View Full Version : Just seen City Of God & Irreversible back to back ....
Inigo Montoya
04-02-2003, 22:37
and I am still recovering
I came as close as I will ever come to walking out of a cinema during the irreversible rape scene - about as upsetting as it comes - really was almost unbearable to watch
IMO Gasper Noe was trying to a little to hard with all the fancy camera work and strobe/special effects though
Nautilus
04-02-2003, 23:13
I read this opinion piece from the Guardian's website a while ago: What's behind the gore? (http://www.observer.co.uk/screen/story/0,6903,872993,00.html) (contains some graphic descriptions by the way). It describes some of the techniques Noe used for Irreversible and discusses the growing trend of ever more graphic violence in art-house or independent films. It's an interesting and thought-provoking article.
The films are polar opposites in just about every way. City of God doesn't glorify gunplay any more than Irreversible glorifies rape. But I don't think City of God would push anyone with an itchy trigger finger over the edge. Irreversible is a different story entirely. Should Noe have studied the patterns from peeping tom to rapist to killer, he'd have realised that his type of material (which I'd imagine is very hard to find, and almost impossible to stumble across before this sudden appearance in mainstrean cinema) is the last step in a program which culminates in an actual rape.
I'm absolutely certain that women will be attacked by viewers of this film, who may not have been otherwise. Just putting the camera in a different spot may have made all the difference. But, alas...
Incidentally, just out of curiosity, I decided to have a look to see if this scene is doing the rounds as a downloadable video clip on the net (normal sites). It is.
Inigo Montoya
05-02-2003, 11:46
Hmmm...
My <i>personal</i> reaction was different
City of God was a great, eye opening movie about life in the slums of Rio and also something new and unique which you dont get very often <i>but</i> I didnt feel that upset by most of the killing apart from when one of the "runts" was "executed" - I felt quite desensitized by the constant killing and the way it was portrayed
I most certainly did not feel desensitized by the two main scenes in Irreversible i.e. the head pulping and the rape - both quite horrifically portrayed and you would have to be fairly sick in the head to get off on them on a voyeuristic level - IMO if you are going to portray this type of violence on film then this is probably as good a way as any to do it - rather that than like the "Rambo style" body count films
Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
...you would have to be fairly sick in the head to get off on them on a voyeuristic level...
Well, violent acts aren't necessailly precipitated with a passion for watching violent movies. There's every possibility that Phil Spector has never seen Dirty Harry or John J. Rambo in action.
But sexually violent acts, as far as I'm aware, are rarely spur of the moment and normally come from several years of addiction to violent pornography. The internet, of course, makes such an addiction all the easier for the closet cases of this world (and, it has to be said, until now a lot of these people have had to make do with some horrid play-acting in bondage movies). These 'potential rapists' are pushed over the edge by depictions of graphic sexual violence. The version in Irreversible, which shows the two of them 'attached in full' from start to finish, is probably as dangerous a scene as was possible to film. Purely as it features both sex AND violence (the arguably 'harder' core stuff in The Idiots or Intimacy doesn't even compete).
Do you have to be sick in the head to get off on it? Well, probably. But the percentage of people who ARE sick in the head (in this regard only) isn't as negligible as you'd think. And many of them would never act out any of their fantasies. God knows what 'sex pests' (maybe guilty of the odd grope) would make of such explicit material? I'm sure plenty of people are getting off on it as we speak.
Incidentally, the same scene is also presented in the downmarket slasher flick 'Ted Bundy'. Ted sodomises a girl screaming in pain, only to finish by smashing her face to the point where she is unrecognisable. But, despite the film going in for gross-out shock tactics, it doesn't come close to the danger level of the Irreversible presentation. If nothing else, because it was more restrained with the camera angles.
Personally, I thought the earlier head-bashing scene was just as disturbing to me. But I couldn't help thinking that Noe should have been far more responsible with the rape scene. Even if to show the same thing, but split the shots between the two of them with more facial close ups, and less full body shots (certainly of her).
What the film isn't going to accomplish (and I sincerely hope this wasn't Noe's justification/intention) is to turn a sex pest on to the righteous path.
ian turner
05-02-2003, 13:31
I'm absolutely certain that women will be attacked by viewers of this film, who may not have been otherwise. Just putting the camera in a different spot may have made all the difference. But, alas...
Somehow I think not , I suspect that such people will be watching similar scenes on videos, in the comfort of their own homes, shot from a number of angles which include full penetration shots by professional pornographers. Watching a brutal anal rape scene is unlikely to make someone think it looks like fun unless they've already considered it.
Would these same people have DVD/video collections that include Baise Moi, Man Bites Dog and The Accused ?
Anyway its a subtitled film and you'd have to sit through the deeply confusing badly lit scenes in the gay S & M club which would put most of that type off to start with.
Mind you when i went to see it there was a bloke there with some mates who'd just come from the pub and wanted to watch a film who wanted to know if the anal rape scene was graphic or not (the woman on the till was describing the films and saying it had received good reviews in france and I mentioned the rape scene to warn them off) . But thereagain Broadstreet in Birmingham does cater for the more neaderthal types.
Summerisle
05-02-2003, 13:32
Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
and I am still recovering
I came as close as I will ever come to walking out of a cinema during the irreversible rape scene - about as upsetting as it comes - really was almost unbearable to watch
IMO Gasper Noe was trying to a little to hard with all the fancy camera work and strobe/special effects though
City of God was fantastic; sadly Irreversible was risible trash. A 21st century Death Wish...sorry, being over analytical just plays into the hands of the director. I wasn't personally offended and unlike Memento this one could benefit from playing back-to-front.
The rape scene didn't really effect me, by that time there was no characterisation, no motivation...just trying to brutalise the audience doesn't make a movie any more involving or affecting. You know by then the director is pulling your chain, especially when you get to the last couple of scenes in the movie.
This is the kind of movie that puts the "art" in "Fart":gag:
Michael Brooke
05-02-2003, 13:53
Originally posted by McD
The version in Irreversible, which shows the two of them 'attached in full' from start to finish, is probably as dangerous a scene as was possible to film. Purely as it features both sex AND violence (the arguably 'harder' core stuff in The Idiots or Intimacy doesn't even compete).
Although I haven't yet seen <I>Irreversible</I>, I completely agree with your basic thesis, having experienced a Damascene conversion in the late 1980s from an extreme libertarian when it came to matters of artistic censorship to someone who accepts that it is occasionally justified - particularly when it comes to sexual violence.
The single film that changed my mind was a 1970s porn film that I saw in Paris a dozen years or so ago whose central set-piece was a rape scene that (a) was clearly intended to titillate the viewer and (b) showed the victim progressing from struggling to acquiescence to active enjoyment. And this shocked me rigid because for the first time I truly understood what BBFC head James Ferman had been going on about, having spent many years rubbishing his descriptions of similar material as being alarmist or deliberately misleading.
And I have no doubt whatsoever that the neanderthals who made that particular film did so for no other reason than to help people get off on the idea of rape. I suspect most well-balanced people would have been as revolted by the scene as I was - but I can equally imagine that others might have found it not only exciting but also encouraging.
Since I saw that film, I've had relationships with two women who have been the victims of sexual assault (one while we were living together), and have seen at first hand just how much this can destroy people's lives (the psychological impact lasting far longer than the physical one). I've also had extensive conversations with people who work in prison reform - including my parents - who say that that for all the claims that graphic sexual material might act as a safety valve (undoubtedly true in some cases), these have to be counterbalanced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of convicted rapists are also heavy porn users.
As a result, I have every sympathy with the BBFC's policies with regard to sexual violence, because I recognise, like them, that it's a separate issue from more conventional violence, not least because it induces a far more complex response in the viewer (even Gaspar Noe has said that he didn't move the camera during the scene because he didn't want to get off on it, a comment that by itself raises various issues). And I also sympathise with them with regard to <I>Irreversible</I> - which they've warned will probably be cut on video and DVD for precisely the reasons that McD cites above.
