Irréversible (Gaspar Noé, 2003) [Spoilers]

[MacGuffin]

I rewatched Irréversible, and Bosco, I think I may agree largely with what you have to say: indeed, the second half works better as a whole as it adds depth to the characters as well as to the film's thematic content. But I still do maintain that the second half would not be anything without the first half. The first half of the movie does many things correctly, such as asking viewers to question the animalistic nature of revenge — and I think Marcus and Pierre are perfect opposites of each other, both in their views of revenge and also in their approach to it, so I think it makes it all the more interesting when Pierre handles the fire extinguisher to rescue his friend — but also question the characters' motives.

Ebert said it best in that the movie handles the subject matter in the least exploitive way possible because it presents it in a backwards chronology. We see the lives of these people destroyed, and Noé then proceeds to work on his emotional resonance with the audience by actually showing us what could have been; time destroys everything, as he argues. To being with the scene with The Butcher seems to be the best, most self-referential thing to do, tying in with Carne and I Stand Alone and how both of these movies fit together, and then answering the question that left viewings shell-shocked for four years after I Stand Alone, and presenting us with a new thesis: time destroys everything.

While it may be a broad thesis at that, Noé approaches it from all angles: that of Pierre, a man who is the opposite of a party-animal, like his friend, the irresponsible Marcus, who only does right when it benefits him or the people he has developed a bond with (Marcus doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would have been very friendly to someone on the street), and of Alex, the tragic figure of the story, whose life obviously affected many, and who's life was destroyed and because of her mutual love, destroyed others.

There are moments in the movie where Noé captures pure emotion: when Marcus first sees Alex in the stretcher, I will admit I got a little bit teary-eyed and I am fairly certain this is the best example of pure emotion onscreen I have seen in a while. I think even if it was someones' first viewing, they would certainly know what was going on and while the events that previously occurred would probably be put in the back of the viewers minds at this point, I still do think they would feel great pity for Marcus (brilliantly played by Vincent Cassel).

So, what is the problem with the movie? It is technically brilliant, and an excellent movie as a whole, but I think I may have to put the blame on the dialogue of the second half, considering all things. I think this is where Noé loses track of his characters, rather than adding depth. By this point, we have already established Marcus as the more animalistic of the two men, we have established Pierre as the weaker, but more caring of the two, and we have established Alex as their object of desire. Yes, object; I think it is really important to see that Alex is perhaps little more than an object to not only Marcus, but La Tiena as well. Take for example when Marcus keeps insisting "You're my girl" or "I stole you from Pierre", and even then Alex has to insist to Marcus that she is no object. It goes without saying how La Tiena sees Alex as little more than an object.

I think the fleshing out of Marcus in this regard is absolutely unnecessary, because it can already be inferred, to a much less, more appropriate extent. While the sex talk in the subway train is well played, I find that too to be a bit unnecessary and feel that maybe a discussion revealing deeper feelings that the characters have for one another — I am especially interested in the relationship between Marcus and Pierre — would have allowed us to look to conclude deeper meanings about the characters that would have been more useful to understand how they process things and to also humanize the situation more than a talk about orgasms would. And while I dislike a lot of the nausea-inducing tactics of the first half — the sweep through the gay club is disturbing, but not in a good way; the fire extinguisher scene is hard to take and made even more difficult by the crowd reaction; the rape scene is of course even more difficult to take because it's probably the most honest depiction of rape in all of cinema — I have to admit that they were necessary to making the movie work as a movie about how time destroys everything; about how these people are just getting deeper and deeper into this pit of evil; about how nothing will ever be the same again with each wrong move (Marcus things he is doing right, but he is only making things worse and I think this is something the movie is trying to emphasize). It also allows for Noé to humanize in the second half, which he doesn't capitalize on nearly enough. We feel for these characters, but we could feel for them even more if we knew more about them aside from trivial things.

