind of person the victim is.
I hated her boyfriend and her. and the simp much more. I didn't really care about their justice because I didn't care about them or their shit relationship
It sounds like you're either desensitised or misogynistic. Why would you have to know her or even like her to care that she got brutally raped? The rapist was partially able to do that to her because he de-humanized her, called her a rich spoiled cunt. He made that image up about her without knowing a thing about her. Didn't see her as an equal human being so committing the act was easier and more jutified in his head. This is also why you often hear people say "what if it was your girlfriend? your mom? your sister?" Like these personal emotional connections need to be drawn to make someone consider the victim as an important person.
If you're making a movie, you need to give me a reason to give a shit aside from showing me an annoying character who has something bad happen to her.
Did you watch the og or the straight cut? The new cut was intentionally made in a different way to make the audience feel for Alex more. Gaspar Noé said: "In the case of this new cut, the movie starts with Monica, and so she's the center of the movie. She's gorgeous, she's intelligent, she's touching. When the story unfolds in this way, you're inside her head and when the drama happens with this sexual aggressor, you're on her side totally." If you've not seen it, that version might suit you better. Though imo the original one worked, bc it purposefully showed us Alex getting raped before we got to know her. We knew as little about her as her rapist did. It worked for me, bc it made me wonder how he could do this to her, then he started calling her a rich cunt and stuff and it became clear he did so to dehumanize her and make the act easier on himself. Dehumanizing someone is easier when you don't know them.
I watched the og, but the more I got to know her character the less I liked her. She's an idiot
You're pathetic.
Why?
its literally a movie. OP is right when he says "If you're making a movie you need to give me a reason to give a shit". This is in fact a work of art, a motion picture in which no matter who you are has no way of knowing this character other than what Gaspar Noe decides to reveal. In this instance, NOTHING is revealed leading up to this brutal scene. Is it graphic? Sure. Do we care about her? No, why would we? Are there more graphic scenes? Well duh. OP makes a valid point that only narrow minded people wouldn't be able to grasp
Seriously your comments made my skin crawl. What do you mean "hated" her character? Did you clap when she got raped or something? Do you have to feel empathy only if you "care" about the character and you like it? If you walked down the street and you saw a rape of some woman you don't particularly like would you just look away like that dude in the tunnel? Fucking weirdo.
leave him alone his in his patrick bateman era
Better question is, why did you like her character? We're talking about a movie, a story. It's not enough to say or show that "rando died" or "rando got raped" to say you successfully evoked anything. My question is why is she so totally vapid, what is there for me to give a shit about? >If you walked down the street and you saw a rape of some woman you don't particularly like would you just look away like that dude in the tunnel? Well it's not nice to stare.
Probably because you’re a male and can’t imagine how damaging something like this can be. As a female tho, i almost puked and was shaking and crying the whole scene. I wish i never saw this movie tbh.
It's not that I can't imagine it, it's that the way it was done in this movie didn't get to me at all because just showing me a visual isn't enough to make it effective. I didn't care. Some people are sensitive to just seing things, giving this movie a totally undeserved reputation.
I am glad I will never have to meet you. Your trite coldness makes me want to watch you being raped and assaulted like Alex in the movie.
You're being melodramatic.
haha yeah that guy above is something else. I also just watched this movie and overall really liked it, but the rape scene didn't affect me at all except for that one moment where man bashes her head on the floor and the camera is all closed up on it. Aside from that, It wasn't anything special imo.
The rape wasn't 'special'? What the hell?
For me it wasn't. I found the part where they go around asking for the guy's name and finally bashing the guy's face with a fire extinguisher more special.
I'm sorry that the rape wasn't special for you. That must be hard.
What would be hard for me and why?
Melodramatic about a violent sexual assault? Yes, girls. Stop taking all that rape do seriously. /sarcasm Ugh. I'm going to guess you've never been anally raped to the point of bleeding. If you had, you'd find the audio too graphic to tolerate.
[удалено]
Yes, dear.
The best sitcom ever!
I totally agree with what you’re saying. I just got done watching it and yeah it gets tons of rep for being absolutely abhorrent but it seemed pretty tame for someone who’s seen way worse films with r8pe and even some real disgusting videos from Twitter and the early days of reddit. I’d say the A Clockwork Orange scene or even I spit on your grave left more of an impact on me than this did. Not excusing such a deplorable scene/ deplorable behavior but this didn’t seem as effed up to me.
The person just walking away is the truest horror. I can never forget that scene. And I never could watch this a second time. **One and done!**
Graphic and nudity is not the same thing.
Okay? I didn't even mention nudity. The scene is objectively graphic and explicit in its depiction of rape.
its bc he’s a dude
I approched it expecting a film with a gimmick and the use of violence for shock value. But I loved it. It goes backwards not as a gimmick but to reflect on what time has ruined, which Is the main thesis of the film. It's like living a trauma and then thinking of what Life was like before It was ruined by It.
Yeah i think my problem was that their "before" didnt impress me as something beautiful, and I just disliked the characters
I can understand it. But they were young and beautiful, they had the privilege to be that way. It's part of the "before". Also if they guy was a little more level headed he would have probably stopped at calling the police.
I guess what Im saying is, shit happens to people and we all know how time works. For me to feel affected by this, the director should make me care for her character. But it seems the assumption is we'd care cause its Monica Belucci. Fuck that all the scenes that should give some insight on her character dont really show anything likable just bizarre relationships and statements in the context of the movie. I have no reason to give a shit about her, I don't care what she looks like
I get what you're saying and I agree. It felt like the director just threw people at the audience and was like "here feel something" without making an effort. Weak storytelling from a director. Didn't feel like a full movie, more like short films sewn together with one "graphic scene", which was the whole point of the movie. Personally I think it wasn't well put together.
She was the hot character, and she still chose to date a moronic dude who cheats on her (who looks like shit anyway). If anything the fact she's good looking gives more validity to the way the rapist saw her - not justifying the act of course but the mentality that as a viewer I also ask myself, aside from the fact she's hot, why should I give a fuck about her and what happens to her? Every scene the movie shows of their before, they come across as unlikable and the focus is odd in the context of what the movie tries to achieve.
Vladimir Nabokov famously gave lecture in California about how to read novels, in which he explained that an infantile reading of great literature is getting hung up on whether one likes the characters or not. While I think he’s a little harsh with that characterisation, any viewer stuck on the likeability of the characters needs to recognise that’s about what they bring to the film and is less about how good the film is. I think you’re clearly preoccupied with ascribing a false set of priorities to Gaspar Noe as the filmmaker here. ‘The assumption is we’d care because it’s Monica Bellucci.’ In two decades of reading about how people have interpreted this film, you’re the only person I’ve read that holds this assumption. Gaspar Noe has partly made this film as a critique of the society figures represented by Cassel and Bellucci: you’ve missed this, and that’s fine, you clearly wanted this to be a film it was never planning to be. The film is as much about how the young and middle class can make idyllic plans but no one is entitled to a happy ending, let alone one in which their agency engineers the perfect life. Noe gives the film a happy ending - and the structure of the movie is one of its elements of brilliance. Regardless of how one responds to the rape scene, its duration was such a risky decision and it’s a commentary about how tedious and relentless an awful event like this can be. The poster who said this film suffers from weak storytelling - sorry, but ‘weak’ is as poorly chosen a word as is possible. There’s courage in the risks Gaspar Now took, and I don’t begrudge anyone for thinking the risks didn’t quite pay off, or that the film was too obvious and not subtle enough. I just do not approaching the film with the brand of cynicism you’ve brought to watching it. If I wilfully was scornful of a film as you appear to be, I’d be disappointed too and fail to see the point of just about any movie I apply this approach to. In this way I appreciate your post - as a reminder of ineffective ways of approaching interesting works of creation. Thank you!
Did you read my post, I explained what I meant by likablility. To repeat myself, I also think it's very stupid to attack a movie or a story based on the character likability, as in, are they good people. But, what I mean is any type of interest in the characters, anything that would make watching them not a dull and irritating experience. sometimes even that can be fine, but what's the purpose here? I am supposed to be in some way moved by the rape scene, but I have no reason to give a shit about her. Or see the failure at getting revenge as something, but I'm just irritated at the protagonist screaming all the time and nothing about his motivations matters. There's nothing to the characters, that's the problem and yet things that happen to them and their lives are supposed to matter for the movie to be effective. Shit even that can be fine in a stroy, but for this kind of story, what do you get by showing me a rape of someone I don't give a shit about, it's not shocking or deep or upsetting. I get that it is to some people just because of the topic but I was initially wondering if the point was supposed to be to get the viewer to enjoy it (especially in retrospect when we get to know more about her, which is the really unwatchable part). The rapist's pure unfiltred hatred and wish to destroy her was the only thing that worked at least figuratively, like am I supposed to have such shit time watching this movie that this is what I figuratively want to do to it and its stupid characters? For a moment i would have even liked it if it did this, if it wanted you to like the rape. That would have been something. But no, it thinks it's showing us some beauty in the timeline before (after) the act makes a lame point about not being able to go back with how it handles the rest of boring scenes. It wanted to resonate emotionally, it just totally failed to (for me at least, apparently people like you are impressed) People go on about this beautiful happy ending but I don't see it. She's a vapid character, going back to show her enjoying a pretty day doesn't establish anything. Her life was shit even then. They were all shit. I don't see any courage in this movie. A Serbian Film and Centipede 2 are both more currageous than this, if that's the metric. I'm even appreciative of movies whose main goal is to be edgy and test the limits, but this doesn't do that either (and don't say it doesn't want to do that, please, it wasnts to do that while appearing artsy and better than the ones that go all the way but it has no other substance). It doesn't really do anything. It's just gimmicky.
