Movie Maven

Irreversible (2002)
Starring: Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel, Albert Dupontel
Written and Directed by: Gaspar Noe
Official Website (in French)

(Photo from left to right: Albert Dupontel, Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel, courtesy of Exclaim!)

I'll begin today by saying that I am not a squeamish girl. From P.T. Anderson to Tarantino, I've been able to watch most violent or sexual films without flinching. While watching Requiem for a Dream, I was the only one in my group who wasn't bothered in the slightest by the scene where Jennifer Connelly does very bad things to get a fix.

So when I say that watching the film Irreversible ruined my day, I want you to get my full meaning.

The French Memento-like film follows the fates of three friends (Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel and Albert Dupontel) in reverse chronological order, as one is brutally attacked and the other two go on a rampage of revenge. The film is infamous for its graphic violence and seven-minute rape scene. My film analysis professor showed the movie yesterday, adding a long disclaimer about the nature of the film and said she would understand if we couldn't handle it and needed to step outside.

I've received such dire warnings in the past and have never really heeded them. I take any graphic film I see as a challenge to view it and decide for myself whether the content was necessary to the meaning of the film, or merely gratuitous. But in this case I am loathe to make a decision.

Stylistically, the film works. Swooping camera movements and pulsating music serve to disorient (or, as my professor put so delicately, induce vomiting.) It's well-acted and edited, etc., etc. Since it is shown in reverse, the denouement serves as the set-up, and the climax is followed by a steady downgrade of action. Unlike Memento, there is no "other climax"- no great revelation, just a simple fading away of the momentum of the movie. From this standpoint it is sincerely interesting to watch.

But the film is "problematic," as critics are so fond of saying. The rape scene, unlike most of the film, is shot straight on, without cuts for approximately seven and a half minutes. What this means is that there is absolutely nothing distracting the audience, even briefly, from the action. The scene is horrible, endless, and terrifying- it is every woman's worst nightmare played out on the screen. This is in addition to a few other scenes of grotesque brutality (the one that stands out to me is when a man's head is bashed in with a fire extinguisher.) The film in general violent tone, perpetrated by the camera movements and hysteria of the film's protagonists. The film left me with a bad taste in my mouth; I felt uneasy and a little sick the rest of the day. I don't think a film has ever affected me emotionally to this degree.

So the question is, is it a good film? There's no doubt that it's effective, but was it necessary? Is it good simply because it evokes extreme emotions from its audience? Does it's admittedly well-executed style outweigh its content? I honestly don't have an answer to that, because what it ultimately boils down to is the age-old cinema question, how much is too much? And everyone has a different answer to that quandry. So I'll just say this:

Irreversible is a good movie.
I never want to see it again.