*** Official IRREVERSIBLE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

The rapist had that breathing/sniffing problem (probably from doing too much coke), and I think had a band-aid on the bridge of his nose (and was next to the guy who got his head bashed in). I'm fairly certain that the rapist was younger than the unlucky guy who met Marcus' fury and rage.

 

[Bill J]

If I recall correctly wasn't the actual rapist smiling while it was taking place?

 

[chris rick]

Yes Bill that's correct, as I can confirm because I just watched this last night.

 

[Casey L]

Here's something that's been bugging me - when I saw the film originally, I remember some of the dialogue being very different than how it is translated on the Lions Gate DVD. A few examples that stick out:

1. At the very beginning, I could swear one of the observers that ridicule Marcus and Pierre as they're taken away said something to the effect of "Look at that guy's fucked up face!" There is no such comment on the DVD, and to me it detracts a little because, knowing the film is going to go backwards, it gives the viewer a sense of dread, it has an ominous feeling to it. We understand something bad is going to happen (already has).

2. When the almost-naked man is conversing with the other guy, I noticed several discrepancies. The first is that on the DVD he says "I slept with my daughter." As I recall, in the theater it was "I had sex with my daughter." Tonally, this seems to be a big difference to me. "Slept" is idiomatic, even if there is no question as to what he means. "Sex" is taking the deed down to its basic truth - it says nothing of any possible emotions involved, only the fundamental physical act itself. "Sex" is more honest than "slept" - it means that the man has no problems admitting that he has done it. It's almost existential.

3. Also from the beginning conversation, I remembered the other guy saying "There's no... no crimes, only actions." On the DVD, it is "There's no... no bad deeds, just deeds." First off, the wording of the latter translation just sounds off. I do like, however, that it expands the comment to not only deal with crime, but to deal with any course of action a person might take.

4. One last thing - one of the hecklers at the beginning, on the DVD, says "Ain't". It's when he's saying there are no condoms in prison, I think. I'm almost positive he didn't say this theatrically - and it bothers me that it's on the DVD, because clearly the French aren't likely to use a grammatically-incorrect equivalent of ain't. "Ain't" seems me like something that is native to one language - an esoteric kind of word. It's annoying that the translator would aim to convey how an American might say something as opposed to how the French person in the film actually said it. And to me, very subtly, over the course of the film and other examples I'm not citing, it distorts the overall message.

Wow, I just reread all that and it looks unbelievably obsessive-compulsive. I assure you I'm not usually like this - but nearly every word of the film was burned into my memory the first time I saw it, and in the days after when I racked my brain for an interpretation, these subtleties played an important role. I think it's an amazing film, and one for which the meaning is sometimes imparted by seemingly offhand comments other characters make. To me, that is the whole purpose of that beginning conversation and of the people who ridicule Marcus and Pierre.

 

[Ross Williams]

I watched this for the first time about a week ago. I had to watch it again a few days later, and made my wife and friend watch it with me, just so I could have people to talk about it with. I haven't seen a film all year that's stayed with me this long. It's an incredibly powerful film, that's very tough to watch at times.

Something that wasn't talked about in this thread, was that the film is made to look like it's one unbroken shot. The transitions between scenes and back in time is usually the camera sweeping up towards the sky. Besides the head bashing, all the scenes seem to be unspliced. I was so wrapped up in the film that I never looked for any cuts. I found this to be very impressive. It also makes the film feel more like real life. As if we're a fly following the action. I like how the the camera is completely frantic at the "begining", it slowly calms down through the film.

Has anybody seen Noe's other feature I Stand Alone?

 

[Patrick Sun]

If I were married, and had already seen this film, I don't know if I could ask my wife to watch this film with me, the subject matter would be almost to much to bear (knowing what was coming up in the film).

 

[Paul_D]

the main character beating the stomach of his heavily pregnant girlfriend after which she collapses in a heap screaming that he murdered her baby, a brief and quite unnecessary scene of hardcore pronogrphy while the main character visits a sex cinema, and a bizarre fantasy sequence involving his daughter at the end, the latter of which is actually prefixed by a title card warning the viewer and giving them adequate time to leave the film!!!

I would argue that the viewer is so disoriented and shocked by the opening sequences, that they will remember snatches of dialogue only and the film won't saeem right without them, but I don't think it necessarily matters what those words are. It's such an intense experience, that you would naturally associate specific phrases with your feelings the first time round. More than any film I can think of, this film works without dialogue. I've watched the French DVD (without English subtitles) and all of the emotional impact was retained.

 

[Ross Williams]

If I were married, and had already seen this film, I don't know if I could ask my wife to watch this film with me, the subject matter would be almost to much to bear (knowing what was coming up in the film).

Well, I knew mine could handle it. She ended up loving the movie more than me. The head bashing scene didn't bother her at all, she said it "looked fake". We had quite the discussion about that, because it disturbed the hell out of me the first time I saw it.

She had a hard time stomaching the rape scene, just like any normal person, but she never looked away or got mad at the filmmakers. In fact, afterwards she said she loved how it was filmed in one stagnant shot.

