Sweeped?

Im a huge fan of Noe, and Irreversible is one of my all time favorites, so naturally I'm pretty excited about seeing this one. Your face afterwards has made me want to watch it already but one of his films being that long!? I can only imagine.

based on the list of reference points i'd definitely consider that at least a recommendation for a viewing. I wasn't entirely convinced by irreversible, in my opinion there was too much will to brutalizing merely for shock/attention's sake but it was still compelling at times. I'll pay my money to see enter the void, i mean what else is on? marmaduke?

Hmm, sometimes you need to take a breath and a Noe film is too much to sum up straight after.

Very interesting, as all reactions to this film have been. It's certainly the work of a true artist and auteur - it looks visually stunning so I'll definitely be checking the film out come September 24th. I've always had something of a problem with Noé however.
See, I really like 'Irreversible' (2002) for its non-linear narrative, powerful camerawork, unflinching approach to its subject matter (too many films today don't have the strength of their convictions) and the nauseating, droning sound design. It's a perfect example of mise-en-scène, made by a director who clearly knows how to put a piece of cinema together in a way that is challenging and emotionally devastating, yet also cinematically adventurous.
But when you get down to it, the film is more of a case of style over substance than some would care to think. When you get down to it, 'Irreversible' is just an arthouse rape/revenge film - think 'Last House On The Left' with A-Levels (the allegory of the '2001: A Space Odyssey' poster was not lost on me). The last French exploitation movie in my memory was 'Baise-Moi' (2000) - an incredibly graphic and pointless piece of crap - so let me ask you this. If 'Irreversible' were shot in a conventional manner, with no cerebral or artistic integrity (as it now apparently has) would we all be looking on Noé so fondly, and anticipating 'Enter The Void' in the same way? Maybe not...

As a survivor of the even longer version of ENTER THE VOID that was shown here in Estonia last year, I feel like I'm qualified to say a few things about the film:

My immediate reaction was much the same as yours, Mark. I thought that the whole darn thing was much too long... on the other hand, I suspected that this was done somewhat deliberately - I mean, you really do get a sense of that weird, bodiless dread as you fly around that neon-universe aimlessly... for what seems like a million years. A strangely celestial agony. The longer it went on, the more real it got. If there is an afterlife, I hope it's nothing like this film... :D

Also, on the subject of excess hard-core sex and violence: often I found myself thinking: "Yes, yes, good. We get it. Move on!" but when the camera refused to, I eventually caved in and actually started to feel like the movie wanted me to. I think that Noé probably needs the audience to really/fully acknowledge whatever's happening on the screen, no matter how violent, gross or boring, before he can move on. (In other words, he takes his time, penetrating the viewers defence mechanisms.)

Funnily enough, when I subsequently watched IRRÉVERSIBLE for the first time (which is a walk in the park compared to this) many things clicked, and pretty much all of my suspicions about ENTER THE VOID and how Gaspar Noé works, were confirmed. But I can't, in good conscience, recommend watching ENTER THE VOID without having seen IRRÉVERSIBLE first to anybody else, though.

Welcome to the 90s.
Population : Kermode

Hi Dr Mark,

Not sure if this was a showing of one of your nights out, or mine.

Or, Mr Rooney's.

Naughty boys all.

Either way, 'Mean Streets', Les Colourful.

Man alive, just when I was starting to think this film's existence was some elaborate hoax.

Your bafflement makes me want to see it more than ever, good movie or not, though he runtime sounds more like a threat than a necessity in this case. Isn't it actually closer to three hours or has it been edited down?

Really want to see this now, I doubt it'll be playing within 50 miles of me though.

Keep em coming!

My instant reaction to your blog (after just one viewing) is that if those clips are representative of the film, it looks like tripe.

The music was a touch improvement on the usual, though ;-)

I'd say "Gaspar, No Way"

Blimey. Other factors no doubt contributed, but I've never seen someone look so thoroughly knackered by a film

I'd say the vision is ahhhh

The thing with Gaspar Noé, at least you get a thought provoking experience and something to discuss with others. Usually about the more nasty and grotty things in life. Though it would be 'nice' if these things were presented in a less flawed way by Mr. Noé.

