Irréversible (2002)
Only Time Will Tell
In the end, Marcus is carried out by paramedics on a stretcher, and Pierre, taken away by the police. While all this is happening, two men are chatting somewhere else. It is a dimly lit room, made even dimmer after Butcher reveals that he committed incest, Oldboy-style. The continuation of Seul Contre Tous, a corrosive masterpiece from Gaspar Noé, briefly mentions time’s negative impact on everything. To understand how Marcus and Pierre ended up in this position, one must first look back, chronologically of course.
Calling Irréversible a difficult film is an understatement — it delineates perplexities few can tolerate, reaching an exhaustive level and then some. Back in 2002, when first premiered at Cannes, many audiences were unable to last the entire duration, some even rendered physically ill by this unrelenting piece. That said, should audiences survive Irréversible, it is the type of film to never be experienced again. No, Gaspar Noé does not aim to amuse, at least not by conventional standards. The film’s ulterior motive involves something higher-minded, and like many poetic instruments, relinquishes in its sublimity. Sublimity in the form of temporality, drama in the form of philosophy, Irréversible is also one of those films capable of expanding cinema’s outward grasp of human articulation.
At its heart, the story tells simply of rape, then revenge. It follows Memento’s rubric for narration, in reverse, with the inclusion of the heavy-handed message. Open bracket, time destroys everything, close bracket. In the midst of this debacle, Marcus and Alex are enjoying the honeymoon stage of their budding relationship, joined by Alex’s ex, Pierre. Not exactly “joined” as in third-wheeling, but the three head to a party together, amicable enough to move on from any residual awkwardness. However, the couple’s bubble has to be temporarily burst because of Marcus’ inebriation. Alex storms off, through a subway tunnel that strangely does not bear one of the Art Nouveau “METROPOLITAN” signs synonymous with Paris. It is there that Alex is brutally raped. Marcus and Pierre are outraged about this, most notably the actual boyfriend. Through a series of confrontations, they locate the perpetrator and finally, The Rectum, where they more than beat someone to a pulp.
And the question remains: Why should anyone be interested in watching such a difficult film? It is obvious that rape can never be justified, the mere concept of it so disturbing and evil. Here is another question: Why are audiences almost enchanted by action films, knowing that glamourized death is not the real deal, but rather a second-hand depiction of destruction? Watching Alex get raped, is not a symbol of destroying a woman, but the very literal montage of it. If this is Gaspar Noé’s way of communicating the flaws of men, then men, the overwhelming perpetrators of rape, should burn these nine minutes into their brain. Perhaps then the true horrors of rape will be a fate shared by fewer.
The reversal of chronological sequences is a rare feat in cinema, which in the case of Gaspar Noé, carries extra potency. Much like the title itself, every scene is irreversible, causing a domino effect. Step one: introduce the main characters in a dark and vehement underground sex network while crippling the audiences’ conditioning through erratic camerawork and that godforsaken low-frequency static background music. Out of context, murdering someone is wrong, in a way that one is forced to cringe, failing to fathom how such brutality can ever be accounted for. Then, the story progresses far enough to reveal that this is vengeance. Only during the middle, the unflinching view of a woman being subject to such a heinous crime, can the violence at the end be somewhat justified. It irretrievably alters everyone’s lives for the worse. The only specks of tranquility and joy can be found before (and after) the event, though the characters cannot run away from it. It is fate’s cruel sleight of hand on humans, set in stone the irregularities of life. Now this is not to say that sexual assaults are the end goal, but in the end, only time will tell if one can walk out a tunnel unharmed, and that is a truly horrifying prospect.
Once the assault on Alex is complete, the perspective shifts back to Marcus and Pierre’s reactionary psyche, a more peaceful time, even though the horrors have already infiltrated. Revenge happens because someone feels wronged. It is a reaction. In hiding the reason, the moral difficulties shrouding every segment is watered down. Realistically, topics such as murder and rape are not rare in film. Gaspar Noé has created a medium through which these topics no longer seem so pervasive, which affords recognition of how inhumane these acts are. The rape scene in particular, is unfiltered, the real depiction of contempt.
Fast-forward (backward) from the rape scene, at the party that the three main characters are attending, Alex is portrayed in a better light. Under the disco lights, she represents a certain femininity and even carnality, perfectly in sync with her environment. Better yet, she is eager for her ex and current boyfriend to get along, indicative of her maturity. Of course, this image is corrupted by the knowledge of her fate, a perverted attack on sexuality. Her ensuing words about control over herself become plaintive foreshadows.
I’m always the woman who decides.
Alex is indeed, an under-appreciated girlfriend. Beyond the jovial nature she possesses, she is honest about her thoughts, open to everything. On their way to the party, she reveals the answer every man wants to know; good sex is achieved through independence. Rather than fixating on the partner, it is more effective to be selfish, according to her.
