Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Irreversible
Directed by Gaspar Noe
Reviewed by Charles Tan
The controversial aspects of Irreversible revolves around critics and film writer’s wide-ranging interpretation of its pornographic nature and themes of sex, rape and love. On a simplistic and perfunctory level of reading the film, it is a blair witch stylish effort with jerky camera settings at the gay S&M night club and unwinds backwards aka mementoe (2000); and is shockingly unflinching in your face with a nine minute rape of an innocent woman named Alex, who is just at the wrong place at the wrong time. “Time destroys everything” the first and final statement made in the movie could be taken literally because the ending is a time tunnel simulation scene that stops in glorious white.
Irreversible, however, is much more complicated than that.
It works on different levels.
On one hand, Irreversible can be read as a schlock porn avant-garde art house; which the director boasted combining the violence of Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs and Passolini’s Salo; thereby violating acceptable taste.
It is an anti-thesis to conventional or classic narration with its backwards story-telling. The shots are jerky initially and the flashbacks are all linked seamlessly by moving away from the action to walls or the dark night skyline. Despite such difficulties, audience will not find it hard to piece together the reverse chronology of events. This has probably got to do with the fact that audiences are trained to “make sense” and fill in the gaps. As an example, the scene whereby Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Pierre (Albert Dupontel) are asking for directions to Rectum is followed by a previous scene of how they were in a cab; yelling at the driver for not knowing the place that they want to go.
Compare this to two related scenes whereby Marcus was pleading with Alex not to leave the party alone because he has not seen her for some time to the next scene where the three of them were in a lift and talking about sex. We are not known when this event occurred though it is likely that it must have happened a long time ago before the party. The lift scene, is at the same time, an eerie deja vu of a similar immediate flashback when Marcus and Pierre are going to a party, this time without Alex. The scene after we see the rape also occured with an ending that sees Alex taking a lift to leave the party.
This repetition is also earlier repeated in the interior of Rectum in which blinding darkness is treated with occasional splashes of dim, blinding and spinning red lights; accompanied by a soundtrack of shrilly droning causing audience “vertigo”. The seemingly ceaseless movement in the nightclub, could be read as the perceptive reality of our pursuer, Pierre and or his fast heart beat as he approaches his prey; the tagging along of his friend Pierre; or even as a “disturbance” cinematic tool to a) challenge the audience b) to distract the audience from fully knowing what goes on in a gay S&M club.
Compare this to the later scene where the three of them were in a “hetereosexual” party in which sexual innuendoes are obvious and casual. Alex was seen engaged in a psuedo - lesbian dance before Marcus joined her. It is apparent that Noe is challenging filmic conventions by laying out the obvious.
Yet, because we are not given full privy to what goes on in the night club except hearing some orgasmic sounds and titillating images, Irreversible is playing on our most intimate perverse desire to be a peeping tom.
Some critics claim that Irreversible is decidedly “homophobic” with its portrayal of gay clubs as dark and dangerous; use of homophobic language; implying that Alex’s attacker is “gay”. Yet, this is oversimplification and the reverse is more true.
Firstly, the attacker is not gay. Instead, he is seen initially with a transvestite. The projected image of the rapist is a straight man with a thing for women; not men. In the night club, Pierre who is heterosexual, starts the fight and attacks someone blindly. The victim was bashed several times in the head by Marcus (whom we learn is straight). White straight men are the perpetuators of the myth of their own violence as Pierre attacks transvestites, a Chinese cab driver and another innocent man in a gay club.
Unlike classic narration, whereby climax often occurs towards the end, Irreversible places the the high point in the middle – the nine minute rape scene of Alex. On a simplistic plane of understanding, it exists to gain shock sake by challenging audience tolerance towards screen violence and sexual display. That time is needed to drum back the point of the aggressor’s violence using “repetition”; as we witness the ongoing struggle between the victim and her attacker. By giving it a “reel is real time” treatment, Noe is destroying the conception of “time” in classic narrativism. The unmitigated scene which could be seen construed as pornography challenges and blurs the boundaries of what constitutes art in art house. It is important to note that that during the rape scene, a “human shadow” was seen in the distant background; acting as a “signifier” of reluctance from bystanders (on a larger scale, an implication of society) to help the victim. It helps to take note that the act of treason against Alex is sodomy; what we considered as “taboo” for film presentation and “anti-normal” in classic cinema. The rapist use of poppers as a drug and him covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting reminds us of the artificiality of the scene (not pornography). Upon finishing with her, we are given a glimpse of his penis; a phallic structure which is a symbol of his maleness; on another level, the intrusive aggressiveness of the patriarchal order. Accepted film conventions do not expose the male genitalia. The appearance of the male penis will again be seen later when Alex and Marcus are alone in bed. He gets up and kicks her in the face driving home the point of the randomness of assaults. The rape scene, hence, is a perversion, subversion acting as a mirror to our acceptance of convention film.