Incidentally, if you want a living, breathing example of the kind of man McD is talking about, we had a regular at the Everyman Cinema who would regularly accost our staff asking when we were next showing a film featuring violence against women. God alone knows what psychological damage he'd had in his life - physically, he was the absolute spitting image of the stereotypical paedophile: balding, short-sighted, overweight, physically unattractive - because the mere fact that he asked this question not once but repeatedly showed that he didn't think there was anything remotely unusual in his request. We ended up barring him after our female staff said that they didn't feel comfortable with him in the same building - and I don't blame them. And I have a horrible feeling that he'd be the first in the queue for <I>Irreversible</I>…
Michael Brooke
05-02-2003, 13:58
Originally posted by ian turner
[B]Somehow I think not , I suspect that such people will be watching similar scenes on videos, in the comfort of their own homes, shot from a number of angles which include full penetration shots by professional pornographers. Watching a brutal anal rape scene is unlikely to make someone think it looks like fun unless they've already considered it.
This is why the BBFC were arguably right to pass <I>Irreversible</I> for cinema release but why they're equally right to express extreme misgivings about passing it for video.
Anyway its a subtitled film and you'd have to sit through the deeply confusing badly lit scenes in the gay S & M club which would put most of that type off to start with.
In my experience (see above), this simply isn't the case. People who want to see <I>Irreversible</I> because they've heard that it has an exceptionally brutal rape scene - something that's virtually impossible to miss given the publicity - won't be the slightest bit bothered about subtitles or general artiness, any more than their predecessors in the 1950s and 1960s were when they flocked to Ingmar Bergman films because they'd heard that there was a glimpse of nipple for a split second.
Inigo Montoya
05-02-2003, 14:14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2346769.stm
Personally on balance I agree with the decision of the BBFC to release it uncut - you could argue about this one for ages and end up going round in circles
I would repeat again that my personal reaction was that I was pretty upset - almost crying in fact at what I was seeing - yes perhaps Noe was playing mind games but IMO he succeeded in showing how horrific the act of rape is - whether or not that is something that needs to be put on film ... not sure
Michael Brooke
05-02-2003, 14:47
Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2346769.stm
Personally on balance I agree with the decision of the BBFC to release it uncut - you could argue about this one for ages and end up going round in circles
To clarify, the BBFC have only passed it uncut for theatrical release, and there's every possibility they may cut it for video and DVD.
I would repeat again that my personal reaction was that I was pretty upset - almost crying in fact at what I was seeing - yes perhaps Noe was playing mind games but IMO he succeeded in showing how horrific the act of rape is - whether or not that is something that needs to be put on film ... not sure
To be honest, I think that's a somewhat patronising attitude (Noe's, not yours). Any halfway intelligent person with their head screwed on will have already formed that opinion of rape and won't gain anything out of watching a nine-minute dramatisation - so why show it at that length? What exactly would a normal, balanced viewer gain from this that would counterbalance the undoubted fact that a potential or even actual rapist would use it to get off on?
I can entirely sympathise with McD's concerns - especially with unthinkable posters like this (http://www.filmup.com/posters/loc/500/irreversible.jpg) (containing a still from the central rape scene) going beyond irresponsibility into deliberately attracting the sort of disturbed individual that Michael outlined above.
Johnny Vodka
05-02-2003, 18:43
Michael, the film you describe sounds much worse than the likes of Irreversible (which I haven't seen yet). I think there's a difference between rape in hardcore pornography (which I agree should be prohibited) and rape in even the most controversial feature film. I've seen many controversial films featuring sexual violence (I Spit On Your Grave, Last House on the Left, etc), and, while very few have much in the way of artistic merit, I don't feel they deserve to be censored. And what's the point anyway? If I miss Irreversible at the cinema, and I still feel like seeing it in a few months' time, I will order the DVD from a country that respects its citizens' rights a little more.
I'm also interested in your statement about many convicted rapists being heavy porn users. Heavy is a word that allows for interpretation, but I'm sure most men look at porn, so ultimately you might just be stating that many convicted rapists are... men. :confused:
'It's coming to the present now, because what I'm talking about happened twenty years ago, that is in my formative stages. And what scares and appals me… is when I see what's on cable TV, some of violence in the movies that comes into the home today, was stuff that they wouldn't show in X- rated adult theatres twenty years ago. That stuff, I'm telling you from hard personal experience, that is graphic violence and violence towards women, on screen…it's scary to think what would have happened to me if I had seen it - I was scary enough!'
Ted Bundy, 23rd January 1989, hours away from execution.
I have not a glimmer of a reasonable doubt that if Ted, or anyone who shared his 'vulnerability'*, went to see Irresponsible, they would have added a notch to their body count within hours of it finishing. Possible even before it finished, if they sprinted out of that cinema at the end of the rape scene. That's not to say that the movie world should be held to ransom over some last minute self-justifying comments by a sociopath. Indeed, the American religious right (who conducted the interview) used it for everything it was worth, trying to shove something through Congress known as 'The Bundy Bill' (I don't know the outcome). But, the fact remains that his statement is not altogether untrue.
Sure, Jeffrey Dahmer's biggest sexual thrill was watching Luke Skywalker being attacked by the Emperor's lightning bolts, over and over and over. So, in some instances, you never can tell. But when even someone who considers themselves sexually 'normal' (if there is such a thing anymore, no kids - no goats), was watching in astonishment at pure unfiltered rocket fuel for the sexually dangerous, I've got to think that it should never have been shown. The BBFC should never have passed it, even for cinema release. Perhaps they could have offered to meet them half way, and not exactly 'cut' the sequence, but zoom in. I don't have the knowledge of film stock to say how this would look, but they could always use the new DV excuse of 'oh, the ****** picture captures the grittiness of the movie like celluloid couldn't.'
For those who want to know where I'm coming from, but don't wish to see the movie, check out Narshty's link to the poster above. It's that shot for 10 minutes - imagine the girl screaming and the guys hips moving back and forth whilst shouting all manner of sexual obscenities at her (another minor detail which makes the scene all the more dangerous), with the camera not moving an inch.
*Ted loved to add himself to the victim list, as he was 'helpless' to stop himself. Did anyone read an amazing article in the Guardian Magazine, Saturday, Jan 18th? It was about the 'Welsh Ted Bundy' who, in the mid seventies, used to rape and kill two at a time, and was never caught. Thirty years later the case was reopened using new DNA techniques. They couldn't get a match and then some bright spark decided they should try for a 'half match' - if the killer was not on file, maybe one of his children was. And they got him! He had died in the interim period (an anti-climax for everyone involved), and they now reckon he could have taken his horrorshow on the road, perhaps killing dozens. You only have to have read the paper a few times in the last year to know that these kinda people are everywhere.
Michael Brooke
06-02-2003, 10:40
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Michael, the film you describe sounds much worse than the likes of Irreversible (which I haven't seen yet). I think there's a difference between rape in hardcore pornography (which I agree should be prohibited) and rape in even the most controversial feature film.
To be honest, I'm not sure there is - or at least it's not a clear dividing line in the way that you're implying. The only real difference between the film I'm talking about (sorry if I'm sounding evasive by not identifying it: the truth is that I honestly can't remember, and in any case French porn titles are notoriously slippery and changeable) and many of the other titles cited in this thread is that the sex was unsimulated - but I don't think that's a particularly big issue when you consider that in other respects we're still talking about fictionalised dramatisation of rape for artistically dubious ends.
OK, in my example there is absolutely no doubt that the audience was meant to find rape titillating - but I'm not convinced that that isn't at least partially the motive behind a great many rape scenes in exploitation films. It's the length and detail that I have problems with - I think it's deeply disingenuous for filmmakers to hide behind the defence of "well, we have to show that rape is a horrifying experience" because (a) this is (or should be) blindingly obvious anyway and (b) a talented filmmaker should be able to convey the impact without rubbing his audience's nose in it.
Just compare <I>Ms.45</I> with <I>I Spit On Your Grave</I> - even the uncut version of the former gets it over with in seconds, and I'd argue it's a far more disturbing experience than an ineptly-staged twenty-minute gorefest. Then again, Abel Ferrara has more talent in his little finger than Meir Zarchi has in his entire body, which is another problem with this particular field - the undoubted fact that for every genuinely serious and committed film-maker there are a dozen sensationalist schlock merchants.
