RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 15, 2005 18:02:46 GMT
Gaspar Noé (1963- )
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Dec 29, 2005 0:26:43 GMT
Irreversible Seul contre tous
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 2, 2006 3:51:45 GMT
1. Irreversible 2002
Wetdog, If Destricted adds up to be another disappointing collaboration effort for you, then what did you make specifically of Noé's entry?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 2, 2006 4:37:05 GMT
Noé's segment, "We Fuck Alone", is one of the best ones. I thought it was too long, at 25 minutes, and the strobing nearly killed me; I had to turn on the lights 5 minutes in. It involves a brother and sister masturbating in their bedrooms at the same time, but it focuses on the brother to such an extent that the sister's minimal inclusion seems completely pointless, she should've been cut out. There's a porn movie playing on the TV, and the brother is, essentially, 'raping' his blow-up doll while holding a gun in its mouth. Pretty disturbing, actually, even aside from the strobing.
Surprisingly, Larry Clark's segment, "Impaled", was very good (and the longest, at 37 minutes). It's just a series of interviews with young guys who fancy performing in a porno. Clark picks one of them, then that guy interviews a series of porn actresses and chooses the one he wants to perform with. Then they make the movie. Simple and engaging.
Matthew Barney's segment, "Hoist", was bizarre. Some kind of humanoid tree-man with plant bulbs growing from his mouth and anus climbs under some kind of huge deforestation machine and rubs his erection up against one of the spinning engine parts until he orgasms.
Sam Taylor Wood's segment, "Death Valley", is typical of the kind of insipid non-idea that usually crops up in these anthology projects. In a single shot, a man walks out into Death Valley, kneels down, and masturbates for 8 minutes.
Marco Brambilla's segment, "Sync", is probably the best one (and the shortest, at 2 minutes). It's an extremely rapid montage of sex scenes from various movies, porn and non-porn, edited so as to create one fluid, coherent scene. It's hard to explain.
Richard Prince's "House Call" is, quite simply, some random '70s porno (doctor visits patient, has sex with patient) given a new soundtrack. Another lazy (lack of an) idea.
Marina Abramovic's "Balkan Erotic Epic" is kind of funny. It's about sexual superstition in the Balkans and has a narrator explaining all the peculiar traditions and beliefs, with accompanying enactments and crude animations. It goes on too long, too.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Nov 4, 2006 10:33:46 GMT
Irreversible (2002)One of the few films that has perhaps not only changed the way I think about films, but also changed the way I think about filmmaking. I hope to be able to make something that covers such emotional ground, breaks so many cinematic barriers, and is just so goddamn sprawling and colorful.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 5, 2006 17:07:29 GMT
Though, assuming you'd watch it again, why would you subject yourself to such horror for the sake of horror? Violence for the sake of violence? Strobe lighting for the sake of strobe lighting? Swirling cameras for the sake of swirling cameras? And a rape scene for the sake of having a rape scene?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 22, 2006 2:34:13 GMT
There seems to be three parts to Eva on YouTube. Is that right? If so, I'm going to watch it.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 22, 2006 2:38:36 GMT
Yeah, that's right.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 19, 2007 22:17:14 GMT
Not really. Noé's treatment of the subject matter is too utterly engaging for me to resist it. I'm not ashamed to admit it's a thrilling film, and that I enjoy watching it, because of how it's been made and all that, and because I relate to the philosophical questions that arise from it.
When I watched it three weeks ago I concluded it's probably my favourite film.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 19, 2007 22:27:57 GMT
Again, no. But I'm that sort of person. If a film wishes to make me feel uncomfortable, I allow it to. That's not a dig in any way at anyone who feels otherwise, who feels squeamish or squirmish, but I feel like I have to feel the tragic horror of each of those scenes in order to really feel the effect of the film.
To be honest, though, I find the dialogue much more horrific than the violence. Even later in the film its innocence takes on a tragic effect because, in story-time, you know what comes after it.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 19, 2007 22:47:02 GMT
^ I agree. It's what that guy is saying to her as he's raping her that makes me feel ill.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 20, 2007 0:37:04 GMT
Even later in the film its innocence takes on a tragic effect because, in story-time, you know what comes after it. This is what makes the reverse chronological editing meaningful. It is not thrown in there to show a cool editing technique. The impact on me came after the rape, when I saw the innocence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 20, 2007 1:47:20 GMT
Fuck me, I really really need to see Irreversible.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 24, 2007 19:21:31 GMT
Irreversible
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Nov 2, 2008 22:49:21 GMT
1.Irreversible 5/10
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 3, 2008 0:23:17 GMT
What were your problems with Irreversible, qc?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 1, 2008 16:02:37 GMT
Features 1. Irreversible (2002) ***** 2. I Stand Alone (1998) *****
Shorts 1. Carne (1991) ***** 2. Sodomites (1998) ***** 3. Eva (2005) *****
Anthologies 1. Destricted (2006) ***** (segment: "We Fuck Alone")
Tarr talks about the necessity of the film itself being a "psychological process", and I think there are few better examples of that in effect than Irreversible. I'm so curious about Enter the Void.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 1, 2008 16:57:55 GMT
Tarr talks about the necessity of the film itself being a "psychological process"... I'd like to read up on that. What exactly does he mean?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 1, 2008 17:36:16 GMT
I'm not sure exactly, he was just talking about why he uses the long-take, but I guess it's similar to Bresson's insistence that form determines the viewer's relationship with the film. So I suppose it's in the way time and space are represented... he doesn't go into detail.
"I like very much to build things, to conceive the scenes, how we can turn around somebody, you know, all the movements implied in these shots. It's like a play, and how we can tell something, tell something about life… Because it's very important to make the film a real psychological process…"
That's all. I just find the phrase provocative.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Dec 2, 2008 1:44:19 GMT
1. Irreversible (2002) [blue]1/10[/blue]
I have never felt so manipulated by a film......
|
|