| . |
Irreversible
(Reviewed February 28, 2003)
-
If watching one of the most beautiful women on the planet (Monica Bellucci) suffer vicious anal rape prior to having her flawless face repeatedly slammed into concrete is your idea of a good time, then by all means, take a date!
"Irreversible" is not really very good, but--like a savage, unexpected beating--it definitely qualifies as an unforgettable filmgoing experience. The rape occurs in a real-time, unbroken shot that goes on for several incredibly excruciating minutes. Although there is no hardcore "insertion" shot during that scene (or elsewhere), there is enough nudity to keep this baby out of most suburban multiplexes. Oh, and did I mention that another endless scene involves a red-lit tracking shot through a creepy gay sex club called "Rectum?"
"Irreversible"'s two main problems are an overreliance on very obviously improvised dialog, and the fact that the director regrettably chose to jump on the "story told in reverse" gimmick. That structure worked amazingly well in "Memento," where it was thematically appropriate, and in "Seinfeld," where it was novel enough to seem fresh. (Hell, I even used the technique in a PENTHOUSE
FORUM story called "Back Asswards," which is proof positive that it is has reached a cultural saturation point.) In "Irreversible," showing things unfold in reverse comes off like a transparent attempt to disguise the fact that the script would be nothing more than a simplistic and shallow revenge piece if it had been told in A-B-C order.
Even worse, most viewers will have forgotten the details of the movie's ending (which is actually its beginning, remember) by the time the movie is over. If you are like me, that means you very well may be completely wrong about what you think happened at the "end," because you will be confused as to who is who. You have been warned. (If you wonder whether your interpretation of the ending is correct, send me an e-mail. God knows I'm not busy.)
Despite these problems, this movie will stick in your brain like a traumatic memory of bizarre brutality long after you leave the theatre. In this bland, predictable, boring world, that counts for something, I suppose. (In this case, it counts for a "C.")
ADDENDUM (March 4, 2003) (Warning: Sensitive readers who have not already stopped reading are strongly advised to do so now):
After reading a quote from "Irreversible" director Gaspar Noe in the Los Angeles Times today, one troublesome technical flaw in this movie that I did not mention above now bothers me even more. After the anal rape scene, Monica's attacker rolls onto his back, giving the audience a brief view of his rather substantial member. What bugged me was that this shot ruined the brutal "genuineness" of the attack, because...how can I put this delicately...the guy's wang is completely clean and dry. No blood, no feces, no slick sheen of residual semen, nothing. Seeing it in that condition sabotages the moment by completely undercutting the audience's suspension of disbelief. ("Oh, thank goodness, that horrid man is obviously just an actor who was not really doing anything improper to that nice Monica!")
I remember seeing some cheesy '70s porn flick once in which a guy was banging away doggie-style behind a girl on all fours, really going at it, when a badly positioned camera caught his flopping, flaccid organ dangling pointlessly between his legs instead of being lodged in milady's love canal. Seeing Le Rapist's dry, immaculately spotless schlong in "Irreversible" was sort of like that.
I mention this now because "Irreversible"'s director told a Times interviewer that the penis was DIGITALLY ADDED TO THE SCENE! I find it flabbergasting that this glaringly obvious mistake was inserted into the movie after the fact. What was the director thinking? Wouldn't it have been much more shocking, transgressive, and exploitative (the movie's three main raisons d'etre) to show the dirty dong in all its gory glory? How very, very odd.
Back Row Grade: C
(Return to index by closing this window)
|
. |