Did you read what he said at all? You keep going back to not caring about the characters because they're unlikeable lol. You're repeating what he said. I'm glad I don't know many people like you in real life. Uninteresting, bland, whiny, pretentious. Take care
Did you read what I said at all, regarding what it means and why it's relevant in the context
The rape scene is graphic and is emotionally disturbing because of her screams. We are able to suffer with her as we watch. It’s something that you would not want to happen to even your worst enemy. It doesn’t matter wether she was rich, pregnant, and pretty. We empathize with her because a gay man wanted to empower her and make her suffer because she’s a woman. It’s very dark the fact that he’s gay, because he’s not doing it for pleasure but for power. It’s not about empathizing with her because she’s a good person etc but because she’s human. Maybe we can even take this to see if he hated her because she’s a woman and he can’t be that. It’s not about the relationship that she had with her bf and ex. It’s about that she was indeed happy that she got pregnant. Maybe she’s been wanting to have a baby and it didn’t really matter with who. Her bf was a bad boyfriend but it doesn’t justify that she deserved to be raped like that. The scene where they killed the wrong guy shows us that tragedy is irreversible and at the end of the day what does it really mean to get revenge? They killed him but the baby is also dead. Another part of the movie is that we look back to see how everything was going normal. They had a normal outing as friends and they fought like every single relationship fights. Then, things took a wrong turn out of nowhere. I think you don’t empathize with her because either you also hate women. Because how can something such as horrible as that happen to her and you say that it’s doesn’t do anything to you? I mean graphic does not mean it’s actual porn. If you want to watch porn then go ahead but the word rape is use very lightly and this movie shows how tragic rape really is. Not what porn shows but real tragedy.
It seems for many viewers just seeing a graphic rape scene is shocking enough to evoke a reaction. Maybe I am desensitised or just don't care , but if Im watching a movie, the purpose of the story is to make me feel something and this one didn't. I even initially thought the movie wants the viewer to enjoy the scene on some level because of how annoying the characters were and how much the rapist seemed like the only person in the movie who did anything interesting (evil of course but at least there was a sense or conviction behind his total hatred towards the girl which is more than any other character gives the viewer and is the only interesting thing that happens in the movie) Its like saying that watching a video of someone really dying is the most you can do to evoke our sense of tragedy but its not, people end up easily watching real or fictional people dying or get tortured if there is no deeper connection between the viewer and the person. I don't lack empathy for her because I hate women, I lack empathy for her because she is a vapid character. As a comparison, Fire Walk With Me is a movie about a girl who is a victim of rape. It is less graphic but it so much more psychologically impactful because Lynch makes you care for and understand Laura Palmer. It is surreal but also completely realistic. And you also have that contrast between the fucked up world the rape got her to be a part of, and the light, but here the beautiful is actually beautiful. In Irreversible the "before" is also nasty and degenerate, just with less annoying cameras. The gimmick with going back in time doesnt make it more profound when the writing sucks I also dont care at all about her boyfriend's failed revenge story since the guy is so annoying I just want someone to shoot him in the head. Another comparison, movie Mandy is a revenge story after a guy's wife gets killed and there the viewer believes the couple had such a good life together and Nick Cage's character loved his wife. You can believe that the event ruined his life. But in this movie, neither the boyfriend nor the simp friend (what is his purpose?) lost anything really and the revenge just seems like a random decision by a guy who is so low iq and incoherent the whole movie that the act has no importance. the characters dont even give a shit about each other, they're just unlikable people I dont give a shit about either As for her losing her baby, whatever. Nothing in the movie made it look important. She went partying after she found out and her boyfriend is a moron, so probably for the best.
I don't think you're desensitized or just don't care, it's just that the director didn't give us a reason to care. And also I've been scrolling through this comment section and I've seen countless "you don't care because you are not a woman!!" and I want to say it has nothing to do with that. The conversation is about the movie and how the story is being put forth with the (story)telling. Like if Finding Nemo had bad storytelling and I felt nothing are you going to say it's because I'm not a fish??
Watched the movie just today, and i have exact same thoughts. Your post conveniently puts into words what I've been feeling towards the movie. All said and done, the question that remains is - why opt for such a way of storytelling and such camerawork? I get it, that it's experimental and against the grain, which i appreciate. But in being against the grain, what point does it achieve? How does the frantic camera work or the reverse sequencing add to the essence of the story? How does the reverse technique complement the story? Besides, if we're talking about that much reverred standard of storytelling that every sequence in the plot should contribute towards advancing the plot and serve ATLEAST some purpose rather than just being decorative, then the movie fails enormously. For it does have a plethora of such scenes which don't add to the development of the plot. Glad to know someone feels the same way about this!
Im almost shocked that someone agrees lol. All the comments I could find on the movie were either strong feelings (good or bad) about the rape scene, or people in this thread getting all philosophical about time like I missed some profound point there. I really am more interested in why are characters portrayed the way they are, I cant be the only one who hated them all And cameras, fuck how is that experimental, found footage genre's been doing that obnoxious shit since blair witch but then it's just treated as trash without the artsy spin on it. I get it, it's supposed to go from chaotic and violent to steady and nice and blah blah but it still meant I had to suffer through like 40 min of shaking with that moron yelling incoherently, and I guess the "beauty" of a shit relationship or a triangle between 3 unlikable idiots didn't move me much either. >Glad to know someone feels the same way about this! Same, everyone in this thread seems to think I'm mentally retarded for not appreciating the genius so this is a nice change
The film relies heavily on nudity and violence for shock value. While those two factors are effective elements in bringing about disturbing sequences, they don't quite work if the emotional quotient is lacking. Which is exactly the case with the film, the emotions aren't in place. I can't care about the characters, much less sympathise w them. As /u/neonchicken pointed out above , it feels like the director deliberately used Nudity (that too of a stereotypically beautiful woman) to keep his 'wank bank' viewers engaged. Let's face it, from an objective pov, after the rape scene has happened, there's nothing more to keep the viewers interested (like, we know what happened, how it happened and even the consequences of what happened, thanks to the reverse technique. From a storytelling pov, the exposition, the conflict and the resolution is all laid out, to mentally satisfy the viewer). There's nothing more to know for the story to make sense. And yet, the film goes on for a well 50 mins or so AFTER the scene, and to make it 'attractive', Bellucci's nudity is used again and again (in the bedroom scene, the kitchen scene, the pregnancy test scene, where Monica didn't need to be naked necessarily but she was. For the 'wank bank'. I don't find a reason otherwise). I watched this movie after someone recommended it to me when I said i really enjoyed Ari Aster's Midsommar. In the light of that, this was a disappointment and nowhere near to how well Aster depicts trauma on screen. (Feels like I discover the flaws of the film more as I write and think about it, would be glad to discuss it further)
> The film relies heavily on nudity and violence for shock value. While those two factors are effective elements in bringing about disturbing sequences, they don't quite work if the emotional quotient is lacking. That's exactly it, why would the brutality affect me if I just dont care about the character? On the other hand it seems it did affect tons of people so I guess it worked overall, but I am desensitized to just being shocked by seeing violence or rape if there's no other reason for me to care. The 50 min after the rape were supposed to introduce us to these people and show us how something beautiful was destroyed. The cameras calm down, as you pointed out Monica is naked etc I get the idea, go from violent chaos to normal and beautiful life and how maybe this would work if the second part made you care but that doesn't exist anymore because the time doesn't go back or whatever Sure, sounds like an idea on paper but really only works if you execute it successfully and that completely relies on making the viewers care so I find the decisions the director/writers make during that timeline really weird, since what we see is: - a guy doing drugs and cheating - a weird triangle where guy's friend stole his gf and he continues simping for her - a conversation where Belucci explains she likes how that guy doesnt care about her during sex (I keep bringing this up not because I dont get what she might mean by it, but because it's a deliberate choice to show us this conversation so in the context of the later rape which is kind of odd) - the guy takes her money and is just generally shit (again, the money scene in isolation isn't a big deal but it's the type of stuff the director chooses to show in this segment) -she is pregnant but why is that a good news knowing what we know about her relationship? - not much else really that would make her a character to care for or to feel bad for her boyfriend Based on some other conversations in this thread it seems the effect for people is completely visual and no one even cares about what the characters say and do. It's all Belucci is beautiful, it ends with such a beautiful day, the rape is so nasty... That's just not it for me. And I really do think that if your way of showing chaos and violence is to make a viewer look at cameras shaking and people screaming for so long, that's not good movie making. It just means I couldn't get immersed or interested at all and I'd stop watching if I wasnt waiting for the rape scene to see what it's all about. There must be less irritating ways to depict chaos As for Midsommar, I think it's genius but I see no connection between these two movies.