By far my favorite parts were the beginning with the camera examining the outside of the apartment building (this really should have gone on for ten more minutes, at least), and the ending where the strobelight is superimposed on the spiraling shot of the sprinkler. Puzzlingly enough, these two shots are perhaps the most experimental of the movie, and coincidentally, I've read these are the things I can expect from Noé's most recent contribution, so if anything, watching Irréversible has made me more excited to see Enter the Void (which supposedly has even more amazing camerawork, like a gliding camera that starts flying into the sky over tokyo by an airplane).

In conclusion, while I feel this is a more than worthwhile movie, and even one of the best of 2003, it is still flawed, but I think Noé is still developing a style here that, hopefully we will see more fully developed in Enter the Void.

[trotchky]

This is a great write-up, and I feel like I should see the film again. After one viewing, here are my thoughts:

I agree with much of your post, especially about the frank discussion of sex on the subway. I was kind of thinking, "is this just a French thing?" but it does seem to be too blunt and obvious a way to establish things we pretty much already know about the characters, as well as what is I guess reverse-foreshadowing, or grim irony given what we know happens.

One thing I still don't get is what "time destroys everything" actually means. I know everyone says that's what the film's thesis is (and apparently what Noe says it is), but I don't really get it. What I took from the movie is more like, "human beings destroy each other," and, "lives are often inexorably destroyed very quickly and permanently," but even that has less to do with time than the power human beings have to affect each other over a brief timeline.

[MacGuffin]

One thing I still don't get is what "time destroys everything" actually means. I know everyone says that's what the film's thesis is (and apparently what Noe says it is), but I don't really get it. What I took from the movie is more like, "human beings destroy each other," and, "lives are often inexorably destroyed very quickly and permanently," but even that has less to do with time than the power human beings have to affect each other over a brief timeline.

Time destroys everything, I think, basically means everything can change in any second. Even in I Stand Alone, Noé asks the audience with a title card something along the lines of: "You! Do you think you are in control? In one second, everything can change." I think the Butcher in that movie is a somewhat decent character to put in a situation that would evoke that idea, but ultimately, I think Noé may have realized that Carne and I Stand Alone were little more than a fucked up character in a fucked up society. I think Irréversible is where Noé puts these things into perspective.

The idea of time destroying everything relates directly to humans and at the same time doesn't have to directly relate to humans. Of course, we never know how long we have, and it can be a scary thing to think about, but I think what Noé does here is even scarier, because it gives us, as a audience, an opportunity to grasp onto the fact that we do, in fact, know how much longer these characters have, and he does this so we can attempt to have a better understanding of the intricacies of time destroying everything.

The reason I was so taken aback by Pop Trash's post here a few days ago where he compared Irréversible to Memento with anal rape and then said something along the lines of: "Oh, time destroys everything" and followed that with an eye roll smiley was because I think he only looked at that phrase at its surface level, where, to anybody who watched Irréversible could see that Noé is not interested in the phrase on a surface level, but rather how time can affect many different kinds of people, and what time can cause them to do; like here, it causes Marcus the desire to get revenge and ultimately, lose his arm and his friend, who will be in jail for many years because he was protecting his animalistic friend who was angered and wanted to seek revenge because his pregnant girlfriend was raped and they were about to spend the rest of their lives together happily with their friend, good ol' Pierre, by their sides. Time destroys everything, or rather, Le temps détruit tuit, as the film's final title card, and final frame declares, merely echoing the events previously represented in the movie.

So no, I don't think Time destroying everything has to be a human thing — cancer can take someone, a mysterious illness can take someone — but largely, yes, I think humans do decide each others fates aside from that. The movie isn't talking about time destroying everything like old age. Everyone dies. It's not really destroying anything, but merely ending it. Cancer, while tragic, and usually considered something that can destroy many lives, and does indeed I would guess, doesn't really "destroy" like the events that occur in this movie. An unnatural death is far more likely to destroy lives because it could have been prevented (which makes the passerby during the rape scene one of the most disturbing things about the whole thing).

