MovieChat Forums > Irréversible (2002) Discussion > The Destruction of Beauty

The Destruction of Beauty


I would like to preface this by thanking TheMan18 for recommending drugoe kino for a part of this forray. A portion of this discussion was briefly had in a few other threads here, but I wanted to condense some thoughts and also add on top of them to hopefully form a clearer picture.

While Gaspar Noé's Irreversible remains a polarizing film, it is difficult to dismiss the director's depiction of a world decoupling from beauty and morality. The film's use of dark and grainy colors coupled with the use of sound not only function to make an unpleasant viewing experience, but symbolically highlight a world distinctly lacking any form of entropic threshold. Through the use of an unconventional narrative, roll shots, sound, and film filter, Noé creates a purposefully chaotic viewing experience.

The sequences with posters for 2001: A Space Odyssey create a stark juxtaposition between Kubrick's world where man is elevated to heavens, and Noé's, where man is relegated to hell. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick beautifully highlights the culmination of material triumph and the evolution of man, and while the film has dark and subtle undertones, there remains a lingering note of triumphalism, as we see man reach his fullest potential. Yet Gaspar Noé's Irreversible makes a loud objection to Kubrick's notion, and distinctly portrays man as not some intellectual being capable of rationality, benevolence, and enlightenment, but as animal, no different from the primitive tapir shown in Kubrick's epic.

In a sense, both films mirror one another: one has astronauts floating in space, the other has pedophiles hanging over the floor in chains. Both films highlight a form of man at his meridian. In 2001 we see man reaching the apex of progress, conquering not only the finitude of Earth, but the infinitude of the Universe; in Irreversible, we see man reach the apogee of hedonistic jubilation, as the prostitutes on the street are able to combine with both sexes, evolving into "hermaphrodites."

Historically, much of the film's criticism was directed at this rather primitive portrayal of homosexuality. In Irreversible, homosexuality is depicted as the domain of depraved and unadulterated savagery. With this motif, Noé attempts to illuminate a world completely unhinged, where the only concern is self-indulgence and temporal satiation. In a primitive and functional context, homosexuality is seen as the ultimate form of gratification, as it is pleasure absent responsibility (i.e., child-rearing). La Tenia represents a figure of decay and destruction, and his assault on Alex is not only an affront on beauty, but symbolically highlights the desolation of that which is functional (i.e., Alex's baby as an extension of child-rearing and "life" as a whole).

The rape scene in the tunnel is viscerally gut-wrenching not only because of the horrifying aspect of the act itself, but because it is Alex being scarred. Alex symbolizes beauty in a world that has become saturated with the dark and grainy colors of the film. When she is sodomized, she then becomes part of that decay, instead of being a symbol of contrast. This is accentuated perfectly in the tunnel mise-en-scène:

When Alex initially descends into the tunnel, she is in a white dress, with the tunnel's red exterior acutely contrasting her state of innocence and purity; afterwards, Alex becomes thoroughly bloodied, blending in with the very red tunnels she once stood apart from.

The tunnel scene is so horrifying precisely because it carries a subtext that is far more terrifying than the rape itself—Alex's ruination is an extension of the destruction of good, beauty, and order; leaving the message that man has a long way to go before any form of meaningful enlightenment.

reply

September 27, 2021 Monday 4:40 PM ET

Having not seen 'Irreversible,' it sounds as if eroticism has completely taken over its cinematic world in how people act and behave. Living without consequences, either good or bad, comes off as a "do what you will; do as you please" kind of attitude. There is no past, present, or future because there is no seeking of any of them; only what people can define for themselves based on what they know. It won't work out since there is a difference between 'knowing about' and 'knowing.'

For example, how can a loving relationship know they are committed to each other, and say "you're my one, true love" when they are still seeing other people? A better expression here would be "you're first place when it comes to who I love, but the others still come in second, third, and fourth place, though it's you who I care about most." This in mind, how can this be defined as love if it's not the only priority? The kind of priority where 'loyal love' or 'faithful love'* represents unconditional complete trust, where faith is not blind but expressed freely, you know, what marriage is about; creating -- the very act of love. The way a woman loves is different from the way a man shows his love (as is a father's love and a mother's love); having both is marriage.

*Older meaning of 'jealous,' ironically

~~/o/

reply

What is unique here is Noé's ability to prevent any form of closure for the audience. The infamous tunnel scene happens early in the film when the characters are not fleshed out; so while the moment is horrifically graphic, Alex is a victim we are not well acquainted with. When Pierre kills the man at the club, we once again do not know the full scope of the violence, and are once again observing an act. This "objective" lens frames the amorality as if it were occurring anywhere. The scenes of violence are terrifying without any regard for the characters; and in this respect, Noé does an excellent job at giving the viewer a worldly perspective.

If we are to look at what Gaspar Noé may be saying with the references to Kubrick's work, we find that what is elevated in 2001 is the material. In fact, when looking at A Space Odyssey, we see no sign of spirituality, and this is highlighted perfectly in the depiction of the astronauts. Yet with Irreversible we see Noé remarking that any hyper-focus on temporal pleasures will lead to the dissolution and degradation of society and culture.

Indeed we find that characters in the film have very little, if any, redeeming qualities. There is certainly no sign of virtue anywhere, as everyone acts for their own benefit.

One not need look further than our own world to see what a lack of moral guidance has done for civilization as a whole. Children are taught how to have anal sex, but they are not taught how to love.

reply

September 28, 2021 Tuesday 12:30 AM ET

With sincere thanks, I shall reflect on your words considerably.

~~/o/

reply

"Children are taught how to have anal sex, but they are not taught how to love."
Or even just sex in general.

Also - could it really be that they are taught one and not taught another, or maybe also that, even if people are taught, they don't care about it at all either?

reply

I also wonder - where and how in general are they taught that and not taught the other?

reply

Interesting thoughts here. It's easy to teach sex, the basics at least, but seems to me love is learned not taught.

reply

Insightful post; I will ponder it. Thank you.

reply