Also, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has to mull over a film, before presenting my considered opinion on it. I have infuriated friends after watching a DVD or after a visit to the cinema and I get asked, "Well, what did you think?"
I respond with "I don't know yet."

I'm so excited about this film. The visuals looks stunning and Noe always puts his audience through the ringer emotionally, which I strangely enjoy. Really hope this plays at the local indie cinema in Southampton, although I doubt it :(

So the film is playing at 25 frames per second instead of 24, anyone know what this is to achieve?

#17 - A crowd-pulling gimmick, perhaps?

I saw the trailer for this at a screening of Scott Pilgrim vs The World at the Curzon in Soho. Really captured the mood I was going for.

I would rather see Marmaduke, the trailer for which I saw with my 3 year old whose only comment was 'why is the dog doing that?'

I think this review may have contained Kermode's finest line

'Is this film 'Ahhhh'? or 'AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!'

Genius.

*******
One thing can be said Gaspar Noe - at least he didn't make 'Tamara Drewe'.

I hate Stephen Frears.

Dear Dr. K,

I'm not sure the instant review format is doing you a service. The idea that your raw, unplanned response to a film would add something to your overall criticism of it is appealing. However in reality you seem uncomfortable with the risk of providing ill-considered comment to camera in the afterglow. You seem stilted, defensive and thus, perhaps, prone to understating your immediate emotional response.

Perhaps it can be made to work. From previous feedback and comment, followers of this blog seem to enjoy the feeling of "being there" as you work hard on our behalf. However I don't think I will be alone in thinking that I would either prefer to wait until you've digested the material, or you embrace the moment and risk putting your foot in it with some effervescent opinion. The middle ground, where you tell us that you need to think about it and then cautiously advance some guarded comments is not showing you at your best IMO.

Shymer

In response to #21
Kind of agree, but I read this for entertainment as well as critique, and seeing Mark then was laugh out loud funny.

And in response to all the Noe fans above.
Arggh! Irreversible was the only film in my life that I physically threw out of the window! Not through outrage, merely annoyance at having my time wasted so selfishly (yes selfishly!)- Cod philosophising to vindicate a pornographic obsession wrapped in some "shock" unpleasantness to make it controversial-cool for the schoolboys.

@S Ford

According to Arterton, when she was meeting up with Frears for the first time to discuss the part, he instantly objected to her voice - "Why are you talking like that?". Now, no one's saying Gemma Arterton talks with the class of a luvvie, but she speaks like the average person you'd meet on the street, and it's certainly not too inappropriate for the film. It's not like she's been yelling at a fruit stall in Albert Square. Methinks he needs to get out of his RP bubble.

And even following the rave response I heard this get on The Review Show, I still think this kind of safe, middle class, easily exported rubbish is a cancer to the British film industry. I have no interest in seeing Tamara Drewe. (I admit I make an exception for Richard Curtis' works because despite his flaws I continue to find him funny.)

@ 17

That is a good line but I think the best summery of a movie ever is: “The best way of describing it is imagine somebody had sat in a room with on one hand a volume of Fraud and in the other had the Tibetan Book of the Dead with two TVs on, one playing the last sequence to 2001 and the other playing the dream sequences from Altered States, out of their face on hallucinogenic drugs and then having access to a video console.”

In one description you know exactly what to expect but at the same time have no idea what is in store for you.

I'm insanely looking forward to this film, but unfortunately I'm neither American nor British, so I guess I'll be waiting even longer for this wet nightmare to arrive in my country. I'm a massive fan of Gaspar Noe; I love his style of film-making, though really I should say styles since Irreversible and I Stand Alone are quite dissimilar from each other; the way Noe plays with narrative in both of those films is so shocking and intelligent and thematically relevant. 'Enter the Void' looks pretty much like ... well, looks like what Kermode said about it, so I can't wait to check this one out (and it'll have to be in the cinemas, although it's already got a DVD/Blu-Ray release date in France; December 1st).

