So who else is excited about this? Or has anyone seen it already? It opens in March (at least here in Dallas), and I've been looking forward to it since it played at Cannes last year.
I don't know if I'll have trouble sitting through the violence or the rape sequences. I wonder if they've been built up too much already to be as shocking as they would be if they caught you off guard.
I do know I'll have a hard time watching the strobe scene at the beginning; heavy strobing gives me motion sickness, unfortunately. I even had to close my eyes during the big outdoor party scene in 'City Of God.'
In any case, I can't wait to see it.
ive allready seen it, but i dont want to discuss it before anyone else has too.
Trailer???Information???....Thanks, Mac :wink:
http://www.marsfilms.com/site/irreversible/ba.htm
"bande annonce" is the trailer, "extrait" is an excerpt
I have been wanting to see this for a while. The soundtrack is good, Thomas Bangalter arranged and preformed many of the songs. I have heard many people being disgusted by this movie, more the reason to go see it...
Read a lot about it. Supposedly it's pretty brutal. There's a 10 min. rape scene, and a huge fight at a gay club called Club Rectum. It was shown at Cannes last year. Every year there has to be one movie that is shocking just to be shocking. It looks pretty interesting though, it's narrative is told backwards. Look forward to seeing it.
I must see this...
Cecil, any information of how you saw it? or is that a secret/magic trick?
Quote from: Pedro the WombatI must see this...
Cecil, any information of how you saw it? or is that a secret/magic trick?
it played in may for a couple of weeks here in montreal.
I hadn't seen that trailer yet; it's beautifully done. Now I'm looking forward to it even more. That shot of Belluci on the grass is stunning.
It opens in Ny/LA March 7
'Irreversible' not for the faint of heart
In Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible," a woman is savagely beaten and raped, the camera capturing every tortured moment over nine long minutes. In an equally disturbing scene, audiences are confronted with a man's face being bashed in blow-by-blow with a fire extinguisher.
The scenes proved so harrowing that even hardened art-house crowds walked out when the movie screened at Cannes and Sundance.
Executives of the film's North American distributor say "Irreversible" is one of the toughest marketing challenges they've ever faced, and that includes controversial movies such as "American Psycho" and "Dogma."
"It is absolutely a hot potato, but we're used to it," said Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Releasing. "It's easily the most controversial film of the year -- maybe the decade."
While conceding that about 20% of the audience at Cannes and Sundance did walk out, Ortenberg said "Irreversible" received a "rapturous ovation" from those who stuck it out. It was nominated for the Golden Palm at Cannes. He pointed out that few people walked out of the film at either the Toronto or Telluride film festivals. "They had 900 in the audience at Toronto and only six walkouts," he said.
The movie is told in backward chronology, not unlike Christopher Nolan's "Memento." It traces an evening in the lives of three Parisians -- a gorgeous woman and her boyfriend (played by husband-and-wife Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci) and their friend (Albert Dupontel). Much of the dialogue is improvised; the Argentine-born Noe provided the actors with only a three-page script.
Reviews have been mixed. "The most uncomfortable few minutes you'll ever spend in a cinema," warned the BBC. "It's not so much hardcore as black-hole-core," said Britain's the Guardian. But Rolling Stone gave it 3 1/2 stars.
"We will be thrilled if the picture does a couple million dollars at the box office," Ortenberg said, adding that Lions Gate expects strong sales when the film comes out on DVD.
The film, which is unrated, opens in limited release Friday in New York and Los Angeles, including the Regent Showcase in Los Angeles, the Laemmle Monica in Santa Monica, the Laemmle Playhouse 7 in Pasadena and Edwards' University in Irvine.
Quote from: MacGuffinMonica Bellucci.
nuff said.
After a controversial run in Europe late last year, the dark and twisted French film with its infamous and very harrowing 10-minute graphic rape sequence will hit US cinemas this month and the real life husband & wife stars of the film discuss their rather unique experience filming this controversial feature:
"To me this film is like Clockwork Orange. It's like Pi. It's like Requiem for a Dream, Deliverance or Pasolini's movies. All those movies that are so difficult to digest but there is something, there is meaning. You felt so disturbed when you watched those movies because those movies go deep inside you and then you have to see the monsters we have inside."
