200 Irréversible

[MichaelB]

I also wouldn't be surprised if the film elements were fully digitalised and all the post-prod, editing and al happened in the digital realm then. This means going back to the film elements for the restoration would be akin to having to re-do everything on the movie, except shooting the material.

That is precisely the situation - and to add to the above, all the reframing from the film's native 1.66:1 aspect ratio to the final version's 2.35:1 was also carried out in post-production. And that includes frame-by-frame reframing within the shot - for instance, the "pulsing" effect that's designed to induce nausea in the viewer.

I get all that and the circumstances surrounding its remastering. Maybe I should be really happy Noé is staying faithful to the film's roots and not redoing the post-production, changing aspect ratio, selectively recoloring the movie, ore adding Jar Jar Binks to the tunnel.

Talking of which, one of the digital special effects involved adding the silent witness to the tunnel in the first place...

Yet a few observations:
- Not every shot in this film uses visual effects, and most of the other post-production elements are regularly redone when restoring a new film scan from the negative (or other respective earliest) elements. So it might have simply been a question of budget, time, and/or willingness to do so, not a matter of impossibility. I'm probably OK though if the restoration philosophy was "can't get better than what people saw at theatrical premiere."

To all intents and purposes, every shot in this film was digitally post-processed in some way, even if it only involved reframing or digital stitching. You're still clinging to your original notion "well, they do this with other films, so why not this one?", but I've already argued above that this is a mistake - regardless of the material that passed through the camera, this film is effectively a digital work, and needs to be regarded as such. (Hence my Pillow Book comparison - that was notionally shot on 35mm film, but it's ultimately a high-definition analogue video work.)

And in both cases of course it might be possible to reassemble both films from scratch, but to what end? What percentage of their audience cares so much about achieving picture quality that wasn't achievable at the time of production that would justify all this effort and (inevitably) vast expense? (Assuming the original film materials are even available in the first place, which may of course not be the case.)

[MichaelB]

CineOutsider.

[JabbaTheSlut]

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Irrevers ... 88/#Review
Typically odd from Dr. Svet, but funnier than usual.

”I have seen Irreversible three times now, but only once because I wanted to do it. After my latest viewing of the film, which occurred earlier today, I can declare with absolute certainty that I will never revisit it again. I do not question its right to exist, and I will explain why below, but its message was crystal-clear to me back in 2002. The rest has zero entertainment value for me. Zlitch.”

” I am absolutely certain that it will be my last. I have always had a copy of it in my library, but only for reference purposes. I get its message and the rest does not have any entertainment value for me.”

[CSM126]

Hey, for once I agree with Dr. Bassoon about something: watching this movie once was enough.

The implication that anyone might get entertainment value out of this is a stretch though. I don’t want to meet the person who had a good time watching this.

[JabbaTheSlut]

Ahah, agreed.

[swo17]

Y'know, I don't like Noé either (and I've given him dozens of chances) but there seem to be plenty of reasonable people that do right along with other films that I do like, and I also wouldn't want anyone to write me off purely because of one small sector of my taste, so can we all please play nice? Haven't the films of Gaspar Noé at least taught us that much?

[tenia]

I expected Svet to score the movie quite low considering these statements but nope, 4 out of 5.

[Finch]

The film wasn't meant to be entertaining in the first place so for Svet to say it had no entertainment value for him is missing the point of the film altogether.

Also, this line "I have seen Irreversible three times now, but only once because I wanted to do it" makes no sense. Is he trying to say that he would have preferred to see the film only once but had to watch it twice for the review (since he evidently saw it in 2002)? It's embarrassing that BR continues to employ this guy.

[soundchaser]

That parses fairly easily, at least to me: I’ve seen the film three times, but only one time voluntarily (i.e. not for review purposes).

Svet is, to put it charitably, not a good writer; but this is one of his milder syntactic sins.

[tenia]

Yes, it also read to me like this : first viewing was willfully, the other ones for work.

