(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkubrick77.free.fr%2Fphotos%2Fenter_the_void%2FC9B3E28B-4063-4FE2-889222DA8B5CC8EB.gif&hash=3d67372424457a465af8b93d11a89b4fa8c430c5)
"Making a film is difficult, but making a great film is an almost impossible task."
"This quote from Spielberg is perhaps not completely accurate, but that's how I remember it. However, some examples of great films do exist, including the film which had such an influence on my existence: 2001, A Space Odyssey. Without professing to be able to create such a masterpiece, trying to make a film that is, at the same time, a large-scale entertainment, suitable for adults and complex in cinematic terms, is one of the most exciting undertakings one could wish to tackle. And if one does not set out with the aim of making a great film, one can be sure that it will not turn out to be one.
Few of the arts can satisfy man's need to be uplifted as immediately as film. And none (except interactive video games) can yet reproduce the maelstrom of our states of perception and consciousness.
In the past, certain films have tried to adopt the subjective point of view of the main character. enter the void will try to improve upon its predecessors and accompany the hero just as much in his normal state of awareness as in his altered states: the state of alertness, the stream of consciousness, memories, dreams...
The visions described in the script are inspired partly by the accounts of people who have had near-death experiences, who describe a tunnel of light, seeing their lives flashing past them and 'astral' visions, and partly by similar hallucinatory experiences obtained by consuming DMT, the molecule which the brain sometimes secretes at the moment of death and which, in small doses, enables us to dream at night.
The film should sometimes scare the audience, make it cry and, as much as possible, hypnotise it.
In recent years, films with labyrinthine structures have proved the audience's ability to follow storylines in the form of a puzzle, and its desire to move away from linear narration.
But a complex form where the content does not move the spectator in any way would only amount to mathematic virtuosity. Whereas this film is above all a melodrama: the universal melodrama of a young man who, after the brutal death of his parents, promises that he will protect his little sister no matter what and who, sensing that he himself is dying, fights desperately to keep his promise. A film where the life of one person is linked to the love he has for another human being.
The reason for choosing the most modern areas of Tokyo as a setting is to further emphasize the fragility of the brother and sister by propelling them like two small balls in a giant pinball machine made up of black, white and fluorescent colours.
My previous two films, which were far less ambitious, were once described by a critic as being like roller coasters playing with the most reptilian desires and fears of the spectator. enter the void, whose themes and artistic choices will be far more varied and colourful, should, if I succeed, be the Magic Mountain which I, as a spectator, dream of riding on."
Gaspar Noé
I watched Irreversible again recently. I admired the film a lot when it came out and was curious how it held up. The filmmaking is still as good as I remember. The film deals with a gimmick premise, but creates an authentic nightmare scenario in the mood and style that washes away most cliches. The problem is that the story is too superficial. It agonizes to make the themes easily readable to the audience.
The point is that Gaspar Noe is developing and Enter the Void at least has the subject material to take him to the next step.
you didn't mention another movie! :bravo:
Quote from: modage on January 30, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
you didn't mention another movie! :bravo:
remember, as pubrick once said, i mention other movies for everyone's benefit.
wait a second, his whole post was about another movie.
holy shit, that movie sounds fucking amazing. consider me surprised, gaspar noe is taking a giant leap here.. or at least he's trying. good enough (for now).
some stills:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quietearth.us%2Fimg%2Fe%2Fetv-3.jpg&hash=ca7d2abd9bf2331a313f0acfce1c1d53fc4dfcbd)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quietearth.us%2Fimg%2Fe%2Fetv-5.jpg&hash=44e349d089a43f6334ef6c00987d754664ecf777)
..and more. (http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2008/05/12/Stills-for-Gaspar-Nos-Enter-the-Void)
Quote from: New Feeling on January 30, 2009, 04:10:02 PM
wait a second, his whole post was about another movie.
No, his point is that I stuck to talking about one film. It was a lead up to a point about the new film, but I didn't add a million references when giving my thoughts about that film.
Or: It could be sarcasm on his part. I don't really care.
ATTN: NYC
If you are into this kind of thing...
Enter the Void
Gaspar Noé, 2009, France; 160m
DIRECTOR'S CUT!
In person: Gaspar Noé, Paz de la Huerto & Nathaniel Brown!
Co-presented with VICE magazine
In this state-of-the-art head trip, an inseparable brother and sister—American expats ensconced deep within the lower depths of Tokyo—find themselves separated and adrift in a hallucinogenic firestorm set in motion by simple yet extremely bad lifestyle choices. It's a tale of sex, drugs, and, of all things, an in-your-face afterlife, courtesy of the mind of Gaspar Noé, the creator of Irreversible. Speaking of which, stick around after the screening to pick Noé's brain. He'll be on stage with VICE overlord Shane Smith for a Q&A. And if that's not enough, free "stimulation" will be doled out at a VICE-appointed afterparty.
Wed Aug 11: 7:00
http://filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/fcssummer/enterthevoid.html
I think TimeOut Film or something already put this movie on their Top 50 biggest failure list. Of course, a majority of the films on the list came from the last twenty years so it was a trendy list, but considered it voided in one country and by one magazine. I read Time Out occasionally and usually they don't impress me with their critical points so it may be a moot slam, but consider it reported.
I've seen it twice, in its long form, and while it's not perfect, it's audacious enough - and technically mindblowing enough - to warrant a viewing. It's rare that I see a film and can't figure out just how they did this or that effect, but just about every shot here leaves you scratching your head, unable to find the seams.
My review from Sundance: http://www.davidpatricklowery.com/weblog/2010/01/
It definitely could stand to be shortened, but I've heard that Noe's cutting out one of my favorite sequences for the American release, so I'd recommend seeing the director's cut if you can.
New U.S. Trailer (http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-us-trailer-for-gaspar-noes-enter.html)
NOTES:
1. im posting two q&as from the playlist, both are worth it.
2. Some questions have minor plot spoils, but it is the last question of the 1st article that has a big spoiler (I think), even the q itself seems like one, I stopped reading the answer midway through.
Gaspar Noé Talks The Similarities Between 'Enter The Void,' & Avatar,' Crying Over James Cameron's Film & Working With 1/2 Of Daft Punk
Provocative French filmmaker and enfante terrible, Gaspar Noé has been terrorizing audiences with his controversial brand of cinema since 1998 when the savage and brutalizing "I Stand Alone" hit screens. The beautiful, yet excruciating "Irreversible" -- which featured one of the most notorious rape scenes in film ever -- followed, and his third feature-film, "Enter The Void," is a nightmarish and psychedelic experience that hits theaters this weekend in limited NY/L.A. release. While there's plenty of eroticism and relentless single-takes -- cinematic Noe staples -- is utterly unconventional, with the entirety of the film shot from the protagonists' point of view.
For those unfamiliar with this ambitious DMT drug-trip it follows young dealer Oscar (Nathaniel Brown), recently reunited with sister Linda (Paz de la Huerta, 'famous' for being naked in "Limits of Control") in Tokyo. After being killed in a night club bathroom, director Gaspar Noe ("Irreversible," "I Stand Alone") explores the past relationship between brother and sister, the tragic fate of their parents and subsequent separation, and a dream/drug-like alternate reality via the spirit of recently deceased Oscar.
