200 Irréversible

Discuss releases by Indicator and the films on them.

Moderator: MichaelB

Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 200 Irréversible

#101 Post by MichaelB » Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:38 am

tenia wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:20 am
I also wouldn't be surprised if the film elements were fully digitalised and all the post-prod, editing and al happened in the digital realm then. This means going back to the film elements for the restoration would be akin to having to re-do everything on the movie, except shooting the material.
That is precisely the situation - and to add to the above, all the reframing from the film's native 1.66:1 aspect ratio to the final version's 2.35:1 was also carried out in post-production. And that includes frame-by-frame reframing within the shot - for instance, the "pulsing" effect that's designed to induce nausea in the viewer.
mhofmann wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:32 am
I get all that and the circumstances surrounding its remastering. Maybe I should be really happy Noé is staying faithful to the film's roots and not redoing the post-production, changing aspect ratio, selectively recoloring the movie, ore adding Jar Jar Binks to the tunnel. :D
Talking of which, one of the digital special effects involved adding the silent witness to the tunnel in the first place...
Yet a few observations:
- Not every shot in this film uses visual effects, and most of the other post-production elements are regularly redone when restoring a new film scan from the negative (or other respective earliest) elements. So it might have simply been a question of budget, time, and/or willingness to do so, not a matter of impossibility. I'm probably OK though if the restoration philosophy was "can't get better than what people saw at theatrical premiere."
To all intents and purposes, every shot in this film was digitally post-processed in some way, even if it only involved reframing or digital stitching. You're still clinging to your original notion "well, they do this with other films, so why not this one?", but I've already argued above that this is a mistake - regardless of the material that passed through the camera, this film is effectively a digital work, and needs to be regarded as such. (Hence my Pillow Book comparison - that was notionally shot on 35mm film, but it's ultimately a high-definition analogue video work.)

And in both cases of course it might be possible to reassemble both films from scratch, but to what end? What percentage of their audience cares so much about achieving picture quality that wasn't achievable at the time of production that would justify all this effort and (inevitably) vast expense? (Assuming the original film materials are even available in the first place, which may of course not be the case.)

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 200 Irréversible

#102 Post by MichaelB » Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:50 pm


JabbaTheSlut
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Down there

Re: 200 Irréversible

#103 Post by JabbaTheSlut » Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:37 am

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Irrevers ... 88/#Review
Typically odd from Dr. Svet, but funnier than usual.
”I have seen Irreversible three times now, but only once because I wanted to do it. After my latest viewing of the film, which occurred earlier today, I can declare with absolute certainty that I will never revisit it again. I do not question its right to exist, and I will explain why below, but its message was crystal-clear to me back in 2002. The rest has zero entertainment value for me. Zlitch.”

” I am absolutely certain that it will be my last. I have always had a copy of it in my library, but only for reference purposes. I get its message and the rest does not have any entertainment value for me.”

User avatar
CSM126
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
Location: The Room
Contact:

Re: 200 Irréversible

#104 Post by CSM126 » Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:01 am

Hey, for once I agree with Dr. Bassoon about something: watching this movie once was enough.

The implication that anyone might get entertainment value out of this is a stretch though. I don’t want to meet the person who had a good time watching this.

JabbaTheSlut
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Down there

Re: 200 Irréversible

#105 Post by JabbaTheSlut » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:02 am

Ahah, agreed.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 200 Irréversible

#106 Post by swo17 » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:32 am

Y'know, I don't like Noé either (and I've given him dozens of chances) but there seem to be plenty of reasonable people that do right along with other films that I do like, and I also wouldn't want anyone to write me off purely because of one small sector of my taste, so can we all please play nice? Haven't the films of Gaspar Noé at least taught us that much?

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#107 Post by tenia » Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:17 pm

I expected Svet to score the movie quite low considering these statements but nope, 4 out of 5.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: 200 Irréversible

#108 Post by Finch » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:11 pm

The film wasn't meant to be entertaining in the first place so for Svet to say it had no entertainment value for him is missing the point of the film altogether.

Also, this line "I have seen Irreversible three times now, but only once because I wanted to do it" makes no sense. Is he trying to say that he would have preferred to see the film only once but had to watch it twice for the review (since he evidently saw it in 2002)? It's embarrassing that BR continues to employ this guy.

User avatar
soundchaser
Leave Her to Beaver
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#109 Post by soundchaser » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:17 pm

That parses fairly easily, at least to me: I’ve seen the film three times, but only one time voluntarily (i.e. not for review purposes).

Svet is, to put it charitably, not a good writer; but this is one of his milder syntactic sins.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#110 Post by tenia » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:32 pm

Yes, it also read to me like this : first viewing was willfully, the other ones for work.

User avatar
Adam X
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:04 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#111 Post by Adam X » Thu May 13, 2021 10:21 am

Just got this in the mail today. I skimmed over this thread & elsewhere but couldn't find an answer - is the webstore exclusive booklet that comes direct from Powerhouse a reproduction of a booklet supplied at the premiere, or something else entirely? There's no mention of it on the blu-ray's page, at least not anymore.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#112 Post by tenia » Thu May 13, 2021 1:00 pm

My understanding is that an English-version of the movie's press kit.

User avatar
Adam X
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:04 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#113 Post by Adam X » Thu May 13, 2021 1:20 pm

Thanks tenia. I wish more films showed as much creativity with such things.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 200 Irréversible

#114 Post by domino harvey » Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:49 pm

I finally crossed this off my list. Unsurprisingly, I side with those against, for many reasons.

