Irréversible: has anyone seen this film? Or how far should films go in violence?...

[MCdread]

Last night I went to the cinema to watch the recent "film scandale" of the Festival of Cannes: "Irréversible", a french film directed by Gaspar Noé with Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel. To start, I was unaware of the news about this film. I was persuaded to go by a couple of friends and my girlfriend, but later found out that they also were not expecting that.
I don't want to spoil the surprise for anyone who wants to go and watch it, but I must say this is perhaps the most violent film I ever watched. Many people left the theater only minutes after the beginning, and I heard that that has been the case in any other place where the film has been showed. It's not that there aren't films with perhaps more graphic and explicit violence, but the way the director builds the environment, makes it absolutely abhorrent. And then there is a scene of a woman being raped in a way that you've probably never seen anywhere.
To make it short, you shouldn't miss this if you have a strong heart and stomach, and the film is much more than the overhyped violence scenes.

Now the question is: do you think that there are limits to what films should show? In this film there is for example an incredible realistic scene of a rape that goes for minutes filmed in just one take and without any cut (i hope this isn't censored in your country). Was that necessary? In my opinion, there is no necessity of it in every film, but there has to be someone doing it, just to remind us of what's going out there, and to show us exactly how brutal it is. And if in the end the shock it provokes turns out to be useful to avoid it from happening so often in real life, than that's a positive note.

BTW, there is no explicit sex in the film, if you were thinking about that.

 

[Greadius]

If there is a market and it isn't illegal, there ought to be a supply.

But from your description I can't find myself remotely interested in viewing the film. I'd find myself too naseated by a lengthy rape scene to pick up any of its 'artistic' merits.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Experience and impressions shape our mind and thoughts, and should never be denied or rejected, but perhaps not seeked out either.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No, such things should not be allowed; it is only a small step from them to the truly horrific weird stuff out there.
They should not be screened, and indeed should be halted from filming.

 

[Panda]

This is the first time I hear of this movie, so I don't have an opinion on it. I have a stronger stomach than most people, and can find merit in films that have scenes that disgust me, so I don't rule out going to the cinema to see it. But not in female company.

I support freedom of speech and self-expression, as long as it is in the boundaries of the law, e.g., doesn't agitate towards illegal activities. A man standing on a soap box calling out for violence against certain people is reality and should be dealt with immediately. What happens on a celular screen is fiction, and should be left untouched. We don't ban Shakespeare's Hamlet either even though it features murder and incest.

I don't believe in films turing people into violent killers or rapists. People who claim to have been inspired by movies like 'Natural Born Killers' are mentally ill, who would have commited their hideous acts sooner or later. You cannot eliminate all 'possible impulses' from society in order to make it 'safer'.

Hence, I don't support censorism in any form or media.

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
No, such things should not be allowed; it is only a small step from them to the truly horrific weird stuff out there.
They should not be screened, and indeed should be halted from filming.

That doesn't make much sense Simon. By that logic, you wouldn't have many issues to be filmed.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by MCdread
That doesn't make much sense Simon. By that logic, you wouldn't have many issues to be filmed.

It makes perfect sense. Such 'films' would not be allowed to even be filmed for cinematic purposes.
By the intended logic, only those films allowed and cleared with the censor would be made, let alone seen.

 

[Chairman Yang]

You mean only films celebrating you and your fascist-regime would be allowed...

 

[The Troquelet]

As opposed to your communist regime? Pot, meet kettle.

Back on topic, yes, if it's gratuitous rape and violence, it shouldn't be in film, much less in art.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Indeed, we will censor out all the evil censorship-fascists...

 

[newfangle]

Let it go Mr. Yang. It's not worth it...

I would be interested in seeing the film. I am a member of the desensitized generation...

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by MCdread
I must say this is perhaps the most violent film I ever watched.

Ever seen a Charles Bronson movie?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Chairman Yang
You mean only films celebrating you and your fascist-regime would be allowed...

No, others will be permitted. Such as Chariots of Fire, Flipper, North, and any footage involving yourself, a large cactus, my pet shark and an extended Ingmar Bergman cameo.

 

[test_specimen]

Reminds me of "Baise moi" which also has a very pornographic and violent rape scene at the beginning. As long as the sole purpose of the movie is not simply to shock people by its explicity I would watch this movie.

"Baise moi" did not achieve what it wanted to transport but it did have another message than simply showing violence. It was an interesting movie.

When it started in France, it was censored and for some time it could not be shown in any other cinema than porn shacks. (I watched it in a normal cinema.)

My problem is, that it is hard to find people who will watch those movies with you. I don't like going alone to a movie, if I watch a good one I like to talk about it. But if a movie is known to be sexually explicit or ultra-violent, very few people will want to watch it.

 

[philippe]

I think its ok.
Listen if poeple know its voilent or sexually explicit they just shouldnt watch it.

 

[cgannon64]

I don't think its right, but it shouldn't be banned. The filmmaker obviously used it for the shock value: it could have been done without the violent rape scene, and people would much more easily enjoy the "artistic merit".

 

[FredLC]

Never heard of it, and I don't know if I'll be able to see it. Up untill recently, there were only 4 theathers in my city (it's better now, 6 new are up), so they wouldn't show anything that wasen't strictly mainstream. Anyway, if possible, I probably would go see it, as I like to go see ANY movie. Analisys on the artistic merits of a lenghty rape scene would have to wait untill I actually SEE the thing and the context it's presented in.

 

[test_specimen]

Funny story about this:

About a year ago, I helped my cousin and her husband to move their stuff into their new appartment. They moved from Paris to Vienna and it was quite an operation. My cousin nevertheless had invited a friend she knew from Paris. She asked me, if I had seen any good movies recently. I told her that "Hundstage", an Austrian movie, was quite good.

What I did not know: The friend who went with her was a 16 year old who went to a catholic school in Paris. I did not know, that the movie was forbidden for under-18s (since I did not care), nor that my cousin took her friend with her.

The movie contains a scene, where a fat disgusting man has a candle in his behind, while singing the Austrian national anthem. And some other scenes like that.

The french girl was shocked. My cousin complained.