MovieChat Forums > Irréversible (2002) Discussion > I don't care what the director says, thi...

I don't care what the director says, this movie is anti-gay.

posted 9 years ago by jennathetankengine
11 replies | jump to latest

I mean - first, the rectum??? As the name for a club? Within the first few minutes we get inside this disgusting club where huge perverts and homosexuals go to be perverts.
Anyway let's get to the rape scene. The "Tapeworm" (the rapist) is a known homosexual pimp right? So he rapes Alex (who is a woman.Rape is violent period but I feel like her being a woman is more of a message that gays are bad.) The reason being is that the directr is making it look like gay men will "stick it in anyone's a******" as long as they can get off. Basically homosexual men are disgusting trolls who only want anal sex.
That's the only problem that I had with this movie really. It's a sick film with a good message about rape being "irreversible" in damage and how it effects everyone not just the victim. But the blatant homophobia has me a little sad.

[–] thirtyfor30 9 years ago

Nah. It was just part of the plot.

[–] lebowskithedude 9 years ago

You've stated the content of the film but not its intent. Yes, the club is named the Rectum. Why is this homophobic? Please explain. Who's to say the Tapeworm isn't bisexual? And by the way, for some rapists, who they rape isn't a matter of sexual orientation or gender - they don't rape based on sexual preference, because rape is not a sexual act, it's a violent act. So please explain how that's homophobic. And finally, your interpretation of the gay men as "disgusting trolls who only want anal sex" says more about you than it does the film. Yes, the film portrays a gay club full of promiscuous men. Oh Jeez, what a shock. You're the one saying the gay men are trolls and disgusting.

[–] jennathetankengine 9 years ago

Of course some douchemongler has to come along and say "saying [insert what I said] says more about you than the film!!" So saying that I thought Hitler was a cruel, evil, murderer who like to see dead jews says more about me than him? Look that's what I thought the message seemed to be: that gay men are sick and will even masturbate to another man getting his face smashed in. Oh I'm sorry, did that not actually happen in the film or was that just my sick fantasy or something?
Like I said, rape is sick and I although I agree that the actual act had nothing to do with sexual preference that's what the film's message seemed to be: "Oh look he's gay and will have sex with anything as long as it's anal!"
Also, the rectum is homophobic because that is it's impression of gays period. There is not one good gay parson in this film. the only time we are seeing homosexuals is in that club doing illegal and horrific things, like when the one guy tries to rape the other guy after breaking his arm and they're all jeering and laughing and wanking. The scene is red so it's intended to make us sick. And even the rapist is gay and he's the main villain.

[–] lebowskithedude 9 years ago

I don't think it's an anti-gay thing. I think the masturbation part is just part of a surreal scene meant to *beep* with the audience. And why can't a gay person be the main villain in a film? Only straight people can be the villain? Gay people can't be shown to be just as *beep* up as straight people? Might I remind you they're no different than us - they don't your pity, your special treatment, nor do they need special treatment from Noe. That scene could've just as easily been set in a straight club where all the people are turned on by weird violence. And all the people saying f*ggot and other anti-gay slurs are hardly portrayed as righteous or good people by Noe.

[–] jennathetankengine 9 years ago

Sure they can be villains, as long as he counteracts that with some redeeming quality by another gay character or at the very least not showing EVERY gay person as being some sicko. Treu it could have been set in a straight club but it wasn't and that seems very purposeful.

[–] ThatNoodleLizard 9 years ago

Sure they can be villains, as long as he counteracts that with some redeeming quality by another gay character

It's this kind of thinking that causes really dull, pandering films to be made. I sort of agree that this film may reveal a bit of homophobia on Noe's part (and could certainly re-enforce existing prejudices among some audience members), but I'd take that over any forced effort to prove otherwise. This film is meant to be horrible to watch, and the scene in The Rectum certainly accomplishes that. That's what matters, I think.

[–] Zombie55 9 years ago

But its really interesting then that if the movie really is intentionally homophobic, it also contains a lot of explicit scenes of homosexual sex and nudity as well, and even has a scene where the director himself is seen masturbating in that club called "Rectum".

Did Noe intentionally do all this to confuse audience in a sense that on one hand the movie is seen as homophobic and harshly criticized for its negative portrayal of homosexual men (as well as featuring a lot of homophobic language in places) and on the other scare and irritate another audience by including explicit homosexual sex to upset or offend people who don't like seeing it in their movies, even if some of those audiences don't actually hate gay people themselves but just don't like explicit scenes of gay sex to be shown in their movies?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dwfyfe1 8 years ago

You forgot the part in the gay sex club when the gay guys just sit there and watch someone beat another person to death with a fire extinguisher without being remotely upset or going to tell anyone. I'm absolutely stunned that no-one else has picked up on this. I lost interest in this film at that point (virtually the beginning)!!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Satantangoandcash 8 years ago

The movie is a depiction of homophobic people and a specific homosexual subculture, but I wouldn't label it as anti-gay, only some of the characters in it. The Rectum seems to be a club which caters to men who want to experience violent forms of sex and bondage. You can't deny that there are gay men who are into that and that such clubs exist. You are the one who is branding them as perverts, but it's their choice and they should be allowed to do whatever they want with consenting adults, regardless of how disturbing their behavior might be to most people. The movie is not claiming that all gays are into that sort of sexual behavior, only those we see in the club. We also see a few gays on the street and in a cafe and they are not portrayed as perverts. Marcus is the one who is violent and out of control, punching them and shouting homophobic insults. He's the menace, not the gays. The movie is anti-homophobia, not anti-gay.

More disturbing than the depiction of the sex behavior in the club were the anti-gay insults and the multiple threats of prison rape shouted by men in the very beginning as they were carrying Marcus and Pierre away. I couldn't tell if the insults were from bystanders or the police or both. That was a realistic and intentional message from the filmmaker to show how rape is used by the police and other men in power as a form of punishment and as a threat used to control other men. Prison rape is considered as a normal part of criminal justice, so normal that we make jokes about it.

Alex's rape was horrible to watch, but it was just one part of the rape culture shown in this movie that included the men in the club who wanted to be dominated and the man in the beginning who confessed to raping his daughter.