Brilliantly inventive or an impossible headache? Two reviews from our men on the field were mixed on it, with our TIFF reviewer calling it a "trainwreck of a trainwreck" and our SXSW reporter stating that it's "absolutely mesmerizing trip that will burn itself into your psyche unlike anything else." While it's true that some elements just plain don't work, it's without a doubt an immersive visual experience, mostly exhilarating though admittedly quite juvenile at times. We sat down with the auteur recently -- after delayed interview where the director probably flaked on us to hang out with Benicio Del Toro -- and he was kind enough to give an extensive interview to not only talk about his film, but to also delve into Hollywood, his lack of Tinseltown ambitions and, in particular,James Cameron.
The Playlist: What drove you to making this film or coming up with the story?
Gaspar Noe: I wanted to do my own "2001 A Space Odyssey," like James Cameron did "The Abyss." There are lots of movies -- Wwat's the name of this other guy who did the movie "Sunshine"... the director who did "Trainspotting?" I think "2001 A Space Odyssey" influenced so many directors. In my case, I'd say when I was 7 years old it was like, my first drug trip ever. I remember coming out from the movie and I felt I was stoned for the first time in my life. That's also the movie that drove me to study cinema many years later, and when I started studying cinema, I was 17 and I was like most teenagers, smoking joints, trying a trip of LSD or mushrooms, and when you do those things you notice that all the movies that will present altered states of consciousness were quite bad or not accurate when it comes to the creation of those sensations, thoughts and visions you had when you were there. At that time I was watching movies like "Eraserhead" and Ken Russel's "Altered States," and I thought that it would be good to do, one day, a movie, a scene from the eyes of the main character, a POV, that would follow the main character through his hallucination.
Then you use that idea to explore a sort of afterlife or drug-induced limbo.
Yes, I was reading this book about life after death or also that you become above the death that tells you the trip of the souls, and afterlife, until you get reincarnated, all of that. and then I made a mix of all of those ideas, and I started developing a script. In the beginning it was a short film then it became a medium length movie then it became a feature a film, and I did rewriting over the years. In the mean time I was in other movies, but this was the project that I had in mind since I was 17. So I said, let's make a movie out of all these different ideas, death, reincarnation, drugs, the science of death, tunnels, and it took me a long time to write it, it took me a long time to find the money for it, it took me a long time to find the right people to do this sort of thing [ed. note, it was almost eight years between "Irreversible" and "Enter The Void"].
Were you trying to challenge audiences with the unusual structure?
(Laughs) The audience, they are much more playful than years ago, because when you see "The Matrix," the natural structure is really complex, when you see "21 Grams," the natural structure is very complex, when you see "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," . it's complex. There's more and more movies where -- even "Inception," for my taste has too much talk, but all these movies have very complex structures, even "Memento" had an [strange] structure, very complex. I just wanted to play with the audience like when the directors playing with my brain when I'd see a movie, like when I saw "Videodrome" I was so puzzled because I couldn't tell when the guy turned really crazy and there was another reality than the reality that the main character was going through. But the idea is not to challenge someone else, but to create a world that you haven't seen before or that is a mixed of different worlds that you have seen before but have never seen in one particular way, and then set the story inside that world.
You mentioned "Inception." What did you think of that?
I liked the structure of the movie, I would just say that many moments -- this is also something that I think about my own movies in many moments -- you have too much dialogue. Compared to my movies, they don't have as many dialogues as "Inception," but most dreams are silence, they're not talkative, and I would say too much dialogue killed the dream effect of the movie. But I liked the different layers, the different levels of reality, I would say I'm more into structures like the one of "Videodrome," that are synched-up but at the same time, they are treated in the way that you don't see one shift from one dimension to the other one.
I noticed there was two different cuts of the movie, the director's cut and the theatrical cut.
There was the original cut that was release all over Europe, and then because I had signed a contract saying that the movie could be, that it had to do with different cuts, the movie went over 2 hours and 20 minutes, just for England and the United States, I managed to re-edit the negative reels, in a way that you could pull out the reel #7 out of 9 and show it, and you don't notice that anything is missing. But I guess on DVD they're gonna put both, or maybe... for example, in England, they'll be showing both. Most of the time, they'll be showing the shorter version but during the weekend they'll be playing the longer version.
What's missing in the shorter version?
The 17 minutes that are missing, that reel doesn't contain anything violent or too sexual or controversial. It's mainly a reel in which the main character dreams that he wakes up in the morning and he's like a zombie, and after awhile he understands that he's just dreaming that he's waking up and that he's just dead. I recognize both versions, but I'd say maybe it's going to be easier to start with the shorter one in the States. But I think that also the movie is so trippy, because I added so many effects, like out of focus effects, etc. that for some people the movie's already too experimental.
In "Irreversible" you had a character from your previous in film, does that happen in "Enter The Void"? What drove you to connect these movies?
No, at a point I was willing to put Philippe Nahon (The Butcher from "I Stand Alone" and "Irreversible") in this movie but I couldn't find how to put him in, but I wrote in at one point to put a poster of Monica Bellucci -- a perfume poster with Monica Bellucci on a board in front of the apartment at the beginning of the movie and then I said it was like, a private joke. You can still see the small "Irreversible" poster inside his room, but there's no real connection.
Have you had any bizarre Hollywood offers?
I had a few, but it was as I was working on "Enter the Void," but I didn't consider them seriously. The problem that I have is that, for example, coming from France and the way of working is quite different. The guilds are not as powerful, and also after having shot in Japan where people work 14 hours a day and 6 days a week, many people to me, they'd never get used to it. I'm used to, personally, working 14 hours a day.
You have no Hollywood ambitions, no major thing you would want to do in the system?
You can do a Hollywood movie shot elsewhere, better. I would say, it's not a dream to do Hollywood movies, maybe there are some cases you need to go through Hollywood to do big budget movies, but I would see myself doing more of a career-like Lars Von Trier, if possible, where he can control his movies, work in his own countries, whether they're English with American actors or not. I don't know, it all depends on what is offered to me. If one day I get a script that really talks to me, maybe I'll say yes. For the moment, all I know is that I want to do an erotic movie that will please myself.
How did you get involved with Thomas Bangalter of Daft Punk?
At the time, when I was doing "Irreversible," I needed some pre-existing music for a party scene, so I met Thomas. To get the rights for Daft Punk was going to be very expensive, we were not able to pay what they asked, because the rights belong to the record company. But he had some other music that he had done personally on his own label, so we used that music. Once I was editing "Irreversible" I proposed him to do the music of the film. In the case of ("Enter the Void") I proposed him to do the music but he could not do it because he was already working on the music for "Tron Legacy," the one that's coming out soon. He said," I will not do the music, but if you want, I can do lots of sound effects for you," and then you mix and match what you want. So what happened, is that he would work for a few days creating sounds, and then he gave the sounds to me and I mixed it in with pre-existing experimental music from other people, I also added some music that we bought from different bands. But he did not technically do the soundtrack, although he did a great job and now we have all these strange sounds that appear in the movie. And besides being a great musician and a great person, he's also a great director, I don't know if you've seen his movie "Electroma."
Why did the film take place in Tokyo rather than a different city?
Because I had been there many times, and it's a very very pretty city. The first time you get there, even if you're sober, you feel that you're stoned because the people don't speak your language they barely speak English, for example. The whole culture is so different, blinking lights all over, it's very colorful, it's very speedy. So then the point was to convince the French financiers and producers that we could shoot in Tokyo and that it was not risky. Which actually was false, it was risky to shoot in Tokyo. And also, sometimes the neon lights in Tokyo, for example the main character in the movie smokes DMT, and DMT creates hallucinations that are made of very bright lights on a black background, a little bit like the paintings that the Mexican painters who do peyote do. So I was collecting images as references for what I wanted the movie to look like, and many of these references were coming from photos from Las Vegas or Hong Kong or Tokyo with just neon lights.
