|
Tuesday, 01 August 2006 |
 Whenever someone finds out that I am a hopeless movie geek, who has no life and spends too much of his spare time watching, talking about and writing about movies, the inevitable question always comes. "What's your favorite movie?" It's not only impossible to answer honestly, it's not very a interesting question. For years I have been waiting for something like "did any movie ever make you want to smash the TV? What I really would like to be asked is, "What is the most unpleasant movie you've ever seen?" Despite waiting for the question, it has never come. So, I decided to ask and answer it myself.
It was probably sometime in 2003 when a French film by a little known director named Gaspar Noé started gaining buzz. There were reports from the Cannes Film Festival of people passing out during screenings, running out of the theater and losing their lunch in the lobby and even some who required medical attention. These types of stories are always nothing but marketing hype, so I paid little attention. The movie was called Irreversible, starred Italian actress and part time goddess Monica Bellucci (The Passion of the Christ) and her husband, French actor Vincent Cassel (Elizabeth), both distinctly prominent film actors in Europe. It was apparently told in reverse order, like another recent popular film Memento, but in this case, it was only separated into 7 sections, beginning with the closing credits, with each proceeding section showing what had occurred immediately prior to the previous one.
Reverse storytelling is an interesting idea which had worked quite well in Memento, but would Irreversible just be a copycat, or would it actually do something with it? Once the DVD was released I decided to check it out, except BlockBuster, who has run out most competition in the rental market, didn't carry it, though at that time I had no idea why. Some time later I found Irreversible on DVD at a rental store BlockBuster hadn't run out of business and picked it up. I thought I noticed a look of disgust on the face of the young woman behind the counter as she took my money.
The film begins at the end of the closing credits, which then roll backwards to their beginning, while they slowly rotate and start to slide off the screen. The film then opens (or is it closes) with two men sitting in a room, having an idle conversation, when a ruckus is heard outside. Several people are being taken out of a nightclub and put into an ambulance. At least one of them is dead and at least one more looks like he may wish he was. Within the first ten minutes, we not only get to see a man's arm snapped in two, but another have his head caved in with a fire extinguisher. Believe it or not, that is just the stuff I feel comfortable writing about.
The assumption probably is that these acts are what are so incredibly unpleasant about Irreversible, but it is not what is shown so much as how it is shown. The lighting, movement and camera work is something that I can't even quite describe. I was imagining sitting in a dark theater, watching this movie on a screen which nearly filled my field of view and beginning to believe the stories from Cannes. Even though I was watching at home on video, I watch on a large screen TV, with full surround sound, lights out and no distractions, and after 30 minutes I had to take a break to ward off the slight nausea I was feeling and catch my breath. Little did I know. It was only gaining steam.
There is a distinct point and story behind Irreversible. We are shown this horrific, violent act and then taken back in time to learn more about the two men who committed it and why. We also learn what a horrible mistake it is and how tragic their reason for doing it is, which we see in unflinching fashion during a 9 minute scene which has become legendary. It is an utterly destructive string of acts, each of which destroys one of more lives either out of sheer rage or plainly violent, criminal behavior. No matter how bleak that sounds, it is actually worse.
Irreversible has been touted as a great piece of filmmaking, which I suppose it is. When it seems impossible for anything even slightly new to be put on the screen, I have to say Noé did it. It is a trailblazing creation. The problem is, does this particular trail need to be blazed? Once the film was over, I actually found myself asking a question I never, never, ever imagined I would ask. Did this really need to be made? I would never say it shouldn't be made, but what is the benefit? Of course, I then found myself watching it again only a few weeks later, though I have not seen it again in the more than two years since. I have thought about giving it another try with the perspective of time, but haven't. Do I really need to refresh those images in my mind? It's the same reason I have a DVD of, but have never found the strength to watch Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini's notorious film Saló, the only title which has a chance of replacing Irreversible as the most unpleasant movie I have ever seen.
Special Note: I find it impossible to give Irreversible a rating.
Starring: Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel, Albert Dupontel, Jo Prestia, Philippe Nahon
Director: Gaspar Noé
Written by: Gaspar Noé
Cinematographer: Benoit Debie, Gaspar Noé
Studio: Lions Gate Films
Rated: UR
Running Time: 97 mins
Release: 2002
Reviewer: John Rice
|
All Reviews and original content © 2004-2007 Slacker-Reviews.com. Any reproduction in whole or in part without the express written consent of Slacker-Reviews.com is a violation of applicable laws.
Modification and hosting by Rice Photography & Design
|
