Irreversible

[onoff]

the sex and the violence in the beginning and the setup after that, so the setup becomes a contemplation and "payoff" becomes true horror due to the lack of dramatic tension.  this is a beautiful theory, but the reality is that it's still an exploitation film.

All films are exploitative. When a film is being distributed in theatres, its to make a profit. Film financiers wouldn't lend you a dime to produce your films if you were against all forms of exploitations. So yes, irreversible is an exploitation film, like 99% of the rest.

[AK]

I hate the movie....gaspar noe got three ideas....stick a cock in Belucci's ass for nine minutes...smash a guy's face for other minutes and do a Memento edition and thought he  could make a movie with just of that....

The end it's incredible moralist and full of shit....Like:  "yeah...I 'll put a false happy end/beginning since everybody is sick already cuz know what's gonna happen to the three characters."

If I wanna watch a movie to shock me but for a good reason I 'd take Requiem....got more substance....

[modage]

the sex and the violence in the beginning and the setup after that, so the setup becomes a contemplation and "payoff" becomes true horror due to the lack of dramatic tension.  this is a beautiful theory, but the reality is that it's still an exploitation film.

All films are exploitative. When a film is being distributed in theatres, its to make a profit. Film financiers wouldn't lend you a dime to produce your films if you were against all forms of exploitations. So yes, irreversible is an exploitation film, like 99% of the rest.

wow, you just blew my mind.  can i leave class early?

[pete]

the sex and the violence in the beginning and the setup after that, so the setup becomes a contemplation and "payoff" becomes true horror due to the lack of dramatic tension.  this is a beautiful theory, but the reality is that it's still an exploitation film.

All films are exploitative. When a film is being distributed in theatres, its to make a profit. Film financiers wouldn't lend you a dime to produce your films if you were against all forms of exploitations. So yes, irreversible is an exploitation film, like 99% of the rest.

I can get into the argument of semantics with you, that's like when arguging the genre of a film and someone says "all films are dramas since they're all narratives driven by plot and conflict"...but since you agreed with me that Irreversible, despite its attempt to be different/ artful, I guess there really isn't much to argue about.
but um, trying to break down the "distribution process" in a thread where people are simply discussing the effectiveness of a film is kinda lame, if not condescending.  since I'm also pretty new at this board, I guess I can't tell you if it's welcomed here or not, but I'm guessing not.

[onoff]

you said:
I can get into the argument of semantics with you, that's like when arguging the genre of a film and someone says " all films are dramas since they're all narratives driven by plot and conflict"

Nop, that's not the same. Indeed all films have a plot, conflict,characters..etc...but you can classify them by different genres. (comedy, romance,epic, drama,documentary,action, horror, sci-fi,experimental, mystery,anime...etc..)  that's one of the most essential thing you learn in literature. and all these genres (if distributed in theatres) are exploitative. Not all of them,(like family films for exemple,unless your friend have to pay to see your private vids).

sure we can say that "comedy" is comparable to "humorous drama" for ex..but you'd still classify this as a 'comedy'. Which is why we also have different ratings (pg, nc-17,R...)..by saying that "all films are dramas since they're all narratives driven by plot and conflict" , you are simplifying and narrowing your view of the quasi limitless possibilities you can create with the medium. (some films can be abstract too....these types of films don't necessarily need to follow an obligatory "narrative + conflict" formula.

you said:
but since you agreed with me that irreversible, despite its attempt to be different/artful, I guess there really isn't much to argue about.

Not really, I was making a remark about the nature of a distributed film.
in your earlier message, you said "exploitation film played backwards is still exploitation film so? as if not all films were exploitational. (which they are...or at least a vast majority of them are.)

take schindler's list for exemple...that's exploitation too.
your argument about irreversible's exploitiveness is rather thin since all films are obviously about exploitation.

you said:
...and the style is so pretentious (the "gritty" camerawork is way too flashy for its own good) that they wear out whatever goal they were originally intented to achieve.

what is so pretentious about a techno-crane shot?, or a hand held shot? what do you mean by "flashy" ? would you rather see a film directed as if it was a sitcom? I hate conformity don't you? thank god for directors like Gaspar Noé ,  David Lynch , Cronenberg , Jeunet , Kounen, Cerda , Miike...etc..redundancy is a cancer for films of any genres.

