Am I the only one who would be down for a Criterion release of Gaspar Noé's Irreversible?
I watched it last night via Netflix and I was rather surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. For those who have not seen the film, it is highly controversial. Not only does it contain a rather long and uncomfortable rape scene involving Monica Bellucci, but no two people's opinion about the film seems to be the same. Take all that aside, though, and you have a rather unique and perplexing mystery film.
The thing that stands out the most about the film is that it chronicles the importance of time through a non-traditional linear structure with the narrative told in backwards, reverse order. The film begins at the very end where the two main protagonists are tracking down the man who raped and brutalized their friend. From there, it goes further backwards to see what eventually led to her rape and the actions that they took earlier in the day to lead them where they end up.
Noé's directing style is what makes this film stand out from a bulk of the mystery films, especially of this century. Even though the outcome is known from the very beginning, the events leading up to the ending, as well as the details revealed about each character throughout, make for a rather interesting story.
My wife wanted to watch this film when it was in theaters. I was very reluctant to watch it, because it had about 20 cautionary signs around the movie poster saying no refunds when you enter the room.
It is a terrible and unwatchable film, in my opinion, it's graphic violence and rape scenes are very distasteful. I find nothing poetic or enlightening in this film. This is the film I would discourage people to watch. The "pretentious" (I hate using this word) ending, is a simple, nihilistic statement that reveals nothing whatsoever, trying to justify all events prior (I believe the director is very naive)
I gave Noé a second chance when I watched Enter the Void which is by far a better film (although it still had a very simplistic view towards life). I prefer Refn's films, who has a very similar artistic view and style as Noé, with deeper subject matter.
Sorry, but in conclusion, I hope Criterion never releases this film.
I've seen less than Clare has and that was more than enough. I've only seen Mr. Hulot's Holiday. I'm going to go ahead and say that his style is more divisive than Wes Anderson or any other highly regarded filmmaker. To me, his style comes off as an anachronism and I wholeheartedly agree with the other poster who said that he does stuff that Chaplin pulled off in a manner 3 times more clever and 3 times funnier and well.. 30 years earlier.
I, personally, would give Playtime a chance being that it is supposed to be his best, but comedy is the most subjective genre and if it doesn't work, sitting through it can be a pretty insufferable experience. with that said, why isn't one film enough? especially being that he plays the same character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clare2904
No offence but I am not here for respect from anyone. I watched at least an hour of Playtime and I did not like what I saw. Tati can be whatever you want him to be, for me, he is someone I will never be watching again and most certainly not spending any money on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmmusic
Well, to tell you the truth, after the enormous amount of enthusiasm here, I watched some trailers, and I realized that it wouldn't be my cup of tea either..
Absolutely true, comedy is one of the most subjective things on the planet. For instance, I have friends who love the Tim and Eric show and I personally find them annoying and immature. I knew people who loved watching South Park and I found that type of humor totally crude and immature. So there's no need for respect when it comes to humor. What I do not understand is why people have hatred towards certain directors and yet they don't even know them personally, never met them and yet somehow, they are hated! This is what I don't get. But hey, I guess hating people is normal for some. I personally hate nobody, director and otherwise, and never will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freder Fredersen
I don't think the character of 'Monsieur Hulot' is an idiot, but rather just curious, and a bit clumsy, in the world around him (sort of like the French Mr. Bean, but less juvenile; I enjoy Mr. Bean too! ha-ha). And, in that world, we, the viewer, get to observe the comicality in every day life through various sight gags, much like that great restaurant scene in Playtime.
Speaking of which, the only Tati film I have seen is Playtime, so I can't claim to be an expert on his work, but it sure makes me curious in the forthcoming Complete Collection!
Thanks for having an open mind too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RojD
I like Tati quite a bit and the box set will be as close to a same day purchase as I'll get in a world of BN sales. I find him eminently re-watchable, but not thigh-slappin' funny. Tati's humor is deft and observant, but the thing I like the most is that it lacks the aggressive edge of similar humorists and the self-consciousness and parody. Bean's humor strikes me as more forced than Tati's, and Chaplin's is more situational and social. I like that the foils in a Tati film often have a real presence.