What did you think of "Avatar"?
I enjoyed it, I enjoyed it a lot. I cried twice or three times during the movie. Some moments were really trippy, when they get into that kind of forest with glow on the trees and I think the first time I had a 3D experience that I really enjoyed. I enjoyed it even more watching it in France in a regular theater with the glasses than I enjoyed it in New York on the bigger screen. The glasses were not made by Dolby and they were not as perfect.
Do you feel any connection to that movie, maybe similarities with "Enter The Void" and "Avatar"?
Yes, both movies tried to recreate a joint world, I don't know,you can also put it in the same basket like "Wizard of Oz" or so many other movies -- but they came out almost at the same time and I know that many people were complaining they were full of visual effects, both one and the other, but I would say mine is more for not a major audience but more for an audience for 18-25 and maybe "Avatar" is for younger audiences. But he did a great job. Cameron is really ambitious, he wants to make movies bigger and bigger every time.
Before the screening in New York at the Walter Reade in August, you told the audience to pay particular attention to the woman last scene. Are you nervous that audiences will miss your intentions?
Yes, because you see the face of the mother and not the face of the sister. That means that he's not reincarnating inside of his sister, but he's just either getting back into the loop and he's going to start his life again or that he's just dreaming of his only birth. In the shot you can not tell if it's the mother or the sister, but I thought if I had put the sister at the end then I was promoting the concept of reincarnation, and by putting the face of the mother out of focus you can have a talk about that but at the same time, the dream is a dream and when the dream is over the dream is over.
2nd article.
Gaspar Noé Talks Digital Filmmaking, Stanley Kubrick, Wanting To Work With Kristen Stewart & The "Sentimental, Erotic" Film He Wants To Make Next
When we said we had an extensive interview with film-maker Gaspar Noe, we weren't pulling your chain. Here is part two of our conversation with the director (part one here) in which the provocateur goes more in-depth on the influences and pre-production for "Enter the Void," as well as his thoughts on digital film-making and his admiration for "Twilight" actress Kristin Stewart. For those still on the fence or in the dark, check out the epileptic and titillating trailer here.
Can you talk more about how Kubrick inspires you and how that affects the way you direct movies?
I'm not so obsessed in his way of doing movies. I think I'm more of a party guy, drinking every night. But he was a very serious man, very focused on his work, very focused on his family. For me, the fact that he could've done "2001: A Space Odyssey" at that time, as perfect as it is, is one of the wonders of the universe. I wish I could have his talent, I know that I don't have it, but still as I direct I try to follow his path. I'm only obsessed with that particular movie, then besides "2001 A Space Odyssey" my other references for ["Enter The Void"] were more... "The Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome" by Kenneth Anger, or "Videodrome" by David Cronenberg. I'm not so obsessed with directors, personally, I'm more obsessed with movies, particular movies that I can watch over and over. Like I love Buñuel, I read about his life but mostly what I like is watching "Un Chien Andalou" over and over. It's like asking a mother to reread the same story every night.
Was there any reason you centered "Enter The Void" loosely around the Tibetan Book of the Dead? What drew you to that?
I don't know who recommended me to read the "Tibetan Book of Death", I read first another book that had a whole chapter, 30 pages, it would sum up what the "Tibetan Book of Death" was, and I said, "Oh great, this seems like a good structure for my new project." Then I read the real one, it's very practical, but very abstract... I think I've read it maybe twice in my life, but I took notes last time I read, and managed to pull the structure from that book. But I don't believe in reincarnation myself.
Do you think you would ever do something this grand again, or are you strictly going smaller?
I don't know, the thing is the more money you get to do the movie, the more pressure you have to make it commercially successful and help the people who financed your movie to get it back. So I guess to do a good movie most people would need time and the freedom. It's not so much about money, but there are big movies that you can only do with lots of money, with big crews with big techniques, and this movie needed that. For the next project, I want to go for something small because also, the bigger the movie is, the more it takes for you to start it, to shoot it, and to complete it, and I don't see myself into another 4 years working on the same project every day. Not right now.
We heard your next film is small scale, about the joys of relationships and sex. Can you talk more about that?
At the moment I cannot say what my next movie's gonna be and when I'm gonna start it. But I've been carrying for many years a very sentimental, erotic movie that I want to do, so if everything happens as I wish, I will start with that one next.
How do you feel about 3D?
Now there's so many TV channels that are going to start showing 3D that I was told that if I were to make it in 3D, it was be easier to finance it. But, I haven't tested the 3D cameras yet, there's a new Panasonic that is very simple to use but also you cannot make real close ups or you cannot see things from far without losing the 3D effects, so maybe these cameras have some secondary effects that will change how you write the movie. For example, if you make a movie with lots of nudity and the people you are using are not too much used to be filmed especially naked, you'd rather have a very small crew and the problem with 3D camera is maybe, to have proper 3D, you need 2-3 camera systems on the set.
Why was this film specifically in English rather than French?
Because English is a universal language and since the beginning I knew that the movie had to be seen through the eyes of the main character or through his mind, so if it's in English you can have a wider audience that can see the movie without subtitles. Unfortunately, for example, in France, they've only released it English with French subtitles and the subtitles kill the dream mood of the movie. Hopefully on the DVD we're gonna have the French dub version, for example in Germany they're releasing it with dubbing to German. I'm happy that people see it without subtitles, because all of the best films that are better in English, the subtitles kill the movie.
Was the film, for you, ever too overwhelming, given the scope?
I was surrounded by the right people. When we started this movie, it was like pushing a mountain. But there was no accidents, I had a great producer in Japan, I had a great financier from France, I had a great producer from France, I had the best person I could dream of to do all the sets and also co-produce the movie. The movie was potentially very risky, if we had any problems, maybe the insurance wouldn't cover it maybe the movie would've been unfinished forever. I guess from the moment I went into the editing room with all the material, I felt like the film was all ready. But then I spent a year and a half, two years doing the post production, visual effects, the soundtrack, etc. A very long process. Time consuming, but also energy consuming because you spend 4 years working every day on the same movie and not taking holidays at the end just knowing that you hate the movie but you just want to get somewhere else.
Could you talk a little bit about the casting process for this film?
I found Paz (Paz de la Huerta) before I found the other actors, I really liked her since the first day I saw her. But for me, the thing was to find a brother that could have some resemblance to her who could be a good actor and also who would not be a professional actor who would have narcissistic issues with the movie that would be induced by that you never see the main character's face and that the all the scenes are shot from the back of his neck. So to avoid having problems with a professional actor for the part of Oscar, I decided to have someone who was not an actor at all, who would be confident in front of the camera, although we mostly hear his voice and see his shoulders, and I met Nathan (Nathaniel Brown) and I thought he was perfect for the movie and he was really happy to be in the movie. I never had any kind of problem with him. When it comes to the other characters in the movie, most of them, besides the kid who plays Victor (Olly Alexander) and the woman who plays his mother, all the other characters are people who have never acted or were just working as critics or in the same industry as directors, or the guy who played Alex (Cyril Roy) was just a bartender who lost his job and was living in Tokyo. I like taking people for what they are, but it all depends on what is in the script. If you have scenes with a character screaming, crying, etc. you'd better get a professional actor like Paz who can do that on demand. But for characters like the one of Alex, it was maybe even easier to pick up someone who was not an actor, because he needs to run, to make jokes, etc. etc. I needed someone with karma rather than with skills.