(I honestly don't know where to put Gaspar Noe - on the evidence of <I>Carne, Seul Contre Tous</I> and <I>La Bouche de Jean-Pierre</I> he has a large and obvious talent, but I'm still not convinced that a nine-minute rape scene can be justified for any reason other than cheap shock tactics).
I've seen many controversial films featuring sexual violence (I Spit On Your Grave, Last House on the Left, etc), and, while very few have much in the way of artistic merit, I don't feel they deserve to be censored. And what's the point anyway? If I miss Irreversible at the cinema, and I still feel like seeing it in a few months' time, I will order the DVD from a country that respects its citizens' rights a little more.
With the greatest respect, I am rapidly losing patience with people who fall back on abstract arguments concerning "citizen's rights" when what they actually mean is "the right to watch lengthy scenes of sadistic sexual violence in even the most irresponsibly salacious exploitation film" - which, let's face it, is what you're arguing here.
I'm also interested in your statement about many convicted rapists being heavy porn users. Heavy is a word that allows for interpretation, but I'm sure most men look at porn, so ultimately you might just be stating that many convicted rapists are... men. :confused:
There's a difference between casually/occasionally looking at porn and becoming obsessed with it to the point where you can't separate illusion and reality - and this seems to be the problem here. Bear in mind that for the most part we're talking about exceptionally socially dysfunctional people who have extreme difficulty relating to women as people - which is why they turn to porn in the first place: not so much to fuel their fantasies as to fuel their entire worldview. And it's that psychological distinction that's important.
Changing the subject slightly and going back to the Guardian feature:
It's interesting to note the use of The Isle as an example. In particular, the implication that it is the fish-hooks sequence that forms the climax of the film and that the BBFC have issues with the scene. Firstly, there are two fish-hooks sequences. The first occurs when the male protagonist swallows some, the second when the female protagonist inserts them into her vagina. The vagina sequence actually happens off-screen, and is all the more shocking for it. It's also not the "Climax" of the film, but rather one climactic point among many. Secondly, The BBFC did not have an issue with this scene. The reason there are wranglings over the movie is that the film features several sequences that could constitute animal cruelty. A dog is hit a few times, a bird in a cage is thrown into the water, and a fish is filleted alive and left to swim away. None of it is done for shock tactics, really, and to use the film as an example of the increase in "mindless violence" in "art" films is either a great misrepresentation, or shows that the writer had not even seen the film.
Johnny Vodka
06-02-2003, 19:25
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
To be honest, I'm not sure there is - or at least it's not a clear dividing line in the way that you're implying. The only real difference between the film I'm talking about (sorry if I'm sounding evasive by not identifying it: the truth is that I honestly can't remember, and in any case French porn titles are notoriously slippery and changeable) and many of the other titles cited in this thread is that the sex was unsimulated - but I don't think that's a particularly big issue when you consider that in other respects we're still talking about fictionalised dramatisation of rape for artistically dubious ends.
OK, in my example there is absolutely no doubt that the audience was meant to find rape titillating - but I'm not convinced that that isn't at least partially the motive behind a great many rape scenes in exploitation films. It's the length and detail that I have problems with - I think it's deeply disingenuous for filmmakers to hide behind the defence of "well, we have to show that rape is a horrifying experience" because (a) this is (or should be) blindingly obvious anyway and (b) a talented filmmaker should be able to convey the impact without rubbing his audience's nose in it.
Just compare <I>Ms.45</I> with <I>I Spit On Your Grave</I> - even the uncut version of the former gets it over with in seconds, and I'd argue it's a far more disturbing experience than an ineptly-staged twenty-minute gorefest. Then again, Abel Ferrara has more talent in his little finger than Meir Zarchi has in his entire body, which is another problem with this particular field - the undoubted fact that for every genuinely serious and committed film-maker there are a dozen sensationalist schlock merchants.
Well, it then becomes an issue of when to cut sexual violence. The BBFC have seen fit to cut both Ferrara's Ms. 45 and Bad Lieutenant on these grounds. Trouble is, the BBFC are always going to consider the artistic merit of a piece, and, those films that don't satisfy their idea of art, are the ones that will suffer the scissors. I mean, where would you stand on A Clockwork Orange? The assault on the writer's wife in that film is rather harrowing. Taken out of context on a DVD, surely it could lend fuel to a sick mind? But the BBFC eventually decided to pass this film uncut for home viewing. Anyway, with Irreversible there are enough people leaping to the film's defence to suggest it is more than just simple exploitation; in fact, unless I'm missing something, the only critics crying for a ban seem to be the usual suspects (Christopher Tookey, Alexander Walker).
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
With the greatest respect, I am rapidly losing patience with people who fall back on abstract arguments concerning "citizen's rights" when what they actually mean is "the right to watch lengthy scenes of sadistic sexual violence in even the most irresponsibly salacious exploitation film" - which, let's face it, is what you're arguing here.
No, what I'm actually arguing is for the right to make up my own mind. As I've said above, there is no majority opinion to say this film is a worthless piece of trash in the spirit of the porno you described earlier. You'll no doubt have read the pieces in this month's Sight & Sound, one broadly for the film, one broadly against, but crucially neither describe the rape scene as erotic or titillating.
I have to ask myself how many other European countries will likely cut Irreversible on video? I think I speak for most people on these forums when I say I'd rather own the uncut version of a film (even if it does involve sexual violence). (The only time I've chosen not to see an uncut version of a film is with Cannibal Holocaust.) If you have any doubts, all you need to do is look at any thread dealing with Last House on the Left (a film which, in case you're wondering, I have no time for).
Is there any point in cutting Irreversible for home viewing when you can buy the DVD from abroad or - if you are sick - just download the rape sequence for repeated viewing out of context?
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
There's a difference between casually/occasionally looking at porn and becoming obsessed with it to the point where you can't separate illusion and reality - and this seems to be the problem here. Bear in mind that for the most part we're talking about exceptionally socially dysfunctional people who have extreme difficulty relating to women as people - which is why they turn to porn in the first place: not so much to fuel their fantasies as to fuel their entire worldview. And it's that psychological distinction that's important.
Basically I believe that films don't create psychos, but psychos may well gravitate towards certain type of films. The huge number of men (and women!) that use pornography in a 'healthy' manner surely suggests it's not the pornography at fault. I don't think one film - or even a series of films - is going to be the difference between someone committing or not committing a crime.
Michael Brooke
06-02-2003, 22:17
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Well, it then becomes an issue of when to cut sexual violence. The BBFC have seen fit to cut both Ferrara's Ms. 45 and Bad Lieutenant on these grounds.
To clarify, <I>Bad Lieutenant</I> was passed uncut for cinema release, and was only cut for video. <I>Ms.45</I> was never submitted for a theatrical certificate - it was shown in cinemas under club conditions.
Trouble is, the BBFC are always going to consider the artistic merit of a piece, and, those films that don't satisfy their idea of art, are the ones that will suffer the scissors.
It's a bit more complicated than that - countless BBFC spokespeople have praised <I>Straw Dogs</I>, but it's run into severe difficulties on a number of occasions because the R-rated version breaches one of their fundamental rules on sexual violence (see below). There are also legal issues to take into account, which is where questions of artistic merit can become irrelevant (the BBFC has been forced to cut films it admires because of the rigidity of certain UK laws).
I mean, where would you stand on A Clockwork Orange? The assault on the writer's wife in that film is rather harrowing. Taken out of context on a DVD, surely it could lend fuel to a sick mind? But the BBFC eventually decided to pass this film uncut for home viewing.
To be honest, I don't think <I>A Clockwork Orange</I> is especially harrowing - it's too stylised, for starters, which is one of the main reasons the BBFC didn't have a problem with it even back in 1971 (incidentally, there's never been an "eventually" about their decisions with this particular film - on all three occasions it's been submitted to them, it's been passed with minimal hassle).