Rest of interview with Monica Bellucci here. (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/irrev1.htm)
"It's like when you look down the street and there's an accident, you don't want to watch, but you do. So, this movie is an accident [Laughs]."
Rest of interview with Vincent Cassel here. (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/irrev2.htm)
I just saw it this evening, finally. I think its pretty incredible. The ending almost made me cry, it was so beautiful.
I'm going to write my review tomorrow morning and I'll post it up here, rather than go in depth now. So what did you think of it, Cecil (and anyone else who's seen it)?
i thought it was great. very moving.
SPOILERS
before i saw the movie, i had allready heard some very angry comments from women who havent even seen the film. to comment on the rape scene, ill tell you what the point of it is: that guy who sees it but decides to leave. THAT is why the scene exists in its entirety. we, the audience, are paying the price by seeing this disgusting (and unfortunately not uncommon) act because some fucking idiot thought it was none of his concerns. if i remember correctly, this guy walked in on them before the actuall rape. he couldve prevented alot of damage, but instead he turns the other way.
time destroys everything, indeed. but maybe if we helped each other out a bit, the damage wouldnt be as huge.
I agree completely; you want to help her so badly in that scene, and seeing that bystander turn away makes it so much more upsetting.
Here's the link to my review: http://www.road-dog-productions.com/irreversible.html
So heres my first post :lol: i didnt see a topic for this and this is one of my fave films that i have seen this year. I really cant wait till August when this comes out on DVD. For those that have sen it, what did you think? i loved it, nevermind the going backwards thing which Memento did before, i saw this using that technique in a better way with this film. great work from all three actors and im looking forward to seeing more of Noe's work, i still need to see I Stand Alone.
Edit: there you happy now?
I dunno about the movie, 'cause I haven't seen it... but I LOVE your avatar!
maybe you didn't find a post about it because you didn't spell it right
edit: Haha, yes.
umm i didnt like it. it WAS probably without contest the most disturbing movie i think ive ever seen. so i guess it wins that award. it wanted to push buttons and it was successful at that. but overall i just didnt think it was that great. in memento there was a reason for the movie to play backwards. to put the audience in the mindset of Leonard. when he sees someone he doesnt recognize (even though he's seen them before), neither do we. who are these characters? it wasnt a Whodunnit, but a Whydunnit. and it worked, well.
this the backwardsness was just there as an annoyance. fucking with the audience (which was the whole point). by telling a story of rape and revenge, with the superviolent revenge coming first without any knowledge of why and then the end of the movie leaves you at a happy place only to really know that the horribleness lies ahead with the message that TIME DESTROYS ALL THINGS. he made this movie for controversy. he made it to piss people off and to see what people could stomach. he didnt make it for people to enjoy. when i first saw it i thought it was complete shit. but after i continued to think about it, i will go ahead and say it was 'Okay'.
(i dont think that the true nausea experienced in the theatre from the camera movements and the soundtrack will be appreciated in the comforts of ones home and television as well as it was in the theatre.)
by the way, i think its a little weird that you are eagerly anticipating THIS movies release on dvd.
Quote from: EEz28I Stand Alone.
I Stand Alone is very good.
I can't stop looking at your avatar.
Quote from: themodernage02
by the way, i think its a little weird that you are eagerly anticipating THIS movies release on dvd.
It's creepy to focus on Bellucci's "hotness" in this context, too.
Quote from: godardianQuote from: themodernage02
by the way, i think its a little weird that you are eagerly anticipating THIS movies release on dvd.
It's creepy to focus on Bellucci's "hotness" in this context, too.
agreed. as i pointed out on this thread as well.
http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1240&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
ok, lets see, since im getting fucking slammed here
1. i want this movie on dvd bc i liked it, it was something different and was pretty interesting minus the rape.
2. the hottness of Bellucci is only enjoyed from the party scene back(or towards the end i guess you could say), and not during the rape scene.
I know what you're talking about, EEz. I want to get it too, although mainly because I want to hear the commentary track. That's the only way I could sit through it again.