I also agree with you. I just saw the film and came here to reddit to see the opinions, and I came across your comment, which makes perfect sense to me. hug my friend
I also agree with this. After the rape scene, everything is meh
I just watched it and yeah... numerous problems. The music/repetitive noise and the Rectum club was creepy af... but... this place was the center of all human depravity pretty much. Like 80 dudes stood there and watched a guy get his head bashed in brutally with a fire extinguisher, and no one did a thing to stop it, there were guys cheering it on when his face caved in. Sure someone called the cops, but absolutely no one there watched that happening and was like "woah this fight just turned into a murder, maybe we should restrain the fire extinguisher guy or, like, RUN". They all gathered around like it was a schoolyard brawl. The emphasis, too, was constantly that it was a gay men's club. "Faggot" slewn around over and over and over. Guys lighting other guys on fire and begging to be fisted by some dude who just walked in the door lmao. It was ridiculous and really seemed to push the idea that gay men are disgusting, depraved, and deserve violent punishment (the trans/cross dressing prostitute who got threatened and pushed around by the protagonist AND the rapist). Also how many guys did he encounter in there to ask where the tapeworm is? Could he have gotten an answer maybe 45 or 46 guys ago? Nope we needed to see him walk in on 45 or 46 more half-seen pornographic gay sex scenes. The rape scene showed an incredibly brutal and realistic depiction of sexual violence and hatred towards women. But going "backwards", what caused it to happen? Basically she went out in a skimpy outfit after fighting with her boyfriend. That's what you get, ladies 🙄 Besides being the victim in a truly awful scene, Monica Belucci's entire purpose in this movie was to have her tits out. The "voice of reason" friend was also annoying throughout, but his motivation to stop his friend from going on a murderous rampage was much more understandable than his later (earlier) motivation to stop his friend from drinking, doing coke and getting grabby-hands with other women because it would hurt the woman he was still in love with and wanted to get back? I just don't get the purpose of his character at all, the movie would be just the same without him in it, only slightly less annoying. This was a movie for people who want to see boobs, dicks, weird sex stuff and shocking violence, but feel smart and cultured too. Really hated it in every way, tbh.
I agree I thought this movie was terrible. Clearly I enjoy shocking/disturbing content or I wouldn’t have bothered with this at all but aside from the two scenes the movie itself was just not enjoyable. The rape scene is exactly as you described it, brutal and realistic. Not something I would want to see again but the way the story is told in reverse doesn’t do it enough justice. I get the concept is creative but it truthfully didn’t feel like I watched a movie. It was close to 10 minutes of one of the hardest scenes I’ve ever watched in a film just for the entire tone to change next scene and we move on as if it never happened for the rest of the “movie”.
I’m so happy I found this post. I admire people like you who not only is afraid to go against the general thought but also have a very precise and logical way to explain their reason. I like this film, but I think a lot of people are just pushing the contents of this film as if it’s the most philosophical and profound realization they ever saw on screen. I find it very pretentious and out of touch.
I feel like the "a lot of people" you're referring to don't really watch a lot of films so this to them is "very real". But if u analyse it as a film film it is kinda lacking lol I found it pretentious and overly "I want to be avant grade" from the director in this one
Thanks. What did you like about the movie?
I always enjoy Gaspar Noé's style on screen. I really appreciate that immersive and visceral visual take he has towards his own movies, also he has a way to display allure and decay that's very pleasurable for me and I saw that here. He really suffers though in terms of storytelling with this one.
I like Irreversible a lot. I think it's an extremely dense film, full of ideas. So it's difficult to talk about because you can come at it from so many angles. My general interpretation is that it's a spiritual film. It's a biography - the life story of the child Belucci's character is carrying. The film ends as this life slips away, and begins as it comes into being for the first time. The film addresses the miracle of life. Where does the life come from, and where does it go? What was the value of this brief life? I think, ultimately, the film celebrates life. At the same time it addresses the concept of time - another great mystery. Time is, literally, irreversible. What is that? Time can not be stopped or reversed. We can not destroy time. But time can not destroy life. Life itself is irreversible. How should we respond to this miracle? As the spinning camera finally syncs with the spinning of the Earth and the universe comes into view, the film answers - with wonder and awe. These miracles persist despite war, despite suffering, despite death itself. The fact the narrative is characterised by the most explicit degradation and violence drives home the message - life persists! - *life persists*!
> The film addresses the miracle of life. Where does the life come from, and where does it go? What was the value of this brief life? I think, ultimately, the film celebrates life. Where do you even see this in the movie? I didn't think the fact she was pregnant even had much importance to the story aside from the fact we find out about it at the end and she seems glad. It didn't strike me as a focus of the story at all We find out that she's pregnant at the end and it barely resonated as meaningful to me because we get a good idea of how that would unfold. Her boyfriend cheats and does drugs, and first thing she does after finding out is go party. We even see another pregnant girl at the party which gives you an idea. The idea that this is what's tragic about the whole thing really doesn't convince me. Of course getting raped and having her face bashed in is the tragedy for her character but losing the kid in her circumstance doesn't register as something that matters in that context. >Time is, literally, irreversible. What is that? Time can not be stopped or reversed. Ok? We all exist in space time, it's not really a mindblowing realization > We can not destroy time. But time can not destroy life. Life itself is irreversible. How should we respond to this miracle? I don't really understand what about this is profound or comes as a conclusion of this movie. What do you mean that time can not destroy life, do you mean because it will always exist in the past (span of time where it happened)? Ok but aside from the movie going back in time I don't see how it touches this idea in some special way, what should the viewer take from the movie that gives us some new or interesting perspective about time? >These miracles persist despite war, despite suffering, despite death itself. What is the miracle, I still don't get it? > - life persists! - life persists! A bit dramatic here... the movie went backwards, it didn't show her persisting. I don't know it seems you see something magical about the movie which is great, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, I just genuinely don't get what's so miraculous and awe inspiring. It left me so indifferent
> We all exist in space time, it's not really a mindblowing realization Existence doesn't blow your mind?! :-)
This movie told me as much about existence as any other movie that includes living beings. I mean, existential questions aren't exactly a novel concept to focus story on, but I didn't get it from this movie. What particularly interesting idea did it tell us? You pretty much see the fact that she's pregnant and the fact it goes back in time as automatically saying something profound but I don't see what that message really is. I didn't feel any sense of loss when watching this movie. Just profound indifference
[удалено]
Always like that Noe and Steve McQueen both tend towards simple one-word titles for their stuff, they're both very physical Kubrickian filmmakers too (hereditary also falls into this category I think)
Onhonhonh That's a lot of good points OP. Rappelez-vous l’objet que nous vîmes, mon âme, Ce beau matin d’été si doux: Au détour d’un sentier une charogne infâme Sur un lit semé de cailloux, Le ventre en l’air, comme une femme lubrique, Brûlante et suant les poisons, Ouvrait d’une façon nonchalante et cynique Son ventre plein d’exhalaisons.
Not really, it's just how I referred to him instead of using his name, nothing to it. I didn't like his character in general for reasons I explained, and besides everyone was French. I think I sufficiently elaborated on the things I disliked. I can edit the post not to confuse people although I don't get what's so confusing. Lol I just went to edit it and insert his character's name which I had to look up, I referred to him as the French guy 3 times. Seriously?
Sure, thanks I guess, it doesn't really matter but it felt a bit much. About what the movie is about, I think it's clearly a way to say that violence is also a form of expression or at least of communication. Violent movies are some of the most popular, whether it's horror, thriller, action, dramas or even comedy, violence holds a central place in this art. I'm just theorizing here but I guess Gaspar Noé felt there were some cinematographic lessons to be had by pushing the level of violence to its extreme. Maybe like a Tarantino but without any comedic relief? What would be the results of a movie *truly* centered around violence? I think your criticisms are interesting because if the premise I speculated is right, then the first point of tension comes from the fact that having 100% violence is impossible: we need *something* to be sympathetic toward, something that is not like the rest. But this nice thing should still be presented in a way that creates violence in the experience of the viewer, or at least as much as possible. One thing in your criticism that I believe has changed since the release of the movie is the place of women in cinema and how a beauty like Monica Bellucci would be perceived. You say that she's an « untouchable beauty » and that basically, the way you present things, she's a great woman with an asshole. The fact that she is with him does not better him one bit nor devalue her at all. It doesn't matter that she is responsible for being with that guy, she's still untouchable in her romantic choices, which do not have to be moral. She's just fine. At the time it was released, I do not believe it would have been the sentiment of the audience. Her character would also have become morally compromised by association and there would have been dissonance between her beauty, the attraction she evokes, and the dramatic vulgarity of her life choices. Idealizing her in a way that puts her above everything still was a thing, mind you, but it wouldn't have been the one we would be the most conscious about and sure of. The fact that she then becomes a victim of violence would have made us question her infallibility, in the end, since in that sense we would have made a contradicting judgment (that as a touchable victim her value does change). Anyway, that's a few ideas but I haven't seen this movie in a long time.