A better example is <I>Straw Dogs</I>, especially since it's been established that the BBFC actually has more of a problem with the <U>censored</U> version, since it seems to endorse the so-called rape myth that the uncut version emphatically doesn't (I was baffled by the BBFC reaction until I realised the situation: I'd only ever seen the uncut version).
Anyway, with Irreversible there are enough people leaping to the film's defence to suggest it is more than just simple exploitation; in fact, unless I'm missing something, the only critics crying for a ban seem to be the usual suspects (Christopher Tookey, Alexander Walker).
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. In fact, the film has been condemned right across the spectrum, with some of the most vitriolic reactions coming from people you'd expect to be on the liberal side of the argument - such as <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,12102,885360,00.html">Peter Bradshaw</A> (who raved about Noe's earlier films) - and last Friday's <I>Late Review</I> pretty much ripped it to shreds (the final score was one lukewarm, three rabidly against).
I've also noticed that the vast majority of even the positive reviews have expressed extreme disquiet about the treatment of the rape scene and have been raising much the same questions that I'm doing here. I'm already on record as a strong admirer of Gaspar Noé's work, so it's unlikely that I'd regard <I>Irreversible</I> as "simple exploitation", as his films thus far haven't been remotely simple. But I think the question of whether or not it's exploitation in some form is still an open one. (Frustratingly, I haven't had a chance to see it myself yet, but I did give my ex-girlfriend a thorough grilling over lunch - and was intrigued to see she was unexpectedly impressed by it).
No, what I'm actually arguing is for the right to make up my own mind. As I've said above, there is no majority opinion to say this film is a worthless piece of trash in the spirit of the porno you described earlier. You'll no doubt have read the pieces in this month's Sight & Sound, one broadly for the film, one broadly against, but crucially neither describe the rape scene as erotic or titillating.
I'm sure it isn't to the likes of us - but I'm equally sure it is to certain others. Former BBFC head James Ferman once commissioned a test where "normal" people and convicted rapists were shown footage of extreme sexual violence, and found that the results were diametrically opposed, with the rapists getting strongly aroused by material everyone else found repellent.
Is this an argument for banning such material? I don't think so - but I <U>do</U> think it's incumbent on film-makers to think long and hard about what they're doing and why they're doing it. I would defend <I>Straw Dogs</i> because while exceptionally disturbing it also strikes me as a sincere and honest film - unusually so, in fact - about the psychological as well as the physical effects of rape, something that's all too often swept under the carpet. But that's not what I'm hearing about <I>Irreversible</I> - and Noé's defences thus far have been depressingly trite.
Basically I believe that films don't create psychos, but psychos may well gravitate towards certain type of films. The huge number of men (and women!) that use pornography in a 'healthy' manner surely suggests it's not the pornography at fault. I don't think one film - or even a series of films - is going to be the difference between someone committing or not committing a crime.
This type of argument nearly always ends up reaching these conclusions - inevitably, I suppose - but while I agree that it's extraordinarily unlikely that a single film can fairly be blamed for incitement to sexual violence, I am also deeply disturbed by a growing trend towards really extreme, sadistic violence by film-makers who are trying to cater for audiences who think <I>Straw Dogs</I> and <I>Last House on the Left</I> are old hat. And what's depressing is that it's not just the talentless hacks who are resorting to these shock tactics - it's people like Gaspar Noé and Takashi Miike as well.
So what's the solution? I don't know - I'm not an advocate of censorship <I>per se</I>, but I do increasingly think that artists should exercise more <U>self</U>-censorship, or at the very least they should start being honest about the motives behind what they're doing.
On the topic of Straw Dogs and censorship, Criterion's upcoming 2-disc set (http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=182§ion=feature) of the film will contain, among other items, a new commentary by Stephen Prince, author of Savage Cinema: Sam Peckinpah and the Rise of Ultraviolent Movies, who previously did an outstanding job on their disc of Red Beard.
In the book he takes the stance that the truncated R-rated version of the rape scene is preferable to the uncut version, which should make for highly interesting listening come March.
go and watch Irreversible if you havent seen it and make up your own minds,i thought it was excellent myself
there's a scene that had me wincing alot more than the rape scene
"...there's a scene that had me wincing alot more than the rape scene"
...which scene might that be, then? ...he asked, not altogether innocently...
. . . :smokin: . . .
Johnny Vodka
07-02-2003, 08:40
Originally posted by Hendrik
"...there's a scene that had me wincing alot more than the rape scene"
...which scene might that be, then? ...he asked, not altogether innocently...
. . . :smokin: . . .
The other infamous scene which you MUST have heard about.
Gary Couzens
07-02-2003, 23:03
I have yet to see <i>City of God</i>, so no comment from me about that film.
I saw <i>Irreversible</i> yesterday, and my reactions are ambivalent. "Do you want to see a film with a nine-minute rape scene?" is the wrong question. "Do you want to see a serious film intended for adults in the form its maker intended?" - and I would say yes. On that basis, I'd defend this film being shown in cinemas, uncut. Homeviewing is more problematic. I'm sure in my mind that Noé's intentions are honourable, but I'm less sure of the results. The film seems designed as an assault on the audience: what with the dark, grainy photography, the flailing handheld camera - not to mention the flicker effect at the end, which will be dangerous to epileptics.
For the record, I have known at least two people (one of each sex) who have suffered rape or near-rape, and - possibly because of that - it is a subject I do feel strongly about.
In the interests of accuracy, or pedantry, the rape scene lasts about <i>five</i> minutes, not nine. The scene is included in one unbroken take that lasts about thirteen minutes. Even five minutes is a very long time on screen, though you could argue that it is true to the reality of such a crime. I'm less convinced by Michael's "anyone should be able to work out how horrible it is" argument: let's not forget that attitudes to rape have only really changed in the last quarter-century or so, certainly within my own lifetime. Even in the early 70s, you'll find rape dismissed as a little bit of male overexuberance, or a macho version of foreplay...and the subject of jokes you couldn't make nowadays. It's not a comparison I wish to take too far, but the "you should be able to work out how unpleasant it was, so why show it?" argument I've heard used as a criticism of any work dealing with the Holocaust...and would we criticise any film that did so? (And there were reports of neo-Nazis laughing and jeering at <i>Schindler's List</i>, so it's conceivable that someone could get off on such a film too.) The length of the <i>Irreversible</i> scene is also in keeping with the film's overall filmmaking strategy (almost all the scenes are done in long continuous takes), though of course that is a strategy that Noé decided on himself.
The rape scene <i>is</i> unpleasant, no doubt about that. It isn't erotic to me, nor I hope is it to anyone else I know. But I do wonder if someone motivated to rape for sadistic or sociopathic reasons might find it a turn-on...however, it's the BBFC who have taken the psychiatric advice on this issue, not me, and they passed the film.
As for cutting the scene, I'm not sure that's possible. As I say above, it's shot in one continuous take. You don't actually see anything, apart from a brief shot of the rapist's non-erect penis. There isn't really anything you can isolate and remove from the scene. In answer to McD's question above, what would you remove by zooming in? (You'd increase the grain for certain, not that that would make much difference as the film is pretty grainy as it is.) If you have to cut the scene, you might as well remove it all...and if you do that, you might as well reject the film outright.
At the risk of being accused of being PC, I should point out that this is a scene showing the rape of a woman, and that everyone commenting on it (myself included) on this thread have all been male. The only women I've heard so far discussing this film have been Germaine Greer on <i>Late Review</i> and (indirectly) Michael's ex-girlfriend. Are there any others who would like to add something to this debate?
Before I saw <i>Irreversible</i>, I made a point of seeing Noé's previous films <i>Carne</i> and <i>Seul contre tous</i> (taped-off-Film Four copies) earlier in the week. I'm in no doubt of his ability, less sure of his judgement. He seems awfully fond of racist, misogynist and homophobic language (which was more appropriate to <i>Seul contre tous</i>, less so here) and rather too thrilled by taboo/transgressive subject matter. (<i>Irreversible</i> features the most lurid gay bar scene this side of <i>Cruising</i>, and Noé can't resist going for a close-up of the transvestite hooker's penis). I'm quite prepared to accept that the film is intended to show the destructive effects of machismo, but I'm wondering if Noé isn't more than a little enraptured by what he purports to condemn.