How close did you stick to the script?
The script was very long. When we shot "Irreversible," the script was three pages long. In the case of this one, it was like 120 pages and contained over 200 scenes. You couldn't edit most scenes out because then you cannot understand story, which means it was overwritten. It's easier if you start the shooting of a feature with a shorter script because then you can add or improvise additional scenes that make sense. We improvised dialogue, all the written dialogue in the script, I would always tell Paz or Cyril or Nathan to use their own words to change whatever they felt like changing.
How do you feel about the advent of digital film making?
In some ways it's good that you see the footage immediately, as it makes you feel safer on set. For the moment, I prefer the colors and the grain of negative film stock, but I'm sure in one year, two year, three years, the HD cameras will be able to get exactly the grain and the contrast of the negative film stock. Movies shot with the Canon photo camera MK2, and I saw documentaries that were amazing. So I'm gonna buy one, I don't know what I'm going to use it for but I'm going to buy one of those digital photo cameras that you can use to shoot a feature.
Have you seen "Che?" That was shot HD, with the Red camera.
Yes, I liked it. But Red is kind of a big camera. If I were to shoot on HD, I would rather go for a smaller camera because I do the camera work myself, and I like having a light camera. Like, for example, this movie was shot on Super 16 and the cameras were kind of light.
How do you feel about the ability to watch movies on a cell phone, on an Ipod?
From time to time I like watching movies on my portable computer, but I'd never watch a whole feature on cell phone. When you're taking a train or taking a plane, it's great to have a small computer so you can decide which movie you watch. Cell phones are maybe too small. I like the regular TV sets that remind me of my own childhood.
I couldn't help but notice Benicio del Toro at the screening in New York at the Walter Reade. Do you see him as a potential collaborator?
He liked my first feature very much, "I Stand Alone," we met, he was dating a French actress at the time that I knew so she said "Oh if you want to meet him..." so I met him and we always hang out if we're here in New York, Cannes, or elsewhere.. I hope one day we'll do something together.
Do you have any American actors you'd want to work with?
I guess just the ones who are my friends. The last one I saw was really pretty... what was her name... Kristen Stewart, the one who was in "Twilight." She has such an expressive face.
hey P, i bet you loved his answer about kubrick, and stefen hates the very last one.
A friend of mine saw this film two years ago at TIFF, sadly i missed that screening...
Quote from: Fernando on September 24, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
hey P, i bet you loved his answer about kubrick
yeah gaspar's a mad cunt. regardless of what ppl say about his movies, he's at least ambitious.
when the year is over, everyone will see this as being one of the best years in cinema in recent times and this film will probably be the most underrated (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=245.msg295524#msg295524) in a year that xixax had all but written off. this year seems to be characterized by mass doubt and reluctant recognition of obvious masterpieces like this and the social network.
I have never been so jarred by a film before... Not in recent memory. Every second is an eyegasm... God, I wish I could even review this at this point. I just can't. There are no words to describe this movie. It is so grossly personal that it just has to be seen to be understood fully.
Everyone see this if and when you can. I'm not fucking around.
SPOILER
I was basically hypnotized by the film until the zoom in of the penis in the vagina at the end. The audience laughed like children in sex ed and it really pulled me out of it (NO PUN INTENDED, SEE I CAN DO IT, TOO!).
Hm. What a strange film. I thought the opening of the film was nauseating and fascinating. But he weaves in his concept via The Book of the Dead rather sloppily, and everything after that is kind of a repetitive bore. Visually, it's amazing. But still, I don't think it's a very good film, and the incestuous themes were distracting and unnecessary. I think.
The film is so overly erotic. Like I can't come up with a good reason for it, unless he's just saying this is what a soul would do, wander around and watch people have sex. But that's awfully boring, isn't it? The film is so goddamned interesting for the first 30-45 minutes. It's a shame it goes on for so long.
I saw it for a third time on the big screen. I think it's gonna be one of those films.
It was playing at the local arthouse here a couple weeks ago but I decided not to go because the screens are so awful at this theater. I opted to wait for the BD and since this is a visual film, I'm glad I waited.
Quote from: Stefen on November 29, 2010, 11:59:10 PM
It was playing at the local arthouse here a couple weeks ago but I decided not to go because the screens are so awful at this theater. I opted to wait for the BD and since this is a visual film, I'm glad I waited.
I dont know much about that particular theater, but I'd have recommended you go anyway. Part of this movie is watching it in a dark room with a bunch of people whispering to each other "Fucking seriously?"
Quote from: // w ø l r å s on November 30, 2010, 10:25:00 AM
Quote from: Stefen on November 29, 2010, 11:59:10 PM
It was playing at the local arthouse here a couple weeks ago but I decided not to go because the screens are so awful at this theater. I opted to wait for the BD and since this is a visual film, I'm glad I waited.
I dont know much about that particular theater, but I'd have recommended you go anyway. Part of this movie is watching it in a dark room with a bunch of people whispering to each other "Fucking seriously?"
That is a very good point.
Quote from: Ghostboy on July 26, 2010, 10:15:16 PM
It definitely could stand to be shortened, but I've heard that Noe's cutting out one of my favorite sequences for the American release, so I'd recommend seeing the director's cut if you can.
Which sequence was that? The movie I saw was advertised as 2:43, but it played for about 2:20.
Saw this on Friday. It was a late showing, and I was a little sleep-deprived with a bit of a headache. Perfect way to see this film. The story element of it is oddly uninventive, but the visuals and sheer audacity of the film are what make this film. It really is quite an experience, especially on the big screen, where the images fill your vision, and you can't pause it or look away. Its an unsettling and beautiful film.
Noe cut an entire reel out of the film.
SPOILERS
http://www.avclub.com/articles/gaspar-noe,45554/
AVC: So you're cutting the movie for American release?
GN: Actually, I like this version as it is, but I signed a contract that if the movie was over two hours 20 minutes or whatever, I would do a reduced version. The solution I found: Instead of doing another edit of the movie, is just I managed to cut the reels, I managed that the movie could work without the reel number seven.
AVC: What happens in reel seven?
GN: That's after the abortion scene, you see the abortion, and the camera flies through and hits the fetus and gets into another dimension or whatever, and he comes out, and the guy is calling, that's where reel number seven starts. You see the girl in the kiddie-land, she's depressed, and then the guy says, "Well, can you bring me my stuff? I want to see Linda" on the phone. And then there's the orgy with the two girls, and then Mario tells Linda that she's fired, and then you see him waking up at the morgue. There's all these dreams where he wakes up and doesn't wake up, and then she wakes up and says "Oh, I had a dream about my brother. We were was sitting at the morgue." And then she throws the ashes in the sink. And at that moment when the camera gets into the sink, that's where reel number eight starts, so in the reduced version, they will have the nine reels. I don't know if they're going to play the full-length version in some theaters, or only the eight-reel version. But otherwise, you'll see when the camera hits the fetus, it comes out in the, you see some cockroaches, and it comes out in the cemetery. It's not a controversial reel. There's nothing real important. Just the moment he wakes up disappears. I like it as it is, but I don't mind. I would say, my conviction is that the people like the movie for its decadence, not that it's 17 minutes shorter, that it makes any difference.
AVC: It's literally unchanged other than that?
GN: In some ways it's more dramatic, because reel number seven is kind of minimal, and otherwise you go from the abortion to Linda coming to Victor and then going to the plane, and then you got to the sex hotel, so it's not a censored version. It's just a shorter version. I like it much better the other way. But it works. People who see the short version don't notice there's anything missing at all. I don't know, maybe it's like if you do a trip, a mushroom trip or whatever; if you enjoy it, you want it to be long. They say that if you're coming down from your mushroom trip or your acid trip, you have to smoke tobacco, because it re-enhances and you can keep on going.