[pete]

my argument of the exploitive nature of irreversible is not that thin since 1) exploitation films is a genre, and 2) the purpose of the film is trying NOT to be exploitative via playing it backwards so it does not pay off through sex/violence...etc., but since you didn't mind my saying irreversible is exploitative but instead you just keep on reminding us how films are distributed, once again, there is not much argument there.
secondly when I made that statement "all films are dramas...etc." I was saying one COULD say that about all films, just as one could say that about exploitation films.
being exploitative and being an exploitation film are two different things, just as a movie with funny moments is not always a comedy (even Schindler's List had funny moments, dammit) and a dramatic movie isn't always a drama.  an exploitation film is a film that shows sensationalized salacious images that mainstream hollywood movies would never show (such as rape or underage sex or drug use which was still unacceptable in the 30s and 40s when the exploitation genre was created) with the pretense of addressing a social or moral (or even "artistic") issue.  the genre emerged in the 30s when independent filmmakers couldn't compete with Hollywood films, but the plus side of that was they didn't have to abide by the hollywood code.  therefore they went about the other way, by introducing a lot of nudity and drug useage in their films, justified by pretenses of moral and social concerns.

as for Irreversible being pretentious, it is pretentious because it tries to be something it isn't.  for example, the techno crane shot in the end (aka "The beginning") where it keeps on spinning--it really is just a shot where the camera spins a lot, but it goes on for at least one extra minute too long, with the music and the time destroys all things title tacked onto it afterwards, as if it's making some grand statement.

[priceless_cinema]

as for Irreversible being pretentious, it is pretentious because it tries to be something it isn't.  for example, the techno crane shot in the end (aka "The beginning") where it keeps on spinning--it really is just a shot where the camera spins a lot, but it goes on for at least one extra minute too long, with the music and the time destroys all things title tacked onto it afterwards, as if it's making some grand statement.

Huh?  You're dismissing the film as pretentious just because of its crane shot in the end, the beginning of the day for Bellucci's character?  First of all, try supporting more examples that make sense.  Second of all, this is an important camera movement because of what it symbolizes.  I think it sticks with me because it suggests that her grisly fate is now set in motion officially.  And although we are witnessing a beautiful and poetic moment for the first time basically, the movie itslef is really spinning out of control and it's a visual distillation symbolizing chaos in a way by a blinking white strobe light.  Noe's film is filled with dramatic irony and these details -- which proves that it is not pretentious at all and that you have to pay attention rather that just looking at it as exploitation.  It isn't exploitation in any way, nor is it at all homophic, which it has been dismissed as also.  Strobe light is important to note because when we where Alex is during the rape sequence (the framing of her body somehow relates to garbage and the light is mirrored again when she is in bed with Marcus at the beginning of the day).  And natural light is just as important; during the rape, any natural light is refused. There is an apparent difference made between the bedroom and rape scene that Noe makes a point of by way of light and skin tone and sexual digression in the bedroom. The song played in their house implies that we're heading in circles in particular relationships; that it results in a downward spiral of sorts, but the real questions is: where is it heading? Where are we going?  Lastly, it's a highly philosophical film and one of the best ever made.

[modage]

Lastly, it's a highly philosophical film and one of the best ever made.

*(pukes)

[pete]

blah blah blah hippity hooplah.

Huh?  You're dismissing the film as pretentious just because of its crane shot in the end, the beginning of the day for Bellucci's character?  First of all, try supporting more examples that make sense.  Second of all, this is an important camera movement because of what it symbolizes.  I think it sticks with me because it suggests that her grisly fate is now set in motion officially.  And although we are witnessing a beautiful and poetic moment for the first time basically, the movie itslef is really spinning out of control and it's a visual distillation symbolizing chaos in a way by a blinking white strobe light.  Noe's film is filled with dramatic irony and these details -- which proves that it is not pretentious at all and that you have to pay attention rather that just looking at it as exploitation.  It isn't exploitation in any way, nor is it at all homophic, which it has been dismissed as also.  Strobe light is important to note because when we where Alex is during the rape sequence (the framing of her body somehow relates to garbage and the light is mirrored again when she is in bed with Marcus at the beginning of the day).  And natural light is just as important; during the rape, any natural light is refused. There is an apparent difference made between the bedroom and rape scene that Noe makes a point of by way of light and skin tone and sexual digression in the bedroom. The song played in their house implies that we're heading in circles in particular relationships; that it results in a downward spiral of sorts, but the real questions is: where is it heading? Where are we going?  Lastly, it's a highly philosophical film and one of the best ever made.