My major reservation is that once the two big setpieces are out of the way (half an hour before the end) the film becomes very dull. The only sympathetic character is Alex, the rape victim. I'm not sure that the film adds up to very much: the final caption "Time Destroys Everything" is trite to say the least.
So there I am, sitting on the fence somewhat. I'll defend the film's right to exist, and the right for forewarned adults to make up their own minds...but I'm certainly not without reservations.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
"Do you want to see a film with a nine-minute rape scene?" is the wrong question. "Do you want to see a serious film intended for adults in the form its maker intended?" - and I would say yes.
...that's only the wrong question for you. I think, given this material, you have to look at the issue from outside of your own personal circumstances (which you don't appear interested in doing). Like the rest of your post, you seem to have no grasp of what this scene might achieve, and attack the issue from the practically irrelevant standpoint of a film buff. Your second question is of no consequence to almost all of the people who could be violently influenced by the scene in question. And, as such, is of no consequence to this argument.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
It's not a comparison I wish to take too far, but the "you should be able to work out how unpleasant it was, so why show it?" argument I've heard used as a criticism of any work dealing with the Holocaust...and would we criticise any film that did so? (And there were reports of neo-Nazis laughing and jeering at <i>Schindler's List</i>, so it's conceivable that someone could get off on such a film too.)
I think with the above anecdote (and pretty much the rest of your post), you completely miss the point of why this scene is almost uniquely hazardous in mainstream cinema.
The attitude to filmed material is one thing, but it’s a possible ‘end result’ of such a viewing that should be the major factor here. Would Schindler’s List have spurred on neo Nazis to a new outlook? Have them plotting whole new schemes?
Sexual delinquents can get off on what ever they choose. It’s when these fantasies cross over into the real world that it becomes a problem!
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
You don't actually see anything, apart from a brief shot of the rapist's non-erect penis. There isn't really anything you can isolate and remove from the scene. In answer to McD's question above, what would you remove by zooming in? (You'd increase the grain for certain, not that that would make much difference as the film is pretty grainy as it is.) If you have to cut the scene, you might as well remove it all...and if you do that, you might as well reject the film outright.
Erm… no!
Whilst this doesn’t make you a bad person, or even naïve, I think you’d struggle to spot a ‘dangerous’ rape scene from a less harmful one (and you didn’t even attempt to answer my question).
To say you don’t ‘see’ anything is pedantry to the point of blindness (not to mention inaccurate). And if I answered your question, it would almost certainly fall on deaf ears. What could be removed by zooming in?
:A sustained full body shot of a woman being anally raped.
:The clothing would be less of an issue. She’s wearing a ‘f*** me’ dress, (and this hasn’t been mentioned so far) - he’s wearing a suit! Oh, this is a ‘proper’ rape in every sense! And this is (literally) hammered home for the duration!
:The horror of the situation would be magnified (certainly for the warped of mind) as close ups would highlight her suffering, and reduce the titillation factor considerably.
:Close ups on the male would also highlight the horror of what he’s doing, and segregate this from the ‘titillation’ of the actual act (for some viewers).
:The woman’s legs would not be open (on camera) for the entire duration of the rape.
It’s only the second time I thought a violent act was sexualised to the point of needless risk (One False Move being the other case). What the Carl Franklin film cannot be accused of though, is shameless advertising of its ‘money shot’. Irresponsible is taking every step to pack all the 'wrong' ones in!
Gary Couzens
12-02-2003, 01:14
[QUOTE]Originally posted by McD
...that's only the wrong question for you. I think, given this material, you have to look at the issue from outside of your own personal circumstances (which you don't appear interested in doing). Like the rest of your post, you seem to have no grasp of what this scene might achieve, and attack the issue from the practically irrelevant standpoint of a film buff. Your second question is of no consequence to almost all of the people who could be violently influenced by the scene in question. And, as such, is of no consequence to this argument.
It's an entirely valid question. It involves <i>context</i>, which is all too easily forgotten in debates like this, not least by yourself.
In <i>context</i>, I would defend the BBFC's decision to leave the rape scene (and the headbashing scene) intact. If you lifted those scenes out of the whole 99 minutes or so of <i>Irreversible</i> and showed them as individual short films, then I would be much less happy about it.
For the record, although I'd much rather adults be allowed to judge for themselves, I don't feel particularly deprived by not being able to see a ten-second penetration shot during the rape scene in <i>Baise-moi</i>. And I'm in no hurry to see <i>Ichi the Killer</i> either.
Let's bring in <i>The Accused</i>, a film which has quite a few similarities (not just in subject matter) with <i>Irreversible</i>. You have a prolonged rape scene (not quite so long, admittedly). You have an actress in a "******* me" dress (as you put it). You have one or two shots that I'd say are more explicit than Noé uses. The scene uses a number of cuts - you may even suggest that this might make the scene <i>more</i> exciting, especially if you lifted it out of context. But in context, I'd defend it too (as would most people). It shows the damage done before it shows the rape itself, as does <i>Irreversible</i>: our first sight of Monica Bellucci is her bloody face is she's taken away in an ambulance.
As for my first question, it was asked of me earlier last week by a close friend of mine – a woman who quite happily sat through <i>Last House on the Left</i> and <i>I Spit on Your Grave</i>. (This raises an interesting question: is it easier to deal with such material if we can dismiss it as exploitative trash? But not when it's a serious film that's so in your face it rubs your nose in it?)
<b>I think with the above anecdote (and pretty much the rest of your post), you completely miss the point of why this scene is almost uniquely hazardous in mainstream cinema.</b>
Hardly "unique". There are quite a few rape scenes out there (particularly in the early 70s, when this was a boundary there to be pushed), which are more often than not cut by the BBFC in this country.
As for "hazardous", well as I said before, the BBFC have consulted a forensic psychologist about this scene (see the news release on their website). On the basis of her advice, the BBFC have left the scene intact for cinema release. I'm not going to question someone's professional ability - if it was good enough for the BBFC then I'm happy with it.
<B>The attitude to filmed material is one thing, but it’s a possible ‘end result’ of such a viewing that should be the major factor here. Would Schindler’s List have spurred on neo Nazis to a new outlook? Have them plotting whole new schemes?</B>
On the other hand, what if it changed attitudes for the better? What if a neo-Nazi went to <i>Schindler's List</i> and saw the light?
As for <i>Irreversible</i>, I mentioned before that attitudes to rape have only really changed relatively recently. In certain scenarios, such as date rape and domestic/marital rape, it often is still regarded lightly. A victim's sexual history, or their wearing "provocative" clothing, is too often used as evidence in court. What if this film changes someone's attitude? This is what rape is, Noé seems to me to be saying: it's not pretty, it's not asked for or desired, it's nothing to do with sexual desire - it's all about power, humiliation and violence. It's also something that one in four British women have suffered, according to Home Office figures published last year. (Not to mention quite a few men as well.)
<b>Sexual delinquents can get off on what ever they choose.</b>
Indeed. It's well known that paedophiles, for example, can get off on Mothercare catalogues. So do we ban them, just in case?
<b>It’s when these fantasies cross over into the real world that it becomes a problem!</b>
A statement of the obvious.
<b>Whilst this doesn’t make you a bad person, or even naïve,</b>
I'm glad of that. I feel so much better now I've been patronised by you. :-)
<b> I think you’d struggle to spot a ‘dangerous’ rape scene from a less harmful one (and you didn’t even attempt to answer my question).</b>
No I wouldn't. And yes I did.
<b>To say you don’t ‘see’ anything is pedantry to the point of blindness (not to mention inaccurate).</b>
Then I suggest you take that up with the BBFC. One of their reasons for passing the scene was that it contained no explicitly sexual imagery and was not designed to titillate. And as I say above, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to question a professional's opinion in her area of expertise.
Homeviewing is a different matter, as the BBFC will have to consider the possibility of taking the scene out of context and playing it repeatedly. I'm glad that's not my decision to make!