I won't say anything else about the film, because I've already gone into it in depth in the other thread. But what is your avatar from? It looks so familiar...
i got it from another message board, so i dont know where they got it from, very nice isnt it? :-D
Details on the August 5th release of the highly-controversial indie hit Irreversible: Lions Gate Home Entertainment will present the film uncut and unrated in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and French Dolby 5.1 surround, plus an audio commentary by director Gaspar Noe, deleted scenes, the "Stress & Outrage" and a special effects featurette, a short film by Noe, a still gallery and trailers. Retail is $26.95.
heres a site i found on noe, but its in french (http://www.boutiquesweb.com/LeTempsDetruitTout/)
I read somewhere that the goal of this film, or the concept, is to structure like a backwards exploitation film--show the horrible "payoff" ie. 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, depending on the controversial scenes to sell the tickets, and the "contemplation" is just scene after scene of very long, superficial, indulgent, improvised dialogue of yuppies talking about sex, with some "postshadowing" here and there. the characters are so annoying and boring 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 intended to achieve. in the end, exploitation film played backwards is still exploitation film.
it's like that film "vixen" in which is kids the sex expoitation film convention at the time by playing the first half of the film like a skin flick with the sensationalized taboo sex and all, then the second half the characters just sit down and begin having serious political discussions. it was made as a cinematic joke and criticism of the exploitation films, irreversible took itself way too seriously for any criticism to take effect.
Quote from: petethe 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 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....
Quote from: onoffQuote from: petethe 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?
Quote from: onoffQuote from: petethe 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: peteas 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.
Quote from: priceless_cinemaLastly, it's a highly philosophical film and one of the best ever made.
*(pukes)
blah blah blah hippity hooplah.
Quote from: priceless_cinema
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.
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
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).
great so let's see sum caps of the titties and what not.
Quote from: onoffagain,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.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFuck, 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.
Quote from: priceless_cinemaQuote from: The Gold TrumpetFuck, 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
QuoteI 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
see, now you're just hurting my feelings.
Quote from: priceless_cinemaQuote from: The Gold TrumpetFuck, 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.
this film was a pudrid, burlap sack of SHIT... if you like this movie, i feel somewhat bad for you -- bad taste runs deep as blood -- it ca not be changed.
Hey priceless, what's your avatar of???
are you serious? if you are, its from irreversible.
pete
let's start with "a universal mistake" that i thought exploitation as a genre...
onoff
exploitation is not a genre. It became known as a "genre" ever since this term was wrongfully associated to the more risqué,pretentious and excessive kind of films. (i spit on your grave fits in that category for example).But anyway, associating the term 'exploitation' as a genre is and always will be a monumental error.
here's another example, of what i call "a universal mistake" (or frequent,common mistake)...French fries are not originally from France, but, due to the populas' obtuse knowledge de la chose.They still can't compute that the so called French fries came from Belgium's flatland.
pete
along with i dunno, most major film scholars and dozens of books that have been written on the subject..
onoff
dozens? probably more..(much more)..But I couldn't care less since film scholars' savoir of "exploitation" is inefficacious, simply because it never was a genre to begin with.
pete
Did you just compare me to a brainwashed Hitler youth? what's going on here.
onoff
Did I?
I said:[/i]for ex, jewish is not a race, but a religion...a good majority of people can't make the distinction between the two.
So no, I didn't 'compare' you Pete, I gave you an example..You accidentally misread the phrase in question.
pete
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.
onoff
I didn't Pete...I was in fact comparing 2 universal common mistakes
the original sentence was..
its like that common mistake in every roman epic films, where thumbs down = death/execution and thumbs up = live.
In other words this misconception is just as inadequate as to say that exploitation is a genre. But I guess we could debate endlessly on this subject matter since we both have different convictions.
pete
Then you gave me a 50/50 for my universally mistaken logic of mistaking the jews as a race..
onoff
False...You are either deliberately or unconsciously reformulating my previous comments again...
pete
then you cite the latenight conversations you had with Noe
onoff
So?
pete
Then you told me you did that so that you "could follow" [my] logic..
onoff
Nop....I didn't...to follow your logic, I had to quote/ imagine that exploitation is a genre...To force myself to believe that it is a genre.
pete
then you fell in love with the actors because they were making shit up as they went along.
onoff
No, I knew these actors long before irréversible was released. So I didn't fall in love because they were "making shit up "
pete
I knew there was no screenplay involved in that conversation that went on forever with a few attemps 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.
