If you compared watching a film with walking up a staircase, then Irréversible takes you in the opposite direction, all the way down to the landing. Gaspar Noé's nervous, loud feature does just that. A simple, minimalist film, it is split into very clear-cut sequences, taking the inverse route that classic narrative normally does: it starts with the resolution/conflict and unravels back to the 'normal state of things' that generally kicks off a classically structured film.This has an analgesic effect on the viewer's mind: you know that the worse has gone, in this case a brutal murder in a gay S&M club and the 'controversial' rape scene. The film builds up (or down?) to a more serene moment of docile bourgeois romance which as a viewer you look at pitifully because you know, not just anticipate, it won't last very long. This ingenious concept alone makes the film worthwhile.
However, there seems to be another entity in Noé's film director persona that aims higher, perhaps too high and then stumbles along the way. The film aspires to be a small philosophical reflection on the earth-old affliction surrounding fate and time, the force that 'destroys everything' as the director says in his statement. Time cannot be reversed, film can, and therefore it gives us the chance to rewind time while still failing to circumvent tragedy. It also reclaims revenge as a rightful human instinct, no matter how catastrophic the consequences.
The central sequence in the film is the anal rape of Alex (Monica Bellucci) in a dingy subway in Paris (a symbolic red tunnel; in fact, the anus is a recurring motif, including an S&M club called Rectum and the rapist called Tenia, or tapeworm), following (or, rather, before) which her boyfriend Marcus (Vincent Cassel) loses it and seeks revenge. The rape has been the focus of attention because it's shown in real time which, at nine minutes, is rather difficult to watch, even though it pales in comparison with Marcus' crushing of a man's head with a fire extinguisher and the beating Alex gets once the rape ends.
There's no doubt that Noé is an ambitious, brazen film-maker: the opening sequence is staggering and the final shot is wonderfully cathartic, a sonic chaos on a white, crackling screen that looks like it will blow us away from this time dimension - he succeeds in hitting us hard. All the same, Irréversible loses part of its impact due to excessive density and self-consciousness which prevents it from being a through and through challenging and thought-provoking experience.
Another problem is Vincent Cassel's acting: he invented the archetype of the modern angry Gallic macho and seems reluctant to let go of it. It's La Haine (1995) all over again, again like he did in Doberman (1997) and Birthday Girl (2001). Bellucci, well, she adopts a naturalistic pose and carries her part off with a certain charm, but she lacks cinematic intelligence and intuition.
Besides, Irréversible reeks of (unintended?) homophobia. It's very unlikely that a straight rapist would be hounded out of a hardcore gay S&M club where everyone looks retarded enough to be masturbating over the smashing of a man's face to a pulp. Noé should have done his homework better if he wanted to explore that kind of sex scene, or chosen another milieu where the protagonist could confront the person he wants to kill - but in the director's mind a gay S&M club is apparently the ultimate signifier of 'darkness', the entrails of Dante's Hell or simply a shortcut to the antonym of the middle class normality the film ultimately hankers after - and goes backwards looking for. It's a peculiar film, and it presents some good ideas in quite an original way, but under its fierce mask, it is a nostalgic lament.
Reviewed by Antonio Pasolini
Reader comments about
sim (Email address withheld) writes:
the film goes beyond realistic into the more for real the lengthy scenes occur at a rate of real life.scarey!
Fernando Olave (folave@mac.com) writes:
Irreversible proves three things: first, the controversy about the rape scene clearly shows that anal sex is still a taboo in our society, second, it proves that violence, true violence in the real world is nothing like the Hollywood directors and producers like to show in their typical blockbuster movies. Real violence is much worse than horrible, it's HORRENDOUS. And its consequences, most of the time are irreversible, as is the case for the characters in the movie. But he achieves something even more impressive: his movie is 100% moral and ethical in the sense that it shows the absolute truth about violent crime in the real world, but by doing this, he also reveals the profound immorality of Hollywood's productions: they present violence in pallatable, nice and even attractive ways, especially to the youth, while true violence in the real world causes nothing but pain and irreversible damage.
Toni Borneo (Email address withheld) writes:
I am really surprised that the extinguisher scene is considered to be more horrific than the rape scene. Maybe it's because I haven't read any reviews by women but for me, everything i have ever seen of film pales in comparison to that rape scene. Perhaps because it is in real time but mostly because it is the stuff of nightmares. Interestingly, I quite enjoyed the fire extinguisher scene just because it was so amazing - how did they do it?
But that rape was so real it left me feeling traumatized and sick for a couple of weeks - so much so that I had dificculty putting it out of my mind.
I'm sure it was a great film but I hope I never watch anything that upsetting ever again - give me blood and guts any day.
Add your comments about [About]