I hope this makes sense. I know you probably understand how I mean when I say Noé is not interested in this idea at a surface level (of course time destroys everything), but looking at it more carefully by taking specific events and looking at how they impact the characters in the movie.

[trotchky]

Very interesting; thanks for the response.

[baby doll]

And while I dislike a lot of the nausea-inducing tactics of the first half — the sweep through the gay club is disturbing, but not in a good way; the fire extinguisher scene is hard to take and made even more difficult by the crowd reaction; the rape scene is of course even more difficult to take because it's probably the most honest depiction of rape in all of cinemaI'm just curious: What would be an example of a dishonest representation of rape in cinema?

[MacGuffin]

I'm just curious: What would be an example of a dishonest representation of rape in cinema?

Most of them, because they don't show it in real-time. I think that is dishonest to the horrors of rape. By not showing the whole thing, a director makes the choice to not show just how bad it truly is.

[MacGuffin]

Bosco, nothing?

[Ezee E]

Very well written. I should rewatch this to post some additional thoughts, but that would be rough.

[balmakboor]

I remember distinctly thinking during the first 20 minutes that the film could only possibly end in very bright light. It seemed like the design was suggesting a journey through the digestive system, through the intestines, out of the rectum, and into a toilet bowl -- told in reverse. Like when the rapest warns that if she shits on him he'll kill her, I thought the men we follow through the film were that shit. I guess I was right about the ending. How much brighter could the ending have been? Answer: None. None more bright.

That fire extinguisher scene is the closest I've ever come to being nauseated by a scene. And the rape was genuinely disturbing. Not only did I find the guy who walks in, watches for a moment, and then takes off disturbing, but how about the girl the rapist was with at first. It didn't look to me like he killed her (maybe knocked her unconcious though). Was she watching the whole time?

[baby doll]

Most of them, because they don't show it in real-time. I think that is dishonest to the horrors of rape. By not showing the whole thing, a director makes the choice to not show just how bad it truly is.I can't think of many movies that come in the middle of a rape, fade out before the end, or uses dissolves to suggest the passage of time. Some show the build up and cut away to another scene (like Touch of Evil). Does it matter that it's all in one take? We know it's pretend anyway, so I don't think it makes a difference.

[MacGuffin]

Was she watching the whole time?

No, she ran away.


I can't think of many movies that come in the middle of a rape, fade out before the end, or uses dissolves to suggest the passage of time. Some show the build up and cut away to another scene (like Touch of Evil). Does it matter that it's all in one take? We know it's pretend anyway, so I don't think it makes a difference.

Yes, it does matter for the reasons stated above. We can pretend to know many things in movies that should have been shown — with a movie where rape is so pertinent to the story as a whole, I can't see a movie like this being successful if it cut or faded out; it would feel fake and edited in order to meet the general mainstream's sensibilities. I think for most movies, a rape scene that is edited, while dishonest, is not so much a gigantic problem, especially in the situation you mentioned like Touch of Evil, where the rape is used as another device to show why the gang is so messed up. It's not central to the story, like the rape in Irréversible.

[trotchky]

I'm just curious: What would be an example of a dishonest representation of rape in cinema?

A Clockwork Orange represents (physical, literal) rape in a pretty dishonest way, albeit intentionally so.

[trotchky]

I'd also say Blue Velvet depicts rape in a dishonest fashion, if only because Frank is the most charming character in the movie.

[trotchky]

Another movie that could be said to handle rape more dishonestly than Irreversible is Kill Bill, because most comatose rape victims never get to beat the shit out of their rapists.

[trotchky]

A fourth movie is Talk to Her, which is more interested in evoking sympathy for a rapist than depicting the horrors of rape.

[trotchky]

Another movie is Noe's own I Stand Alone, which has the sheer gall to taunt us with the question "did he rape his daughter or not?