I just had a thought. Xixax 2003 would have gone crazy for this film. Now it seems a little muted.
Agree/disagree?
Is Criterion releasing the DVD/Blu-Ray? This is an IFC Films release in the US.
Quote from: modage on November 30, 2010, 12:02:45 PM
I just had a thought. Xixax 2003 would have gone crazy for this film. Now it seems a little muted.
Agree/disagree?
I think a lot of people didn't get around to seeing it, maybe. It's a very visceral film, I can't imagine being lukewarm to it. I absolutely adored it, but a lot of people I work with (mostly film students or elitists in some sense) had no kind words about it. I'm just glad there are those who enjoyed it here. I'll be seeing Black Swan soon, but I heavily doubt it will dethrone EtV as my favorite of this year.
walrus is right in my case. i really want to see it, just haven't yet. i'll go ape shit if i see it and it's what peeps are talking about.
This guy completely nails EXACTLY how I feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwTLqUjgAC8
i saw it with 2Highlifes and 2bowls in me and for the first hour i was blown away... I really wish it hadnt gone on so long though, and i know it's Noe, but i wish this hadnt had gotten so dark... needed to be a little more closer to Spun that Requiem... but it did re-establish BUF as my favorite efx team... guess i was just looking for more style over substance with this one
this kind of films reinforces my faith in cinema as an art form. enter the void is so spectacularly out there that it becomes irrelevant if it "works" or not.
It really has to be seen to be "understood" as someone else said a few posts ago, if that is the right word. More like "felt". How do you explain a film like this? To separate the parts in terms of story, narrative, aesthetic would banalize it. The experience is more important than the intellectual content, which is I guess what Noe is aiming for.
It saddens me that daring films like this and Antichrist are subjected to such vitriol from the snub critics world while complete borefests are celebrated. This is the kind of thing that should be released in IMAX 3D. Favorite of the year by far.
where/when did you see it???
They're playing the directors cut at IFC Center this weekend.
http://www.ifccenter.com/films/enter-the-void-original-uncut-version/
And Museum of the Moving Image is playing 2001:
http://www.movingimage.us/visit/calendar/2011/01/15/detail/2001-a-space-odyssey
I'm kinda thinking about going to do a crazy double-feature tomorrow.
I really didn't like it, sadly. i was looking forward too it. it's "the doom generation" of today. it uses all the same devices and ideas that "irreversible" had in it with way more self indulgence. it's forgetable.
Quote from: socketlevel on January 14, 2011, 12:26:56 PM
I really didn't like it, sadly. i was looking forward too it. it's "the doom generation" of today. it uses all the same devices and ideas that "irreversible" had in it with way more self indulgence. it's forgetable.
Not a condescending question. Just a curious one, but if you didn't take to Irreversible, what about this one looked appealing? I just want to know if there are some parts to Irreversible or Gaspar Noe you liked.
Quote from: modage on January 14, 2011, 10:13:21 AM
They're playing the directors cut at IFC Center this weekend.
http://www.ifccenter.com/films/enter-the-void-original-uncut-version/
And Museum of the Moving Image is playing 2001:
http://www.movingimage.us/visit/calendar/2011/01/15/detail/2001-a-space-odyssey
I'm kinda thinking about going to do a crazy double-feature tomorrow.
70mm screening of Playtime at the museum the same day as 2001. Triple-feature.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on January 14, 2011, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: socketlevel on January 14, 2011, 12:26:56 PM
I really didn't like it, sadly. i was looking forward too it. it's "the doom generation" of today. it uses all the same devices and ideas that "irreversible" had in it with way more self indulgence. it's forgetable.
Not a condescending question. Just a curious one, but if you didn't take to Irreversible, what about this one looked appealing? I just want to know if there are some parts to Irreversible or Gaspar Noe you liked.
***SPOILS***
None taken. I actually really liked Irreversible, i thought the techniques aided the storytelling. each time the film flashed further back more was revealed, through plot and character.
for example in the first scene you see the rage in the character, and you see him destroy a man because of it. later you see what brought him to that, and even further you see that he had the wrong man.
I was always a step ahead in ETV, there was nothing revealing or interesting any time it flashed further back. we see how both the brother and sister get to Hong Kong and become addicted to drugs/life style yet it's exactly what i expected. in the first scene you even see who set him up, it's only a matter of the specifics; which were actually quite cliched, and nothing new was revealed. it's true this cliche is probably often the case when people go down this dark road, but it's a waste of time because it's pretty much told in the first scene.
the overhead shots in ETV were so mind numbing after the 20th time seeing them, and they exist to only look cool and show that the narrative exists in a small part of the city.
I saw the director's cut at the TIFF bell lightbox in Toronto, and maybe the 20 mins he further cut out is either the majority of the first time the film flashes back or it's all the unnecessary transition shots. even with more removed i still think this story lacks the vision Irreversible had. it feels like an underdeveloped student film with a very large budget. i only get shock value, Irreversible had this as well but there was more to it after that aesthetic layer was penetrated.
i could go on, but i'll start with that.
SPOILS TOO
I also would agree that Irreversible is a "better" film, meaning the pieces fit, the thing "works". But Enter the Void is not interested in that. As I said before, it's irrelevant wether the film "works"or not. The film is not really about the story, certainly is not really about how the main character and his sister got to tokyo, or who set him up. It's not about finding out what happened before or after. Really, being a step ahead in THAT story is useless for the experience. The film ponders basic human questions and goes to a trip inside the guy's head and soul. It's a first person "narrative" so maybe we're talking about a trip inside Noe's head and soul. How does dying feel? What happens right after? What goes through your head? What interests you? Does the circumstances of your life set you up to be a lost soul, to find something else? Paradise, God?
You see, following this guy around during this period of time is not for you to put the pieces together of the banal parts of his life...how he got into drugs, etc...I don't think those moments are there to follow that path...What you start understanding through the before, after and dream scenes are his feelings, the things within his soul that shaped his perceptions (drugs included). The character barely speaks, barely express emotions through the whole film, yet by the end you have an idea of what was happiness for him, what were his deep sorrows, what obsessed him, you understand more and more the painful closeness to his sister, and what scared him of her, and their relationship.
Void follows Irreversible stylistically and goes further with the technical stuff. As for the narrative, its' completely different in purpose. It would be dumb from Noe to just remake Irreversible in such a fashion, this is a film interested in something else. As I said, is more an exploration of unanswered questions than "the story of"...
The way it's shot is technically impeccable, as a cinephile I found myself truly levitating for a while because formally this is a film that tries to reach heights that almost no one dares to. It might be too long, but time is not everything. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't think it could be. It's too personal to achieve even something close to perfection, it carries within the strengths and weaknesses of his creator in such an "in your face" fashion that at moments it feels like a self portrait. So to me there was a lot more going on there than just the "plot".
I really hated this movie.
I was completely immersed in the first hour, but then I started to become disconnected from the film and the characters. I didn't really give a shit about Paz de la Huerta and stopped caring about about the story in general. At that point the film switched from an interesting story about a brother watching over his sister after death and turned to a gimmicky mess of a movie. Especially when there were the parts where the camera would fly into lights, flash for a couple of minutes and then exit. It got really gimmicky when the camera flew around the room like "ohh am I gonna go into the light YES I AM". I was a really big fan of Irreversible, but I walked out of this one with a sour taste. Extremely disappointing.