onoff
So? anyone could....At one point during the film there's a moment when vincent cassel mistakenly says that his name is Vincent instead of Marcus (during the techno-party) its a mistake like many others..There's even moments when the actors never finished their phrases. And that's the beauty of Noé's film in the sense that each of these takes can't be performed with the same imprevisibility. There's no repetitions, no catch phrases that reminds you that you're watching a film. For me the ensemble worked.
pete
...and the low budget-independent-b-films-from-30's-on are simply titled "Films that pretend to Adress Social/Moral/Artistic Issues in Order to Show Stuff Not Okay by the Hollywood Code...
onoff
that's an approx-definition of the so called "exploitation" film.That is.. according to the majority. And since the majority rules, there's nothing more I can say because it would be like talking to a wall.
pete
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..
onoff
btw I personally don't think irréversible's validity can be resumed as a criticism. (of "exploitation") or let's say Z-grade films (which is also not a very appropriated definition).
To me, irréversible is more of an "experiment".
Irréversible is also the total opposite of Nolan's Memento because there's no real intrigue in Noé's film..No mistery. The reversed structure of Irréversible works more on an emotional level. At the end/beginning of the film, the sense of loss is more tragic and prevalent. If the film's plot wouldn't h been reversed. The emotional impact would've been affade.
pete
Which is the main reason a lot of the critics recommended the film in the first place.
onoff
I follow my own instincs, I never (or rarely) pay attention to critics because they are too judgemental.
pete
and finally, how stupid do you take people that you think you've brough up an even remotely fresh point in telling people that films are produced for profits?
onoff
Actually, Pete..When I made that remark, I wasn't trying to brough up an even remotely fresh point...But to pinpoint the moronic and thin aspect of your criticism.
pete
My advice: go read up on some film history, take some SAT practice tests in analogies..
So that I could be as erudite as you? ...riiiight..Hey guess what? (not to brag about my personal life but..) Within the next month I'll be in charge of a $ 700 000 short film, after that (maybe in a year) I'll also co-direct a $ 4 100 000 indie film. I'm just commencing my career as a director and and also as an executive producer. And I've never wasted my time in film school. and i'm not even 22 yet. How's that for an ignoramus who needs to read up some film history? Thanks for the advice tho.
ps: I've seen the very boring "Betrayal" (only because Irons was in it)...Even the reversed animated short film T.R.A.N.S.I.T. (directed by Piet Koon) is 10 times more captivating...If you wanna see a brilliant reversed film, forget "betrayal" and watch Peppermint candy (by Chang dong Lee)
bye!
Quote from: Ghoulardi GoonHey priceless, what's your avatar of???
Scene in
Irreversible with Monica and Vincent.
exploitation may not be an "official" genre, but its a genre. just because films ARE exploited, it doesnt necessarily mean they contain gratuitous sex, violence or whatever.
and, no offense to you personally, but, these days, just because youre directing a film, it doesnt mean you know shit about cinema.
yeah onoff, too bad you never wasted your time at the film school. 'cause I'm not even 14 yet, and I'm about to co-direct a $25 million indie short feature. and I'm not only the co-director, I'm also the executive producer AND the head of the Clearwater, MD. Police Department. On top of that, guess what kind of film am I directing?
oh that's right, an exploitation film!
oh yeah, and I lost my virginity and my ink to the daughter of the CEO of Virgin Inc. last summer.
I did a lot of catching up this week by traveling to a big city and blind buying lots of indie dvds to catch up on them because my own city fucking sucks with films...This is one of the ones I bought and I expected nothing but thought this film was brilliant, one of the best of last year.
I never got the feeling of exploitation in this film at all....the manic camera work at the beginning (or end) never allowed me to focus on one single image long enough to feel its shocking imagery take over, except for the last murder. During Belluci's rape, the camera was in stand still, but there never was the huge amount of nudity I expected. No tits, and only a little showing of the ass. A lot was implied so I found it to be terrifying.
But, I do think the backwards nature of this film has a purpose. A major purpose. See, at the beginning, with the arrest of the two men, we think they are like any other criminals that could have raped Belluci. As time goes back in the story, we understand how normal their lives were but we also understand the idea of male aggression in general when Belluci's boyfriend was almost as aggressive with her at the party as her rapist and murderer. Its all an understanding that our culture is continually getting more pornographic and the dividing line between what a murderer and any average guy will think is diminishing. At the end (beginning), the boyfriend wants to fuck Belluci in the ass, the rapist does it at the beginning (end). Having the film go backwards make us put into the judgement more the people before all the craziness at the typical end of the film. We are shocked by the beginning, but reflecting at the end. I think in a straight forward film, we would just the leave the theatre shocked by the ending and lose some of that reflection.
