|
Reader comments on Irreversible
Subject: the movie was a complete success.
Date: Jan 2, 2004
Perhaps "Irreversible" is an acquired taste. the graphic violence and sex scenes were prolly the biggest put offs to the critics.
Personally, I am thuroughly impressed with the directing and photography of the movie. It's not hard to picture what the director had in mind as every segment of it was very beautifully straightforward.
The most important part of 'cinematic experience', in general, is to make the audience feel. "Irreversible" did not deliver the usual warm and fuzzy feelings but it came with a different kind of force and succeeded in doing just what I believe it was supposed to do - shock.
kudos.
Previous: Is this a review?? | Next: Re: Is this a review??
Respond to this message |
Return to original article: Irreversible
|
Response to this comment:
Is this a review??
I've perused the 'review' with great interest, and my conviction that the movie 'Irreversible' is indeed a great one has emerged unscathed, nay, stronger than ever. This wannabe connossieurs have inadvertently described all that is wrong with the average moviegoers mentality - he cannot cope with originality. Granted, sometimes originality can be taken to extreme ends and rendered absurd, much like some overzealous French director. Reviewer Joshua Tanzer's lament is common to many who have watched this movie and asked 'But what's the point?' What is the point of any movie, I ask. What is the point of Terminator 3, where an unconvincing cyborg kills off bad guys?
'Irreversible' is hard to stomach because of its violence and structure. It is a very confusing film, and for the unprepared, utterly distressing (particularly the rape scene). Tanzer labels Gaspar Noe's roving camera technique like so:
"And finally there's cinematic pretension ÷ much of the movie is shot using what can only be described as the drunken monkey technique."
Cinematic pretension? Well excuse the director for trying something new! Actually this technique is quite effective in transmitting a sense of disorientation and general unease, which fits in beatifully with the desparate acts of violence we witness during the course of the movie.
The film deals with a topic which other directors wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole - the trauma of rape. Reviewers of the movie were originally very cruel to Noe, and the harsh words uttered in the press allegedly caused him to consider suicide. Tanzer isn't reviewing the movie in an impartial, professional way. He positively HATES it. He hates it because he doesn't understand it, because he is shocked by it and because it violates his pre-conceived notions of how a movie should run. He asks, and note his need for suspense (what did he think he was watching here, some Hollywood horror schlock?):
"Once you know the cause of the jarring scene at the end, the suspense is over. The whole movie is over. What else are you going to show on your backwards journey ÷ how happy-happy-happy these characters were before the randomly occurring rape? Well, yes, that's what we see for the rest of the film."
Indeed, that is the effect desired by the director. After the utter depravity and violence we get to see the calm BEFORE the storm, and the sadness and irony of it all is deafening. How often have we looked on death and sickness and wished things were as before, in the certain, comforting past? Tanzer sees this beautiful technique as " artistically pretentious stupidity," and that there was NO NEED to show it backwards. Perhaps Tanzer would also like to ask Martin Scorsese why he shot 'Raging Bull' in black & white or why Sergio Leone chose one soundtrack over another in 'Once Upon a time in the West'...
Cheers
Mauro Cordina
|
Comment index:
Joshy... from monica belluci, May 24, 2003
» the movie was a complete success. « from Nadira Ilana, Jan 2, 2004
Joshy... from monica belluci, May 24, 2003
» the movie was a complete success. « from Nadira Ilana, Jan 2, 2004
|
|
|
