MUBI Going with JT: Irreversible: Straight Cut

CW: This article discusses a film which depicts extremely graphic scenes of SA, violence, and abusive behavior.

If you’ve heard of Gasper Noé’s infamous Irréversible, it’s through one of three means. 

1. You happened upon it by accident or someone showed you without warning, and I am really, truly sorry.

2. You read about it on either a “Most Disturbing Films Ever Made” or “Films I’d Never Watch Again” listicle or video essay somewhere. Chances are you read the synopsis and moved on with your life. 

3. You sought it out because your morbid curiosity or appetites are something which I can only describe as “your own demons to contend with.” No shade, you’re not alone.

Originally premiered in 2002, Irréversible was instantly polarizing and instigated myriad walkouts. Both written and directed by Gasper Noé, it was simultaneously called one of the most vile films ever made and nominated for the Palm d’Or at Cannes that year. The theatrical release of the film is told in reverse chronological order, beginning at the end of a single long and brutal night in Paris. The version in limited release now, (seen by the writer at the IFC Center in Manhattan), is told in sequential chronological order, thus its full title Irréversible: Straight Cut.

While some reviews are meant to make a reader curious enough to see the film on their own, I can’t in good conscience discuss this one without appropriate warning. Here is the film’s abbreviated plot. 

An attractive young couple, Alex (Monicca Belucci) and Marcus (Vincent Cassel) go to a party with their friend Pierre (Albert Dupontel). Alex leaves the party alone after quarreling with Marcus and is subsequently cornered in a tunnel by a man (Jo Terria). She is then brutally assaulted physically and sexually. Marcus and Pierre come outside to find Alex being loaded into an ambulance. After a brief police interrogation, the two are convinced by a pair of local thugs to seek extra-judicious revenge. What follows is a chaotic and tumultuous series of events as the men follow hot on the trail of the one they come to know as “La Tenia” (the assailant’s moniker, apparently translating to “the tapeworm”).

Each scene is shot in singular long takes with sweeping and jarring camera movements as the action requires. At times the camera is spinning in jubilance, at others gliding smoothly in early moments of safety. As things deteriorate, so does the stability of the frame. Furthermore, the film’s soundscape starts to incorporate a subsonic hum, seemingly in order to unnerve the audience as the two men descend into hell (a metaphor the director seems intent on invoking quite literally). The technical aspects of the film are exceptionally executed and greatly complimented by truly inspired acting performances from front to back.

All that said, there’s more to discuss about this film, particularly to do with its director. 

I don’t know if I could survive in a room alone with Gasper Noé. Not because I think he presents a physical danger to me or others that I can perceive, but because his mind is humming at a frequency that I don’t think most of us can feel psychically safe to be around. Watching the end credits on Irreversible: Straight Cut, I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered a specific film that seeks to disturb on such a grand scale. If you’ve read anything about this film leading up to a viewing, somehow everything is true and yet I still felt unprepared. 

I’d like to note that I am not necessarily one who always avoids disturbing material. My morbid curiosity has found me on more than one listicle headlined as above. I’ve seen Salo, I’ve seen A Serbian Film, and I have on several occasions sat through Requiem in both its theatrical and director’s cut. To be clear, I am not exactly a junkie for disturbing fare, and gore never necessarily thrills or tantalizes me much. If I’m being wholly honest, it’s really just succumbing to the nagging question: “Just how bad can it be?” 

Irréversible, is pretty fucking bad. It is in fact really, really, fucking bad. It is every bit as hard to watch as I had read. Upon finishing my viewing, I retreated to the quietest nearby tavern just to reflect. 

I have this to say of the film’s infamous scene. Purely from a reactionary standpoint, I felt my stomach turn, I cried, and I mourned the reality of the world we live in. The scene’s only mercy is that it ends. I wish to say nothing further about it other than to express that I don't think any person should see this film without prior knowledge of its content.

Taking a moment to breathe, it has to be said though that I believe there is certainly more to this film than sheer brutality. If I’m being honest, it’s a hard point to make about a movie that devotes a truly considerable amount of time to inhuman violence. I read somewhere that the original release was presented in reverse chronological order so the film ended on some semblance of a “happy” note. I could see where the lighter ending might come as a relief to the audience, but seeing the events as they are (in any order) is such an overwhelming shock it’s hard to feel any other way about it. The tragedy runs thick in all chronological arrangements, so maybe ending in a place of levity is a peace offering or a deliberate call to reflect. 

As a piece of commentary, Gasper Noé may be screaming at a near incomprehensible and ear-splitting volume at times, but there are melodic passages which really ring true. In particular there is a very relevant discussion about the dynamics of male sexual obsession and expression therein. Preceding the party, Pierre half-jokingly badgers Alex and Marcus about their sex life and how it compares to his previous performances. He tries to play with his own inadequacy in hopes of masking it as an earnest self-awareness out of a sense of self-preservation. Instead his insecurity bleeds through his compulsion to ceaselessly question his own self-worth. Inversely, Marcus projects an abundance of confidence as he drinks too much and parties too hard and assumes he’s too lovable for Alex to reprimand. What’s important to note is that neither man really seems to handle the later tragedy in a helpful or effective manner. Marcus rushes like hell towards revenge while Pierre ineffectually suggests a calmer response as he follows Marcus to the film’s bleak conclusion.

In the end though, it’s really difficult to know what the audience is really supposed to be leaving with. While I do not necessarily agree with the sentiment that the film’s extreme violence revels in itself, the core story at hand undeniably focuses almost solely on the men’s response to aftermath of sexual assault. Alex is never seen or heard from again. She is so distanced from what drives Marcus and Pierre forward as to almost be considered a plot device more than a character. One might try and make the argument that this is the point of the whole “male seeking revenge” trope, to posit, “Who is being helped here?” However, this is something so often seen in modern times that the trope feels somewhat trivialized 20 years later. It’s like a parable for people who like those haunted houses with waivers and NDA’s so they can “learn something about themselves.” The intended audience for this film is likely the kind of folk who need something to be truly shocking for it to be effective, meaningful, and memorable. 

In closing I’ll say this, this film is not easy to digest regardless of personal taste. As an envelope pusher, the film could certainly be a meaningful contribution to a sort of revenge-sploitation genre. However, I think I walked away from this viewing realizing that maybe we need to start asking different questions beyond “just how bad can it be?” Irréversible more than anything should stand as a testament to what has been done in film “messaging” and how it can be done differently and better in the future. Whatever it was that Gasper Noe wanted us to see, I know that I want to see better storytelling and less shock-sploitation for effect.