[trotchky]

Yet another movie is The Birth of a Nation, which predicates its implied rape on racist white paranoia.

[Ivan Drago]

All this discussion about rape in cinema reminds me - I took an Ethics class last fall semester and one of the areas of sexual morality that was in the lecture was rape. Ever since that class I've been wondering if there's been a depiction of what rape does to the psyche of the victim.

I don't mean that in a bad way at all, I think rape is horrible as much as the next guy. But rape ostracizes the victim from his/her community, demeans him/her and leaves him/her viewed as dirtied, so I've just been thinking have there been any accurate depictions in cinema of what all that does to the psyche of the victim?

Bringing this back to Irreversible - I agree, Clipper Ship Captain - the scene with Marcus discovering Alex on the stretcher is heartbreaking. Him going batshit insane following that (er...before that if you wanna go by the film's running time) was brutal.

[trotchky]

I don't mean that in a bad way at all, I think rape is horrible as much as the next guy. But rape ostracizes the victim from his/her community, demeans him/her and leaves him/her viewed as dirtied, so I've just been thinking have there been any accurate depictions in cinema of what all that does to the psyche of the victim?

Honestly, I would say...Inland Empire. Even if it isn't directly about rape.

[MacGuffin]

Honestly, I would say...Inland Empire. Even if it isn't directly about rape.

I'm confused now.

Anyways, I'll throw out Ms. 45 even if I wasn't too fond of it when I saw it. I could use to see it again sometime, but I think it would fit your specifications and probably at the same time be a movie you'd like, Ivan Drago (it's brutal, if I recall correctly, but it's done in a grindhouse sort of way, so it's easy to take).

[trotchky]

I'm confused now.

Well, I don't know a lot about rape, but I think it evokes all of the feelings Ivan Drago mentioned in relation to its protagonist.

[Bosco B Thug]

I rewatched Irréversible, and Bosco, I think I may agree largely with what you have to say: indeed, the second half works better as a whole as it adds depth to the characters as well as to the film's thematic content. But I still do maintain that the second half would not be anything without the first half.

The first half of the movie does many things correctly, such as asking viewers to question the animalistic nature of revenge — and I think Marcus and Pierre are perfect opposites of each other, both in their views of revenge and also in their approach to it, so I think it makes it all the more interesting when Pierre handles the fire extinguisher to rescue his friend — but also question the characters' motives.

Ebert said it best in that the movie handles the subject matter in the least exploitive way possible because it presents it in a backwards chronology. Certainly to both paragraphs. My opinion that there's not much of complexity offered in the first half doesn't change, but I've come to a decisive agreement with you that seeing the events of the first half first is integral to the film's power.


So, what is the problem with the movie? It is technically brilliant, and an excellent movie as a whole, but I think I may have to put the blame on the dialogue of the second half, considering all things. I think this is where Noé loses track of his characters, rather than adding depth. By this point, we have already established Marcus as the more animalistic of the two men, we have established Pierre as the weaker, but more caring of the two, and we have established Alex as their object of desire.

I think the fleshing out of Marcus in this regard is absolutely unnecessary, because it can already be inferred, to a much less, more appropriate extent. While the sex talk in the subway train is well played, I find that too to be a bit unnecessary and feel that maybe a discussion revealing deeper feelings that the characters have for one another — I am especially interested in the relationship between Marcus and Pierre — would have allowed us to look to conclude deeper meanings about the characters that would have been more useful to understand how they process things and to also humanize the situation more than a talk about orgasms would. Hmm, yeah, can't say I agree with you here. You probably saw this coming, though. The dialogue as it is conveys a lot about the characters and simultaneously serves Noé's larger analysis of the ticking time bomb that is a human beings' pursuit of gratification (sexual or otherwise). I thought the exchange they have was very in-line with the characters.


