Sorry, I never intended to suggest DESCENT was any good overall; I recall it being kind of silly and boring. But the final scene had me in stitches, and that scene is what I remember the film for. And since rape scenes had been under discussion ....

Re: Allen & IRREVERSIBLE, I actually prefer it to ENTER THE VOID on artistic merit, although ENTER THE VOID is the one I'd probably be a little more prone to return to for repeat viewings. I agree the reverse order isn't "necessary" but I disagree that it doesn't add anything of value. And I thought the static camera for the rape scene in that film was a very good call (can you imagine how silly it would've come off with the shaky-cam from the revenge sequence?) -- that sense of quietude was needed and added to the sadness of it, I thought, highlighting how such a simple, avoidable stroke of bad luck/timing was going to ruin multiple lives in the space of about ten minutes. I also felt it effective for the camera to mirror the helpless submission of the victim in the scene, which is a very skillful move on Noe's part -- increasing audience empathy via camera placement, without resorting to cliche. It's part of what makes the scene so notoriously difficult to watch (the other part -- also cinematographic -- being the fixed gaze of the camera, which standing out so much by contrast to surrounding content becomes somehow very distressing, because never to this point have you so badly wanted to be distracted, to be able to look away). Maybe that's all sorta saying the same thing, but you get the idea. To me the quietude of the scene was almost holy-seeming, amplifying the movie's central premise -- that this one tragic ten-minute incident was the existential high point of this human's existence, forever coloring everything both before and after itself, particularly from a third-person POV. It's bleak stuff but is certainly thought-provoking.

K

Okay, fair point about the static camera during the rape. In the overall style of the filmmaking, it doesn't really fit, though. It's like that one section drawn by Neal Adams in the middle of a Joe Staton comic.

The reverse order not only doesn't add anything of value, it subtracts value. In the reversed order, I felt like the extra who came into the underpass and then turned around. None of my business. The characters hadn't been established. (in reality, I probably wouldn't have reacted that way, however)

The other static cam section — the ridiculous conversation on the train (imagine My Dinner With André with no cuts or camera movement) — also reveals more about the director than the characters. Noe was flailing to add depth to his paper-thin premise. And if I'd been an extra in that scene, I would likely have told them to shut up, because we don't need to listen to their vulgarities.

Cliche for the purpose of misdirection seems legit to me.



Are twist endings a cliche? Seems to me they can only either 'work' or 'not work'. But anyway, your description reminds me of when Mike Bunge talked poorly of Rachel Getting Married - it somehow made me more inclined to watch the movie. Not in a "I like what you don't" sense, but just because something about the criticism garnered my interest.

The reverse order robs the audience of justification/sympathy/rationalization for the violence (the revenge) as it's happening. We could argue about the value in doing that, or if the movie succeeds, but it most certainly is necessary to the intent of the film. You'd change quite a lot if you showed the film in the diegetic sequence of events.

Aye. Had it been you, Monica would've been scot-free as the Tenia had been chased intro traffic with a sword.

K

Haha!

Okay, what do you think was the intent of the film? So as not to make you think I'm trying to trap you or anything, I'll answer first.

I think Noe's intent with Irreversible was simply to exploit an artistic hook. I have no idea if he had seen Memento prior, but I think Noe's idea was to amp up the backwards technique by involving grisly content. Murder. Rape. A violent gay club. Hey, a trannie prostitute! He couldn't get child molestation in there somewhere? That might not fly, even with the arthouse crowd.

I don't believe Noe really had a solid idea of what he was doing, or that much of an intent at all. Just throw a bunch of shit against a wall and see what sticks.

Oh, by all means. Even when I say I absolutely hated something, my intention is never to keep others from experiencing it themselves and forming their own opinions. The gore in Martyrs isn't nearly as realistic as some are saying (not even close to Nekromantik 2), but certainly moreso than The Human Centipede.

Like I said, the explanation given in the twist ending was actually pretty neat. But I think it would have been a far better movie if we'd learned about that much sooner. As it stands, the unfolding of the plot relies on the extremely stupid notions that a)the girls would stay in the house after murdering the family, and b)nobody showed up wondering where anybody was for a couple of days.

Weeeak. Prediiictable. A GWAR concert is less ridiculous than that. After Milos jizzed on the battered woman, I was laughing all the way through the rest. And the final gag, while not as predictable as everything that came before, was just kinda dumb. The most disturbing thing was actually left out of the film — why that young girl was so willing to go along with this setup (she didn't seem to be drugged).

I appreciate the point the director was trying to make, as stated in the intro/interview. However, they could have come up with a story less silly and formulaic to get that point across. Interesting that there's a link on the DVD main menu to "Chapter 18," the scene where Milos and the hooded figure are humping the two covered bodies. Like everyone will want to jump to that scene or something. Silly.

Part 2 actually delivered some of what I was expecting from Part 1. Interesting how it was also something of a commentary on Part 1.