Speaking of Noe, when the hell is I Stand Alone going to get a UK Region 2 DVD release??? seemingly never.

@S Ford:

Sorry for going off topic but I'm just curious as to the Stephen Frears comment as it's something I've heard several times before but have never had an opportunity to ask about. Bear in mind that I've only watched five of his movies - High Fidelity, Prick Up Your Ears, My Beautiful Laundrette, Dirty Pretty Things and The Queen. I thought The Queen was kind of dull but I liked the others pretty much okay and, while I don't think he has a particularly outstanding talent, I have been under the impression that he's mostly alright. Is there something I'm missing?

Tamara Drewe looks pretty poor from the trailers though.

@Amber
Frears now makes tv movies, not films for cinema. As Jen Anniston has a face for tv, Frears now has become the equivalent for film; he is a tv director not a cinema director.
It may sound very cynical, but films like Tamara Drewe as far as I am concerned represent everything which is wrong with the British film industry. Fairly calculated considerations which I imagine probably took up precious Film Council funding (pretty sure Frears' last The Queen did so) and rely upon the time tested formula of smut and Englishness (a la Carry On films etc etc).
Getting back on topic, Enter The Void is out at roughly the same time as Tamara Drewe. I'd rather watch Noe's cod existentialism or sickening graphic violence, as it is a director making some effort for his viewers. Maybe I'm cynical that in the UK for every Frears film all newspapers and media channels are keen to indicate it.

Rant over.

Mark! Get some sleep.

Having never seen a Noe film I am certainly intrigued but not necessarily convinced enough to rush out and see it. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Mark thinks on Friday. There has been a lot of talk about Irreversible on this blog, and people seem to be split down the middle over it. It seems to have the Marmite effect on its viewers, you either love it or hate it.
On another note I very much enjoyed The Secret in Their Eyes with the Alan Rickman look-a-like in the lead role!

@S Ford: Thanks for the reply, it's appreciated and it does clear up the confusion. I was really sorry to hear about the Film Council getting the ax earlier this year as well.

@S Ford
What's wrong with My Beautiful Laundrette, High Fidelity and Dirty Pretty Things?

@MargeGunderson
Those films are great. I stated 'Frears now makes tv movies', 'now' being the word to emphasise...
How was 'The Secret in Her Eyes'? Argentinian cinema seems to be a strong roll. I just saw XXY which was excellent. There are some interesting looking films at the LFF coming up too...

@Amber
There's a good article here about the UK Film Council being abolished http://www.timeout.com/film/features/show-feature/10421/the-uk-film-council-is-dead-lets-move-on.html It could be a very interesting situation if the BFI (which is a truly excellent body) have greater involvement in UK Film. In another article, it was stated that there were 8 directors at the UK Film Council who were paid over £100k each. I think the abolishment of the UKFC was to save some of those costs and put them directly into film financing. Time will only tell what impact it has on the UK film industry.

Apologies for going off topic.....

@S Ford
My mistake!
The Secret in Their Eyes was great. Boyd and Floyd had their review about right...with particular mention of the football stadium scene, it really was like going back to 70s and 80s Brian De Palma, truly stunning! It had a lot of depth and meaning but the twists were obvious. Having said that I don't know if the filmakers intended them to be suprising. One thing I did notice was the lead character talks about the secrets in the eyes of somebody in a photograph which we then see repeated in a photograph of himself, more beackground stuff that I haven't heard mentioned elsewhere.
After all the title is Their Eyes plural not singular.

Incidentally I saw this "cultured" movie one night, and the following night I went to see Piranha which couldn't be more opposite. It was immensely enjoyable and fun and made in the spirit of the B movie horror. Verne has changed a lot since Stand By Me! Both come highly recommended.

Apologies for going off topic!

Have you always had those cheekbones, or did a Celtic tapeworm manage to swim it's way up the mephitic fug of your urethra? Regardless, anytime a critic can't give an immediate reaction to a movie, it's a stinker. Plain and simple.

@S Ford: Thanks for the article, I really appreciate the info.