I'd also say that Playtime strikes me as kind of an outlier in Tati's work. In the other films, I find a warmth that seems lacking in this one. I've probably watched Playtime half as many times as I have the others, and I have to think that Criterion's decision to release this one on blu before any of the others was based on production practicalities rather than on an effort to release a representative Tati. Does anyone else feel this way about Playtime?
Playtime is a technical achievement of the highest order. I think its the best movie to represent Tati without a doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iScottie
I just finished Playtime and I'm really, really conflicted with how I feel about it.
There is no denying that this is one of the most impressive films to ever be made. The modern city set design is out of this world. Tati's directing is, nonetheless, as equally impressive. From the mise-en-scene, the framings, the lens usages, the tracking shots, and more, a college class is warranted strictly on Jacques Tati and his style (and I mean that when I say it). Moving on to the story, I think this film is one of the best films to ever touch upon the horror of modernity. I definitely got the "fish out of water" and "lost in translation"-y type of vibe. The character of Monsieur Hulot is very much representative of every individual who is tied to the old ways of society and struggling with the rapidly changing world around them. The irony of the entire film is that the American tourists are having an easier time in Paris than the one individual who has been in Paris all along, M. Hulot.
Why am I conflicted? Even with all of my praise, I cannot help but think that the film was somewhat boring at times. I absolutely adored the segments where M. Hulot was looking for his meeting in the office buildings, where he was thrown into the inventions convention, and where he was at the apartment buildings, but everything else about the film felt dragged out, especially the restaurant segment. Even though I did not necessarily laugh during the film, there is no denying that this is a very impressive satire on the world. Maybe this was just the wrong film to introduce myself to Jacques Tati, I am not entirely sure.
I am still looking forward to the box set, where hopefully I will learn to appreciate him more.
And that is great... appreciation is something I like myself.
I just finished Playtime and I'm really, really conflicted with how I feel about it.
There is no denying that this is one of the most impressive films to ever be made. The modern city set design is out of this world. Tati's directing is, nonetheless, as equally impressive. From the mise-en-scene, the framings, the lens usages, the tracking shots, and more, a college class is warranted strictly on Jacques Tati and his style (and I mean that when I say it). Moving on to the story, I think this film is one of the best films to ever touch upon the horror of modernity. I definitely got the "fish out of water" and "lost in translation"-y type of vibe. The character of Monsieur Hulot is very much representative of every individual who is tied to the old ways of society and struggling with the rapidly changing world around them. The irony of the entire film is that the American tourists are having an easier time in Paris than the one individual who has been in Paris all along, M. Hulot.
Why am I conflicted? Even with all of my praise, I cannot help but think that the film was somewhat boring at times. I absolutely adored the segments where M. Hulot was looking for his meeting in the office buildings, where he was thrown into the inventions convention, and where he was at the apartment buildings, but everything else about the film felt dragged out, especially the restaurant segment. Even though I did not necessarily laugh during the film, there is no denying that this is a very impressive satire on the world. Maybe this was just the wrong film to introduce myself to Jacques Tati, I am not entirely sure.
I am still looking forward to the box set, where hopefully I will learn to appreciate him more.
1. You get bored easy.
2. Playtime needs to be seen multiple times to appreciate everything on screen. i mean, sometimes it's extremely tough to catch all the hootenanny that's going on.
I highly recommend this review by the legendary Jon Rosenbaum. Playtime is his all time favorite film:
Even if Criterion released this film in a 24 karat gold blu-ray slipcover with a ticket giving one a chance to meet Monica Bellucci, I would still not waste my money on this trashy movie.
By the way I am very selective in purchasing Criterion blu rays, it boils down to the films I like.
Am I the only one who would be down for a Criterion release of Gaspar Noé's Irreversible?