***FURTHER SPOILS***
I'm not looking for him to remake irreversible, and i agree with all your points as to what a movie shouldn't have to be. however in this case, the film does go back in time, and it is trying to do the things i say. there is an element inherent in the story that depicts the who-did-this or see-how-it's-connected.
on one side I'm saying those devices didn't work, on the other you're debating why they don't need to be there. i agree, they don't need to be there, but he put them there. if this was a disjointed piece of non-narrative fiction and i was stating the problems i listed above I'd agree with your argument. but there is a structure that adheres to plot (at least for the first 2/3 of the film) and that plot fails by my standard.
the film also slightly fails in the standards you mention. repetition and the idea that you cut excess out of a film is pretty much universally seen as serving the artform (while attempts and successes at not following this principle do exist). in the case of abstract expression, or layered expression, why can't the same sentiment be used while criticizing things other than the denouement? while the film does do all the things you mention, it does it... and then does it.... and then does it... without further insight or gratification to feel that the theme/emotion/atmosphere/etc is progressing or evolving.
also on a side note, i get the feeling that the film is trying to shock more than express anything in some moments. even despite the subject matter i got a sense of isn't-this-cool from the film maker rather than theme/emotion/atmosphere/etc service.
SPOILS FOR THE UNSPOILED
I don't know for sure. That plot logic doesn't seem to apply to me here. This seems to be where we part ways. Really, I wasn't even thinking about any story while watching the film. There was no mystery to be solved. No tangible objeictive t be achieved. This guy was on his own. The interesting thing was the sensation, the experience of the moments after dying. This particular interpretation, which shouldn't be like any other. So it was like an abstract character study, and as I said, a self portrait. Where through broad paint strokes you got the "feel" what is going on.
about cutting the film or the lenght of it. it's too son to say for me. I know it felt kind of long. I know also that sometimes 2001 feels eternal. So that's no way to judge a film like this in my experience. However, I did't find it repetitious. Just long, but no redundant.
This is available to stream instantly on Netflix as of today.
I blind bought the blu-ray and it hasn't even shipped yet :yabbse-angry: Calls to the distributor said it's running late and should be shipping any day now. They already charged me!
Quote from: Stefen on January 25, 2011, 01:56:42 PM
This is available to stream instantly on Netflix as of today.
Best news! Thanks for the heads up, Stef; never thought I'd see it within a reasonable amount of time.
fair enough alexandro, though i did see the director's original cut, i guess there is a 20 min or so shorter version coming out which might have solved some of what i mentioned.
http://www.ifccenter.com/films/enter-the-void/
the director will be at tomorrow night's screening of the director's cut at the IFC center here in NY.
If I had to checkpoint Gaspar Noe's career right now, I would call this film a masterpiece. A total fulfillment of talent which started to blossom in Irreversible. I had hopes and expectations he would film stories which veered away from linear storytelling and themes, but I wasn't expecting this much of a development by him. Consider me stunned and sounding like a 16 year old in the best way.
Of course, I'll try to write a few articles on the film from different vantage points. My critical belly was definitely tickled, but for the next 24 hours, I just want to live off the fumes of experiencing this film.
My BD still hasn't come!
Half the people who have seen it call it a masterpiece and the other half call it terrible. There hasn't been such a polarizing film as this one in a long time.
I too finally just saw this, and it is the masterpiece that half the people say it is. Perhaps the most effortlessly virtuousic film since 8 1/2. I hope to have more to say later, but I'm still in post-coital afterglow from watching it, and anything more that I say at this time would just be the hyperbolic ravings of an instantly-converted fanboy.
Stefen,
Yea, it's polarizing. I have read some negative reviews and for me, they tend to nitpick the film and over embellish things which mount more to gut rejection by the reviewer. This film will strike some people the wrong way no matter what. I try to check myself against overpraising any films. My youth has done it before and if a film has a good watch-ability on first viewing, it's easy to do so. However, with this film, I was thinking of many major films and how this film notches up so many things to a higher degree. The film is fully realized in pushing the style envelope, but the visual themes are there as well.
Gaspar Noe isn't subtle with themes. Irreversible wrote the themes on the wall. The story made the visualization way too understandable, but the visuals here cloud everything. Some points and scenes are understandable, but the film topples those easy ideas by constantly doubling back to add a thorn or unexpected wrinkle into the plan. The strategy is similar to vertical storytelling methods. The film has a logical plan which makes it go from point 1 to 2. I can identify themes, but Noe details the visuals so much that I cannot do justice to the deft of the film by just describing my best ideas of its intentions. It's a full experience film which is outside of easy critical notions. For me, Noe needs to be in full visualization mode all the time. Unless he goes full silent, I don't know how he gets beyond this film. I hope I am proven wrong.
Made it about an hour in, gave up. Xixax 2003 (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=10535.msg298561#msg298561) really triumphed getting this one into the Awards.
^ditts
Sheeit, some of you have gone soft.
Ya'll used to be beautiful. Wha happent?
I can understand loving the movie. I can (sort of) understand people hating the movie. I can not understand someone feeling indifferent towards it.
Quote from: Stefen on February 15, 2011, 09:35:13 PM
Sheeit, some of you have gone soft.
Ya'll used to be beautiful. Wha happent?
did you just quote jackie brown?
and 2003 xixax awards was one of the worst years. too much gushing.
I just contributed 2,000 words to my blog about this film. All I talk is the style of the film and how Gaspar Noe developed something he began earlier in his career to something that feels fully realized now. It's a part 1 piece and in the second part, I will look at the film itself and bridge a lot of the story to the filmmaking and the themes. I re-read this thread and I noticed a lot of complaints about the film actually play into its major themes so I want to look into that more. I will try to make an argument the suspected misgivings are essential to the film. There also may be a third part. Who knows.
Anyways, back to original point: http://filmsplatter.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/entering-the-void/
nice article.
saw it a second time last night. better.
don't know what to say to the naysayers. there's just too much stuff going on in this movie to turn it off one hour in. that's just depressing.
let's go back to discuss the casting of the new spider man movie.
Quote from: Alexandro on February 16, 2011, 03:07:27 PM
let's go back to discuss the casting of the new spider man movie.
In sequel making, the first thing noticed is the repetition and similarities between each movie. However, as the observer sees when they look further, there are many more lines of variance. Technically, the spider man franchise only can do so much by relying on its inbuilt audience, but they find so many ways to gradually re-exploit the lines of geeks that like the repetitive turning of paper. Like with a painting, the viewer feels the breath of spidey's constantly moving swings over the city. Throughout the series, the film manages to repeat, contradict, and invert itself all the while expanding because the circumstances of its basic situation of a spider man trying to find his way back into life through rebirth. When we all finish watching the next film, it will feel fuller and deeper than any other we have seen in some time. It's a basic reaction on our part since the film goes deeper into a story than what we thought was possible, but what we realize is that for the first time in living film history, a film managed to stand aside from the referential library and be only about one stylized vision and it felt as large as any other film which had every advantage ahead of time. Not a bad feat. Also Andrew Garfield is a dreamboat.
Quote from: Alexandro on February 16, 2011, 03:07:27 PM
let's go back to discuss the casting of the new spider man movie.
oh come on, that's polarizing it. Someone can be a naysayer and still appreciate the efforts it made for the diversity of cinema.