<b>And if I answered your question, it would almost certainly fall on deaf ears.</b>
And I suspect by answering <i>you</i>, all I will get is selective quoting, patronisation and unwarranted assertions about me personally. (For the record, to the best of my knowledge McD and I have never met and have never corresponded outside these public forums.)
<b>A sustained full body shot of a woman being anally raped.</b>
Since the camera is placed in front of her face and her body is angled away from the camera, I wouldn't call this a "full body" shot. I'm not the only person to defend the scene by means of the camera placing.
<b>:The clothing would be less of an issue. She’s wearing a ‘f*** me’ dress, (and this hasn’t been mentioned so far)</b>
Clothing is a vexed issue. You could argue that a woman is entitled to dress as she sees fit. On the other hand, "provocative" clothing can and has been used as a rapist's defence in court. So where do you draw the line? Do you go along with the American feminist (I forget who - can anyone remind me?) who said that a woman has to consider the possiblity of rape every time she goes out her front door?
In any case, any issues of attraction because of Alex's clothing are red herrings in the context of this film. What the Ténia does is nothing to do with desire...it's already established that the character is gay. It's more to do with power and humiliation - see the way he slaps around Concha (the transvestite prostitute) immediately before he rapes Alex.
<b> - he’s wearing a suit!</b>
Yes, and...? What point are you making here?
<b>Oh, this is a ‘proper’ rape in every sense! And this is (literally) hammered home for the duration!</b>
And what's a "proper" rape?
<b>:The horror of the situation would be magnified (certainly for the warped of mind) as close ups would highlight her suffering, and reduce the titillation factor considerably.</b>
This might well make it worse. A sadistic or sociopathic rapist is getting off from the suffering, not any sexual titillation.
<b>:Close ups on the male would also highlight the horror of what he’s doing, and segregate this from the ‘titillation’ of the actual act (for some viewers).</b>
See above. For anyone likely to be turned on by a scene like this, the degradation and humiliation <i>is</i> the turn-on.
<b>:The woman’s legs would not be open (on camera) for the entire duration of the rape.</b>
They aren't. They're away from the camera and partly hidden by the rapist's body.
All this goes to show why I'm not convinced zooming in or panning and scanning will make any difference to the scene.
As I said in my original post, I do have reservations about <i>Irreversible</i>. On balance, I do think <i>Seul contre tous</i> is the more achieved and accomplished film. However, I don't have to pretend something is a masterpiece in order to defend its right to exist.
This is undoubtedly one of the most "difficult" films (especially from a censorship point of view) for a very long time, and it will and has attracted strong opinions for and against. No doubt plenty of people will wish not to see it. But on balance I'm glad I – as a forewarned and prepared adult – had the opportunity to make up my own mind about it.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
The only women I've heard so far discussing this film have been Germaine Greer on <i>Late Review</i> and (indirectly) Michael's ex-girlfriend. Are there any others who would like to add something to this debate?
As a woman who would be going to see this on her own, there's no way I'm going to the cinema to watch it - the cinema in my town that's showing it is bad enough for mac-wearing weirdos as it is. As I do want to see the film, I've downloaded it to avoid dodgy loners lurking in cinemas. It's sad that I've had to do this but I don't see I have any other choice.
Johnny Vodka
12-02-2003, 08:40
Originally posted by McD
[B:The clothing would be less of an issue. She’s wearing a ‘f*** me’ dress, (and this hasn’t been mentioned so far) - he’s wearing a suit! Oh, this is a ‘proper’ rape in every sense! And this is (literally) hammered home for the duration!
: [/B]
I wonder if you've thought about the logic of this comment. If she were dressed as a nun, would it make the crime more horrific?
Oops, notic Gary's addressed that point already, but since reading a similar comment Sight & Sound I've been waiting for someone to pick up on it here!
ian turner
12-02-2003, 12:47
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
I wonder if you've thought about the logic of this comment. If she were dressed as a nun, would it make the crime more horrific?
Oops, notic Gary's addressed that point already, but since reading a similar comment Sight & Sound I've been waiting for someone to pick up on it here!
Hmm nuns, make me think of The Magdalene Sisters and various reports of abuse of children in homes by nuns. Anyway thats beside the point.
What would make the film a more difficult viewing would be if it was shown forwards since you'd start by seeing the lead characters in happy circumstances and watch them spiral down into darkness and suffering and the film would finish on that level with the rape being of someone of whom you knew something about making it more personal and therefore that little bit worse when the woman is raped. As it stands the film rises up from the depths and ends on a positive scene so the feelings it produces are more complicated given that the positive ending is in actual fact a positive beginning and the positive end (as in start) has to be seen in context of the negative start (as in end) of the film.
dazza001
12-02-2003, 13:08
I've yet to see "Irreversible", but thought that "Seul contre tous" was truly excellent. As for two other films mentioned in this thread, I thought that both "Bundy" and "Ichi" were irresponsible trash, although "Ichi" was far more stylish and had some technical merit.
Anyway, back to "City of God" - much as I admired it, and as everyone (expecting the Academy, of course ;) ) seems to be really impressed by it, I felt it was a film that revels somewhat in the violence. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a fine film, but in all honestly thought it was slightly gratuitous. The screening I went to was peopled with "inappropriate laughter"-types, who guffawed at certain scenes (i.e. when the guy bashes the woman with the shovel). This probably says more about audience than movie...
Anyway, I look forward (with slight apprehension!) to catching "Irreversible". Noe's previous feature has made me really keen to see his follow-up. Incidentally, I don't remember "Seul contre tous" causing that much bother - the BBFC seemed more bothered about fogging out a lame bit of sex as opposed to the two real gut-wrenching scenes (the butcher and his girlfriend, then the butcher & his daughter)...
Dazza.
Coming back to the Guardian article, he says the following
"[...]the one scene that will have them running for the exits, the one that will kick-start the controversy, and the one that will ultimately immortalise the movie."
It think he hits on a very important point here: would any of these films be considered to be good if they were not so controversial? - noé is a talented director although I'm wondering if he'd be half as famous if he were to make different films. Where's he going to go from here? I think he's going to have to up the bet one step further on his next film - the mind boggles at what may be included in the next one!
RE: City of God - Given that I gave it a 10 on DVDtimes - I obviously view it differently to Irreversible (which I will never watch) - why? Well most people going to see City of God will be going there for the storytelling and the acting not for the acts of violence contained therein. Is that the same for Irreversible? When the violence is shown there it is brief and implied: Meirelles could have used the rape of Karaté Joe's girlfriend as a setpiece like Noé did - but instead he showed it in the background from KJ's perspective with the scene fading to black... None of the viewers doubted the horror of what was happening and the inhumanity of that action but Meirelles didn't feel he should pull a cheap "thrill" out of it. Sure you did get used to the gun-toting violence in it but the absurdity of it all was hopfully not lost on anyone again using KJ as an example of someone being sucked into the spiral of violence . When I left the film I thought Meirelles had been honest to the story but didn't leave many wishing to emulate some of the characters esp. the live by the sword die by the sword philosophy behind the ending of the film
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
It's an entirely valid question. It involves <i>context</i>, which is all too easily forgotten in debates like this, not least by yourself. In <i>context</i>, I would defend the BBFC's decision to leave the rape scene (and the headbashing scene) intact. If you lifted those scenes out of the whole 99 minutes or so of <i>Irreversible</i> and showed them as individual short films, then I would be much less happy about it.
Again, this argument is from the context of a film buff. The scene is already doing the rounds as a clip (although I concede that whether or not it got a UK release in full has nothing to do with that - maybe the amount of downloads is higher given the amount of 'uncut' publicity). The context for the people who will be affected by this, will probably not go beyond the rape scene.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
For the record, although I'd much rather adults be allowed to judge for themselves, I don't feel particularly deprived by not being able to see a ten-second penetration shot during the rape scene in <i>Baise-moi</i>. And I'm in no hurry to see <i>Ichi the Killer</i> either.