Artistic for artistic purposes, there are allegations against the director for his “misogynistic” portrayal of actress Monica Bellucci, using a nihilistic message to excuse his heavy film. Such allegations are definitely familiar for other directors like Lars von Trier and Alfred Hitchcock. Behind the camera, lies a strong prominence in scopophilia, one that separates masculinity and the aforementioned femininity. Some of the greatest films out there have used the inherent beauty of women, but opting to see them as tools instead of makers.
That said, it must be acknowledged that there is more to just objectifying women in Irréversible, particularly in the shortcomings of men. Compared to her male counterparts, Alex looks the more puritanical one. And it is their diverse weaknesses where Irréversible seeks to at least establish itself as critical of men. Marcus is brutish. Pierre is weirdly into other people’s sex lives. And who could forget the rapist’s (le Tenia) lust? They disregard each other with implications of pride and social position, and for what? It would seem that men today are guilty of this problem too.
At the centre of the film is the scene which unsurprisingly generated a furore upon its release and led many to reactively condemn it as obscene. Alex enters the glowing red subway underpass, itself more than perhaps any other feature of the built environment so evocative of insecurity and implied threat, where she is assaulted in a scene lasting nine unbearable minutes.
Not surprisingly, the controversy generated by Irréversible is what happens on the halfway line, prompting an outwardly negative reaction from audiences. The tunnel is minimalistic, and amidst the distressing cries, helpless writhing, all attention falls upon the shoulders of Alex and le Tenia. This is more than just slapping an NC-17 rating on the film, everyone watching is being forced to endure such a ghastly crime for nine whole minutes.
It is during the rape scene especially, when Alex is in her time of greatest need, an unknown man enters the tunnel and sadly, turns around. His cowardice is a symbolic resonance as well, reaching all men and channeling this selfish instinct for self-preservation above all.
The biggest sinner out of everyone would arguably be Pierre. True, compared to le Tenia, his crimes do not feel as woeful, minute even. At the end of the charade, it is Pierre who absolutely demolishes someone in The Rectum, ironic given the fact that he was trying to calm the frenzied Marcus just prior. One would imagine Marcus to actually be the one savagely beating the perpetrator. In addition, Pierre does seem more like the rational character, intelligent and docile. What are obviously good qualities, do not transpire into actions, as frequently seen as men are inherently dichotomous. It is not the first time a male character has behaved like this; Lars von Trier has a running rap sheet for all the male characters he paints to be absolute fools. Dogville, Antichrist and Melancholia all depict goody-two-shoes men as rational and righteous angels, only to conclude by attempting to hegemonize their patients. Women. Different paths, no matter how honourable, all end in the same bloody mess. It does not mean that all men are misogynistic fools, but many a gifted man will rationalize, then end up perpetuating the act they warned against. History has proven this time and time again.
Everyone has had precognitive dreams before. Alex is no different. When she wakes up next to Marcus, she tells him about this “long red tunnel”, reminiscent of future events. Like everyone else, she willfully shrugs it off as non-pertinent, focusing on what is ahead on a linear axis. The reason why dreams are so strange is because of this exact phenomenon; they are erratic, operatic high notes of elucidation, too complicated for mere mortals. Time will decay everything, no matter which direction it goes. As people age, they become shadows of their former selves. Nothing can escape the onslaught of time, and in its flow, matter will decay, along with beauty, and soon, become embedded within the pages of some history book. Interestingly enough, as the film, Lucy so eloquently states: “Time gives legitimacy to its existence.” Whatever happens beyond the realm of philosophy is too great for humans to grasp, with time, a frivolous concept concocted by man to bring about order. Yes, it makes sense on a chronological scale, but who says it should be the universal way of looking at things? With or without time, the world will persist, and man can only grasp frantically at it with their tiny paws. Could it be possible that man has done more harm than good by linearizing the progression of time?
The two men’s words from the first scene are good hints for actions with consequences.
No bad deeds, just deeds.
Newton’s third law states that every action in nature has an equal and opposite reaction. Outside The Rectum, there is an even more devious line.
Vengeance is a human right.
The circus never stops, and the cycle never truly ends. One act will call for another in return. Violence will be shared, then ultimately destroy, with time acting as the keen observer. The gods are laughing at their humanoid creations; more specifically, at their destructive natures.
If one focuses on other segments of the film apart from the rape scene, Irréversible is honest about its characters. The storyline gives reason to care about the characters on a personal level, because time is of the essence for everyone. Nostalgia will reverberate the happiest memories such as love, kindness, determination, and so much more, next to the horrific events unfolded. The rollercoaster ride of emotions induces trauma and joie de vivre, perhaps not at the same time, but Irréversible will be remembered for its most agonizing scene, and also its most intimate one.
Whatever themes Irréversible chooses to carry, it can be viewed from a variety of angles. Cinema is powerful for bending the limits of human imagination into wilder scopes of art, thereby really questioning everyone’s subjective morals. Only time will tell.