I watched it last night via Netflix and I was rather surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. For those who have not seen the film, it is highly controversial. Not only does it contain a rather long and uncomfortable rape scene involving Monica Bellucci, but no two people's opinion about the film seems to be the same. Take all that aside, though, and you have a rather unique and perplexing mystery film.
The thing that stands out the most about the film is that it chronicles the importance of time through a non-traditional linear structure with the narrative told in backwards, reverse order. The film begins at the very end where the two main protagonists are tracking down the man who raped and brutalized their friend. From there, it goes further backwards to see what eventually led to her rape and the actions that they took earlier in the day to lead them where they end up.
Noé's directing style is what makes this film stand out from a bulk of the mystery films, especially of this century. Even though the outcome is known from the very beginning, the events leading up to the ending, as well as the details revealed about each character throughout, make for a rather interesting story.
I'm down for any Gaspar Noe film, really. Is the film rather sickening at points? Is he after shock value? Sure, but it's one marvelous technical feat of filmmaking, and the gimmick of the film is intrinsically thought provoking. Like Nolan's Memento, it makes you conscious of the idea of causality more potently than just about any other straightforward narrative.
It seems reasonable that someone who finds a movie:
might not want it to get the prestige of a Criterion release.
Criterion doesn't automatically equal prestige, as evidenced by such releases as Salo, Naked Lunch, Videodrome, or Eraserhead. Well, maybe those are more tasteful, but content-wise they have some pretty icky parts too.
Irreversible is not a movie I'd recommend to anybody necessarily, but it is an arthouse movie that leaves a hell of an impact, and I think it falls into Criterion's catalog pretty well. I might even get it if they do.
It seems reasonable that someone who finds a movie:
might not want it to get the prestige of a Criterion release.
I find it sort of UNreasomable to actively hope a label dismisses a particular film you happen to dislike, thus depriving others of a potential quality viewing experience and/or beloved cinematic discovery, thereby sort of indirectly imposing your own will on others. In fact I find it sort of silly. But, ya know I'm a real cuckoo burd.
My wife wanted to watch this film when it was in theaters. I was very reluctant to watch it, because it had about 20 cautionary signs around the movie poster saying no refunds when you enter the room.
It is a terrible and unwatchable film, in my opinion, it's graphic violence and rape scenes are very distasteful. I find nothing poetic or enlightening in this film. This is the film I would discourage people to watch. The "pretentious" (I hate using this word) ending, is a simple, nihilistic statement that reveals nothing whatsoever, trying to justify all events prior (I believe the director is very naive)
I gave Noé a second chance when I watched Enter the Void which is by far a better film (although it still had a very simplistic view towards life). I prefer Refn's films, who has a very similar artistic view and style as Noé, with deeper subject matter.
Sorry, but in conclusion, I hope Criterion never releases this film.
I thought the film worked as a deconstruction of 'revenge-fantasy' violence. Plus I really like Noe's visual style.
It's definitely not an easy film to watch or recommend, but if Criterion can release something like Salo then I could see them releasing Irreversible.
Criterion doesn't automatically equal prestige, as evidenced by such releases as Salo, Naked Lunch, Videodrome, or Eraserhead. Well, maybe those are more tasteful, but content-wise they have some pretty icky parts too.
I don't think prestige means what you think it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Sandwich
I find it sort of UNreasomable to actively hope a label dismisses a particular film you happen to dislike, thus depriving others of a potential quality viewing experience and/or beloved cinematic discovery, thereby sort of indirectly imposing your own will on others. In fact I find it sort of silly. But, ya know I'm a real cuckoo burd.
Why is it 'UNreasomable?'
He didn't hope you never get to watch it or that it never gets released anywhere, he just hopes it doesn't turn up there.
With the CC releasing such a small percentage of all of the movies ever made, there's absolutely nothing wrong with hoping a movie doesn't turn up there.
I don't think prestige means what you think it does.
Why is it 'UNreasomable?'
He didn't hope you never get to watch it or that it never gets released anywhere, he just hopes it doesn't turn up there.