Another important scene which critics fail to mention is the sexual bantering among the three friends as they were taking the train. The scenes establish an almost “strange” three way relationship as Pierre haggles Alex for the reason why she could not make her come. Some of the statements made by Alex are weirdly prophetic. For example, she mentioned that a man should first please himself before the woman could be pleased. She also said that Pierre treats sex like a “task” which shouldn’t be the case. This runs as counterargument to the earlier rape scene with the rapist as he was placing his pleasure on the misery of the victim foremost; and he was acting on animalistic impulse.
The intimate scene between the two lovers towards the end appears on the surface a romantic bantering. Yet, it defines the relationship between our two protagonist; strangely at two different ends – one of them a victim; the other an attacker. Noe cleverly replays the biblical allegory of “garden of eden” and “adam and eve” with the nude couple caressing in bed happily and innocently; later to dance and share an apple.
The progression of Irreversible is such that the individual scenes become more “audience friendly” thematically and stylistically as it moves along. From the dimly lit S&M club to the rape scene to a private moment between a loving couple. Noe of course wasn’t pandering to filmic convention. Neither was he “salvaging” the “brutal” aspects of Irreversible’s earlier violence.
In actual fact, the last three scenes where Alex dreams of having a baby; basking in the sunlight with kids running around as a water sprinkler was taken from the top; and finally a loud noisy white background (perhaps simulating time tunnel, life after death or end of film or all the above) informs the audience of the artificiality of the medium. One could interpret the ending scenes as a happy ending (and hence classic Hollywood) but because we know a atrocity was committed later or (earlier for audience); this whole idea of bliss is already “corrupted” in our minds.
To summarize, Irreversible can be more than a film that shocks. It challenges film conventions and accepted norms by bending or breaking almost all classic cinema rules. The tagline of “Time Destroys Everything” is not merely literal but metaphysical too as it questions liberally –how lives are altered because of randomness of time; and if inverted (Everything is destroyed by time) how we see a film is also determined by the timing of its scenes.
Directed by Gaspar Noe
Reviewed by Charles Tan
The controversial aspects of Irreversible revolves around critics and film writer’s wide-ranging interpretation of its pornographic nature and themes of sex, rape and love. On a simplistic and perfunctory level of reading the film, it is a blair witch stylish effort with jerky camera settings at the gay S&M night club and unwinds backwards aka mementoe (2000); and is shockingly unflinching in your face with a nine minute rape of an innocent woman named Alex, who is just at the wrong place at the wrong time. “Time destroys everything” the first and final statement made in the movie could be taken literally because the ending is a time tunnel simulation scene that stops in glorious white.
Irreversible, however, is much more complicated than that.
It works on different levels.
On one hand, Irreversible can be read as a schlock porn avant-garde art house; which the director boasted combining the violence of Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs and Passolini’s Salo; thereby violating acceptable taste.
It is an anti-thesis to conventional or classic narration with its backwards story-telling. The shots are jerky initially and the flashbacks are all linked seamlessly by moving away from the action to walls or the dark night skyline. Despite such difficulties, audience will not find it hard to piece together the reverse chronology of events. This has probably got to do with the fact that audiences are trained to “make sense” and fill in the gaps. As an example, the scene whereby Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Pierre (Albert Dupontel) are asking for directions to Rectum is followed by a previous scene of how they were in a cab; yelling at the driver for not knowing the place that they want to go.
Compare this to two related scenes whereby Marcus was pleading with Alex not to leave the party alone because he has not seen her for some time to the next scene where the three of them were in a lift and talking about sex. We are not known when this event occurred though it is likely that it must have happened a long time ago before the party. The lift scene, is at the same time, an eerie deja vu of a similar immediate flashback when Marcus and Pierre are going to a party, this time without Alex. The scene after we see the rape also occured with an ending that sees Alex taking a lift to leave the party.
This repetition is also earlier repeated in the interior of Rectum in which blinding darkness is treated with occasional splashes of dim, blinding and spinning red lights; accompanied by a soundtrack of shrilly droning causing audience “vertigo”. The seemingly ceaseless movement in the nightclub, could be read as the perceptive reality of our pursuer, Pierre and or his fast heart beat as he approaches his prey; the tagging along of his friend Pierre; or even as a “disturbance” cinematic tool to a) challenge the audience b) to distract the audience from fully knowing what goes on in a gay S&M club.