The film council sounds like a good idea in principle really, it just seems like the more appropriate answer would have been to make some adjustments and cut some paychecks, not necessarily obliterate it altogether. Still, if the BFI becomes more involved and the money goes into the financing of GOOD films, it could very well be a good thing... it's just a matter of wait and see, I suppose.

I apologize again for going off-topic. But now Marge has got me bummed that I have to wait two more weeks to see The Secret in Their Eyes. Lucky!

Goodness gracious Dr. K. do you sound tired!

Having seen a longer version of Enter the Void than you I can say I didn't think it was too long at all! Sheer perfection. At the screening I went to Noe said that one of his major influences was 2001, but that obviously his film wasn't as good. I wanted to tell him that he was wrong. One of the greatest films I have ever seen. Both overwhelmingly ugly and overwhelmingly beautiful, so hypnotic, powerful, stunning, exhausting, engulfing. I loved it so much :D

I lol'd at your sweaty, post-Noe face!
The trailer seems to show a little to much i.e. gunshot dans le toilet. Does it even matter with a work so esoteric?
Looking forward to seeing it and Valhalla Rising.

I'm quite disturbed by the way that Noe brings out the Mary Whitehouse in the seemingly tolerant art-house cinema punters. The criticism is almost always in the form of some banal generalisation that emphasises how like a teenage boy Gaspar is (teenage boys presumably being incapable of having valid dreams and simultaneously being the root of all evil and misogyny in the world), mainly based on the fact that his films contain shocking incidents/behaviour and make no secret of the fact that they are trying to induce an altered viewing state (which Mark was evidently still on a come-down from) rather than attempting to create some contrived subplot to intellectually justify themselves or endear fictional characters to the audience, so that they can 'identify'.

I almost died once when I was a kid. I have also tried drugs and am not ashamed of the fact. Hence, I would like to see a cinematic representation of this by someone with a good visual imagination and a working knowledge of 'real life', as it is for many young people. I would imagine that many other people are curious about these types of experiences and how they can be 'recreated' too. Is that wrong? Is it cod-philosophy? Should we contrive to rubbish the film in as many media sources as possible and discourage it from being shown widely?

#21 Shymer

...agreed.
What is the point of an instant review if not to say something that you might regret later? [...might]

Otherwise it just becomes pointless as a before and after comparison, or insight into the effect of film over time, e.g. Mark's changing view of Lars Von Trier.

I've seen the film in a cinema on Piccadilly and loved it. Easily the best film I've seen for a long time. I prefer when the plot is not too thick and we are pushed into a world of emotions. Also, possibly the best description of how one feels when on drugs (I've been told).

It's interesting that you chose to show an important plot point in your review, I think that was a mistake.

How coincidental regarding the reviewer you carried out during a screening of Irreversible Dr K, for I too would have passed out during the start of Irreversible had I not left the screening barely ten minutes in at my university. I suffer from vasovagal effects (passing out over something that makes me squeamish), but Noé's camera work and sound effects struck a nervous chord, and viscerally, I just couldn't physically cope with it.

@ #17 - I don't know for sure (IMDb would probably tell you), but it looks like Noé has followed the route that Danny Boyle took on 28 Days Later, and shot (at least part of) it on PAL-format digital cameras, because they're tiny and you can do stuff with them that you wouldn't with many thousands of pounds worth of more traditional devices, for fear of breaking them.

As such, 25fps is the native framerate, and the film's overlong enough as it is without playing it back 4% slower. The same goes for all those BBC wildlife documentaries in HD, too - the 24fps US Blu-ray is running slightly too slow; the 25fps UK DVD is the right speed (and yes, it's pot luck with the UK HD releases; some are 24, some 25, depending on whether they're feeling too cheap to make a separate UK master)

"metaphysical" and "Altered States"? Right, gotta look out for this movie.

Gaspar Noe, Lars Von Trier, Takashi Miike, Chan-wook Park and even the late great Stanley Kubrick all have one thing in common, a realist approach to cinema and art coupled with the balls to play around with surreal subject matters that emotionally charge their audiences. There is an originality in what they do that is unparalleled.