And while I dislike a lot of the nausea-inducing tactics of the first half — the sweep through the gay club is disturbing, but not in a good way; the fire extinguisher scene is hard to take and made even more difficult by the crowd reaction; the rape scene is of course even more difficult to take because it's probably the most honest depiction of rape in all of cinema — I have to admit that they were necessary to making the movie work as a movie about how time destroys everything; about how these people are just getting deeper and deeper into this pit of evil; about how nothing will ever be the same again with each wrong move (Marcus things he is doing right, but he is only making things worse and I think this is something the movie is trying to emphasize). It also allows for Noé to humanize in the second half, which he doesn't capitalize on nearly enough. We feel for these characters, but we could feel for them even more if we knew more about them aside from trivial things. Careful with that "Pit of evil" thing, you might provoke the "homophobia" complaints against the film. I'm on your side


By far my favorite parts were the beginning with the camera examining the outside of the apartment building (this really should have gone on for ten more minutes, at least), and the ending where the strobelight is superimposed on the spiraling shot of the sprinkler. Puzzlingly enough, these two shots are perhaps the most experimental of the movie, and coincidentally, I've read these are the things I can expect from Noé's most recent contribution, so if anything, watching Irréversible has made me more excited to see Enter the Void (which supposedly has even more amazing camerawork, like a gliding camera that starts flying into the sky over tokyo by an airplane). I might very well agree with this. I think the further and further Noé goes ("Up his ass or not up his ass?" is the awkward ten-dollar question) indulging his aesthetic experimentation - I believe I read EtV is a pretty much consistently a total visual trip -


I agree with much of your post, especially about the frank discussion of sex on the subway. I was kind of thinking, "is this just a French thing?" but it does seem to be too blunt and obvious a way to establish things we pretty much already know about the characters, as well as what is I guess reverse-foreshadowing, or grim irony given what we know happens. You guys act as if clearly delineating the characters is all dialogue should serve to do. Perhaps its a bit blunt thematically, but on the surface level, I really warmed up to the characters in this scene, watching Bellucci trying so hard to take her friends' questions head-on and diffuse the awkwardness, and watching Cassel blush like a, um, big blushing moose.


Noé is not interested in the phrase on a surface level, but rather how time can affect many different kinds of people, and what time can cause them to do Right, I agree with this. Noé is definitely trying to suggest the question, "What got these people to this point?" - even Alex and La Tiena's fateful meeting - and his conclusion is a combination of the forces of chronology (e.g. why doesn't Bellucci tell Cassel right away she's pregnant? Because they're going to a partay) and whatever makes people do the things they do.


So no, I don't think Time destroying everything has to be a human thing — cancer can take someone, a mysterious illness can take someone — but largely, yes, I think humans do decide each others fates aside from that. I think that's a major point of the film too. Their "decisions" might be the incidental, unaware kind, but they are of consequence nonetheless and perhaps are rooted in subconscious desires (such as, as a review I read once pointed out, why is Bellucci in such an enticing dress? Why does Cassel let her wear such a thing to a party and not care to keep an eye out on her? Why does Bellucci decide to take the tunnel?).


Most of them, because they don't show it in real-time. I think that is dishonest to the horrors of rape. By not showing the whole thing, a director makes the choice to not show just how bad it truly is. Ehhh, I don't know. I think a film can very well portray the psychological effect of rape without making it such a long, extended, messy one as this one. I'd say Noé is being more "clinical" than "honest," although this portrayal certainly is honest. And I still think excessive.