[Adam X]

Just got this in the mail today. I skimmed over this thread & elsewhere but couldn't find an answer - is the webstore exclusive booklet that comes direct from Powerhouse a reproduction of a booklet supplied at the premiere, or something else entirely? There's no mention of it on the blu-ray's page, at least not anymore.

[tenia]

My understanding is that an English-version of the movie's press kit.

[Adam X]

Thanks tenia. I wish more films showed as much creativity with such things.

[domino harvey]

I finally crossed this off my list. Unsurprisingly, I side with those against, for many reasons.

It's rare that I see an online comment on a film review that actually expresses a cogent point, but I think this reply to Ebert's review is spot-on in addressing the biggest flaw of the film:

I'm afraid only a man would need to see this kind of film to 'see' what an 'awful' (a desperately inadequate word) crime rape is.

I feel like Matt Walsh in the first episode of Upright Citizens Brigade, succumbing to the Bucket of Truth and just blasting back at the Gods, "Don't you think I already know that?!" Any attempt to defend this film in terms of "meaning" is a losing proposition. It's about as deep as a 4Chan green text, and certainly as (or less) mature. The ending of this, with the Jaden Smith-level insight of its onscreen text and would-be deep descent into white nothingness, is laughable.

But my overall objection to the film as a whole, and not just its most notable aspects, is how fucking prurient it is in its interests. I have never seen anyone comment on this film's actual opening scene with the naked daughter rapist, but it sets a tone that is immediately suspect. Why focus on this? Why focus on so much of what is to come? If the partner of a raped woman is acting with blind fury, does he have to act with constant, virulent homophobic language and behavior? What purpose does the symmetry of Bellucci being anally raped and Cassel saying with affection "I want to fuck your ass" serve except to score a cheap groan of recognition at its resurfacing? Why is the rapist gay (get it audience, he's taking poppers and h8s women, so complex)? Why so much of every other "naughty" aspect of this movie from end to end? And what answer to these questions would justify their usage? These individual affronts are not offensive because they're tres shocking (there's little actually shocking about a provocateur, since that's their whole raison d'etre-- if Cassel had blasted his way into the Rectum and invited Le Tenia to join him for a spot of tea, that would be shocking), it's offensive because these are but a series of grace notes of grossness in the symphony of slime here.

The other aspects of the film don't fare any better: the much ballyhooed "happiness" at the film's end is unconvincing in a world where fifteen years earlier Michel Deville already gave us a real, raw post-coital coupling that occupied an entire film, Nuit d'été en ville. Guess he should have filmed it backwards. The long take conversation about orgasms on the Metro is boring and utterly unconvincing, like Kevin Smith remaking Code inconnu. All characters are either obnoxious chauvinists (Cassel and Dupontel) or non-entities (Bellucci's character literally exists in this film to be raped, she has no other depth).

On an aesthetic level, Noe is obviously proficient with the tools of filmmaking. This is not the same thing as talented, and should not be mistaken for it. It does not matter that he can swirl his camera and bridge together stitched-up long takes if that's all there is to their use. There was not a single moment of this film that I enjoyed, or could appreciate on some other level beyond enjoyment, or cared about in any way. My only takeaway in terms of the subsection of positive responses to this film is that as with some critics and I Spit on Your Grave: I do not understand the sheer amount of energy devoted to defending something so puerile.

On the whole, the movie ultimately brought to mind Mitch Hedberg's joke about seeing a human pyramid: "It was very unnecessary."

[knives]

Not defending the film which I agree is bad in a way that shouldn’t merit interest, but the opening of the film is spoken about fairly regularly, but primarily when talking about Noe on the whole as it’s a coda to his previous, and even more immature, film.

[domino harvey]

Interesting, I have never seen anyone even refer to it when discussing this movie. I fully expected the film to open at the club (not that it matters, and I'm truly horrified at the idea that he made a more immature film than this!)

[knives]

It’s really awful, even as a kid into that sort of thing I had to quietly laugh it off as the work of a child who thinks he’s so profound for realizing there’s unpleasant things in the world.

[domino harvey]

the work of a child who thinks he’s so profound for realizing there’s unpleasant things in the world.

An apt and succinct summation of this film as well!