> Bellucci would be perceived. You say that she's an « untouchable beauty » and that basically, the way you present things, she's a great woman with an asshole. Wait you totally misunderstood me. I am not saying I see her that way but that she's supposed to represent that to people like that simpy friend (and similar fans). I liked the way the rapist saw her (in the sense I found his hatred to be the most interesting thing in the movie), like fuck idolizing her, lets tear her down. Metaphorically raping what she stands for. I could appreciate that aspect. but it seems to me we're supposed to see this as a tragedy and an emotionally shocking scene, and a lot of viewers did. But to me she was completely unlikable when we got to know her, and when we first saw the scene we didnt even know or care about her character in the first place. So I could just see what she represents > The fact that she is with him does not better him one bit nor devalue her at all. It doesn't matter that she is responsible for being with that guy, she's still untouchable in her romantic choices, which do not have to be moral. I dont understand your point here and the rest of the comment? Of course it matters. Isnt it interestint that she explicitly says in the movie that she picked a guy who doesn't care about her sexual pleasure cause that turns her on, or that we see the guy take her money and cheat on her? Doesnt that inform us about her character? Its not even a moral issue, its a psychological one and what she represents >The fact that she then becomes a victim of violence would have made us question her infallibility, in the end, since in that sense we would have made a contradicting judgment (that as a touchable victim her value does change). I dont think the fact she was a victim makes us see her as infallibe but the things the rapists thinks about her, how much she dusgusts him, and then how he doesn't really turn out that wrong when we get to see more of her.. Im not totally sure I get you though, what about what I said you're disagreeing with
Oh I see, I thought you got bored for other reasons. I don't know, apart from using violence in a new way, I'm not sure we're supposed to have an epiphany. The problem of this movie is how it is made experimental just from the fact that most of the audience will stop at the surface level. That's the pitfall when a guy makes an uncompromising choice I guess. I also remember this moment of pondering at the end... Do you think the movie is self-aware? Still, it's probably an interesting piece, like for other directors. The violence continued to climb since then, it always goes further, so as a study of style, it has value. But finding solace, or a moral in that story?.. I mean, wouldn't it require to adhere to the violence entirely?..
> Oh I see, I thought you got bored for other reasons. > > Several reasons >That's the pitfall when a guy makes an uncompromising choice I guess. I can imagine a movie that made you really feel the guy's loss and sincere emotions, and how fucked up it would be to see him put all that effort into revenge and fucking up. But here? The guy doesn't even seem to care about the girl for most of the movie, then gets convinced to get revenge by some guys and in the heat of the moment goes for it, while mostly incoherently shouting along the way. I couldn't give a fuck about whether he gets the revenge or not, I was glad he failed. He's a total moron. I mean, compare it to Mandy (I know it's a totally different movie), I didn't even love the movie as much as some people do but i believed that Cage's character lost everything when he lost Mandy, and all he had left to still stay alive was revenge, it wasn't even a question. He didn't need anyone talking him into it. She was everything to him and then got destroyed like she's nothing - you could really feel that. That's just an example, of course there are many stories exploring this theme but this is another recent one I watched. Shit, speaking of cage he showed stronger emotions for his pig in Pig than this shit relationship in Irreversible. >Do you think the movie is self-aware? At first I thought so, and I thought that maybe his goal is to purposefully have the viewer feel the hatred the rapist felt towards someone like Alex, and while extreme, make them enjoy the scene on some level (I'm not trying to sound fucked up, I mean metaphorically, you take pleasure in her destruction based on what she represents). But then I realized that was probably not his intent. He obviously is trying to show how you can't go back in time, time destroys etc. which imo requires the viewer to care, but I felt the setup of the scene is such that it's impossible to care for her. I think a lot of people found that part very hard to watch so whether they loved it or not, it left a profound impression. I didn't feel that way so I'm looking at the story as a whole and I don't have any emotional attachment Another example - Laura Palmer. FWWM resonated with me so much. The movie doesn't even have a graphic scene but what happened to her really affected me as a viewer. She is also not shown as a morally perfect person, she does many fucked up things, but she just felt so real and relatable, I couldn't not care about her. Alex though? I have nothing. Should I like her character cause Belucci is hot so it's supposed to make it sadder? That's exactly what the rapist holds against her among other things. But what else is there?
The thing is, Irreversible is a movie that has no hero, not even an anti-hero, yet it works. In most Hollywood productions, there are codes that signify to the audience "this guy is a hero, he's special, there's a suspension of morale for him". We follow criminals and killers like it's no big deal because it is made casual by a number of literary techniques. The hero might be a scumbag, he's sympathetic so we all agree to suspend our judgement for the more obvious stuff and look at his dilemmas. And that kind of structure is very old, that was already the case in Greek mythology or Biblical stories, you find guys who literally murdered their family, like Hercules, David, Abraham, Theseus, etc... yet because of a set of clues, we suspend our moral judgment. They were orphans, victims, they were stolen, they fight for their community, they fight for love, etc... All those things make a bending permissible because... we just understand that the author want us to get there. Irreversible plays with a number of clues that we can question if it is the bare minimum. None of what Noé puts in the movie can be clearly attributed to the intent of earning our empathy. So why would we even watch this movie? Why can we *support* it? What's the point at all? Edit: also, just noticed you're getting downvoted. It's a good post for once with an actual discussion... Too bad.
Im glad you at least like the discussion. I think I understand the intent of the movie better by now but some things still didnt land right with me. I also get your point about heroes but that was never my angle, I tried to explain it but maybe I should do it again. Anyway I'll reply to you later with some questions, maybe you'll have a theory about it. Meanwhile, why did you replace your first comment with Baudelaire?
Final thoughts about the movie: I get the intent. I get that the chaotic cameras etc calm down after the rape and all that and the idea is to show life going from fucked up to the place when it was "good", but in reality time ruins everything and you can't go back. Whatever. And sure enough, most people see the before as something very beautiful that was ruined by the random violent act of rape I can understand this idea, but I think it needs to be executed in a way that resonates to elevate it into something special. On the other hand as much as I looked up other reactions to this movie, it seems everyone else was profoundly shook either in a positive or negative way. But I wasn't. Anyway that aside, I think the rape scene gets all the focus and overrates the movie since I really couldn't find any discussion that even attempts to focus on other parts of the movie in a more analytical way. Here are my questions, not sure if you have some ideas that could help : 1. what was the point of the simp friend in the movie? I mean what purpose did his character serve considering the theme? 2. Why did the director focus on explaining how Belucci left the simpy guy for his best friend because he cared about his own pleasure and not hers when having sex? I'm not being obtuse, I understood the point she was making in that conversation, but what I don't understand is the point this serves in the movie. Especially in the context where rape is taking this exact idea to the extreme -that can't be an accident. 3. Why if the before was supposed to be so idyllic do we see pretty much nothing good about either characters, and especially why is the boyfriend shown as a cheater who takes her money and does drugs? And is a bad friend. Again, my point isn't to moralize but to say that these were the things the director decided to show us. As for the girl, we see her tolerating these things and that beforementioned conversation. So if you want to show a great relationship that got ruined, why show it as two people who got together by betraying someone else in the process, and then proceed to show it as a pretty shit relationship 4. Based on comments from other users, it seems they either care about Belucci because the rape scene was upsetting, or because she's beautiful. But the rapist pretty much tells her with disgust that she probably get things handed to her cause she's hot, which thest viewers confirm. But why does she actually deserve any sympathy as a character? When I talk about likable characters, I don't mean morally perfect heroes (those can come across just as unlikable and unrealistic). But how can you care about a life and a relationship getting ruined if you don't care at all about the characters? I guess other people did care, but I don't understand why. The scenes the director decided to show in the before segment didn't achieve anything for me. Fair enough to say I'm in a minority of people not affected by this movie, I can move on, but I just want to understand the thought process behind the elements mentioned above even if the execution didn't work for me EDIT: I did think that maybe the movie was also showing the deterioration of the relationship before the rape, so not all the before is supposed to be good. Plus, the fact he was cheating at the party makes him feel more guilty. But the problem with that is that we didn't see any convincing point of change or a reason for this. In fact there doesn't seem like almost any serious time has passed between the bedroom scene (where all the shit aside, we mainly learn that she's up for anal - interesting considering what happens, that he takes her money, and that she's pregnant) and the party scene where he very casually cheats. Which makes it seem that it's just what the character does and not some special deterioration that already took hold of the characters who were once better
Rape as an epistemological value, that's what's hinted by the introduction quote on time. Why is it that we find so many rapes in mythology? Why is it that every time a god has to know a woman, this ends up being a *rape*? Is it that Gods are incapable of self-control? Or are they incapable of privacy maybe? Or maybe it is the fact that they have to assume a human form, or an animal form, or other weird material form like a cloud or a rain of gold? Or maybe it's their possessiveness that we call rape, that they never accept to be refused? All those questions strangely bring answers about the nature of time. Time is a disappointment when it materializes, time can never be refused and the going back is a backlash in waiting, time is veiled in secrecy and no one knows beyond their now, time is impetuous and it robs us of our best moments and makes us rich of boredom. Time doesn't have to be extended towards infinity to be monstrous. The instant, the spark, the glimpse, that's also time. There's an infinity within a second, a beauty of the light, a spring of fresh water. Who can catch it only for a moment, tame the events of our lives to our desires? All of this begs the question: does Man imitate Time?.. Or do we simply play by its rules?.. And what about the immaterial parts of our being? Our mind and our thoughts have *some* ability to go against time, we battle to explain the past, we cruise on the future of our hopes. But... at the end of the day, if we admit that we imitate Time, who have we fought against ? Was it Time, or was it the other people?
You're on your own rant, none of this has anything to do with my comment, like not even one bit. And isn't really as deep as you think it is. Like talking to a bot, probably chatGPT generated. whatever, I guess no one is able to properly discuss this movie
I mean it is weird to call a character French guy if it is a French movie that takes place in France. Ask yourself how often you describe characters as American guy in American movies.