Compare this to the later scene where the three of them were in a “hetereosexual” party in which sexual innuendoes are obvious and casual. Alex was seen engaged in a psuedo - lesbian dance before Marcus joined her. It is apparent that Noe is challenging filmic conventions by laying out the obvious.
Yet, because we are not given full privy to what goes on in the night club except hearing some orgasmic sounds and titillating images, Irreversible is playing on our most intimate perverse desire to be a peeping tom.
Some critics claim that Irreversible is decidedly “homophobic” with its portrayal of gay clubs as dark and dangerous; use of homophobic language; implying that Alex’s attacker is “gay”. Yet, this is oversimplification and the reverse is more true.
Firstly, the attacker is not gay. Instead, he is seen initially with a transvestite. The projected image of the rapist is a straight man with a thing for women; not men. In the night club, Pierre who is heterosexual, starts the fight and attacks someone blindly. The victim was bashed several times in the head by Marcus (whom we learn is straight). White straight men are the perpetuators of the myth of their own violence as Pierre attacks transvestites, a Chinese cab driver and another innocent man in a gay club.
Unlike classic narration, whereby climax often occurs towards the end, Irreversible places the the high point in the middle – the nine minute rape scene of Alex. On a simplistic plane of understanding, it exists to gain shock sake by challenging audience tolerance towards screen violence and sexual display. That time is needed to drum back the point of the aggressor’s violence using “repetition”; as we witness the ongoing struggle between the victim and her attacker. By giving it a “reel is real time” treatment, Noe is destroying the conception of “time” in classic narrativism. The unmitigated scene which could be seen construed as pornography challenges and blurs the boundaries of what constitutes art in art house. It is important to note that that during the rape scene, a “human shadow” was seen in the distant background; acting as a “signifier” of reluctance from bystanders (on a larger scale, an implication of society) to help the victim. It helps to take note that the act of treason against Alex is sodomy; what we considered as “taboo” for film presentation and “anti-normal” in classic cinema. The rapist use of poppers as a drug and him covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting reminds us of the artificiality of the scene (not pornography). Upon finishing with her, we are given a glimpse of his penis; a phallic structure which is a symbol of his maleness; on another level, the intrusive aggressiveness of the patriarchal order. Accepted film conventions do not expose the male genitalia. The appearance of the male penis will again be seen later when Alex and Marcus are alone in bed. He gets up and kicks her in the face driving home the point of the randomness of assaults. The rape scene, hence, is a perversion, subversion acting as a mirror to our acceptance of convention film.
Another important scene which critics fail to mention is the sexual bantering among the three friends as they were taking the train. The scenes establish an almost “strange” three way relationship as Pierre haggles Alex for the reason why she could not make her come. Some of the statements made by Alex are weirdly prophetic. For example, she mentioned that a man should first please himself before the woman could be pleased. She also said that Pierre treats sex like a “task” which shouldn’t be the case. This runs as counterargument to the earlier rape scene with the rapist as he was placing his pleasure on the misery of the victim foremost; and he was acting on animalistic impulse.
The intimate scene between the two lovers towards the end appears on the surface a romantic bantering. Yet, it defines the relationship between our two protagonist; strangely at two different ends – one of them a victim; the other an attacker. Noe cleverly replays the biblical allegory of “garden of eden” and “adam and eve” with the nude couple caressing in bed happily and innocently; later to dance and share an apple.
The progression of Irreversible is such that the individual scenes become more “audience friendly” thematically and stylistically as it moves along. From the dimly lit S&M club to the rape scene to a private moment between a loving couple. Noe of course wasn’t pandering to filmic convention. Neither was he “salvaging” the “brutal” aspects of Irreversible’s earlier violence.
In actual fact, the last three scenes where Alex dreams of having a baby; basking in the sunlight with kids running around as a water sprinkler was taken from the top; and finally a loud noisy white background (perhaps simulating time tunnel, life after death or end of film or all the above) informs the audience of the artificiality of the medium. One could interpret the ending scenes as a happy ending (and hence classic Hollywood) but because we know a atrocity was committed later or (earlier for audience); this whole idea of bliss is already “corrupted” in our minds.
To summarize, Irreversible can be more than a film that shocks. It challenges film conventions and accepted norms by bending or breaking almost all classic cinema rules. The tagline of “Time Destroys Everything” is not merely literal but metaphysical too as it questions liberally –how lives are altered because of randomness of time; and if inverted (Everything is destroyed by time) how we see a film is also determined by the timing of its scenes.
