Irreversible

Films that knowingly court controversy through deliberately explicit or shocking images are often hard to analyse upon an initial viewing. When a human experience shock it is usually a visceral, primal feeling that is deliberately overpowering but often fleeting. This of course can cloud one’s deeper reaction to the images being viewed and the narrative within a film but for many brands of cinema culture this arrangement works out just fine. Horror films aim to produce intense, often physical reactions in viewers, rarely aiming for anything more than a quick fix of fear, shock, and revulsion. In the late 60’s through to the 70’s the horror genre co-opted the more lurid elements of sex cinema to create the singular hybrid of the exploitation film. These offered the base delights of both violence and nudity/sex, two things that always guaranteed a curious audience despite the marked absence of pro-filmic qualities such as good acting, inspired cinematography, and involved storylines, things their lower budgets and lesser skilled directors denied. Classic exploitation films are currently enjoying a vogueish reappraisal due to the knowingly post-modern fanboyish double bill 'Grindhouse' (2007). However, for the purposes of this review I would like to consider the ways in which the aesthetic and thematic concerns of exploitation films have creeped into European art-house cinema by focusing on Gaspar Noe’s 'Irreversible' (2002).

Upon its initial release much was understandably written about the film’s more lurid elements with particular focus on two shocking scenes of extreme violence, the unavoidable gut reaction to which I would argue may have coloured critic’s reactions too much and blinded them to the film’s superior formal and visual qualities. Six years on after its initial controversial release I’d like to consider, if possible, the film on these terms, examining if 'Irreversible' has sufficient worth beyond its immediate shock value. This angle may seem pointless as for the uninitiated it would still be guaranteed to shock as no film since has really gone beyond 'Irreversible’s' extreme scenes of enforced brutality. Michael Haneke is another European art-house auteur for whom violence is a constant thematic concern although he favours prolonged realism and an almost didactic take on the subject, always being careful to show the devastating effects of brutality upon his characters and their world. Noe’s similar worldview however is much more explicit and nihilistic- violence only perpetuates further violence and even the most innocent characters are unable to escape the cycle of hopeless destruction which is the crux of 'Irreversible’s' main theme and indeed its tagline, “time destroys everything”. Mark Kermode, himself an exponent of the murkier side of film culture, correctly identified the film as an update of a particularly grim sub-genre of exploitation film, the rape-revenge movie, notable examples of which are 'I Spit on Your Grave' (1978), 'Last House on The Left' (1972) and 'Thriller-A Cruel Picture' (1974). While this grounds 'Irreversible' firmly in the exploitation field in terms of subject matter, its formal and stylistic qualities bring it in line with modern post-structuralist models of films that attempt to rewire accepted narrative models through non-linear plotting.

The story here is as brutally simple as the violence it encompasses. After attending a party with her new boyfriend Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and her male friend (and ex-boyfriend) Pierre (Albert Dupontel), Alex (Monica Bellucci) walks home alone. Upon walking into an underpass, she is violently raped, beaten and subsequently left in a coma. Upon finding this out a distraught Marcus looks to exact violent revenge upon the rapist despite protestations from the more level-headed Pierre. Story-wise this is simple exploitation grind-house fare but while those earlier films conveyed such themes using poor production values and artless presentation, 'Irreversible' cleverly supplants its grim subject matter into the realm of art-house cinema. The film, as the title suggests, is simply shown in reverse, the first scene we witness is the final one in the film’s chronological timeline. This reverse effect lends a devastatingly simple story a level of depth it would have otherwise lacked. Witnessing the carnage brought about by the character’s destructive vengeance makes the earlier scenes of them chatting amicably about sex, dreams, and philosophy (not the usual topics discussed by characters in exploitation films) on the way to a party, and earlier scenes of Marcus and Alex relaxing at home, all the more heart-breaking. Watching these earlier scenes after witnessing the preceding grim violence produces an eerie feeling of calm; as viewers we know the worst has passed for us but are fully aware of the hellish night the characters themselves will eventually face. The films full ‘final’ credits even appear before the first image, creeping backwards up the screen creating a strange feeling of vertiginous nausea, the first of many inspired yet simple effects Noe utilises throughout the film to debase narrative expectations and inspire actual physical reactions in the viewer.

During the first scene a seemingly ever-mobile camera swoops and spins incessantly over the aftermath of some unspecified carnage outside an unwelcoming Paris nightclub. This is the fallout from the first of the two highly controversial scenes of violence that dominated a lot of the film’s surrounding discourse upon release, and for the purposes of this review and the exploitation film framework I am approaching it with, I will consider the impact of these scenes within the context of contemporary cinema. Having tracked down whom they believe to be responsible for Alex’s rape in a cavernous and foreboding S and M club the agitated Marcus gets into a confrontation in which it looks as though he will be outnumbered. However, Pierre, previously placid and repulsed by Marcus’ violent rage, grabs a fire hydrant, and proceeds to smash it into his friend’s attacker’s face until a crumbled, sinewy mess is left. Most other films would only present a suggestion of such a shocking act but 'Irreversible' shows the head bashing in a continuous almost static take with none of the resulting viscera left to the imagination. It is horrific to watch but also hard to look away from as something so brutal has rarely ever been rendered so hyper-realistically on the screen. The effect of the crushed face was apparently achieved using digital post-production effects after a dummy proved unconvincing, but this does nothing to dull the sickening charge of the scene.