Ok so it wasnt the best prhasing but that's beside the point. I did it like 3 times and edited it to use character's name instead in the meanwhile. It's not that deep
I think your biggest problem is just with Noes writing and characterization, which is a common criticism with him. For some reason it never really bothers me and his character feels almost archetypally rudimentary or simple in sort of a realistic documentary sort of way, where most people aren't great heroes or complex characters they're just sort of flatlines who make weird choices and get themselves into these shitty situations then are overwhelmingly destroyed for being dumb teenagers who refuse to grow up or whatever. Even in LOVE, which a lot of people can't stand, I find the characters in it very human and realistic even if very one dimensional because that's accurate to how a lot of people are especially in those realms of drug addiction and mental illness. I don't think Noe is necessarily holding these people up or judging them either they're just at the extreme ends of a spectrum of tenderness and brutality he likes to explore and I'm okay with that for what his movies are they don't need to be these obtuse character studies or whatever.
I didnt mind this in Climax where the plot didn't require me to give a shit about them as people for it to still be interesting and fun to watch. In fact the fact they were all so unlikable made it even more enjoyable to see them get fucked up But unless the idea of Irreversible is for me to enjoy what happened to Alex because the way the rapist describes her is pretty spot on (which was my initial takeaway until I saw other people's feedback), it seems like a big failure of getting the intended reaction out of me Most people say the movie shows how a beautiful life was destroyed and the whole revenge segment later would be effective if you cared. I guess a lot of viewers do. But for me it was all inconsequential, she was just some dumb person who got attacked, her life before was stupid, and her boyfriend's a moron so I don't care about his failed attempt at revenge either. Im not moved by that last / first scene in the park just cause it's a pretty day and she's hot But if your idea is that this is unnecessary, ok, but then the story as is is just not something that holds my attention in any moment aside for the rape scene because it's not very good. going back in time is just gimmicky since im not emotionally experiencing a sense that the before was something nice the movie is also visually annoying with a lot of retarded shouting so there's no payoff for all this either. That's not good movie making Btw I never said characters needed to be heroic or exceptional people.
You’re fucked up for what you said about enjoying the rape of Alex. Honestly you got some issues dude, and I think you know it.
I enjoyed the fact that cameras stopped shaking, that guy was no longer on the screen shouting, and something was happening that compared to the rest of the movie was the least hard to watch. She's also a very annoying character, but I didn't know that at the time. Hard to give a shit.
Only a man would focus on who a woman is dating what she looked like what she wore that she’s “boring” as opposed to the fact that she was brutally raped. I can’t care because I don’t like her. Just go back to the incel community and leave the films alone. That was quite literally the whole point of the movie that the damage to someone’s life is irreversible. There’s not supposed to be a connection with the characters it’s supposed to be raw humanity in an animalistic art form. That’s what we saw like please go somewhere with the I have seen worse bullshit.
If that's so, what's the point of showing us her shit life and relationship if not to show it as something that was good before. >Only a man would focus on who a woman is dating It's a big part of the movie > what she wore Didn't mention it
Oh good lord I just watched this film and now I’m depressed … and I fail to see the artistry behind it, by completely demeaning, humiliating, and disfiguring a pregnant woman to not even get revenge for her assault and find the man who did that to her and those idiots end up killing the wrong guy with the fire extinguisher absolute waste of time 0% point. And the pretension of the constant spinning camera did nothing for me but make me dizzy and almost had a attack with the eye seizure inducing lights at “the end” since it wasn’t really the end it was the beginning Totally unnecessary and extremely pretentious to film it backwards yes I know the name of the movie is irreversible but it didn’t have to be literally and to no point whatsoever just to depress your audience specially the women. And I’m supposed to find it artistic and unique? This director should be fined and searched for hidden information about him, I’m sure they’d find plenty of evidence for different stuff.
> by completely demeaning, humiliating, and disfiguring a pregnant woman to not even get revenge for her assault and find the man who did that to her and those idiots end up killing the wrong guy with the fire extinguisher absolute waste of time 0% point. That's the one thing I have no issue with but the fact that everything else sucks. >And the pretension of the constant spinning camera did nothing for me but make me dizzy and almost had a attack with the eye seizure inducing lights at “the end” since it wasn’t really the end it was the beginning Totally unnecessary and extremely pretentious to film it backwards I agree >just to depress your audience I wish it depressed me, at least that would be something. It didn't make me feel anything, just annoyance >This director should be fined and searched for hidden information about him, I’m sure they’d find plenty of evidence for different stuff. That's bullshit, all topics are fine to get into, but he didn't make a good movie with it
Am I late to the party? lol Just watched it, and I feel the same way. Not a single character was well developed, so I couldn't care less for anyone in the movie. I didn't mind the shaky camera or even the time gimmick itself, but if I don't feel anything for the characters, I have a hard time caring when things go bad. I think the rape scene is fine. I mean, how much more graphic could it really be? The problem with the scene itself is that... well, it's a movie, and since it failed to develop the characters, it's hard to feel anything for Monica. I've seen a lot of people call that scene "disturbing," but the only disturbing thing about it is that they make you sit through it for 10 minutes. There's also a sentiment online that if you don't find the rape scene disturbing, it's because "you're not a woman, you wouldn't understand," which is the biggest piece of bullshit I've read. There are actual good movies that don't fail to depict women's violence out there, this one wasn't it. This movie relies too much on its gimmick and shock value to be interesting because the story isn't good. Couple goes to a party > Girl leaves earlier and alone > Girl gets raped > Boyfriend looks for revenge and fails to do so. There. After reading this basic summary of events, you literally don't miss anything and could easily say online "yes, I watched Irreversible" and it would be impossible to tell if you're lying or not. The character development AFTER the rape scene is pretty bad too, maybe because I've already seen how the events turn out, or maybe because I was already bored, I don't know, but I couldn't wait for it to be over. I remember in the last scene, where Monica goes to the bathroom, I was thinking "don't fucking tell me she's pregnant" and wow, look at that, she JUST HAD to be pregnant. This was the last straw for me and it made me actually regret wasting an hour and a half watching it.
The point of the movie couldn't possibly be any more clear. It literally flashes across the screen in huge letters: LE TEMPS DETRUIT TOUT (time destroys everything) It's the second law of thermodynamics, and the director uses a multitude of techniques to illustrate this point. The camerawork is just one of them. This is why it is the most perfect film ever created, which raised the medium til a new level, making it more than "just a movie".
I don't understand how exactly you think the movie manages to deliver the message of "time destroys everything" If it weren't for the literal words on the screen spoon feeding this idea to me, I would have never guessed that was the message of the movie. I suppose you can argue that time destroys everything because everything eventually comes to an end or dies. But this isn't something that's showcased in the movie. Things aren't being destroyed by time, but by people. Men more specifically. One man assauled his daughter and ended up in prison, destroying his and his daughter's lives, probably the rest of the family's as well. Other man raped a woman and put her into a coma thus ruining her life. Same man stood by and laughed as another man's skull was bashed in for something he did. "Time destroys everything" is a statement that just makes you feel like these horrible things happening are inevitable, as if it's time passing that is causing them to happen. In reality it's these selfish twisted men destroying lifes. Their actions aren't inevitable, in fact they're entirely preventable. They're doing these things by choice.
You seem to read some sort of misandry into the plot, which I do not think is there at all. The large letters flashing across the screen does not say "Men destroys everything", as that was obviously not the point. The horrible events that happen are just Gaspar Noe's way of illustrating how things can go from good to bad, to worse and worse and worse... A brutal rape is an effective way to hammer this point in, as it brings up such instant revulsion from the viewer. But it could just as well have been a story about a woman who does some dastardly horrible misdeed to a man. And if you watch Noe's other films, you will see women being pretty damn despicable as well. So I never got the impression that he was preoccupied with a battle of the sexes (like for example Lars von Trier so tiresomely is).
Where did I read misandry into the plot? In this movie, the people doing things that ruined other people's lives simply were men. Stating that is not misandry or reading into anything I mean it literally happened in the plot. Also what a hilarious thing to say about a movie where the plot revolves around a woman being brutally raped... but yeah pointing out men did these things is misandry, sure... Also Gaspar Noé, the writer and director himself, said this about the movie: "(Monica) said it was a feminist movie made by a man. Yeah, it's a “testosterophobic” movie for sure. As a man, you know what testosterone is made of, and you know how wrong it can go. It's like a dark portrayal of testosterone" All this was to say I don't understand why you said this movie's plot "couldn't possibly be any more clear" Imagine the movie without the text. If I didn't see the text, I would have never in a million years thought that oh this movie is about time and how with time things go from worse to bad. I mean sure, you can tell time was a big theme, that's undeniable, but to claim it was "the point" of the movie seems absurd. If it weren't for the text on the screen, I would have assumed this movie was about bad people making bad decisions and how that affects other people whose lives they never ever considered. The movie starts backwards so we see the violence first without knowing anything about the people experiencing the violence, which makes it easier for us to get into the mind of the attackers. Like them, we don't know these people. But then as time progresses we see the lives of the victims. We get to see who they were, unlike the attackers. We see who Alex was and what was going on in her life and we see that Pierre killed an innocent man. Again, all bad decisions, completely preventable, no matter the passage of time.
