Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé, 2009)

[Tark]

Bye!

Enjoy life without me.

See ya!

[mfunk9786]

I'm just glad that these movies are getting someone so worked up. If that in itself isn't art, what is? (yes, I made that sentence deliberately annoying.)

[Finch]

Bye!
Enjoy life without me.

See ya!

How many more cretinous one-liner posts from Tark that contribute absolutely nothing does this forum have to suffer through before the mods put a stop to it? (He's been indulged enough already with two Infighting threads to his name)

[Galen Young]

What I want for Christmas:

Thanks for the heads up -- pre-ordered! And it includes the long version too, awesome!

[Tark]

I'm insulted, Finch. I only wish that this thread get back to topic.

Now, to topic (you're welcome): I really believe Noe represents perhaps the most refreshing, original eyes in cinema today. Beyond Tarr and Malick, I'm blanking on anyone who is currently making films that are more impressive (in their varied ways).

I reject most of what is seen or conveyed in his films, they're beyond sickening. However, the form that is employed is breathtaking and truly exciting, so much so that I don't even understand how what I'm seeing is being done (cgi, camera tricks, you got me!). So I look forward to seeing Enter the Void and hope it will be his finest film to date. Despicable morals and all.

[Peacock]

What's the point in watching something if all your getting from it is the wow-factor from the visuals?
Beautiful but empty films get boring fast, we all know it.
But it's worse when you watch a film you find REPULSIVE morally, and yet still stick with it because technically it's impressive.

For me this totally undermines art and intelligence, a crowd of MTV music video watchers, or the modern day young people who are finally able to afford to make movies using digital, and then spend all their time trying to get the shallowest focus and heavily graded look.

There are some truly amazing films being made these days, particularly the so-called Modern Minimalist Films, where the technique isn't special beyond the long shot. All focus is on the subjects, the themes.

Sorry if this is a rant post, but it just feels unbelievable that people here watch movies they find unpleasant morally, just for the technical bravado.

[Tark]

I find 99.9% of films morally horrible. But I have to watch them because if I didn't there would be nothing to see.

To lump Noe in with music video directors isn't exactly accurate. More talented and uses his techniques to greater effect than the videos directors can - that's why they're making videos for Lady Gaga (whoever that is).

The average art film is employing hand held(lazy), purposefully shaky(lazy), naturally lit (lazy) video, having the opposite extreme represented by Noe is welcome.

Also what I'm getting at isn't totally visual, tone is also a factor. However film is primarily a visual art. That should always be the first focus.


Has Noe created a new cinema language? Probably. We'll see.

[Gropius]

What's the point in watching something if all your getting from it is the wow-factor from the visuals?
Beautiful but empty films get boring fast, we all know it.
But it's worse when you watch a film you find REPULSIVE morally, and yet still stick with it because technically it's impressive.

To reiterate the point I made to David on the first page of this thread:

Privileging 'the visuals' has always been the standard aestheticist position; if one were privileging political or moral integrity, one might as well turn to newspapers or polemical prose rather than film. The clichéd example to cite would be Leni Riefenstahl: Triumph of the Will is still held up as a classic of cinematic art, even though it functioned as propaganda for a political ideology most would now consider 'morally repulsive'. Ditto Griffith's The Birth of a Nation. One might also point to the racist portrayal of Indians in many classic Hollywood Westerns, or the misogynistic treatment of women in Horror. Surely it is possible to separate ideological critique from appreciation of aesthetic form: indeed, that is one of the duties of film criticism.

Personally, I don't find the intellectual content of Noé's films repulsive, just perhaps a bit puerile. I would, however, reiterate that Enter the Void, while structurally messy and often ridiculous, was unquestionably one of the most formally innovative and visually distinctive features of 2009, and definitely worth a viewing on those grounds alone. If one disagrees with this position, there is certainly no shortage of mediocre but politically enlightened social realist pictures (particularly from Britain: Meadows, Arnold, et al) to watch instead.

Of course, I agree that Noé will never be a 'pantheon director' (for me, you, or the vast majority of critics) because of his intellectual shortcomings. Just looking down my own 2009 best-of list, for the all praise I've given it, I'd probably still rank Enter the Void below such a small-scale and visually restrained effort as Radu Jude's The Happiest Girl in the World.

[Kellen]

If anyone is interested, the film will be at the ifc center/theater in New York. Gaspar Noe will be there in person too.

Starts Fri! Director Gaspar Noe and star Nathan Brown in person Sat at 7:15 & 10:10, Sun at 4:15, 5:45, & 7:15!

