Film Illiterate, wherein the proprietor records movies seen, and sporadic progress through assorted lists of the "best". Originally started after regretfully renting something forgettable for the third time. I've forgotten what, but never again! A tedious endeavour since 2005. Hello. 🙂
I knew Irreversible only by the reputation of its horrific 9-minute rape sequence, but my first impression of the film itself was its throbbing, nauseating sound, its shaky cam and spiralling match-cuts, its blood red palette: disquieting, disorientating, violent vertigo.
What makes it more than grisly rape-revenge is the way it's told backwards, back from gruesome revenge to the horrific crime that inspired it; back, like a sunset in reverse, to happy ignorance. But the audience knows what will happen next, so all that is left is sweetness tempered by preemptive, aching loss.
I'm inclined to think that the film is mostly provocation for the purpose of provocation. Its internal parallels -- such as the similarities between Vincent Cassel's loving dominance and the rapist's abuse of the same physical power -- are uncomfortable, but I don't think Noé is trying to say anything in particular, the way some critics (e.g. of his supposed homophobia) would suggest. Rather, these parallels are drive-by questions designed to disquiet, to avoid easy labels and easy blame. My main memory of the rape sequence itself is the way, when I covered my eyes, I could still hear it. That moment is Irreversible: whether you want it or not, Noé reaching out through the screen to show you this bleak vision of life, happiness snatched from the jaws of lurking violence.
No plans to revisit this one.