*** Official IRREVERSIBLE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Matt Stone]

Good thoughts being kicked around here.

As far as the gimmick aspect...I suppose I just have different criteria. Told forward, the story would have been completely different without the emotional resonance that the current structure of the film allowed for.

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.

I disagree with that, because I think it would have been a stardard cookie cutter movie. The backwards structure of the film tackles the issue of "you don't know what you had until it's lost." We're able to see and feel that visually.

 

[Quentin]

Seth, I think you are viewing this film from too much of a “dramatic narrative”-centric point of view. I’d say “Hollywood” point of view, since American films are typically narrative driven, but that sounds too insulting, and I’m not trying to insult or patronize.

I’ve seen you mention your interest in screenwriting in other threads. Then, in this thread, I see you mentioning typical American/Hollywood/narrative terms such as “path”, and “care about {characters}”, and “conflict”, and “theme”. As a writer, I most often view films from the same point of view, inspecting and analyzing all these elements. Looking for thematic and emotional setup and payoff.

But, “Irreversible” is not meant to be viewed in this manner. I believe this is a film intended to do three things: 1) To deconstruct the typical revenge film, both structurally and emotionally, 2) To provoke both a visceral reaction as well as later conversation regarding both the reaction and its origins, and 3) To put forth various theories of “life philosophies”, also to provoke discussion of them after the experience.

You should REACT to this film. But, don’t look for a “path” or one primary theme. There are various themes at play. Noe attempts not to latch on to any one…he is attempting to eliminate payoff of expectations and provoke discussion.

“Memento” is plot driven. Despite it using a “gimmick” of mixing up time and telling things somewhat backwards, it is a straight forward narrative film. It has a path and a theme and clear conflict. The mixed up time structure makes it more entertaining, but it does not make it any smarter or enlightening than most typical mystery stories.

“Irreversible” cannot exist as the three things I mention above unless it is told in backward chronology.

Some comments on your specific points:



Not entirely true. A character in the film makes this statement, and he’s not a character to be trusted.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Actually, by letting the audience piece together later in the film that the wrong guy was beaten to a pulp by Marcus is also just more one thing that is terrifying about this film because that poor guy could be you or anyone else in the wrong place at the wrong time, by no fault of your own (besides just horrific luck).

For some not-so-observant people, sure, they didn't get that Marcus beat up the wrong guy, but for those who realize it, it's downright chilling.

 

[Peter Kim]

For some not-so-observant people, sure, they didn't get that Marcus beat up the wrong guy, but for those who realize it, it's downright chilling.

Chilling indeed...coupled with a great feeling of emptiness.

In no way could this same effect be achieved if the story were told in a forward chronology...as the remainder of the story unravels, we are left with an insoluble sense of dread.

In a different movie with a traditional timeline, we could absolve this dread by perhaps looking to the remainder of the film for resolution or satisfactory closure.

Instead, the remainder of this film converges pointedly towards purity and innocence, twisting and draining itself from evil...and this contrast ultimately accents the horrific finality of the 'beginning' of this film.

 

[Seth Paxton]

.

Just tying that in to the idea that Noe somehow is doing something special by showing us that actions have irreversable consequences. It's not just normal it is described as the very standard by which a Hollywood narrative should be measured. Going in reverse order does not change this.
And again, I strongly disagree that for Memento the reversal was even just about the mystery nor experiencing his condition. To me the primary point of the reversal is to first build up an understanding and emotion about how people use his condition to get what they want and about how he is suffering, and then at the end to suddenly redirect those feelings toward the protagonist himself.
That film is very much ordered in order of emotional presentation, just as Quentin is describing Irreversable. The climax comes not from the physical outcome of the plot but from the emotional understanding that he is not only the biggest abuser of his condition but that emotionally we can now see some justification for that action. It calls us into question and asks us if we wouldn't do the same thing.
In forward order that question is asked long before we could not only answer it but even understand it (or at least appreciate it).
I'm not sure what philosophical question or understanding is being presented by Noe during the last 30 minutes of his film, other than as I said he sees life as hopeless or as Quentin says he sees men as assholes.
But it's still a better discussion than what role the pie really was playing in American Pie.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Not entirely true. A character in the film makes this statement, and he’s not a character to be trusted.

I disagree. When you present a character who will remain utterly disconnected from the diegesis that character tends to take on the role of the "chorus", a means for the artist to present his ideas to the audience in direct dialog if you will.

At the very least Noe is clearly trying to start the film off with us thinking about such a concept, whether we trust the character or not. Obviously Noe felt that such a scene had SOME meaning and that it's placement BEFORE the main presentation was critical.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Seth, the character Vincent Cassel played was "Marcus", there is no Malcom in the film. Just so people don't get confused by your use of "Malcom" when referring to "Marcus".

 

[Quentin]

Except that this character is from a previous Noe film. It's a cheat, and it's rather pretentious, but with the knowledge of who the character is, you can quite easily make the assumption that Noe is actually saying the opposite.

Your points on the necessity of narrative structure as the foundation for a deconstructional statement are well made. I have to agree. Even with Bunuel!