Not all adults are capable of judging for themselves - to the point where it will not have an adverse effect on their future 'activity'.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
Hardly "unique". There are quite a few rape scenes out there (particularly in the early 70s, when this was a boundary there to be pushed), which are more often than not cut by the BBFC in this country.
It's pushing the boundaries to the limit, not just in cinema, but in mainstream cinema! This film is now in its second week at the multiplex! There are no other modern examples that I know of.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
(This raises an interesting question: is it easier to deal with such material if we can dismiss it as exploitative trash? But not when it's a serious film that's so in your face it rubs your nose in it?)
Probably, if for no other reason, the 'money shot' itself even out of context will also look far more realistic.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
On the other hand, what if it changed attitudes for the better? What if a neo-Nazi went to <i>Schindler's List</i> and saw the light?
Totally different argument. If they did, good for them (although they may need a little help - the anti-Nazi league were using plants at the Empire Leicester Square screenings to 'heighten' the feeling). As for this argument being related to Irreversible, I covered it earlier.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
A statement of the obvious.
Cripes - coming from you that's almost funny. If I was to point out your instances of 'say what you see' I'd be at it all day. Roy Walker's worst nightmare. Oops, I've gone and stated the obvious again. Forgive me.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
One of their reasons for passing the scene was that it contained no explicitly sexual imagery and was not designed to titillate. And as I say above, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to question a professional's opinion in her area of expertise.
No, but you'd be daft enough to post a comment like that? You never question a professional in their area of expertise? No opinions then on poor cinema, dodgy politics, law gone awry, medical blunders, poor journalism, bad TV, the list is endless...? If they had gone to several 'experts' I'm sure at least one of them would have voiced strong objections. And, let's not forget, this should be the BBFC's area of expertise to begin with - so why no faith in their own judgement? We can ALL have opinions on whatever we goddamn like!
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
And I suspect by answering <i>you</i>, all I will get is selective quoting, patronisation and unwarranted assertions about me personally.
Well, we both had our suspicions then, fair enough. Incidentally, selective quoting is essential if don't wish to comment on stuff like this...
Indeed. It's well known that paedophiles, for example, can get off on Mothercare catalogues. So do we ban them, just in case?
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
Since the camera is placed in front of her face and her body is angled away from the camera, I wouldn't call this a "full body" shot. I'm not the only person to defend the scene by means of the camera placing. They're (her legs) away from the camera and partly hidden by the rapist's body.
As I've said before it's as explicit in the framing as an anal rape scene could be, save he did her over a glass table with the camera underneath! And it is obvious that her legs are wide open - to show both it would need to be either shot from her feet or above - in other words, no facial shot. And it was a full body shot - head to toe, and in a manner that was far more explicit than if head-to-toe had been achieved from above or the side.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
This might well make it worse. A sadistic or sociopathic rapist is getting off from the suffering, not any sexual titillation. For anyone likely to be turned on by a scene like this, the degradation and humiliation <i>is</i> the turn-on.
No, it is always both (and if it wasn't, the opening scene would be the riskier). Rather than quote about five different points you make - they all lead back to this. The sex and the violence are never separated in this scene. Not for one second. Which is my point about the camera angle. Both become one and this doesn't change for the entire scene - and this is what rapists are always claiming did the most damage to their outlook. If you get off on it, you have an unbroken stream of both. It's the longest 'money shot' I've seen. Pure sex and violence for the duration.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
Do you go along with the American feminist (I forget who - can anyone remind me?) who said that a woman has to consider the possiblity of rape every time she goes out her front door?
Again, different argument, and no, I don't go along with it. The argument is not if the rape was any more 'deserved' given her outfit but, as I keep saying over and over, how this litte detail affects the minds of those watching it. It would be less tittilating for many if she was dressed more conservatively, or if he was in a shell suit or something, not properly attired, like quite the gentleman. All of these things add up to how the sick-of-mind will perceive the scene.
Originally posted by Gary Couzens
This is undoubtedly one of the most "difficult" films (especially from a censorship point of view) for a very long time, and it will and has attracted strong opinions for and against. No doubt plenty of people will wish not to see it. But on balance I'm glad I - as a forewarned and prepared adult - had the opportunity to make up my own mind about it.
Sadly, this 'forewarning' (in this case it's practically advertising) goes beyond the average film fan. In many cases it's more of an enticement than a warning. I don't think 'The Accused' courted quite the same audience, or provoked the same reactions.
Originally posted by McD
Again, this argument is from the context of a film buff.
A comment/argument like this is irrelevant in the context of this board. By the very act of posting on the forum of a DVD and movie website, we go beyond the level of interest expressed by the average movie-goer or DVD purchaser. What point are you trying to make here anyway? That you can argue from the point of view of a person who would be adversely affected by Irreversible to a degree that presents a danger to society?
Originally posted by McD
maybe the amount of downloads is higher given the amount of 'uncut' publicity
As opposed to the publicity generated when a film is banned?
Originally posted by McD
Not all adults are capable of judging for themselves - to the point where it will not have an adverse effect on their future 'activity'.
This raises the question, "where do we draw the line?". Where, in the vast spectrum of movies that have been made (without any law being broken, there's an easy cut-off point out of the way), do we say "these movies will have no damaging effect on anybody that views them"?
Originally posted by McD
It's pushing the boundaries to the limit, not just in cinema, but in mainstream cinema! This film is now in its second week at the multiplex!
So the supposed intellectual elite who see movies at arthouse cinemas will be able to handle seeing this film? You said yourself that the adverse publicity surrounding Irreversible will cause the "wrong sort" of person to seek it out. Do you propose a system whereby certain films are only allowed a limited release? Perhaps a selective entry policy on the door of the cinemas allowed to show this kind of film. After all, you can tell a potential rapist just by looking at them, right?
Originally posted by McD
Probably, if for no other reason, the 'money shot' itself even out of context will also look far more realistic.
But surely the damaging effects of an unrealistic rape scene would be far worse? Previously in this thread, films have been mentioned in which the woman was shown to, at least to an extent, "enjoy" being raped. Would that be any better? Or if the scene was shot in such a way that the audience was made to feel less uncomfortable? If a director feels that the horror of rape is a subject he wishes to address, then, in my opinion, the way in which it is handled here is one of the most appropriate. Firstly, because no attempt is made to make it seem any less horrific an act. Secondly because, as has been mentioned before, in the same way as accused, the consequences are shown first.
Originally posted by McD
You never question a professional in their area of expertise?
At last we agree! the very fact that the psychologist is being paid by the BBFC to study this film makes them, by definition, a professional. It doesn't mean their opinion is gospel.
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
A comment/argument like this is irrelevant in the context of this board. By the very act of posting on the forum of a DVD and movie website, we go beyond the level of interest expressed by the average movie-goer or DVD purchaser. What point are you trying to make here anyway? That you can argue from the point of view of a person who would be adversely affected by Irreversible to a degree that presents a danger to society?
No, that I can argue from the point of view of a society who would be adversely affected by Irreversible to a degree that presents a danger from a person(s)!
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
As opposed to the publicity generated when a film is banned?
To be honest, probably. But, if you’ve followed my posts, you’ll realise that I’ve never asked for the film to be banned. I don’t think it should have to be. Other changes (without removing a second of running time) could be made and I’ve outlined these already.
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
This raises the question, "where do we draw the line?". Where, in the vast spectrum of movies that have been made (without any law being broken, there's an easy cut-off point out of the way), do we say "these movies will have no damaging effect on anybody that views them"?
It does raise the question, yes. And my answer is Irreversible, in the format it is currently in – that’s where I draw the line. I’ve never felt anything should be cut before.
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
So the supposed intellectual elite who see movies at arthouse cinemas will be able to handle seeing this film? You said yourself that the adverse publicity surrounding Irreversible will cause the "wrong sort" of person to seek it out. Do you propose a system whereby certain films are only allowed a limited release? Perhaps a selective entry policy on the door of the cinemas allowed to show this kind of film. After all, you can tell a potential rapist just by looking at them, right?