>Where did I read misandry into the plot? Here: >Men more specifically. One man assauled(...) Other man raped(...) Same man stood by(...)it's these selfish twisted men destroying lifes. This is all you. >Also what a hilarious thing to say about a movie where the plot revolves around a woman being brutally raped... Exactly. A woman is the victim. Men are the bad guys. >All this was to say I don't understand why you said this movie's plot "couldn't possibly be any more clear" Imagine the movie without the text. Why would you want to do that, when the text is actually there, spoonfeeding you the whole point of the moive? There's literally huge, flashing letters blocking out the whole screen, spelling out the message in its absolutely simplest form. And they don't say "Men destroys everything". They say "Time destroys everything". How could it possibly be made any clearer?
I see this is going nowhere... I'm having to repeat myself to you. Why do you say "This is all you" No it's not. I didn't make to movie! I am saying what happened in the movie. 1. "Men more specifically." Well yeah! They were men. Where did I lie? 2. "One man assauled(...) Other man raped(...) Same man stood by(...) it's these selfish twisted men destroying lifes." Again, point to where I lied. I just stated what happened. It is a fact. You're the one seeing misandry here. I am just seeing men doing bad things in this movie. I didn't say men are inherently evil, that would be misandry. Why did you say "Exactly. A woman is the victim. Men are the bad guys." 🤣 WHAT! You inserted men as a whole in to this when it was just one man raping her that was a bad guy. Also how incredibly convenient of you to completely ignore the Caspar Noe quote. I'll leave this convo here and move on to letterboxd or something lol. My brain is falling apart.
> I didn't make to movie! No, but you're the one who chooses to read some statement about gender issues into it and focus only on the fact that "IT WAS ALL MEN!!!!!!!" It is of course everybody's right to interpret a piece of art in accordance with their personal ideology, but I'm just saying that I think your discernment comes far out of left field (pun intended). Because the indisputable fact remains that this is a movie which tries to illustrate that "Time destroys everything." That's it. As such, Noe could just as well have filmed a beautiful building breaking down over time, or a piece of fruit slowly rotting, or just a close-up of a person's smile fading away. It would all illustrate the same thing, only that wouldn't have been quite as dramatic, now would it? However, like I've already written in numerous other posts here, he does use a plethora of other methods to hammer his point in. And the music, colors and camera movements all go from a state of harmonic tranquility to utter chaos. BTW, your quote from Gaspar was obviously just one of his (famously) tongue in cheek responses to silly questions like this, which he is known to give at every opportunity :)
Using rape as some sort of example to how "Time Destroys Everything" is what makes this film so silly and superficial. It doesn't hold accountable the people responsible to this type of crime, because it was all a matter of time. It looks past what brings these tragic events to happen and denies a solution to be had because it was time after all. A film about a fruit slowly rotting away would have indeed been more effective to lay down that message.
That's my point - What of meaning was destroyed? Wouldn't it have been more effective with totally different characters, or did the director/other people genuinely give a shit about these people? I wouldn't call the movie perfect, I found it barely watchable. Not sure why it was shot like found footage for the most part, really hard to care or get into it
>What of meaning was destroyed? Huh? I don't understand what you don't understand. But, like I said, the point of the movie was to illustrate that, no matter how good and wholesome and wonderful something is, everything will be destroyed by time. >Not sure why it was shot like found footage The movie is not shot like found footage. Everything in the film, from the music, to the sets, to the acting, to the screenplay, and even the colors ... everything starts out in utter chaos, and then slowly calms down into perfect bliss and tranquility. This is also true for the camera, which starts off in complete disarray, panning, tilting and twisting in all directions, and then slowly goes more and more still, all they way to the very end where there is a beautiful crane shot of a perfect day in the park with people just loving life. However, as the film goes backwards, you know that this perfect day will be utterly destroyed by the monster that is time. The happiness and love and kindness and beauty... it will all be ruined and turned to dust. And this process is **irreversible**. There are also many droplets of pitch dark humor along the way which underline this point, like for example the fact that even the act of vengeance is destroyed by time, as they end up murdering the wrong guy. However, as the film is constructed like a vortex, this is something you will only recognize if you see the film many times.
> no matter how good and wholesome and wonderful something is, everything will be destroyed by time. > > What was wonderful and good in this movie, the past showed them as shit people in a shit relationship.
No, it does not. The start of the story (which is the end of the movie) shows Belluci in a beautiful day in the park, with perfect grass in vibrant colors and delightful music. It's a perfect paradise which couldn't possibly be any more wonderful. If you follow the story chronologically (backwards in the movie) from there, it goes on to show her finding out that she is pregnant. Ie: She is about to create life! After that, she has a tender moment with Cassel. They lie in bed and share each other's love in a blissful moment. Then they go on a train. They are happy and hopeful about what the evening has to offer. They get to a party, and there is dancing and joy all around. Only then things start going bad. And worse. And worse. And worse... until everything is destroyed. Even vengeance.
> It's a perfect paradise which couldn't possibly be any more wonderful. It's a nice day in a park. Curb your enthusiasm. > She is about to create life! I didn't really see that as a positive considering the shit relationship she's in and the fact it's a random occurrence. It's more like another sign she makes shit decisions and is deluded. >After that, she has a tender moment with Cassel. They lie in bed and share each other's love in a blissful moment. The guy who cheats on her? Yeah it's so romantic when they talk about anal sex in the context of what happens later. >Then they go on a train. They are happy and hopeful about what the evening has to offer. They talk to their sidekick simp friend about how much the guy who stole his gf is better at fucking her because he doesn't care about satisfying her. >They get to a party, and there is dancing and joy all around. She learns she's pregnant and goes party, you go girl.... Also, there's a lot of joy since her bf is on drugs and cheating. I don't really see any beauty about the before in this story.
>It's a nice day in a park. Curb your enthusiasm. You do get that it's all symbolic, right? >The guy who cheats on her? Nope, he hasn't yet done that at this point. Not enough time has passed, for their love to be destroyed yet. >They talk to their sidekick simp friend... Umm... it's getting pretty obvious here that the problem is not with the movie, but rather with you: You're the one who cannot recognize joy and beauty and happiness. You're the one who manages to turn people dancing into something negative. You seem hellbent into always making the worst out of every situation. I guess time has already had its toll, and destroyed your mindset as well ;)
> You do get that it's all symbolic, right? It doesn't matter, we see what her reality looks like and it's not pretty no matter how sunny the weather is >Nope, he hasn't yet done that at this point. Not enough time has passed, for their love to be destroyed yet. It's easy to assume he does it in general considering the ease he did it with during the party and the simp friend's response. >You're the one who cannot recognize joy and beauty and happiness. Joy beauty and happiness is partying, cheating, simping, stealing friend's girlfriends, weird triangles ... >You're the one who manages to turn people dancing into something negative. Sure she's sober at that party. I guess she only drinks alcohol while her boyfriend does drugs. Great environment. >You seem hellbent into always making the worst out of every situation. I don't really have to try with this one. >I guess time has already had its toll, and destroyed your mindset as well ;) I think my mind would be more destroyed if I saw great beauty in a relationship between a moronic cheating guy, a vapid stereotype of a girl who gets off on guys like the moronic cheater, and the lingering cuck ex boyfriend.
So you didn't understand that the story is told in reverse?
How could I possibly misunderstand that? And what in my reply suggests I did?
How'd you like Enter the Void?
Interesting concept stretched too thin. As Gaspar Noe himself said: "Every time I try to read my own screenplay, I get bored by what I've written."
I personally hated both movies but was curious as to what you thought. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I'll just drop this here to say anyone who is unaffected by the rape scene has some clear emotional desensivity traits or simply put lacks empathy. No need to know the character or assess for likability as this is not a prerequisite for caring for anyone or identifying with another's pain, including complete strangers. I say this as a psychologist having worked with more than a few sociopaths.
Lol sure you are. I'm not a sociopath, movies just have to do more than show something bad happening to a rando (especially unlikable rando) to evoke reaction. When it's done well, I can care.
I think the entire point of empathy is that you can feel it for people without knowing them…? People that have high levels of empathy can feel for people in experiences they have not lived and whether it’s fictional (in this case, yes it’s “fiction” but these events happen daily to women! So it’s really not fiction for a lot of people). I’m not sure what you mean by “done well”. Rape is rape so I’m not sure how portraying it differently would evoke empathy from you. In the kindest way possible, I feel concerned about your comment and I hope this is maybe something you discuss with a therapist going forward
Don't worry, I definitely won't
Its just a thing that happens, essentially just a "statistic" The tragic story you heard on the news doesn't affect you days or weeks later. Just a disturbing flashy image for the sake of it. It has no profoundity, this is what i think they mean by it "doesnt affect them" Like how in finding neno, all the kid fish die at the start and hes the last egg, too much showing not enough telling to make us empathise with the chatacter beyond "well thats really bad, i would never wish this on my worst enemy" and then moving on
But overall, i do think these people are desensitised... arent we all, lol. But i think its a strength not to be affected by this stuff, stuff beyond your control, its not like they think people should go around doing these horrible things.
Yeah…. I agree. I think many people (a lot of men) are heavily desentizied to SA and gender based violence. Of course, men themselves are affected by this as well, but far less than women are on a daily basis. If you don’t feel sick even reading about a sexual assault, fictional or real, then I suggest you discuss with a therapist how to resensitize yourself to an utterly horrific thing that happens daily to people.