Provocative, audacious and visionary, Gaspar Noe (Irreversible) pushes the boundaries of hallucinatory cinema with this exploration of sex, drugs, life and death. A brother and sister scratch out a living in Tokyo’s underworld–Oscar’s a small-time dealer, Linda (Paz de la Huerta, The Limits of Control) is an exotic dancer. One night, a police bust goes horribly wrong, and Oscar is shot. But as he lies dying, his spirit refuses to leave the world. Instead, it wanders through the city, its visions growing ever more distorted and nightmarish.

NR, 137 Minutes, In English and Japanese with English subtitles.

[James]

If anyone is interested, the film will be at the ifc center/theater in New York. Gaspar Noe will be there in person too.

The film also has a one-week run starting Friday at Los Angeles' Landmark Nuart Theater.

[knives]

AVClub interview
He comes across as being more intelligent than his films, but from his expressed interests for the film it's immediately obvious what has gone wrong in the past, still can't say anything about this new film.

[Kellen]

I got a chance to see this yesterday with Gaspar Noé and Nathaniel Brown in attendance for the Q & A. I was going to type something last night but I was trying to let the film sink in because to be honest it seemed like sensory overload. Noé talks to the press quite frequently and he did to us about his love for Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and it is easy to see the influence. There are numerous shots of flashing colors(must like towards the end of 2001 when David goes through the infinite), also the films goes through quite a few stretches without dialogue and we just float through the city viewing the landscape. Much like in Noé's first film I Stand Alone there are themes of incest brought up. When asked about the incest in I Stand Alone and Enter the Void Noé replied to the young lady saying: "Well, I love my mother very very much." When I first arrived at the theater there was a note on the film's poster saying: Enter the Void features graphic violence and sexual content, pretty much just a warning. When I was watching the film I was waiting for a really violent scene like in Irreversible at the gay club. However, we didn't really get a scene like that, sure there is a bloody flashback, but nothing too extreme. Towards the end of the film's conclusions there is quite a bit of sex(straight/gay), which is part of the reason for the warning. Noé spoke during the Q & A about how he took a range of psychedelics and had to explain to the post production company they were working with how to create the scenes with drug hallucinations. The film seems to focus on Oscar's relationships with his sister, mother and hints at a sexual attraction. I admired the film for what it tried to do, I can't really remember watching a film like this in terms of the way it was shot. The film did seem to drag a little bit at times mostly when we see a white flashing light/random colors that you think would go off the screen but sit for a minute or two. By the way this version had 17 minutes cut(Noé said that the full version would be showing later in the week). I did actually enjoy the film, I'll probably buy it to check out the special features on the technical aspects. Noé said that around 85% of Tokyo was CGI. I got a chance to speak with Noé after the screening he was eager to talk about films, he was really friendly. I think I had a different impression of how he would be just because his body of work is so graphic/crazy etc. It was a bit odd after the applause and the lights came on for the Q & A, a few people were heading towards the exit. A lot of people were dead silent which led Noé to try to explain the film's ending and almost giving an impromptu quiz on if the audience understood the film's ending. I think that most people were just overloaded from what they watched, after a minute or two people started asking questions. I would say check the film out even if you were unsure, because it really is quite an experience you probably won't get at most other movies.

[J Adams]

The opening credit sequence is the best credit sequence ever.

[FerdinandGriffon]

By the way this version had 17 minutes cut(Noé said that the full version would be showing later in the week). I did actually enjoy the film, I'll probably buy it to check out the special features on the technical aspects.

Can you explain further? Did you see it at IFC? I was going to catch it there tonight but I'd really much rather wait if it's a cut version.
Seems like very strange practice to premiere the cut version and then bring in the uncut a week later.

[Kellen]

By the way this version had 17 minutes cut(Noé said that the full version would be showing later in the week). I did actually enjoy the film, I'll probably buy it to check out the special features on the technical aspects.

Can you explain further? Did you see it at IFC? I was going to catch it there tonight but I'd really much rather wait if it's a cut version.
Seems like very strange practice to premiere the cut version and then bring in the uncut a week later.

Yeah, during the Q & A Gaspar had said that this version was cut down by 17 minutes, and then he said something about the full film being shown later on in the week. I guess it's possible that I could have misunderstood him. All of the hallucination scenes are still in there, so i'm not quite sure what was actually cut from this version(It's still long at 2 hours 43 min). At the moment IFC is the only place showing the film in NYC at the moment, so i am not quite sure if other theaters will be showing the full version. I'll try to find out more info. You should check it out though man, Noé will be there tonight too at 4:15, 5:45, and 7:15. The lines were huge last night so it would be good to try and get there a little early to get a good seat.