It seemed like the design was suggesting a journey through the digestive system, through the intestines, out of the rectum, and into a toilet bowl -- told in reverse. Like when the rapest warns that if she shits on him he'll kill her, I thought the men we follow through the film were that shit. Haha, whoa. Okay, everyone's being way too hard on the two men in the film. :lol:


Yes, it does matter for the reasons stated above. We can pretend to know many things in movies that should have been shown — with a movie where rape is so pertinent to the story as a whole, I can't see a movie like this being successful if it cut or faded out; it would feel fake and edited in order to meet the general mainstream's sensibilities. I think for most movies, a rape scene that is edited, while dishonest, is not so much a gigantic problem, especially in the situation you mentioned like Touch of Evil, where the rape is used as another device to show why the gang is so messed up. It's not central to the story, like the rape in Irréversible. With some thought, I agree that the film's rape scene is as it should be. Its principles are there. I think its the film around this rape scene that taints this moment's principles, such as the fact the camera is consistently moving with kinetic flash until this moment. That's what bugs me.


All this discussion about rape in cinema reminds me - I took an Ethics class last fall semester and one of the areas of sexual morality that was in the lecture was rape. Ever since that class I've been wondering if there's been a depiction of what rape does to the psyche of the victim.

I don't mean that in a bad way at all, I think rape is horrible as much as the next guy. But rape ostracizes the victim from his/her community, demeans him/her and leaves him/her viewed as dirtied, so I've just been thinking have there been any accurate depictions in cinema of what all that does to the psyche of the victim? There's a short film we watched in my Theory class called No Lies. Has anybody seen this one? It doesn't depict rape, but it depicts the after effects. De Sica's Two Women also.

I don't know how "honest" or un-exploitative it is... well, it's probably the opposite of non-exploitative... but the first rape scene in Hitchcock's Frenzy is "amazing" in its startling abstractedness (too bad the rest of the film is so dull literal).

I raised the score for Irréversible to a 6, and lowered Se7en to a 6, because there's no way Se7en is better than Irréversible.

[Ivan Drago]

I have thoughts to add regarding the "Time destroys everything" theme, but I'm still trying to put them together. But in the meantime, I've came to 2 conclusions about the film:

1) The DVD for it has the greatest DVD intro ever.
2) As cool as it is, I can't watch the sequence where the strobe is superimposed over the spiraling shot of the sprinkler anymore. My eyes hurt from watching it.

[MacGuffin]

2) As cool as it is, I can't watch the sequence where the strobe is superimposed over the spiraling shot of the sprinkler anymore. My eyes hurt from watching it.

Wuss. ;)

[trotchky]

1) The DVD for it has the greatest DVD intro ever.

True statement.

[MacGuffin]

Certainly to both paragraphs. My opinion that there's not much of complexity offered in the first half doesn't change, but I've come to a decisive agreement with you that seeing the events of the first half first is integral to the film's power.

Indeed. I don't think the first half is entirely complex earlier. In fact, it's basically made up of only three scenes, and with them, what you see is generally the things you are going to get. So I agree on that level and am happy to see your hesitant agreement towards the first half powering the second (I mean, we've decided the first half is presented so simply; what else would it be there for?).


Hmm, yeah, can't say I agree with you here. You probably saw this coming, though. The dialogue as it is conveys a lot about the characters and simultaneously serves Noé's larger analysis of the ticking time bomb that is a human beings' pursuit of gratification (sexual or otherwise). I thought the exchange they have was very in-line with the characters.

I did see it coming, but I can see how you may have read it differently from me judging from your below comments towards trotchky (and me, I guess).


Careful with that "Pit of evil" thing, you might provoke the "homophobia" complaints against the film. I'm on your side

Understood, but I didn't really mean it that way.


I might very well agree with this. I think the further and further Noé goes ("Up his ass or not up his ass?" is the awkward ten-dollar question) indulging his aesthetic experimentation - I believe I read EtV is a pretty much consistently a total visual trip -

Yep, it may be a masterpiece (obviously too early to tell, but I'm hoping, and if it's anything like I have heard, it will be — more on what I have heard if you're interested).


You guys act as if clearly delineating the characters is all dialogue should serve to do. Perhaps its a bit blunt thematically, but on the surface level, I really warmed up to the characters in this scene, watching Bellucci trying so hard to take her friends' questions head-on and diffuse the awkwardness, and watching Cassel blush like a, um, big blushing moose.