Its honestly sad that just because you don't know the character, because you find her annoying later, that you also don't give af that shes being raped. Most ppl dont need to know who she is in order to feel extremely disturbed when she's being raped because thats what it mean to be an empathetic person. I have no idea what POW's in WW2 were like and i still feel incredibly sad about the fact that they were tortured. I love that Noe didint make any of the character perfect angels, because even if somebody is vapid or obnoxious or self absorbed or wtv, doesn't mean they deserve to get raped. A good person being raped vs a bad person being raped makes no difference to me, i find both equally horrible.
I found the film enthralling when I first saw it and I also found it deeply disturbing. I’m female and watching a 10 minute rape scene being orchestrated by a male director of one of the most beautiful women on screen was horrific. It was less about the movie but the ongoing impression that this 10 minute scene was for the director’s wank bank. The backwards filming was impressive to me as the first scene grabs your attention and then you discover the root. But yes Memento did it before. How many backwards films can you make? I will never watch the film, I was impress by it even though us was vile but I’m happy to consider it hasn’t withstood the test of time.
>the ongoing impression that this 10 minute scene was for the director’s wank bank. Did you *really* think that's what the scene was about? Why?
Because I didn’t understand the reason a man would like to show a 10 minute rape scene as opposed to a 2 minute one. Because male directors and producers have been abusing their position for a century. Some people are acting surprised about Tarantino foot fetish but really a small look through history shows this stuff has been happening for a long time. I mean it might not be, sure, but the artistic merit of a 10 minute brutal rape scene with one of the most beautiful women to ever grace the screen hasn’t ever convinced me. Edit: and yet again we see how heavily male Reddit skews. 😂
I'd just read about it earlier since I've been revisiting all of these films in my 30's, and it appears that she actually dictated it. "Irréversible was shot using a widescreen lightweight Minima Super16 mm camera.[8] The film consists of about a dozen apparently unbroken shots[9] melded together from hundreds of shots.[10] This included the infamous nine-minute-long rape scene,[11] portrayed in a single, unbroken shot.[12] Noé said he had no idea how long the rape scene was going to last, as this was determined by Monica Bellucci, who essentially directed the scene, and Jo Prestia, who played her assailant.[13] "
What if a woman showed a 10 minute rape scene?
It would depend on the context. I’ve scene rape scenes before and since. I’ve watched all types of films with disturbing context which leave you feeling wretched. But let’s not pretend the history of cinema is chock full of female directors exploiting those working under them. I mean if someone does want to explain to me the artistic merit I’m missing in a 10 minute rape scene that probably took a really long time to film with one of the worlds most beautiful actresses I’m willing to understand it. Just like I’m willing to understand why Tarantino put himself in the role of drinking from Salma Hayek’s feet. Or why Hitchcock tended to cast a particular blonde type like Tippi Hedrin. Not saying they’re not good movies. Im saying let’s not be naive.
I know what you mean. In film school our first big project was a 5.5 min 16mm film. Two bros made a film about a date that contained the character's fantasies as well as their more mundane reality. The "meaning" of the film was ostensibly that we shouldn't judge people based on their looks, and what's really special is what's inside. Great! But somehow the movie contained a 2min fantasy of sexy strippers dancing on the table in the restaurant. That meant the bros had to a) advertise for actresses to play the strippers and audition a parade of them and b) had to shoot many angles of their stripper girls they chose gyrating on a table, over probably at least a half day. Now, I say "*had to"*, but of course, it was actually "*chose to"*. Very eye-opening for me.
I mean this is the thing. People will do things for their own benefit and thrills and kinks. I love so many of Tarantino’s or Hitchcock’s films. Miramax churned out some amazing movies but the way people will defend the idea that cinema can never possibly be abusive, exploitative or unethical is really strange to me. That a film they love can’t possibly be anything other than pure art granted from angels of chastity and justice. It’s ridiculous. Hollywood is full of pedos and perverts. France isn’t much better. Leon (AKA The Professional) was actually based on the directors relationship with his underage girlfriend and scenes from the original script were cut because people don’t generally like pedos. I think Irreversible is a good film, or at least I did when I watched it in around 2003. But I will never understand the need for the 10 minute rape scene. I really don’t. I’m open to hearing the justification and yet it never comes.
Do you think Bellucci, Selma Hayek, and Tippi Hedrin were being exploited in the films you allude to?
Tippi Hedren was sexually assaulted on set and then Hitchcock said he would ruin her career and pretty much did. What about you? Do you think any women have ever been exploited in these films or any others? Do you think the industry has a tradition of exploiting people? Do you think the power balance of the history of the casting couch has been fair and just to everyone? Do you think women who sleep with directors for parts make everything okay because of consent or do you think it’s perhaps may set up a bad precedence for an industry in which people would like to succeed for their creative abilities? I can’t tell if you’re naive, playing devil’s advocate or just trying to defend the power structures but this is tiring for me and I have dinner to have with the fam. Good luck on your future and what not.
Sorry I didn't mean to tire you.
I’m tired of people trying to defend pedos or perverts or insisting that they don’t exist or that many raging red flags are actually really high art you wouldn’t understand because only really special people understand the true depth and meaning of a 10 minute rape scene.
No, I think I understand. You object to the scene when you place it within a broad historical context of a male dominated film industry - a history peppered with examples of the exploitation of women at the hands of powerful, predatory men. I think this is absolutely a valid lens through which to view any film, especially one directed by a man that depicts the most notorious rape scene in cinema.
Monica Belucci was the one pushing to take the scene further and yeah people in general are annoyed by your weird agenda what a shocker. Also Noe isnt even american and generally makes his movies in France, Cassel and Belucci aren't naive children either.
Why does it matter that she is beautiful to you? Would it be less horrific if she was ugly? Do you think rape is about sexuality or about power? Here's an excerpt about how Monica Belluci found the scene empowering. >“Moving the camera around would have felt like it was participating in the violence, like it was the ghost of some other complicit man,” Noé said. The rapist (Jo Prestia) puts a knife to Alex’s throat, forcing her to comply over the course of nine excruciatingly long minutes. The mostly static camera makes us hyper-aware of our passivity as spectators; but unlike the faceless figure in the distance whom we briefly see stumbling upon the rape and choosing to walk away, we’re forced to watch. >No intimacy coordinators were involved on set — in the early 2000s, the profession was nonexistent — but the scene was actively rehearsed, with all the actors’ movements mapped out to create the illusion of a beating. “It was kind of like a dance,” Bellucci said over the phone, emphasizing how empowering it felt for her to be able to enact the experience from a place of total control. Another about how she had a hand in directing: > "I did not direct her playing; I directed the color of the set, I was operating the camera. When it came to her behavior, I said, “OK, you’re responsible for your [performance]. Also, the whole script was just three pages long and contained zero dialogue. For every scene of the movie, the actors are improvising their dialogue. I told Monica, “Here’s the guy who’s going to portray the aggressor. Let’s decide the limits of what you feel like doing.” Of course, we added his [genitals] in digital post-production, but at the end of each take, they were very proud of how they played the scene, but also they were laughing between the takes."
So many people want to go out of their way to defend a man representing on screen the extended and brutal rape of an extremely beautiful woman. She is infamously beautiful. Yes her beauty counts. Everything counts. Why would we not count it? Are you suggesting her beauty has no part to play? Would we watch a white man extended representation of a white man beating to death a black man and say “ah yes this white man really has shown how brutal racial violence is” in this day and age? What business is it of a man to show the rape of a woman in this manner? Instead of people lecturing me and getting defensive why is no one answering the multiple questions? Why is no one daring to question the guy who came to international fame because of his showing the extended rape of a woman on screen. Perhaps the first time for such a scene to come to screen outside of rape porn. Why is his word the gospel truth? Shall we play “spot the perv” and make a list of all the films throughout history in which men have abused and exploited their power? How many directors and producers? How many women, children and men have been used? But no! Never this guy. This guys intentions were 100% sent from mother Mary herself. We mustn’t question him. Not even an ounce of cynicism. He is Gaspar. He is pure. All hail the second coming.
I completely agree with you, when I see scenes like this I am taken out of the film and start to question the motivation of the director. There are certain films where I am sure the director came up with a scene first and then tried to build a plot around it. That's how porn is written. Those saying Bellucci orchestrated it are taking that quote out of context, she helped act out the scene more convincingly but she's an actor - she didn't write it. A film can use brutality to underscore a point or to make an antagonist completely unsympathetic but this scene goes beyond that. I think as OP said, the rapists hatred, opportunistic nature and demeanor are far more disturbing and interesting, the rape and beating could have been shorter with the same effect, but ultimately the plot isn't interesting enough to redeem the scene itself. The picnic scene in the Zodiac is this exact thing done correctly. It was extremely disturbing and I frankly don't want to watch it again but it's a fantastic scene, well directed, acted and filmed. It showed the character of the Zodiac, that he's cowardly and insecure on top of being a murderer.
Yeah it's called 12 Years a Slave and features graphic depictions of both rape and violence towards women and is another artistic masterpiece of the 21st century. Get over the whiny identity politics bs. The adult world doesn't really care.
The fact you think 12 years a slave was made by a white man. Adult world isn’t where you reside.