But, I think we will remain oh-so-slightly in disagreement on both this film's structure (and its effect) as well as "Memento". Interestingly, I give this film more credit than you do, and Memento less...but, in the exact manner. I see your point about The end of “Irreversible”…but, I believe that ending the film this way would play as a “trick” even more than you feel the reverse direction plays as one. It is also not deconstructionist at all…it’s just a revenge film with a little “oooh, how ironic that they got the wrong guy” twist at the end. Which, ironically, is how I felt about “Memento”! A solid, entertaining mystery/genre film with a “gimmick”…and, at the end, an “oooh, how ironic!” moment that, frankly, I saw coming and felt was just another gimmick on top of it all.

I will end in more agreement - the lines between La Tenia and Marcus are absolutely blurred. No doubt. I believe it is Noe purposefully drawing our attention to the similarities - because men are pigs.

 

[Cagri]

I watched Irreversable last night. I am glad I'd read several things about the film before watching it so that I made some arrangements in order to prevent myself to concentrate deeply. When watching a film if the thought "this is just a film" is on the surface of my mind I'm not deeply affected from what I see, if you know what I mean. So I watched it with lots of extra light, with many pauses and cigarette and snack breaks so that I wasn't very disturbed during the rape scene. I kept reminding myself that it was a film and that helped me to stay outside of what was happening.

I guess my question is, are there some things one should simply not watch. If a film comes along even a film with artistic intention that realistically and graphically depicts a man getting his brains splattered by a fire extinguisher, or a woman being brutally beaten and sodomized for many unrelieved minutes (or to ignore Irreversible, how about scenes of child rape or torture) is that something you should watch?

I think yes, there are some things one should not watch, and scenes like the fire extinguisher are among them for me. I looked away during that scene and turned when I thought it was finished to see the bashed head of the guy. It was much more disturbing to me than the rape scene. Anyone feels the same ?

My initial opinion about the film was not very positive but it started too sink now and I think it's a fine film. I am a bit sorry I'd bought the disc though maybe I should've just rented it, I will probably not watch it again.

BTW, I thought Alex wasn't dead but several posters refer to the rapist as "killer" . I won't watch the film to find that out, can someone confirm she is not dead please.

 

[Doug R]

It is mentioned a few times that Alex is in a coma at the hospital. It never clarifies if she lives or dies.

 

[Nathan V]

Um, I was under the understanding that the final scene of her pregnant in the park took place after all the events in the film. She was obviously pregnant in that scene. Clearly it wasn't the first scene in the plot, as she finds out that she's pregnant in the scene chronologically after the park scene. According to this interpretation, yes, she lives.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I dunno, I think the last scene is the first chronological scene for the story, and we don't know the fate of Alex, just the promise of her life that went horribly awry. But it's open for interpretation, maybe on your personal worldview.

 

[MichaelPe]

She was obviously pregnant in that scene.

How is it obvious? Maybe I need to watch the film again, but it didn't seem obvious to me. (I think I was too memesmerized by her beauty to be paying attention to that detail.)
Anyway, I think that the final park scene is actually the chronological beginning of the film. Otherwise, if it were to take place after, then it would just seem inconsistent with the whole theme of "time destroys everything".

 

[Quentin]

The park scene is absolutely the chronological beginning, and she is obviously pregnant (if for no other reason than that we know she is).

 

[Cagri]

If her pregnancy is obvious because of her belly then it is not the chronological beginning, it's the chronologically last scene as Nathan suggests... I'll check that scene tonight. I took it as tthe beginning when I saw it but if it turns the other way round I'll be pleased. I agree it will not fit the film overall though.

 

[Quentin]

It's not visually obvious...it's tonally obvious. She is sitting there like a mother-of-the-earth, with kids playing around her. The shot is quite purposeful. But, her belly is NOT swollen.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Seth, the character Vincent Cassel played was "Marcus", there is no Malcom in the film. Just so people don't get confused by your use of "Malcom" when referring to "Marcus".

Sheesh. Sorry about that. :b

 

[Cagri]

It's not visually obvious...it's tonally obvious. She is sitting there like a mother-of-the-earth, with kids playing around her. The shot is quite purposeful.

If her belly is not swollen, which is not, then IMO it all depends on your interpretation. I'd love to take it that way so I'd feel a bit better, but my take is that scene is the chronological beginning of the events.

EDIT- Oops, sorry I misunderstood your post Quentin, and now see what you mean, you're right. I thought you were suggesting that she was preagnant and it was the chronological end.

It makes it all more depressive doesn't it.

 

[Quentin]

It is, indeed, quite depressing...

 

[MatS]

well here is what I posted pre-release of this film

I am quite interested in hearing more about this movie. It obviously is one of those movies that stir reactions either good or bad
I hear a lot of what I heard from people in regards to Requiem For A Dream in that people felt they never needed to see it again after the first time because of how disturbing it was. I am one who admired that movie greatly and can watch it repeatedly.

Oddly enough I fell into that very trap not having watched it since the first couple viewings when it first came out on dvd (just looked back and realized the dvd came out 2 years ago this month).
That was until tonight when I decided to revisit.
Still a chilling piece of cinema.

hopefully this bump will lead to others discovering this great movie for the first time.