This is a woman who ruined the alien popping out of the stomach in Alien and the first kid getting killed in the bedroom in Nightmare on Elm Street scenes for me by laughing at them. I've learned not to watch horror movies with her. Anything more realistic she tends to love.

 

[Joshua_Y]

I finally just got around to watching the film today...and the two scenes (head bashing and the rape) are hands down the two most disturbing scenes that I have ever watched! And I've seen just about everything "disturbing" saying to myself "This is disturbing?" But by god the film is just brilliant...I also loved the way it felt like one whole shot...which I just now realized...I hadnt when I watched it...

Man...I need to watch this again...

 

[Seth Paxton]

Here's my review. Once I go back and read the whole thread I'll join the discussion too.
Irreversible
7 of 10
For those who accused Memento of using reverse-order scenes as a gimmick I give you a film that actually does use it as a gimmick. The script gives us very little reason to see this film unfold backward other than to make the viewer disoriented at the beginning. At times it begins to touch on parallels and themes playing off the "earlier" scenes, but it never really goes far with them, at least far enough to warrant this narrative method. Any emotional impact would be just as strong if not stronger were this film presented in forward time.
Also the film peaks out way too soon because of this method. I realize that the intention to go for the dramatic "soft" impact of contrast and twist at the end, but unlike Memento where a critical moment that gives us new insight into everything we've just seen comes at the end, here there is very little to truly expand upon the horrors we've already seen.
The film does have very strong art direction and interesting, though not necessarily great, direction.
By far the strength of the film is the acting, which demands not only that the actors stay in character for extremely long sequence shots (done by Steady-Cam), but that they also endure a very strong range of emotions. That they hit these ranges and maintain them for so long is a massive credit to their talent, primarily Bellucci and Cassel (Matrix Reloaded and Brotherhood of the Wolf respectively).
In total it's a rather bland script highlighted by outstanding acting and harmed by an intrusive storytelling method that fails to truly serve its purpose. Extremely shallow in the themes of life, wearing any possible thoughts it might have on its very short sleeve.
I thought the use of her being pregnant felt like an emotional gimmick as well. The film had earned very little from me emotionally beyond the impact of the two scenes of violence, which by their very nature incite emotion just in seeing them. Everything else played out like someone saying "see, isn't that ironic, aren't you moved?"

 

[Seth Paxton]

If I recall correctly wasn't the actual rapist smiling while it was taking place?

Yes, Marcus had actually found the right guy but got distracted to the wrong guy when he walked away. And that guy of course faces Pierre's wrath more than Marcus'. And of course the rapist is then shown smiling at the outcome of the attack, as much likely for the thrill of the violence as for the fact that he missed getting such a treatment.

The bandage and the drug he is sniffing are the giveaways, as well as the necklace he is wearing.

 

[Matt Stone]

I've got to disagree with the backwards storytelling being gimmicky in Irreversible. If told forward, it would have played out like a typical I Spit on Your Grave/Death Wish revenge flick, but telling to story backwards shows us the downfall of the primary characters before we even care about them. As the plot unravels to show just what was lost in the tragedy, we feel the emotional impact of the events we just saw. Rather than us feeling justified vengence in the horrible face-bashing scene, we're horrified, only to later be horrified all over again by the rape scene. Then in the end, we see the couple happy, only to know interally that they are doomed. This makes for a truly haunting film.
...at least for me

 

[MatS]

The poignancy of this structure -- the sense that the film has the power to rewind time and so undo all the horrible things it has shown us -- is at once manipulative and marvelous. In "Memento," the backward narrative (like the main character's gimmicky disease) primarily served as an elaborate game to bewilder the audience; here it becomes the realization of the unrealizable goal of so much literature and art, to recapture the past.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/revi.../irreversible/

 

[MatS]

Roger Ebert's review also offers a great explaination (better than I could do) on why reverse chronology works so well for this film
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_...03/031403.html

 

[Paul_D]

Echoing what Matt said, I don't believe the narrative structure is a gimmick at all. What Noe has done is tell a typical revenge story but drain all the audience satistaction from it simply by applying the reverse structure method. We are forced to endure the act of revenge before we have any grounds for taking pleasure in its execution. Then piling misery upon misery, we must watch frantic post-rape scenes, knowing that yet more horror is to come. The final scenes make us actually care for the people involved, after we know they are doomed.

I think the reverse structure is perfectly used, and on closer inspection allows Noe to make a serious point about this type of cinema, and audience participation in general.

 

[Seth Paxton]

But the title says it all: somethings are Irreversible. The movie shows what leads up to two very violent, horrific events and how our good and bad decisions have consequences that you will be UNABLE to reverse.

First of all the film explictly denounces "good and bad decisions" by saying that there are only decisions.

However I agree that this appears to be the primary theme of the film. I simply don't think the film had anything more, better, or unique to say on the subject that hasn't been said in other films, not to mention the fact that it's not exactly groundbreaking to say that actions and even words simply can't be undone. That is an idea that I would say nearly 50% of the films out there touch upon at some point.