Not at all – I never said I thought the film should be changed for the multiplex, but left intact for the arthouse cinemas. So, although I think the fact that this film is doing the mainstream rounds adds fuel to my fire (how could it not, if I think something is dangerous then it becomes that much more so with additional exposure), I’ve never come close to advocating the situation you outline above. And no, I don’t think those with squints or plastic macs should be turned away at the door.
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
But surely the damaging effects of an unrealistic rape scene would be far worse? Previously in this thread, films have been mentioned in which the woman was shown to, at least to an extent, "enjoy" being raped. Would that be any better? Or if the scene was shot in such a way that the audience was made to feel less uncomfortable? If a director feels that the horror of rape is a subject he wishes to address, then, in my opinion, the way in which it is handled here is one of the most appropriate. Firstly, because no attempt is made to make it seem any less horrific an act. Secondly because, as has been mentioned before, in the same way as accused, the consequences are shown first.
Personally, I don’t agree. And whilst I don’t doubt for a minute that the earlier mentioned film exists, I don’t think this overly warrants comparison to some hardcore porn film shown in France twenty years ago! As for realism, it’s a huge part of the experience for the 'wrong people'. Why such a fascination with snuff films (seeing them, as opposed to proving they exist) – because if you just want to see death – go see Armageddon, the Wild Bunch, Schindler’s List, The Beach, Boogie Nights, and so on…
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
At last we agree! the very fact that the psychologist is being paid by the BBFC to study this film makes them, by definition, a professional. It doesn't mean their opinion is gospel.
Of course it doesn’t. And what you have to remember is that whenever psychology is taken into consideration during a debate / court trial /whatever, both sides can invariably produce a ‘professional’ who will back them up 100%. We are not dealing with an exact science here. The best and most valid response, as much as the very idea may sicken a lot of people, is from ‘minor’ sex pests – who could yet go one way or another. How would they view the scene?
Ok so I borrowed a copy of Irreversible (so I can fastforward it or mute it if things get too much) and watched it... I decided to do so to avoid critcising something I'd not seen so here goes...
I know I've previously said I'd never watch it but I suppose you should never say never...
I'm deeply confused by the overall message - as one of the character's even confesses it looks like a b-series revenge movie and if you remove the backwards narration and the cinematography, it would most definately fall into that category.
The over simplistic message "rape destroys people's lives" is, as already stated, obvious to most before seeing the film (and if anyone seeing it does not believe that I think they shouldn't be watching it - it's hardly going to change their minds)... Besides Noé does just show the sensationalist aspects of the issue but not the years of trauma endured by the victims after it... If he really wanted to demonstrate the devastation he'd have shown more of that but obviously that would have required some very good scripting...
the final scene with "le temps détruit tout" printed on the screen is something I didn't really comprehend - time destroys everything? is he saying the trauma will dissapear with time (I hope not!)? what the heck did that mean? Given the Old Testament style revenge, I could have understood if it was evil or sin destroys everything but time?!?!
There's no denying Noé's talent but I really think that Irreversible was an unnecessary waste of his time (and mine too) - yes the acting is good (although pretty hammy at times) and the cinematography has its moments... But the story and the concept seem to be unecessary and redundant - or as you'd say in France "de la philosophie a 2 balles"
Whether or not the BBFC should have edited it, I'm unsure - all I know is that I won't be watching it again and really wouldn't recommend anyone else to ... Noé is very talented in so many ways but seems to be wasting his energies on trying to shock... The use of that low rumbling throughout most of the movie was obviously intended to create a state of nervousity in the audience which would heighten their reaction to certain scenes - seem like the directorial equivalent of method acting...
RE: the length of that scene - I didn't clock it but I think the act itself was about 5 minutes long but the entire buildup to it is probably the 9 minutes mark - whatever the length it was impossible to cut properly (which I suspect was why Noé went for the no-cut filming method throughout the film)...
The final/starting twist of the wrong man being pulped to death by Cassel and Dupontel was hardly that unexpected or that interesting - all it's telling us is that "revenge is not always fulfilled correctly" - hardly groundbreaking stuff!
Some extra shocking stuff is added to the film for what seems to be mere shock value - close-up of a tranvestite's areas, random homophobic and racial slurs etc etc... I suspect the un-PC parts were probably there to provoke those who would be trying to defend the film - maybe the cleverest trick of the entire film :|
A final question: is it really moral to make money out of such a horrible crime that affects thousands daily? I don't know what the answer is (Joffé probably did pretty well out of "the Killing Fields" as did Spielberg with "Schindler's list") but I do find that fact slightly disturbing...
Michael Brooke
15-02-2003, 17:26
Originally posted by perfecta
A final question: is it really moral to make money out of such a horrible crime that affects thousands daily? I don't know what the answer is (Joffé probably did pretty well out of "the Killing Fields" as did Spielberg with "Schindler's list") but I do find that fact slightly disturbing...
I wouldn't include Spielberg in that list, since he ploughed the profits from <I>Schindler's List</I> into creating a massive archive of recorded reminiscences of Holocaust survivors, many of whom have since died.
And on a more general note, it really depends on the level of exploitation. Clearly, there's a world of difference between a crude shock-fest like <I>I Spit On Your Grave</I> and an intelligent and responsible film like <I>The Accused</I>, even though both technically seek to make money from graphic depictions of rape - so I don't think you can comfortably lump the two together!
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I wouldn't include Spielberg in that list, since he ploughed the profits from <I>Schindler's List</I> into creating a massive archive of recorded reminiscences of Holocaust survivors, many of whom have since died.
And on a more general note, it really depends on the level of exploitation. Clearly, there's a world of difference between a crude shock-fest like <I>I Spit On Your Grave</I> and an intelligent and responsible film like <I>The Accused</I>, even though both technically seek to make money from graphic depictions of rape - so I don't think you can comfortably lump the two together!
oops- I was just using Spielberg as a possible culprit but given what he did with the money, he's gone up in my esteem...
I agree about the impossibility to lump them together ( I was using the Killing fields as an example of the other extreme to the human tragedy continuum) - there's various shades of grey within this continuum but after watching Irreversible, I could not but help but feel there was some level of exploitation going on...
I was left with the impression that Noé was just selling us a T-shirt branded "rape is a horrible crime" at an exorbitant rate with him building a mansion on the hills with the proceeds... Another OTT hyperbole I conceed :D but I think there is something to it...
Cirrus888
19-01-2006, 00:04
What a colossal thread (word count wise) and now that I've seen both I thought I'll add my two bits worth:
Irreversible - Neh
City Of God - Yeh
:)
davey1970
19-01-2006, 10:41
i've seen neither so wouldn't make a judgement.
what it does remind me of is how i feel about henry portrait of a serial killer.
with that film, id recommend anyone saw it, i think it had something important to say, but at the same time im sure some sickos could enjoy it. that wouldn't be reason to me for it to be censored.
however, i never want to see it again, and the idea of having it at home for repeated viewing pleasure i find quite an odd idea (not to slag off anyone who owns it).
i noticed in the thread the comment that the awfulness of rape should be obvious - i strongly believe that to a GREAT many people the awfulness of rape is not just NOT obvious, but treated entirely flipantly to a dangerous degree, as the recent results of a survey showed in my view. so there COULD be an argument that actually SHOWING how awful it is in the context of a film could be constructive (but as I say I haven't seen this film, so I don't know, but it doesnt really sound like it has any value).
i also don't see anything inherantly of value in "extreme cinema" par se - but such films seem to me to be presented in a style and manner as if they DO have value, but what is that value? without value then the balance between that and the extremity of the violence portrayed is completely lost - the value needs to be there to finish the equation.
I wouldn't necessarily put these films together but that is to some extent why I see value in Henry, Man Bites Dog, Schindlers List - there's loads more but they have something to SAY that is important enough to allow and perhaps even make the level of violence necessary.
Anyway, run out of things to say, apart from that i will probably see City of God, but I very much doubt I will bother with Irreversible.
d
I have a question about this movie.
A few of you (see Mark B's post above) have mentioned that the scene at the beginning, they got the wrong guy.
I thought the guy who got killed with the extinguisher was The Tenia?
They did kill the wrong man - not Le Tenia. The whole film works in reverse.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.