Quote from: socketlevel on February 17, 2011, 10:00:50 AM
Quote from: Alexandro on February 16, 2011, 03:07:27 PM
let's go back to discuss the casting of the new spider man movie.
oh come on, that's polarizing it. Someone can be a naysayer and still appreciate the efforts it made for the diversity of cinema.
I was talking about stopping / leaving the the film before it ends. We're not in a totalitarian regime here.
i feel like writing a 100 page rant about why the video involved in the link i'm about to share is so wrong, but i'll summarize it with the following phrase: is nothing sacred? not to kanye west.
http://justjared.buzznet.com/2011/02/19/kanye-west-rihanna-all-of-the-lights-video-premiere/
i prefer my cultural omnivores welsh and fat.
Quote from: cronopio 2 on February 19, 2011, 05:43:45 PM
i feel like writing a 100 page rant about why the video involved in the link i'm about to share is so wrong, but i'll summarize it with the following phrase: is nothing sacred? not to kanye west.
http://justjared.buzznet.com/2011/02/19/kanye-west-rihanna-all-of-the-lights-video-premiere/
i prefer my cultural omnivores welsh and fat.
It also obvious that Hype Williams hasn't done nearly as many (or as good) drugs as Gaspar has. It is pretty much everything that's wrong with music videos and Kanye West, rolled into a nice little package. Steal whatever images they think are pretty, regardless of context and run with them, but never take the time to actually make them mean anything.
Repetitive, boring, trying to pass itself off as AAAHHHHHRRRT and you know....IDEAS MANNN!!!
Liked it better when it was Smack My Bitch Up.
Quote from: Derek on March 19, 2011, 05:36:20 PM
Repetitive, boring, trying to pass itself off as AAAHHHHHRRRT and you know....IDEAS MANNN!!!
Liked it better when it was Smack My Bitch Up.
I think this says more about you and how you resent certain types of people you've encountered in life (I'm assuming some stoners who have long discussions about IDEAS MANNNN!!!) than the film itself.
I don't know in what moment this film is trying to pass itself as art, actually I don't know what that means, it might be another instance where you're talking about yourself and how you resent some people in the world for trying to "pass themselves" as artists.
But you're right about it being repetitive, I think is part of the point. Although on second viewing it felt less repetitive because each now "repetition" had something else going on.
Don't hang out with stoners, don't assume that.
I have a problem with a movie that takes itself far too seriously, like this one does. Interesting effects though.
So what's your arbitrary limit on how seriously a movie is allowed to take itself?
Spoilers
I wonder what too serious or too "AAARRRTT" means. Usually, it means the film is extending itself by gravitating toward themes out of its boundaries or making unnecessary allusions. It's the over-confident art film which immediately relates personal squabbles to world events or it's a film which tries to tell the audience how to feel. I don't deny this film has a tonal structure outside the norm, but I don't think the gravitas is too serious. From criticisms I read, this movie is ostracizing the art house establishment too.
In fact, this movie reminds me of the early criticisms 2001: A Space Odyssey got from all the New York film critics who slammed the film for being too hollow or technical. In a simplistic idea, 2001's technical storytelling is about imagining life outside the cosmos of our existence and is about how space flight would really be in experience. For the sake of its simple but engulfing vision, the film deludes down human experience which removes almost every standard filmmaking rule. Enter the Void is about the experience of death in full measure. There is no other vision but the continuous revolving around experiences, remembrances, and trying to find reincarnation.
But, I guess, you could consider that pretentious in its own way. Fine.
I finally got around to watching this the other day. I was enjoying it and when I thought it was nearing the end I paused it to hit the bathroom and realized I was only 30 minutes in.
Quote from: Derek on March 20, 2011, 05:15:44 PM
Don't hang out with stoners, don't assume that.
I have a problem with a movie that takes itself far too seriously, like this one does. Interesting effects though.
I'm probably too defensive about this movie since it's made a lot of recent theater goings pale in comparison, but it seems like you watched this movie with a wall of expectation in your mind. There is little to nothing conventional about Gaspar Noe films, at least in the sense that he cares so little about appeasing standards. Being a provocateur doesn't make him good, there are plenty of artistic failures that try really hard for attention by being so obscene or painful for the audience. In fact, nothing says you HAVE to like Enter The Void.
But I'm concerned that you've dismissed it as stoner bullshit. Movies can handle drugs without being overly saturated in leaning towards Cheech and Chong audiences. In fact, this movie handles drugs in a more transcendental sense than most, with recurring themes that operate like echoes in a mind with a life flashing before its eyes. And this is, of course, a very surface view of the film.
But maybe you're right, art and ideas do tend to bog films down. They make them too dense to really comprehend, they should be a lot simpler and should function within well tested traditions.
Quote from: P on March 20, 2011, 06:17:55 PM
So what's your arbitrary limit on how seriously a movie is allowed to take itself?
Yes.
My prior statement was about how this film never tries to "pass itself" as art, which was your first accusation. I was expecting you (Derek) to give me an instance of it within the film. You answered with the taking itself too seriously thing, which is just as vague.
What are you talking about, man? This film has as straightforward intentions as there could be. The experience of death. That's it. Should it be more fun, you think? What?
Don't get your panties in a bunch. You'd think that I'd personally attacked some of you. Unless you had a hand in making this piece of shit, then I'm sorry.
i asked a legitimate question. i'm not even one of the ppl who is crazy about this movie, i was just perplexed by your criticism.
GT, alexandro and walrus all addressed your comments logically and without personal attacks.. in each case they even attempted to justifiy your position for you by offering their interpretation of what could be meant by "takes itself too seriously".
so i don't think there's any justification for your most recent comment, other than maybe a secret panties fetish, but i suspect it's because your initial post about the movie was just venting and not intended to be taken as a serious critique of the film. in which case, hate on, hater.. hate on..
though i will say that next time you might want to consider writing your thoughts in a diary instead of posting them here where you may be challenged with a real discussion.
Has this played in IMAX anywhere? It seems a natural place to watch a film of this kind (like it, or not).
I had a discussion about this with my roommate, as I really think IMAX would add much to the experience of Void. Despite the criticisms, a truly commendable job has been done by Noé in allowing the viewer to perfectly experience the last moments of life, and the first of death, through the eyes and conciousness of another person. This aim or intent would be multiplied significantly if the image were to cover one's field of vision.
I'm thinking about the sound design, too, as it would come into play. Throughout, Oscar's thoughts race thru his head, and these thoughts would become "our thoughts." Perhaps I'm not making myself clear, or maybe it's obvious enough what I'm driving at, but I think it very exciting to have a chance to experience a film like this not only thru the eyes of its protagonist (quite literally), but through his very conciousness.
I'm seeing if I could have this done somewhere in town. A gentleman at the Science Center here has actually given permission to use the Planetarium/Omnisphere as a venue for screenings, and I'll probably take him up on that.
Quote from: P on March 21, 2011, 12:31:35 PM
i asked a legitimate question. i'm not even one of the ppl who is crazy about this movie, i was just perplexed by your criticism.
GT, alexandro and walrus all addressed your comments logically and without personal attacks.. in each case they even attempted to justifiy your position for you by offering their interpretation of what could be meant by "takes itself too seriously".
so i don't think there's any justification for your most recent comment, other than maybe a secret panties fetish, but i suspect it's because your initial post about the movie was just venting and not intended to be taken as a serious critique of the film. in which case, hate on, hater.. hate on..
though i will say that next time you might want to consider writing your thoughts in a diary instead of posting them here where you may be challenged with a real discussion.
no you didn't. you asked about my arbitrary line...which if is an earnest question i'll wrestle with in my diary.
hating on (which is my perogative?) i think has little to no redeeming values... a junkie has a bad/high life and gets reincarnated to do do what? get high again? do it better the next time?
different shit is still shit
well, that's like, your opinion, man.
let me go light up a joint and discuss some IDEAS about death and reincarnation with the stoners I hang out with instead of wasting my time here.
don't hate, alexandro, it doesn't become you.