[therewillbeblus]

My god, I forgot he made that movie before this one. Thanks for reminding me?

The only Gaspar Noé film with any merit that I've seen is Enter the Void, with the asterisk that I was in the worst possible state of mind during that viewing 13+ years ago to objectively critique it. I do remember that the first 45-minutes-ish act of a realistic visceral POV DMT trip through a mindfuck to complete annihilation was effectively done, but it should've just remained a short film, as the rest of the agonizingly long stretch of it was just an aimless and superfluous spiritual coda to that corporeal insanity. But again, I'm not a good judge of that part either, as whatever was influencing me certainly affected my engagement there. At the same time, it was probably the best condition to watch the first act.

[tenia]

I don't mind Irréversible in the sense that I think some of its dumb punchlines and tricks worked (and still works) on me, but it's pretty symbolic of Noé's works overall, even Enter The Void, which I liked a lot in theaters but is a very childish movie too (and I agree that it should have been a short movie instead - or else, a 8hrs one).
I often say that Noé's movies are technically stunning and stuff I'm eager to experience in a theater, but they're written by a 12yo.
Love felt a bit more mature to me (and my GF seemingly, who liked it better than I), but Climax and Lux Aeterna aren't much better than the usual, and Vortex, while having a moving final act, also feels often shallow, and it doesn't help that Argento's character in it feels so selfish and obnoxious, to the point it's hard sometimes to have any feelings for what may happen to him.

[andyli]

Got a question from a recent re-watch for the list project: the Indicator edition runs at 24fps for a length of 97 min. But the Altered Innocence edition released at a later time runs at 25fps for 93 min. Which one is the better choice to view this film?

Altered Innocence's explains in their transfer notes,

Gaspar Noe shot and restored "Irreversible" at 25fps. To preserve the official runtime and the natural pitch of the frenetic audio for U.S. audiences we've encoded the film at 29.97fps progressively using a 2:2 pulldown method. No interlacing will be detectable as a result.

Never seen this point mentioned or discussed on this forum. Does it make the Indicator's presentation off, as far as the pitch is concerned?

[tenia]

That's very surprising to read, as I don't think I ever heard the movie having been shot at 25fps (or even originally planned to be 25fps). The movie was mostly released at 24fps (or 23.976fps) on Blu-ray, which is how it is presented on Indicator's release.

Additionnally, the new "straight" cut also is presented at 23.976fps, all this on a market that could perfectly handled 25fps presentations, and with select projections presented by Noé (and I suspect those projections also were 24fps).

Maybe it has been remastered in 25fps and pretty nobody presented it this way (meaning these releases required a framerate conversion), but shot in 25fps ? Doubtful.

[MichaelB]

35mm projections would definitely have been at 24fps; most mainstream cinemas can't handle any other framerate.

It certainly happens quite a bit of the time that European film masters are delivered at 25fps—this is quite often the case with Polish masters, for instance, but I assume in those instances that they were primarily intended for European TV presentations at that framerate; there's obviously no way that, say, The Hourglass Sanatorium (to cite a recent example of a master delivered at 25fps) would actually have been shot or intended to be screened at anything other than 24fps.

[Zot!]

Gaspar Noe shot and restored "Irreversible" at 25fps. To preserve the official runtime and the natural pitch of the frenetic audio for U.S. audiences we've encoded the film at 29.97fps progressively using a 2:2 pulldown method. No interlacing will be detectable as a result.

So what they're saying is that they took a 25fps master and are going to present it at 29.97fps for "authenticity"? So UNDOING the prepossessed restoration? Understandably 25fps masters require compromise to present on NTSC equipment, and Criterion did it for a few things, but in the context of "bettering" what came before, I would consider this less preferable than a pre-conformed 24fps master from the studio. Now if they released in Europe as a 25fps disc that might make sense, but like others I've never heard about that format for this movie.

[tenia]

US players can't handle BDs at straight 25fps (which would be encoded in 1080i50 in Europe). I suppose the bypass is to rely on 29.97fps instead (which I seem to recall was how DVD were encoded to playback 25fps material).