See above comment. Agree to disagree, but I still really don't see how this fits in with the movie, which doesn't seem to be as sexual as I originally figured. I mean, sure, the tunnels are red and it is anal rape, but how much further can you read into that whole concept?


Right, I agree with this. Noé is definitely trying to suggest the question, "What got these people to this point?" - even Alex and La Tiena's fateful meeting - and his conclusion is a combination of the forces of chronology (e.g. why doesn't Bellucci tell Cassel right away she's pregnant? Because they're going to a partay) and whatever makes people do the things they do.

Now I'm curious to hear what you have to say about the whole "Pierre didn't kill La Tiena, but an innocent man" theory.


I think that's a major point of the film too. Their "decisions" might be the incidental, unaware kind, but they are of consequence nonetheless and perhaps are rooted in subconscious desires (such as, as a review I read once pointed out, why is Bellucci in such an enticing dress? Why does Cassel let her wear such a thing to a party and not care to keep an eye out on her? Why does Bellucci decide to take the tunnel?).

I think Alex is a case of Marcus not knowing what he has until it is taken away from him, and this is why he appears be so detached from her at the party (aside from being really fucked up and irresponsible), but I also think this says something about Alex in how she decides to be with Marcus, rather than Pierre, who seems to truly care about her, no matter the circumstances.


Ehhh, I don't know. I think a film can very well portray the psychological effect of rape without making it such a long, extended, messy one as this one. I'd say Noé is being more "clinical" than "honest," although this portrayal certainly is honest. And I still think excessive.

I think maybe the comment could only apply to a situation where rape is a key point of the story. With Touch of Evil, it's merely a device to make audiences feel more strongly towards a group of characters. With Irréversible, it is the centerpiece of the story.


Haha, whoa. Okay, everyone's being way too hard on the two men in the film. :lol:

I do not understand where he is going, but I think I know how he is getting there.


With some thought, I agree that the film's rape scene is as it should be. Its principles are there. I think its the film around this rape scene that taints this moment's principles, such as the fact the camera is consistently moving with kinetic flash until this moment. That's what bugs me.

I'm glad you've come to see why I feel it is important to the film the way it is. I think it takes a sudden change in camerawork to really draw audiences into the miserableness of the atmosphere. A shock tactic, as some might say (and Noé has been downgraded to a mere shock artist by so many, but I think he merely uses shocking tactics in order to put emphasis on truly profound ideas).


There's a short film we watched in my Theory class called No Lies. Has anybody seen this one? It doesn't depict rape, but it depicts the after effects. De Sica's Two Women also.

I haven't seen it, sorry.


I don't know how "honest" or un-exploitative it is... well, it's probably the opposite of non-exploitative... but the first rape scene in Hitchcock's Frenzy is "amazing" in its startling abstractedness (too bad the rest of the film is so dull literal).

The rape scene at the end of Hitchcock's Marnie is very powerful and adds a whole layer of depth to the title character. I'm not surprised by your comments about Frenzy, that said. Although, surprisingly, I still haven't seen Frenzy yet.


I raised the score for Irréversible to a 6, and lowered Se7en to a 6, because there's no way Se7en is better than Irréversible.

Well, I'm not sure if I agree with this. But an upgrade for Irréversible is fine by me.

[Grouchy]

Now I'm curious to hear what you have to say about the whole "Pierre didn't kill La Tiena, but an innocent man" theory.
Is that even a theory? I always understood the film that way.

Although I agree Irreversible's rape scene is "honest", I don't think that makes all other rape scenes dishonest by default.