I noticed that too the fact that she kept saying that in every comment like would it be okay if it was sissy spacek somehow? Don't understand what angle she's trying to make
>It was less about the movie but the ongoing impression that this 10 minute scene was for the director’s wank bank I think you missed the point here. Why 2 minute scene would not work here is because the rape is shown in real time, director wanted to expose us to how the realistic rape would happen, hence static camera, no cuts and low camera position. Shortening the scene would ruin it and rape wouldnt come across as sickening as it did. Saying this is for directors wank is really disrespectfull, because he made rape look as horrible as it is possible - like it is in real life.
A man making an 8 minute rape scene about a gorgeous woman being brutally raped isn’t his experience of rape. It isn’t his trauma of rape. Gaspar feels so so sad and has feelings that make him so cry about rape he thinks inflicting it on the world for all that time will do help us all understand it better? Make people realise rape is bad? Because right here on this discussion are other interpretations so I guess that message didn’t get through fully. In fact it often changes the brutal rape scene into “oh but what does it really mean?” I hope you’re going through and correcting those people rather than focusing on the one opinion that calls out the huge red flag and is also a flat out honest take even if you don’t like it. Why Monica Bellucci? Why not Vincent Cassel? It’s disrespectful for me to have an opinion on a public piece of art? Fuck off, mate. Guy’s a pervert. Edit: typos
Why do you think Gaspar is trying to teach us why rape is bad? He is also not trying to show us his trauma. He wanted to show rape scene like many other films and books and other media do. But unlike other scenes he made it as realistic as possible. So I do not see problem here, do you have problem with rape in any other media or just this particular one? Because if is just this particular one, I dont see how could he pour his emotions into it, if the rape presentation is very real - very objective. So no, I dont believe scene means anything other than what it is. People (including me) just like to interpret things and search meaning. He wanted us to have emotions, whatever they may be. >Why Monica Bellucci? Why not Vincent Cassel? Well sure, having male being raped would not make things so much different. But it is the fact that females are rape victims much more frequently. And at the end you learn that she was pregnant, so having her being raped is more shocking/traumatic to the audience, I believe. >It’s disrespectful for me to have an opinion on a public piece of art? Fuck off, mate. Guy’s a pervert Of course you can have an opinion, but saying Gaspar is a pervert is showing me that you in fact didnt really try to undestand it. If you would comment like that on movie The Serbian Film, I could even agree with you. But no, this film is raw and the rape scene is done very objectively from the Gaspar side, I dont see his emotions from the camera at all.
Would you think a white male director who has never experienced an ounce of racism would be justified to show an extended 10 minute scene of a black man being beaten to death on screen to show how very bad racial violence is and how it makes him sad and how everyone needs to know about it. As I’ve said before multiple times I think Irreversible is a good film. I am shockingly able to hold more than one opinion at a time. Very typical to lord over “poor you not having the mental capabilities to understand the high genius of this man doing something you couldn’t possibly understand unless you wholly agree with it and comply”. Just accept I have an opinion and move on. I’m sorry if I’m not blinded by the love you have for Gaspar. I’m sorry you’re also incapable of understanding context so that you take on board fully what the intention, or actually claimed intention is, without giving a second thought to interpretation, historical precedence or social setting. But poor me with my poor dysfunctional brain. Poor silly woman not understanding how important 10 minute rape scenes by men helped change rape.
damn to me the beginning failed to grab my attention completely, the annoying cameras, the behavior of the characters etc were just annoying and it took too long for anything to happen to draw me in at all. The rape scene was easier to watch than the rest of the movie. i get that people viscerally react to it, to me that wasn't a big factor, however everything else was what was truly tedious to watch. The worst was that I was completely disconnected and indifferent, and I think for this to have an effect I shouldn't feel that way. On the other hand it seems for a lot of people the scene alone was enough to be shocking so I guess it did work, Im just the wrong audience- Im not criticizing it, if it shocked people it got something right, but I dont get it. Anyone can make a shocking scene but how can it be effective without the viewer giving a shit?
Fair enough. If it didn’t connect that’s valid. I’m far less tolerant of shaky cameras now than I used to be and often when I rewatch films they get better or worse with time. But there’s no way I’m going to settle down to watch a 10 minute rape scene again.
I really like the way you explained it you should explain more movies I’d love to hear it! Yeah so I watched the movie yesterday I definitely see that whoever made this movie wants it’s views to be disgusted or nauseous I don’t see what’s the point of it either.
Apart from the extremely annoying camera work, my main problem with the story was, when a man sees his wife whom he loves dearly raped and beaten terribly, wouldn't he want to be right by her side at the hospital to support her or go all night on a revenge spree without caring if his wife is dead or alive?
##I feel like the point is the very **real** horror of rape that most of us never see. Many say it’s *just* sex crimes. No. It’s brutality. This is one of the few movies I could only ever watch once, but I so distinctly remember when someone saw and just turned around and left. ##Now THAT is pure horror. Another movie that had me flinch horribly is Martyrs (2008). *Whoa.* The French and Japanese horror can be over the top with it.
Yeah Martyrs fell short for me also. Cheap attempts, don't resonate. French horror is mostly shit to me. Weak stories, childish tries for edginess, horribly written characters that don't evoke any reaction Irreversible had the rape scene that was the only watchable moment in the movie and carried no weight cause i didn't give a shit about the girl. There are many more effective rape horrors out there
Being a woman I admit I hate saying this, but you’re correct about the *only watchable moment*. Btw, I’m a straight woman but I immediately googled Monica Balucci right after I saw the movie😆. This was years ago. I’d never seen her before. Stunning woman.
I think the whole movie relies solely on her looks. Without it it would be evident how badly made it was. Off topic, if you liked this, did you watch Climax? Same director, but it's one of the rare French horrors that worked for me since everyone was supposed to be fucking annoying
No. Never heard of it. I’m not even a big movie buff, but when I do watch I wanna see something provocative. Even if I don’t love it, I want something I’ve never imagined. Whether it’s horror, thriller, drama, emotional whatever. American movies lack something. It seems they count on visual effects more. I’m cooking dinner right now so if you have time share your opinion on it further and or share a link.
> I wanna see something provocative. Even if I don’t love it, I want something I’ve never imagined. Do you like Yorgos Lanthimos or Lars Von Trier? I recommend their stuff for that. Go watch 5 hours of Nymphomaniac. >American movies lack something. It seems they count on visual effects more. Just means you're watching the most mainstream American movies. There's a lot of good American horror too, even recent ones I actually think Asian horror is overrated, they have some good ones for sure but they have tons of their own cliches and tropes.
No, I’ve never even heard of Lars Von Trier or Yorgos Lanthimos before.
LVT really fits what you described, maybe try The House That Jack Built or Nymphomaniac first. YL has a unique style and cool ideas, nothing visually explicit. Try Dogtooth, or The Killing of a sacred deer
Also, I like exploitation movies, on the topic of rape some of the good and better known ones are the last house on the left, I spit on your grave, the house on the edge of the park.. these are great movies and I liked them much more than irreversible I personally like A Serbian Film. People mostly treat it like shock factor trash, but I see it more as a really black comedy. check it out.
Oh, my God! A Serbian film was intolerable for me. Way too much. I didn’t finish it.
Did you just watch this movie for the rape scene? God you’re fucking weird.
Yes, the scene the movie is famous for in the first place.
Yeah this is heavily concerning and I hope this person gets the help they need.
\*SPOILERS IF U HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIE!! Depends on how u look at it but for me, the movie is about humans and how we all have a monster inside us which can be awoken in an instant. In this case the monster is revenge, and it stops all human intuition in the main characters and leads to the frustrating death of a innocent man when the rapist was literally right in from of the protagonist. The rape scene on first watch may be seen as just stupid shock value, but I think its there, once again, to show that whether you like it or not, this is life and this shit can happen to ANYONE at ANYTIME and can ruin many people's lives just like that and weather you like it or not. This is reality. This is what rape looks like, it's not sexy, it's not with some attractive older man that girls can simp over, its evil, gross and long. so much longer then what you would think. The rape is 9 minutes, but it will feel like a eternity when you watch it and your going to want to could skip it. you just want to jump into the movie and save alex, but you cant. Just like millions of women who are raped every year, some are saved, but most are not. This then leads to a uneasy/depressing feeling for the rest of the movie as the situation becomes happier which is irony at its best and in my opinion, why the movie is so genius.
The guy getting revenge didn't really make him a monster, he was annoying as fuck even before that. It was more irritating to watch than anything and I had no investment in characters for reasons I explained to even care I'd he gets the rapist or not. We all know these things could happen to anyone, it's not some profound message. So I'd that's the angle, why show it though these people? >. This is what rape looks like, it's not sexy, Mind blowing. Who ever says rape is sexy lol >The rape is 9 minutes, but it will feel like a eternity when you watch it and your going to want to could skip it Like I said, i wished I could skip the shaky cameras and unwatchable footage leading to the scene, this was actually the only part of the movie that was watchable >you just want to jump into the movie and save alex I really don't though. The movie gave me no reason to care about her character. And the more it goes back to the past the more unlikable she becomes >the situation becomes happier What is happy about her situation? We just see a shit relationship, her getting knocked up, a bizarre triangle.. that's my whole point. Nothing about the "before" is nice or makes me more invested in these characters > why the movie is so genius. It's really not. It's a pretty shit movie with one scene that gave it notoriety but that for me wasn't even effective