[Gold Trumpet]

Fuck, never seen the movie (waiting for video) but not only does Pete have a kick ass avatar, but I'm a fan now because he can bring some good arguing to the board.

~rougerum

[onoff]

Pete
my argument of the exploitive nature of irreversible is not that thin since 1) exploitaion films is a genre.

onoff
technically It isn't a genre...Well, I guess it depends on which perspective..but the very definition of exploitation can't really be concidered as a genre...for years, people , ignorantly (or purposely) misinterpreted the difference between the two, which is why, in some video clubs you can sometimes see some films classified in the "exploitation" category. But its a common and a prevalent mistake. "exploitation" was simply adopted as a genre. But it isn't one.
blaxploitation, sexploitation can be considered as a genre or sub-genres i presume. (created back in the 70's or 60's). these are different, you'll notice the "ploitation" terminology but the similitudes stop there.

pete
2) the purpose of the film is trying NOT to be exploitative

nonsense, since all films are. You can't make the distinction between the goal and nature of a film and the genre of a film. Like I told you, wether a film is trying to entertain you, make you think, laugh,cry..its all the same. Since you have to pay your ticket to get inside a theater.that's exploitation. (there's loads of different exploitations of course, but in the film biz, all films are exploitational).... its like that common mistake in every roman epic films, where thumbs down = death/execution and thumbs up = live

but,I'm going to follow your logic (and imagine that exploitation is a genre)..So you're saying that irreversible is not trying to be exploitatative

that's partly true, because Noé said it himself, when he was working on this project, he was simply trying to "pay the rent" as he told me once.While filming irreversible, (during the production), He simply tried his best not to fuck things up. It was just another job for him because a year ago, Noé was constantly overflowed with debts. So doing irreversible at the time was kinda urgent for him. He never tried to prove anything, It just had to be done. so irreversible was in a way, "an exploitative film". But at the same time, when He re-edited the rushes and polished his previous rough-cuts of the film,He began to take irreversible more seriously.(Only When he noticed that his long sequence shots worked with the flow of the film.) His plan B was to edit the film as a conventional film (with more cuts) in case his improv during the shooting would've been a mistake on his part. But in the end, things runned smoothly.  so when you say that the film is  "NOT trying to be exploitative" , I'd say its 50/50.

of course my reponse sounds kinda contradictory with my previous comments about what is "exploitation" . (because like i told you, It isn't a genre). But I tried to follow your logic so that I could respond with more ease to your assessments.

again,i'm responding based on your and millions of others understanding of what "exploitation" is. (true,the genre emerged during the 30's-40's. But its still an universal mistake to associate the term "exploitation" as a "genre")...just like it is a mistake to  associate someone's race with a religion. (for ex, jewish is not a race, but a religion..a good majority of people can't make the distinction between the two).

anyway...

when you're saying..
"it tries to be something it isn't

ok, that's your opinion. I think the film works on many levels.
first of all, Noé's experimental camera work is not intrusive, on the contrary, not only it was varied (because the film starts with splendid techno-crane arial shots, then hand-held for the "rectum" sequence, and the further the denouement of the film's reversed plot is approaching its beginning/end ,the calmer the steady-cam shots are....the long takes and improvs also worked (for me at least) perfectly. In real life, when you're talking to someone your dialogues aren't scripted. I just loved the spontaneousity of the lead actors. And i also liked the fact that 90% of the people that you see (apart from bellucci,cassel,dupontel,nahon and prestia) weren't actors. It added more authenticity to the film.

pete
....it really is just a shot where the camera spins a lot
no kidding?

pete
but it goes on for at least one extra minute too long
ok...you're nitpicking a wee bit here...but since that's your opinion. I won't add more comments concerning this little detail.

pete
..with the music and time destroys all things title tacked onto it afterwards, as if it's making some grand statement.

actually, Noé wanted to suppress the final title card but one of the producers (can't remember who, but it was either Rossignon or Grandpierre) insisted to keep "le temps détruit tout" because the strobo-light was too abrupt for them. They also forced Noé to change the original Tagline of the film's poster (which was "la vengeance est un droit de l'homme" aka "vengeance is a human right.") and replaced it with "le temps réveille tout" (time reveals everything).