This part of the thread reminds me of the scene in the Fighter when Micky and Amy Adams go to see Belle Époque and some guy behind says: ''The cinematography is supposed to be beautiful!'' and that guy is obviously meant to be a huge cunt. Just the way they dress him up and make him talk you know you're supposed to think he's the worst.
Yet in fact, he really doesn't say anything mean and he actually talks to Micky Ward like a normal human being. He's not like: ''oh but you wouldn't understand ha ha!'' he just seems excited to see that spanish movie.
I hate that anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent in the 21st century. Anything that isn't American Idol or Michael Bay has to defend itself all the time now. In Quebec we have this big network that has ALWAYS at least 1 million people watching it at all times. We are 7 million people here so it's a lot. Sometimes 3 million people watch the most popular stuff. Anyways, this channel is always attacking other channels for trying to be smart. They pride themselves on being stupid. It's really symptomatic of our era.
Seven million people draining Canada. Stop bitching and separate your useless selves. Keep your maple syrup and lumber.
I didn't realize you were a troll here :ponder:
Oui, Pas, Oui!!
Derek isn't a troll. He's been here awhile. He just got drawn off-sides and now he wants to take his ball and go home. It happens to all of us sometimes.
Since we're on sports metaphors...
Quote from: Pas on March 21, 2011, 06:00:48 PMI hate that anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent in the 21st century. Anything that isn't American Idol or Michael Bay has to defend itself all the time now. In Quebec we have this big network that has ALWAYS at least 1 million people watching it at all times. We are 7 million people here so it's a lot. Sometimes 3 million people watch the most popular stuff. Anyways, this channel is always attacking other channels for trying to be smart. They pride themselves on being stupid. It's really symptomatic of our era.
Sports forums are the worst at this. There's nothing worse than getting called an alfred einstein anytime you bring up something 'artsy'. UFC forums are the WORST. I don't know if I consider that a sport, but the fans of it are just impossible to ever have an intellectual conversation with. If you ever bring up like say a film with subtitles they'll call you a fag and say something about how they don't want to read a fucking movie. They're the only group of people I have ever seen who don't feel embarrassed by their ignorance and utter dumbassness, but actually revel in it and high-five each other for it. They will gang up on you if you show any sort of intelligence or artistic merit. "Look at this little guy trying to be all book smart! HAHA. FAG!"
I hang around a lot of sports forums and for the most part, they're okay. They won't bash you the way the UFC ones will, but they'll either ignore anytime you bring something artsy up or they will try and engage you, but to hilarious results where they just embarrass themselves. But god bless them. At least they're trying.
Growing up I never knew where I fit in because I'm kind of a meathead who has other interests. I like sports, beer, fist fights and big ole titties, but I also like good cinema, good music, art, reading and women who wear glasses. I always had two groups of friends and I could never mix and match them. NEVER. I tried a few times, but the results were disastrous. Someone either got clowned for being a dumbass or they got beat up; usually both. I blame my mom and my dad. They couldn't be any different from each other now. They had me when they were 15 and 16 and they lasted, like a year before they grew apart. My mom is my film guinea pig. She watched Dogtooth to scan it for any animal cruelty for me. She's more mad about this NPR stuff than I am. My dad? He's always asking me if I can get some weed. Going to lunch with him is the worst since all he does is comment about the ass on the waitress. He'll get on my case if I don't finish my beer. I love him tho, but it's their fault I'm this way!
Oh, game's about to start.
I understand the sentiment of Stefen's last paragraph. I grew up in a sports world and retained a sports mentality and my natural environment is that, but I am much more comfortable talking and thinking about certain cultural artifacts. But I seem to have some positives Stefen doesn't. My friends are generally people who are approachable for both good movies, good sports and good professional wrestling (it's huge in our world) and I think I luck out because I come from a rural area where you don't get too many people who have full culture pretenses to their personality. I go shoot guns with a friend and later on that same day we're watching old Kurosawa, Fellini and Fred Astaire movies. Then I have movie nights with other friends but we also get together for Monday Night Raw and instead of sit there and mock it, we're talking about how awesome John Cena's last appearance was.
In college, I dated a girl who was all about full culture pretense. When she found out I liked professional wrestling, she wanted to file for fraud with me. I ended up dumping her myself, but she didn't care for my social respectability with her crew.
This is the first time ever I say this about a film, but holy shit... I got my mind blown away big time wathing this. I can't even explain what's so great about it. I just loved every minute of it. This will probably be when of those films that I watch over and over and over again.
Saw that GT posted something on facebook about this movie just today.
Well last night i watched it for the 5th time, on a 65in HD TV, on BLu-Ray, on Acid.
It was, needless to say, pretty intense.
If anything, this movie seems to serve as spiritual companion piece to Tree of Life.
Quote from: squints on October 16, 2011, 10:04:01 PM
last night i watched it for the 5th time, on a 65in HD TV, on BLu-Ray, on Acid.
that just sounds like too much of a good thing!
last night I watched baseketball for the 17th time on a 19 inch screen, vhs, smoking catnip.
I rewatched this for the first time since seeing it in the cinemas, on an outdoor screening, and the surroundings were excellently mood-enhancing. The wind kept making the canvas wave, which made it even trippier, and twice the train rushed by in the background at a perfectly timed moment.
The first time I saw it I was extremely tired and kept falling asleep during the last half, and have since had the impression that I missed large parts of it, though watching it now pretty much deflated that completely, as I didn't see anything I didn't remember. Probably the floaty, associative nature of it made it seem like more time had gone by.
It's still a striking film, but it had less of an impact on me this time around, seeming much more transparent than the first time - the simplicity of the premise and characters not quite sustaining the visual acrobatics, and, this time at times painfully clear, the bad/uninspired acting. I kept thinking how more powerful it would be if I was actually invested in the people (that would be "the ultimate trip"), and how strange it was that a film that is so, on the surface, intensely POV doesn't give much of an impression of its lead. The POV becomes a cosmetic touch instead of something that really makes us know the person, and then feel for him. Noé can do sudden heartbreaking intensity really well, but in the smaller scenes, with just a few people talking, it becomes obvious that is virtuosity is very one-sided.
But, ultimately, this is a film nothing like anything else, except Noé's other films.
seen it 9x never had any trouble, that is a pretty intense POV because you're referring to spirit power, all complaints against this movie sound exactly the same and i love how people (like me) love this movie
i've seen this a few times. Yes, I understand the complaints. The acting is definitely stunted, but the filmmaking wouldn't allow for a full performance anyways. The style of the camera and structure of the overall filmmaking restricts a lot of performance potential. There is also definitely a literalism to the film's themes. However, the filmmaking is still spellbinding to me and in an era where films quickly become outdated because of ability for films after it to topple the technical achievements of what a film has done or be more daring in bravado, I still don't see any film that is going to really go beyond this film in a way that will make it look either soft or bland. Many films can go beyond this film in just permissiveness easily (cheap horror likes to do it), but to also match it with the artistry, is tough. For me, Noe was trying to go beyond the standards of what Irreversible did in filmmaking extremes. It does that. His new work, Love, is purposely more constrained in many ways, but Enter the Void is still a pinnacle in modern filmmaking.