[Bosco B Thug]

Indeed. I don't think the first half is entirely complex earlier. In fact, it's basically made up of only three scenes, and with them, what you see is generally the things you are going to get. On the level of content, maybe, but in the confluence of content, dramatic hooks, and form, the film could've done more without sacrificing its vision. I wasn't thrilled or engaged or stimulated by what I was seeing. I remember trying to gather some sort of textual resonance in seeing this man harass an Asian cabbie and a transvestite, and while meaning does emerge retroactively, while I was watching I just felt bored by Noé's approach to these scenes.


Yep, it may be a masterpiece (obviously too early to tell, but I'm hoping, and if it's anything like I have heard, it will be — more on what I have heard if you're interested). This one goes into the realm of fantasy pretty much throughout the film, right? Noé goes psychedelic?


Now I'm curious to hear what you have to say about the whole "Pierre didn't kill La Tiena, but an innocent man" theory. Yeah, I'm under the assumption that the man was not La Tiena. That might be because I read that in a review, though, cuz I didn't come to any conclusions while watching the film. It didn't look like the rapist.


I think Alex is a case of Marcus not knowing what he has until it is taken away from him, and this is why he appears be so detached from her at the party (aside from being really fucked up and irresponsible), but I also think this says something about Alex in how she decides to be with Marcus, rather than Pierre, who seems to truly care about her, no matter the circumstances. I understand you don't quite agree with me about the thematics of the film, but I don't think the film is very concerned about making judgments about Marcus and calling attention to characters' conduct. Another big theme of the film is that line by guy in the beginning: "There are no bad deeds," only natural compulsions (which, of course, can be very, very bad).


The rape scene at the end of Hitchcock's Marnie is very powerful and adds a whole layer of depth to the title character. I'm not surprised by your comments about Frenzy, that said. Although, surprisingly, I still haven't seen Frenzy yet. It's OK. Don't expect too much. Love Marnie though.


Well, I'm not sure if I agree with this. But an upgrade for Irréversible is fine by me. Hey, I'm actually thinking of pushing it up to a 6.5.

And no one's told me what's so great about Se7en yet.

[MacGuffin]

On the level of content, maybe, but in the confluence of content, dramatic hooks, and form, the film could've done more without sacrificing its vision. I wasn't thrilled or engaged or stimulated by what I was seeing. I remember trying to gather some sort of textual resonance in seeing this man harass an Asian cabbie and a transvestite, and while meaning does emerge retroactively, while I was watching I just felt bored by Noé's approach to these scenes.

No, I can see why someone may feel as you did. It's really just there to piss us off to a certain extent.


This one goes into the realm of fantasy pretty much throughout the film, right? Noé goes psychedelic?

Yeah, exactly.


Yeah, I'm under the assumption that the man was not La Tiena. That might be because I read that in a review, though, cuz I didn't come to any conclusions while watching the film. It didn't look like the rapist.

I think one of the reasons the movie succeeds in the first half is it achieves a nightmarish state that doesn't allow us to answer this question.


I understand you don't quite agree with me about the thematics of the film, but I don't think the film is very concerned about making judgments about Marcus and calling attention to characters' conduct. Another big theme of the film is that line by guy in the beginning: "There are no bad deeds," only natural compulsions (which, of course, can be very, very bad).

I'd be curious as to what you say about Noé's earlier movies with the character from the beginning of this one. They're not great, but I'd be curious of your thoughts, nonetheless.


It's OK. Don't expect too much. Love Marnie though.

Yeah, Marnie's a masterpiece.


Hey, I'm actually thinking of pushing it up to a 6.5.

And no one's told me what's so great about Se7en yet.

Don't expect me to, either. I haven't seen it for a very long time, but only recall thinking it was amazing.

[balmakboor]

Ok. I'll confess that after only one viewing I have almost no idea what happened. Who the guy was who got his head turned into mush in particular. It's the sort of film where events only have much meaning later when you think back on them. But everything was so dark and the camera work was so woozy that I couldn't see what was going on well enough at the time to remember much of it later. It's like the movie is taunting you to sit through it twice.

[balmakboor]

And yeah, Marnie is a masterpiece.