With the CC releasing such a small percentage of all of the movies ever made, there's absolutely nothing wrong with hoping a movie doesn't turn up there.
Oop, I made a dum-dummy typo! Apologies for that headmaster. How is not almost unfathomably dumb to actively not want a particular label to release something because it apparently doesn't meet the arbitrary criteria you deem necessary for inclusion on account of the abstraction of "prestige" you feel the label carries? What are lesser, more appropriate distribution channels for Irreversible?
Last edited by Bad Sandwich; 07-18-2014 at 02:23 AM.
I thought the film worked as a deconstruction of 'revenge-fantasy' violence. Plus I really like Noe's visual style.
It's definitely not an easy film to watch or recommend, but if Criterion can release something like Salo then I could see them releasing Irreversible.
With Salo, Pasolini is showing a negative perspective towards a fascist state, it's torture and violence has a symbolic purpose.
I do not need a 19 minute rape scene in a film to illustrate a woman's distress accordance to the naive idea of causality as a dominant function in life. There is a clear line between shock value and being distasteful.
Buñuel's slicing an eyeball versus him using a machete for 3 minutes on a woman.
My wife wanted to watch this film when it was in theaters. I was very reluctant to watch it, because it had about 20 cautionary signs around the movie poster saying no refunds when you enter the room.
It is a terrible and unwatchable film, in my opinion, it's graphic violence and rape scenes are very distasteful. I find nothing poetic or enlightening in this film. This is the film I would discourage people to watch. The "pretentious" (I hate using this word) ending, is a simple, nihilistic statement that reveals nothing whatsoever, trying to justify all events prior (I believe the director is very naive)
I gave Noé a second chance when I watched Enter the Void which is by far a better film (although it still had a very simplistic view towards life). I prefer Refn's films, who has a very similar artistic view and style as Noé, with deeper subject matter.
Sorry, but in conclusion, I hope Criterion never releases this film.
Aww. I can see where you're coming from, as I tried to evaluate it from a negative standpoint, as well.
I personally thought the ending made the viewers care more for the characters if nothing else. Even if you feel bad that she was raped, you feel worse once you learn more about her (at least that's how it was for me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdrewes
1. You get bored easy.
2. Playtime needs to be seen multiple times to appreciate everything on screen. i mean, sometimes it's extremely tough to catch all the hootenanny that's going on.
I highly recommend this review by the legendary Jon Rosenbaum. Playtime is his all time favorite film:
I'm down for any Gaspar Noe film, really. Is the film rather sickening at points? Is he after shock value? Sure, but it's one marvelous technical feat of filmmaking, and the gimmick of the film is intrinsically thought provoking. Like Nolan's Memento, it makes you conscious of the idea of causality more potently than just about any other straightforward narrative.
I honestly thought "Memento" for a great duration of the film, especially with the narrative.
Oop, I made a dum-dummy typo! Apologies for that headmaster. How is not almost infathomably dumb to actively not want a particular label to release something because it apparently doesn't meet the arbitrary criteria you deem necessary for inclusion on a specific label and the abstraction of "prestige" you feel it carries? What are lesser, more apropriate labels for Irreversible?
Buddy, I don't care where it comes out, I'm not gonna buy it - I'm only saying it makes no difference to your life if another guy hopes a film doesn't come out from a label they like.
If this is what gets you worked up, I don't even know what to tell you.
On a side note, Criterion's rightfully earned prestige eminates from the general sterling treatment they provide to films they decide warrant inclusion per their own whims, not the "type" of films they distribute.
I don't think prestige means what you think it does.
Inconceivable!
But on the flip side: why doesn'tIrreversible deserve the prestige? Just because some viewers find it distasteful? That didn't stop oodles of other viewers from loving the experience of it and giving it praise and awards. It also doesn't stop other controversial or critically-divisive films from earning the prestige of a Criterion release. So why single out this one film? It's not the same as asking for Class of Nuke 'Em High to have a Criterion release or anything (that one would probably soil the company's reputation way more than Irreversible).
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