Spanking the Chiba compared Irreversible to The Last House on the Left which did make me instantly think of Irreversible when I saw the rape scene. I found that, yes both films had unbearable to watch rape scenes but LHOTL gave me an increasing repugnance because I felt I was simply watching a plot mechanic at work, something purely designed to engender hatred towards the offenders, perhaps this is what Gaspar Noe wanted to aVOID when he started thinking about an arthouse rape/revenge film as chiba simply put it. I found it much more satisfying to watch events playout the way they do in Irreversible and it takes a certain kind of genius to come to that concept and get it on to film with such style. It may seem like a gimmick but I think it is much much more then that.
I cannot wait to see Enter the Void. I shall surely be purchasing The Tibetan Boook of the Dead also.

Hello Mark

I'm a long time listener/first time commenter (or such). I didn't know where to post this so I thought I'd post it here...

I've been thinking about horror and the great switcheroo that has happened. I could be way off the mark here but historically in horror we've been the victims - we've been the kids running screaming from the monster, we're all Laurie in Halloween, etc.

Horror has always reflected the current mood and since the world is now a meaner, colder and more cynical place to be, is today's horror mirroring that? With the advent of 'torture porn' and the Saws and Hostels of this world, have we turned into the monster? Are we not the callous, soulless killers of Hostel now? Are we complicit in Jigsaw's crimes? There seems to be a gleeful, voyeuristic charm with these movies that tap into (some) people's darkest desires. Not mine. I don't like them. What do you think?

Another theory I wanted to put to you was this...

As you know there has been a dip in the quality of horror of late but is that down to solely Platinum Dunes and its tawdry ilk or is it because companies like these, knowing that horror fans are the most loyal of the movie-going public, will watch ANYTHING and therefore have no qualms of firing out a string of lacklustre movies secure in the knowledge that they'll make their money back?

Gavin

The metaphysics are definitively cod, and the story itself is a bit of a tearjerker. I admire the film for its non-linear narrative structure (all the loops, flashbacks, repetitions, etc) and the visuals, but if you take those away it is just an overlong Ghost...

I will still be in line for Noe´s next film, at least he has a distinctive approach to film making.

I think that technically Enter the Void is a masterpiece. People will be copying the stylistic feel of this movie for years to come. It's incredibly well edited and the consistent camera flow is incredible. If you like to judge movies purely visually then this is perhaps one of the most artfully shot films of the last few years.

As a document of a psychedelic experience, it's also a good one. And perhaps the best drug movie ever made... So much better than Altered States Mr Kermode...

Yes, it is perhaps a little too long, but the length adds to the effect. I walked out of the cinema into Piccadilly and genuinely felt very strange, it genuinely altered my perception of the world for a short while... The film has an almost physical effect which in itself makes it a work of singular genius.

As far as cod metaphysics goes, well, not everyone is an expert on Freud or Tibetan Buddhism. Noe keeps it simple so that we actually learn something. I don't think it's cod.. I think it's educational to a degree. The movie is structured exactly like the Tibetan Book Of The Dead with white strobing spaces in the movie clearly marking each of the six bardos. There is nothing cod about this. It's simple narrative structuring, reflecting an ancient text. I found this very interesting indeed

OK so it won't be for everyone, those with short attention spans may be bored. But those who like artfully shot, interesting cinema won't be disappointed they went to see this film.

I saw this film a couple of days ago & it's still with me. Like, *really* with me. Just can't shake it.

I sincerely hated parts (the Freud 101 was painful) & loved parts (the rest of it), but I'd choose that any day over the 'that was fun, wasn't it?' feeling I've had coming out of the cinema for God-knows-how-long. Yes, I felt drained, mentally abused & downright violated, but my point is that being made to feel that way in a cinema is surely the sign of a genius - especially considering that it wasn't the scenes of sex, violence or drug-use that had the effect, but the construction, sound & general aesthetic of the film itself. Truly mesmerising & certainly not an experience I'll be forgetting anytime soon. Unlike whatever it was I saw last week.