The other highly controversial scene is the rape itself. It takes place in a nauseatingly bright red underpass and is shown in one very long uninterrupted take, a stylistic device that is obviously highly discomforting but also, I believe, a more moral way of showing such an act. The examples of rape in the previous films I have mentioned are shot and edited using conventional cinematic techniques and so those in 'I Spit on Your Grave' and 'Last House On The Left' now look somewhat dated and unconvincing, a flippant handling of troubling material. Perhaps a more interesting counterpoint though is the famous scene in Peckinpah’s equally controversial 'Straw Dogs' (1971). Due to the way the narrative leads up to the rape of the main character’s wife the film is often accused of misogyny, as if suggesting she deserved her fate. The scene is also edited in a conventionally filmic way (utilising close-ups of the characters faces for example) that at best make it easier to watch and at worst could be accused of eroticising the act. When compared to the similar scene in 'Irreversible' it is clear that the later film’s artistic decision presents a much more moral visualisation of rape. In making the viewer sit through the entire hideous ordeal in real time Noe could never be accused of eroticising or indeed sensationalising the act. Of course, the scene is still hugely shocking and upsetting but then it would be if witnessed in real life and so this fits in with the sober unflinching presentation of pivotal moments like this and others throughout the rest of the film. Clearly, unlike the exploitation filmmakers it draws inspiration from, the director here has made important decisions in presenting his story’s more lurid elements as necessary and pivotal rather than simply voyeuristic, another factor that aligns Noe with the realm of European art-house auteurs.

When not focusing on specific plot turning points the camera seems to wander manically of its own regard, often with little thought for the prevailing action. This is especially true in moments of panic or confusion such as Marcus and Pierre’s chase through the S and M club looking for Alex’s attacker. In reflecting the frantic rage and disorientation the protagonists would be feeling the camera is literally all over the place, sometimes landing on its side or even upside down thus inspiring constant double takes from the audience. Like a scared yet curious omnipotent onlooker, the camera seems repulsed, giddy, and yet unable to look away for any long period. At points the combination of this erratic movement, intense flashing lights, a garish colour scheme, and the ominous sound design render what is on screen as almost abstract and the resulting audio-visual assault often inspires nausea, something that Noe almost certainly set out to achieve. What is particularly impressive though is that such scenes are filmed in very long continuous takes rather than through any use of montage, thus heightening the realism of the film and it’s almost real-time (if backwards) chronology. Aside from being technically impressive this also has the basic effect, as long takes do, of raising unbearable levels of tension.

Aside from commendable technical achievements the film must also be praised for the incredibly naturalistic acting, perhaps thanks in part to the ever-reliable art-house favourites Cassel and Bellucci being married in real life. This renders their scenes together, such as the earlier happy domestic sequences of them fooling around and having petty couple’s arguments, up to Marcus’ shock witnessing of his wife’s bloodied comatose state as she lies on the stretcher post-rape, much more gut wrenchingly realistic and affecting than they might have been in two lesser lead’s hands. The general mise en scene also adds to the film’s stark realism with sickly colours that are almost hyper-real in their vividness, while a modern Paris setting has never looked so grimly unwelcoming, existing as a mess of concrete, graffiti covered trains, and semi-deserted late night streets. Not to mention of course the claustrophobic setting of the Rectum night club, perhaps the most unwelcoming nightspot in film history. Even the supposedly friendly pre-violence house party the three characters attend seems strangely unsettling. One final aspect that rescues the film from being a mere exploitation curiosity is it’s sound design, particularly Thomas Banghalter’s ominous, thrashing techno soundtrack. The only thing it shares with his band Daft Punk’s polished electro pop is its relentless repetition which is here instead used as a numbing all-out assault on the senses that compounds the film’s horrifying visuals.

To conclude, Noe’s film still has the unique ability to truly shock viewers- it would take a severely jaded audience not to be. This in itself, is an achievement as where many more pretentious directors through the ages have spoken of shocking audiences out of their apathetic state, 'Irreversible' can safely claim success on this front as it is the most walked-out of film in Cannes festival history and still divides even the most sophisticated of film buffs today. However, I hope to have made a case for the film to be appreciated beyond its initially disturbing content. The exploitation inspired rape-revenge narrative is merely a frame for Noe’s experimentation with plot, cinematography, sound, and the boundaries of taste, a post-modern reworking of a previously low-brow style of film elevated into something almost resembling high art in its sublime yet confrontational appeal. Despite rumours of him directing a film set in Japan Noe has yet to deliver a full-length follow up. However, for now the formal and stylistic elements of 'Irreversible' should be deserving enough for him to share a place with other such continually evolving and challenging European art-house auteurs such as Lukas Moodysson and Michael Haneke.

Watch

Country: France
Budget:
Length: 97mins

Filmography:
'Straw Dogs', 1971, Sam Peckinpah, ABC Pictures
'Thriller-A Cruel Picture', 1974, Bo Arne Vibenius, BAV Film
'Last House on The Left', 1972, Wes Craven, Lobster Enterprises
'I Spit On Your Grave', 1978, Meir Zarchi, Cinemagic Pictures
'Grindhouse', 2007, Robert Rodriguez and Eli Roth, Dimension Films

Pub/2008

More like this:
'Irma Vep', 1996, directed by Olivier Assayas
'Black Moon', 1975, directed by Louis Malle
'Chung Hing sam lam (Chungking Express)', 1994, directed by Wong Kar-Wai