The manic camera work at the beginning is excellent. A successful transformation of a nightmare onto screen. The progress of the film to more controlled and limited movements is understandable to the filmmaker really being in control with this film.
Is there any other way to see Monica Belucci naked WITHOUT seeing this film? If not then I may have to go against my better judgement and see it.
Quote from: filmboy70Is there any other way to see Monica Belucci naked WITHOUT seeing this film? If not then I may have to go against my better judgement and see it.
yes,
http://imdb.com/title/tt0237534/
http://imdb.com/title/tt0213847/
Quote from: filmboy70Is there any other way to see Monica Belucci naked WITHOUT seeing this film? If not then I may have to go against my better judgement and see it.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00003CXXY.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=7ab164af50a4622cdd2a87e9fbe7a82430e41eb8)
or go here. (http://equis.ya.com/babur6/monica_bellucci/index0.htm)
WARNING! FEATURES EXPLICIT BANNERS
Quote from: peteyeah onoff, too bad you never wasted your time at the film school. 'cause I'm not even 14 yet, and I'm about to co-direct a $25 million indie short feature. and I'm not only the co-director, I'm also the executive producer AND the head of the Clearwater, MD. Police Department. On top of that, guess what kind of film am I directing?
oh that's right, an exploitation film!
oh yeah, and I lost my virginity and my ink to the daughter of the CEO of Virgin Inc. last summer.
:lol:
ABOUT MALENA!
first of all, Belluci gets raped in there too, but you know, in a traditional, erotic kinda way. Secondly, if you wanna watch this film, GET THE ITALIAN version. The American version has cut out a lot of very very hot scenes, SO FREAKING HOT!
Oh yeah, Belluci was totally topless and made out with two other chicks, along with Keanu Reeves, and Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Quote from: filmboy70If not then I may have to go against with my better judgement and see it.
....and GT that was a good review..........i agree w/ you 100%.........
Quote from: peteABOUT MALENA!
first of all, Belluci gets raped in there too, but you know, in a traditional, erotic kinda way. Secondly, if you wanna watch this film, GET THE ITALIAN version. The American version has cut out a lot of very very hot scenes, SO FREAKING HOT!
Oh yeah, Belluci was totally topless and made out with two other chicks, along with Keanu Reeves, and Bram Stoker's Dracula.
How does one get the italian version, and is it even out on r1?
Thanks for the heads up guys. So NEON...my better judgement would be to see it? I probably will just to see what all the fuss is about.
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: peteABOUT MALENA!
first of all, Belluci gets raped in there too, but you know, in a traditional, erotic kinda way. Secondly, if you wanna watch this film, GET THE ITALIAN version. The American version has cut out a lot of very very hot scenes, SO FREAKING HOT!
Oh yeah, Belluci was totally topless and made out with two other chicks, along with Keanu Reeves, and Bram Stoker's Dracula.
How does one get the italian version, and is it even out on r1?
Not sure about how to get the Italian version, but it is available on R1.
i'm curious about something. so,
to the people who enjoyed it:
have you ever been robbed? with a weapon? a knife, a gun...
good question
Quote from: chuckhimselfoi'm curious about something. so,
to the people who enjoyed it:
have you ever been robbed? with a weapon? a knife, a gun...
Nope. I see where you're going, but explain for me what you mean specifically so you don't call me on assuming things.
because i think the film works better if you have been robbed, at least. i haven't been robbed so i wouldn't know, that's why i asked...
I was mugged once and another time a drunk dude on the train who kept on offering me sex tried to follow me home one night, but I still didn't like irreversible.
I still don't see the correlation. I don't think hostages will enjoy Die Hard more than a 16-year old kid.
it's a very delicate terrain, that of mixing personal experience with movies. Like being a schizofrenic and watch A Beautiful Mind. say.