EDIT

I misinterpreted what he said in regards to showing a longer version and showing it later on(sorry for the confusion). I just found this on the ifc website in regards to the cut:

A 137-minute cut of the film will be released theatrically here in the States, but there's a longer version (which I saw at Lincoln Center in August) which clocks in at 160 minutes. What compelled you to also assemble a director's cut?

Actually, it's nothing like a director's cut. There's one cut that was my original cut -- that's the version that has been released in France and now in Germany, and almost all over Europe. But I signed a contract saying that if the movie went over 2 hours and 20 minutes, I had to deliver a shorter version. So I found a solution that we could pull out a whole 17-minute segment toward the end of the movie, and the movie would still work. I reedited the negative lab rolls in a way that the movie was made up of nine reels, but you could pull out reel number seven, and go directly from reel six to reel eight. Actually, that particular reel doesn't have anything controversial. It starts just after the abortion scene, and ends when the sister is throwing the ashes in the sink. Mainly what you miss is that whole part of the movie where he [Nathaniel Brown's Oscar] wakes up at the morgue and thinks he's alive, but they tell him no, you're just dreaming.

I reconnect with both versions. The shorter version was just a request from the American distributor. And in England, they're going to release both. They think it's maybe going to be more commercial, and also people might enjoy the reduced version and then might want to see the extended version, which is the original version, on VOD or on DVD. Sometimes having two versions makes it even more commercial because people who like it want to see both.

I know in France, they proposed to me, "Why don't we release the shorter version in France and then put the director's cut on DVD?" I said no, it's not the director's cut. But I want the two versions to come to DVD. And in France, it's the opposite. On the DVD, we're going to add the shorter version as a bonus.

[mfunk9786]

The cut version removes my favorite reel of the film (including a gut-wrenching, heartbreaking dream that, for me, was the scene with the most emotional impact). So I'd definitely recommend seeking out the full-length cut if at all possible.

[FerdinandGriffon]

You should check it out though man, Noé will be there tonight too at 4:15, 5:45, and 7:15. The lines were huge last night so it would be good to try and get there a little early to get a good seat.

I would, but Shinoda's going to be at Walter Reade tonight, and there's really no choice for me between septuagenarian Japanese New Waver and young New French Extremist.

[Kellen]

You should check it out though man, Noé will be there tonight too at 4:15, 5:45, and 7:15. The lines were huge last night so it would be good to try and get there a little early to get a good seat.

I would, but Shinoda's going to be at Walter Reade tonight, and there's really no choice for me between septuagenarian Japanese New Waver and young New French Extremist.

Oh really? I had no idea he was going to be there. Thats awesome, I wish I didn't have to watch my money cause I would check that out for sure. Where exactly is Walter Reade located at; I've only been living in the city for a month or so.

[Mr Sausage]

Where exactly is Walter Reade located at; I've only been living in the city for a month or so.

Can't Resist

[FerdinandGriffon]

Saw the Shinoda (The Ballad of Orin) w/ Q&A, and then Enter the Void. Afterwards ran into Noe at a party. tried to talk to him about the despicable and mind-numbing spectacle I'd endured purely out of the principle of not talking about a book or film until I've finished it; all he wanted to talk about was the CGI moneyshot and the mind-blowing ambiguity about whether the dweeb was high or not. This was an awful film, interesting on paper but excruciating in experience. Everyone who's merely curious: it's not worth the misogyny, crank-freudianisms, inconsistent cinematography, homophobia, and generally 16 year old perspective of how the world works.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I know this film will have as many critics as admirers but I was definitely stunned by it. It's either a masterpiece or trash. It's one of the most visually hypnotic films I have ever seen. Just take those opening credits. And it continues for the next couple of hours. You can't say Noe doesn't use his camera to reflect the physical, emotional and mental states of his main characters. Whether the substance backs up the style, who knows, but I was enthralled.

[rosko]

Saw the Shinoda (The Ballad of Orin) w/ Q&A, and then Enter the Void. Afterwards ran into Noe at a party. tried to talk to him about the despicable and mind-numbing spectacle I'd endured purely out of the principle of not talking about a book or film until I've finished it; all he wanted to talk about was the CGI moneyshot and the mind-blowing ambiguity about whether the dweeb was high or not. This was an awful film, interesting on paper but excruciating in experience. Everyone who's merely curious: it's not worth the misogyny, crank-freudianisms, inconsistent cinematography, homophobia, and generally 16 year old perspective of how the world works.

I'm sorry to pick on this particular quote, because there are many similar but less well expressed versions of this sentiment, and I believe this is at the heart of how many people understand Noe. Or indeed misunderstand.