[Pubrick]

great so let's see sum caps of the titties and what not.

[pete]

again,i'm responding based on your and millions of others understanding of what "exploitation" is. (true,the genre emerged during the 30's-40's. But its still an universal mistake to associate the term "exploitation" as a "genre")...just like it is a mistake to  associate someone's race with a religion. (for ex, jewish is not a race, but a religion..a good majority of people can't make the distinction between the two).

you've got seriously messed-up analogies.  but before that, let's start with "a universal mistake" that I thought exploitation as a genre, along with I dunno, most major film scholars and dozens of books that have been written on the subject.

a "universal mistake"?  Like this?
Alien (the space kind not the beat up by american cops kind): greetings, creature from Big Blue--what are you doing?
Me: nothing, just watching an exploitation film.
Alien: Isn't that like every film.
Me: no, it's a genre.
Alien: MISTAKE!

I don't see how branding exploitation as a genre because that's where the term comes from is anyway similar to racial ignorance.  Did you just compare me to a brainwashed Hitler Youth?  What's going on here.
Then somehow you're able to link believing exploitation as a genre to Roman films where the meaning thumb up thumb down gets mixed up.

then you gave me a 50/50 for my universally mistaken logic of mistaking the jews as a race and then you cite the latenight conversations you had with Noe on the progress of the film.  Then you told me you did that so that you "could follow [my] logic so that [you] could respond more ease of [my] assessments [that are not unlike mixing up the jews and the romans]."

then you fell in love with the actors because they were making shit up as they went along.  I knew they were improvising, I knew there was no screenplay involved in that conversation that went on forever with a few attempts to hindshadow what was about to happen.  I knew all of that without ever having a conversation with Noe.  How did I know that?

I could tell.

I could tell when lines are made up by actors.  I knew nobody ever sat in front of a typewriter for the Blair Witch Project, just as I knew President Bush wasn't reading from any cue card when he called Africa "a diseased nation."

but aside from countless analogies about my universal mistake (along with "millions of others"), you still really haven't argued against exploitation as a genre of film.  

but even if there is no genre called "exploitation" and the low-budget-independent-b-films-from-30's-on are simply titled "Films That Pretend to Address Social/Moral/Artistic Issues in Order to Show Stuff Not Okay By the Hollywood Code And By the Way Thumb Up Means Death You Freaking Nazi", it still does not make Irreversible any greater a movie.  In fact it takes away from arguing for its greatness because then you can't argue that the film's validity as a criticism of the said-non-existent genre, which is the main reason a lot of the critics recommended the film in the first place.  and finally, how stupid do you take people that you think you've brought up an even remotely fresh point in telling people that films are produced for profits?

my advice: go read up on some film history, take some SAT practice tests in analogies, start respecting people's intelligence just a little, watch Harold Pinter's "Betrayal," check out any direct cinema documentaries for some true "improvisation" with its subjects and camerawork, then maybe we can level.

[priceless_cinema]

Fuck, never seen the movie (waiting for video) but not only does Pete have a kick ass avatar, but I'm a fan now because he can bring some good arguing to the board.

~rougerum

It's too bad he has nothing original or interesting to say.

[jokerspath]

Fuck, never seen the movie (waiting for video) but not only does Pete have a kick ass avatar, but I'm a fan now because he can bring some good arguing to the board. ~rougerum

It's too bad he has nothing original or interesting to say.

Ouch.  Now back it up.

I can't add anything to this discussion (since I didn't see the film), but that I'm glad that priceless cinema and Onoff and pete are trying to back up what they're saying, unlike AK, who managed to drop the hollowest statement thus far

I hate the movie....gaspar noe got three ideas....stick a cock in Belucci's ass for nine minutes...smash a guy's face for other minutes and do a Memento edition and thought he could make a movie with just of that....

Nice job there...

aw