Family Activists in Australia Protest French Film
The critically praised Irreversible, often described as part of the current wave of French "shock cinema," is facing the possibility of being shut down in Australia following protests by family- and religious-activist groups, who object to a nine-minute rape scene. The Australian Associated Press quoted the Rev. Fred Nile, founder of the Christian Democratic Party, as saying: "The high impact of the violence in this film was so great that large numbers of people walked out during screenings, despite being warned of the content in advance." But Dean O'Flaherty, acquisition manager for Accent Film Entertainment, which is distributing the film in Australia told AAP: "It is not just the film we are in the position of defending, and this is not just about banning one film, this is about an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression."
Quote from: Chest RockwellFamily Activists in Australia Protest French Film
The critically praised Irreversible, often described as part of the current wave of French "shock cinema," is facing the possibility of being shut down in Australia following protests by family- and religious-activist groups, who object to a nine-minute rape scene. The Australian Associated Press quoted the Rev. Fred Nile, founder of the Christian Democratic Party, as saying: "The high impact of the violence in this film was so great that large numbers of people walked out during screenings, despite being warned of the content in advance." But Dean O'Flaherty, acquisition manager for Accent Film Entertainment, which is distributing the film in Australia told AAP: "It is not just the film we are in the position of defending, and this is not just about banning one film, this is about an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression."
fuck all that. i thought it was sexy.
why am I not surprised
I can't stop thinking about it. I wish there was more discussion in this thread, cuz I know a lot of people love Noe here. It's been ten years so there's no reason not to be spoilerific. This film absolutely requires a second viewing to fully understand the 3 main characters' plight. I couldn't make it all the way through it again, though. I still have images in my head that need to be erased before I can do that. The most striking statement I took away from it is that there is no real justice for these people and the perpetrator gets to live on unpunished while the 3 victims suffer a much worse fate. It's so unfair! The fact the El Tenia is just a made up character makes it even worse. You'd think that Noe would use his control over the characters destinies to make sure that the audience witnesses a retribution for his crime, but the point being made here isn't that there is good violence and bad violence, or that an eye for an eye is the way to handle this type of situation. The point is that there are people in this World who do horrible things and don't have to be held accountable for their actions, and that "Revenge is never a straight line. It's a forest, and like a forest it's easy to lose your way ... to get lost ... to forget where you came in." - Hattori Hanzo
i think Gaspar Noe had a really really really bad trip once and has never got over it.
also, he's right.
that's a great quote, and really is all the inspiration you need to write a film.
I'd love to talk about this film more as it's the only Noe film I've liked. Sadly I haven't seen it in over 5 years. But I'll watch it again if you do and we can start shooting the breeze.
This film is incredibly hard to watch. I've had multiple friends get up and walk out when i've put it on, and i don't really blame them. But once you get past that brutal awful scene there's a whole lot of beauty in this. Especially the end, which shows definite shades of whats to come in Enter the Void.
One of the things I really found interesting about this is that in roger ebert's review he totally misinterpreted what happens. Like this jarring opening really fucked with him. He calls the film a "revenge movie in reverse" but completely misses that fact that the person who committed the crime gets off completely unpunished, and like Reelist said, I think that's one of the most important things/themes that the film has going for it.
Has anyone else seen Carne or I stand alone? i've seen I stand alone but not Carne, wasn't too happy with it though. it has much fewer redeeming qualities than Irreversible or Enter the Void.
squints, I bet you're friends thought you were a sicko. I wouldn't watch this with anyone, either. I had to wait until everyone left the house to put it on. During the rape scene I thought I heard someone come in and I actually got scared that they might see me watching this alone, thinking it's like a snuff film or something.
I saw this with my girlfriend, my best friend and his girfriend.
the only thing I said to them was that it was a never ending rape scene in it. my b/f g/f asked if the scene was sexy, and I was like "hehe, lol wtf" and sat in silence.
when the rape scene began I was like " lol stop being wierd my b/f g/f :finger:" and she was like ":crazyeyes:" and left the room, and I was like "good bye stupid wierd girl :twisted:"
then I played violin for the rest of the night: :violin:
´
it was the best night ever. :lol:
you're the moral guy who likes to punish.
pretty fucked up that a girl and and a guy both asked if the rape scene was sexy. i guess it's the role players in them, and just like the movie that situation walks a fine line in a very narrow grey zone. Dark days my friend.