Then there is the predestination angle and the morality angle, but neither of those is explored beyond a few very brief mentions. I was very disappointed with what the film had to say past the rape scene. To me there was very little there to justify the previous 50 minutes of film.

To me the film would have been far better off ending with the rape as the parallel of violent action/reaction, rather than tagging on a rather manipulative and simplistic attempt to say "oohh, look what can happen from the most harmless actions or coincidence" as well as say "wow, if you thought that rape wasn't brutal enough consider that she was also PREGNANT!" bum bum bummmm.

Well, the pregnancy doesn't make the rape worse somehow to me, it was already as horrible as it could possibly be I think, and it certainly doesn't add any deeper meaning to the rest of the film IMO. Nothing changes because of the new knowledge.

And as for "results of our actions" and predestination, even Sliding Doors took a stronger stance on that subject, as did the far better Run Lola Run.

If you want to see the futility of revenge done well then just put in Ben-Hur.

 

[Seth Paxton]

us the downfall of the primary characters before we even care about them

But that's just it, what is there to care about when we already know it is going right in the trash. I knew where they were going to end, the film then speaks of predestination as if to say it also believes in it, and so here we are with some people that have no hope. Where is the conflict? They might as well be wearing the red Star Trek uniform at that point.

 

[Seth Paxton]

What Noe has done is tell a typical revenge story but drain all the audience satistaction from it simply by applying the reverse structure method.

Yes, because the audience wouldn't have the satisfaction drained out when they see that they've killed the wrong guy at the end, which is exactly what the "last" shot would have shown (ignoring the aftermath ambulance thing and the coda of the 2 guys in the room above talking).

I would say based upon the number of people that mistakingly thought that the RIGHT guy was killed that Noe has had exactly the oppositve effect by going in reverse. They think that while the girl has been raped AT LEAST they killed the guy later, when in fact they hadn't.

How could a film viewer hope to be certain of that without the benefit of rewind that the DVD provides? There aren't a lot of glimpses of the guy as it is and the other guy looks enough like him to make some people unsure even after going back to look. And because we have NEVER SEEN HIM BEFORE, we don't know to how to distinguish him in the commotion, certainly not enough to remember him later when we see him in the tunnel.


I think letting us get to know the characters first, then having their world destroyed, then having their revenge ruined would have much more impact in that order. As it stands the film's one notable impact on me was the feeling of bleakness and hopelessness. I won't argue that this still is an impact, but then I rated the film as a 7 as it was.

However, I think a foward order telling would have had that same effect as well as being more emotionally devastating in the end.


MEMENTO SPOILER

Remember that the reverse order in Memento actually ends up serving the purpose of revealing in the end that of all the people that use Shelby, in the end it is Shelby using himself most of all. And it also speaks to the idea of just how far we would go to maintain our peace of mind.

The whole point of reversal in that film is to build up all of these actions before giving them their final true meaning (that they are the result of Shelby lying to himself rather than being used).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Last thing...this touches on my "bleak" comment (which others also mentioned). Ebert said this in his review...

To know the future would not be a blessing but a curse. Life would be unlivable without the innocence of our ignorance.

I agree, that theme is an important theme. However the film itself never follows that path in the least. Not one snippit of dialog goes anywhere near that subject, not one minute of action.
While not everything has to be spelled out, I think any intelligent person would acknowledge that while a viewer/reader can find tons of things in a film/story not all of those things were intentionally put there. How can we tell what was intended? Usually by some real presence of the idea. This doesn't have to be a hit your over the head moment, but just a brief mention of the idea.
After all the film DOES take time out to have Belluci mention that she believes in predestination, and then hammers that idea home later in her unsubtle tunnel dream. Yet at no point does it bother with the point that it would be better to not know the future. That leads me to believe that while predestination was on Noe's mind, the idea that you couldn't go on living if you did know was not.
I feel like his whole point is to put you in a place where you see life as utterly hopeless. After all, a child, birth, is the ultimate symbol of hopefulness, the future, and possiblities (including as it is used in the referenced 2001), and in this case Noe has destroyed that image even before he presents it.
I get the impression that Noe simply doesn't feel that positive about life, period. At least that is what I got from his art, even if it wasn't intended.

 

[Paul_D]

You certainly have a point Seth, but for me this just isn't what buttons the film is aiming to push.

If the standard chronology had been used, despite any revelatory shot at the end showing the real rapist alive and well, during the moment of the murder, whoever they kill, the audience, having suffered the mental assault of watching the rape, at the very least 'understand' the act of violence, even if its directed at the wrong man. In Noe's version, it doesn't matter that they killed the wrong guy, the point is that we are subjected to a horrendous act of violence with no way to justify it in our minds, because we haven't seen what provoked it. To me, this lets us be repulsed by what we see to a level that no other structure would've allowed.

To say that violence is bad, and that much violence in cinema today is glamorised and sanitised isn't exactly a new idea, but I think its also one that this film conveys better than anything I've ever seen before. Points deducted for lack-of-originality, but many more added for gusto.