It's rare that I see an online comment on a film review that actually expresses a cogent point, but I think this reply to Ebert's review is spot-on in addressing the biggest flaw of the film:
I'm afraid only a man would need to see this kind of film to 'see' what an 'awful' (a desperately inadequate word) crime rape is.
I feel like Matt Walsh in the first episode of Upright Citizens Brigade, succumbing to the Bucket of Truth and just blasting back at the Gods, "Don't you think I already know that?!" Any attempt to defend this film in terms of "meaning" is a losing proposition. It's about as deep as a 4Chan green text, and certainly as (or less) mature. The ending of this, with the Jaden Smith-level insight of its onscreen text and would-be deep descent into white nothingness, is laughable.

But my overall objection to the film as a whole, and not just its most notable aspects, is how fucking prurient it is in its interests. I have never seen anyone comment on this film's actual opening scene with the naked daughter rapist, but it sets a tone that is immediately suspect. Why focus on this? Why focus on so much of what is to come? If the partner of a raped woman is acting with blind fury, does he have to act with constant, virulent homophobic language and behavior? What purpose does the symmetry of Bellucci being anally raped and Cassel saying with affection "I want to fuck your ass" except to score a cheap groan of recognition at its resurfacing? Why is the rapist gay (get it audience, he's taking poppers and h8s women, so complex)? Why so much of every other "naughty" aspect of this movie from end to end? And what answer to these questions would justify their usage? These individual affronts are not offensive because they're tres shocking (there's little actually shocking about a provocateur, since that's their whole raison d'etre-- if Cassel had blasted his way into the Rectum and invited Le Tenia to join him for a spot of tea, that would be shocking), it's offensive because these are but a series of grace notes of grossness in the symphony of slime here.

The other aspects of the film don't fare any better: the much ballyhooed "happiness" at the film's end is unconvincing in a world where fifteen years earlier Michel Deville already gave us a real, raw post-coital coupling that occupied an entire film, Nuit d'été en ville. Guess he should have filmed it backwards. The long take conversation about orgasms on the Metro is boring and utterly unconvincing, like Kevin Smith remaking Code inconnu. All characters are either obnoxious chauvinists (Cassel and Dupontel) or non-entities (Bellucci's character literally exists in this film to be raped, she has no other depth).

On an aesthetic level, Noe is obviously proficient with the tools of filmmaking. This is not the same thing as talented, and should not be mistaken for it. It does not matter that he can swirl his camera and bridge together stitched-up long takes if that's all there is to their use. There was not a single moment of this film that I enjoyed, or could appreciate on some other level beyond enjoyment, or cared about in any way. My only takeaway in terms of the subsection of positive responses to this film is that as with some critics and I Spit on Your Grave: I do not understand the sheer amount of energy devoted to defending something so puerile.

On the whole, the movie ultimately brought to mind Mitch Hedberg's joke about seeing a human pyramid: "It was very unnecessary."

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 200 Irréversible

#115 Post by knives » Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:09 pm

Not defending the film which I agree is bad in a way that shouldn’t merit interest, but the opening of the film is spoken about fairly regularly, but primarily when talking about Noe on the whole as it’s a coda to his previous, and even more immature, film.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 200 Irréversible

#116 Post by domino harvey » Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:11 pm

Interesting, I have never seen anyone even refer to it when discussing this movie. I fully expected the film to open at the club (not that it matters, and I'm truly horrified at the idea that he made a more immature film than this!)

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 200 Irréversible

#117 Post by knives » Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:15 pm

It’s really awful, even as a kid into that sort of thing I had to quietly laugh it off as the work of a child who thinks he’s so profound for realizing there’s unpleasant things in the world.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 200 Irréversible

#118 Post by domino harvey » Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:20 pm

knives wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:15 pm
the work of a child who thinks he’s so profound for realizing there’s unpleasant things in the world.
An apt and succinct summation of this film as well!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 200 Irréversible

#119 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:04 pm

My god, I forgot he made that movie before this one. Thanks for reminding me?

The only Gaspar Noé film with any merit that I've seen is Enter the Void, with the asterisk that I was in the worst possible state of mind during that viewing 13+ years ago to objectively critique it. I do remember that the first 45-minutes-ish act of a realistic visceral POV DMT trip through a mindfuck to complete annihilation was effectively done, but it should've just remained a short film, as the rest of the agonizingly long stretch of it was just an aimless and superfluous spiritual coda to that corporeal insanity. But again, I'm not a good judge of that part either, as whatever was influencing me certainly affected my engagement there. At the same time, it was probably the best condition to watch the first act.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#120 Post by tenia » Fri Dec 09, 2022 3:17 am

I don't mind Irréversible in the sense that I think some of its dumb punchlines and tricks worked (and still works) on me, but it's pretty symbolic of Noé's works overall, even Enter The Void, which I liked a lot in theaters but is a very childish movie too (and I agree that it should have been a short movie instead - or else, a 8hrs one).
I often say that Noé's movies are technically stunning and stuff I'm eager to experience in a theater, but they're written by a 12yo.
Love felt a bit more mature to me (and my GF seemingly, who liked it better than I), but Climax and Lux Aeterna aren't much better than the usual, and Vortex, while having a moving final act, also feels often shallow, and it doesn't help that Argento's character in it feels so selfish and obnoxious, to the point it's hard sometimes to have any feelings for what may happen to him.

Post Reply