I will be watching the film next week, but on the basis of Irreversible, I have no doubt that much of it will indeed be 'excruciating', in some sense of the word - but for people like myself, this is to be valued, retrospectively. As I stated previously, it should be acceptable to create cinema which is an arresting experience, with no humour, which does not directly infer what you should think while watching it. I see no problem with this unless someone tries to dictate that all cinema should be like this. Noe is not somehow a threat to other cinematic approaches - he loves other approaches himself. He is not somehow like a Nazi propogandist, only praiseworthy as an aesthetic artist, just because he shows acts which you may find sickening - the difference is that the propogandist serves a poltical agenda which is clearly documented and understood - Noe has a much more simple and well meaning intention. Neither is he like an exploitative hollywood gorey horror writer just because he writes about characters you may find repugnant, any more so than Nabokov is for Lolita.

Secondly, I don't think that his films have ever or will ever claim to demonstrate 'how the world works'. They are very much about subjective experience, and understanding the human condition through this narrow tunnel of experience. There is no attempt to appeal to some preconceived audience or justify the actions or decisions of characters in movie - from my own experiences, it seems to me that he is very much an excellent observationalist, not a moralist or visionary - the moral of the story is entirely down to you. That does not mean that the movie is all about visuals, in the way that you might say Avatar was, but rather there is simply no message or perspective given by the films, other than, 'I have observed this and the result of what I have seen may be.. this, but I don't really know why'.

Freud will not give you a complete understanding of the world or even the interaction between different psychologies either, but rather an idea of some broad patterns not fully explained yet. For instance, not every man suffers from an Oedipal complex as specific as Freud's concept, but there is some vague tendency in many people, as observed in Noe's films. You could as easily call Freud's 'laws' (as some see them) krank-newtonian, in the sense that not all of his writings were entirely scientific or borne out by subsequent statistical research, although personally I would choose not to insult a great thinker in this way. If Freud appears in some crude way in Noe's films it is because he has observed that the people around him in his youth were influenced by his ideas, not because Noe is trying to give us a lesson in psychology. If a character makes some stupid reference to the Tibetan Book of The Dead, it is not because Noe thinks that he is a theological expert. Look at the interviews he has given with regard to the dealer and other characters which appear in Enter the Void - he calls them idiots himself, and explains that when he was young, he hung out with similar characters which seemed ultra-cool at the time but later turned out to be fools. They are valid lives nonetheless.

There are many 'trashy' situations in these films - does that mean the films themselves are trash? I have done trashy things in my life - does that make it worthless? If people were sitting watching Monica Belluci getting beaten while masturbrating, that would transform Irreversible into trash entertainment, but I suppose Noe is trusting the audience not to do that. To me, if someone goes through most of their lifes refusing to hear other peoples' difficult or even disgusting experiences, and opting instead to only 'elevate' themselves with high art and inspiring stories, they are missing a crucial piece of the human experience - and in doing so, they render high-art 'trash' by removing its context and therefore its grounding in human suffering.

Rather than being a philosophical theory, I think the films are more like a succinct, simple political statement - 'Look at people around you - look hard'. That's really it. If you want anything deeper, it will have to be from your own reflections, not the films. And I can really see no problem with this as one approach to cinema.

If you don't see the point in this approach, at least be honest enough to admit that you lack this valid ability that other people possess and use. Personally I am sick of movies about contrived idealist characters - e.g. If someone could secretely make a documentary about me they may find me saying stupid things on a daily basis, things that may make me appear to have a 'cod' understanding of some intellectual movement, or racist, or sexist, or pathetic or morally repugnant, but I don't think I am being presumptious to assume that I am not defined by these stupid comments and do not deserve to be damned or judged as 'trash'. If you only want to see characters which are balanced, inspiring, consistant with the academic theories du jour or alternately, evil monoliths, then what does that say about your own ability to recognise mistakes or stupidity in yourself?

It seems fairly clear that Noe's world is simply a world which many people do not want to see. That is their choice I suppose, but then why pretend that it has no value for others or relationship with reality? If someone could criticise Noe without hinting at a sort of social censorship of this type of work, the arguments might stand up better.

If you are curious, look first before you decide anything. When we are surrounded by things which do not make us curious that will be a culture of trash.

[FerdinandGriffon]

If you are curious, look first before you decide anything.

I appreciate the intelligent and sensitive way in which you are approaching the subject, but I really must suggest that you take your own advice and watch the film before criticizing my judgment. Certain things I said will make much more sense to you when you have the necessary context. The way you're describing it now is attractive but idealized (and very close to how I would have been genuinely happy to have found the actual film), and I think you'll probably adjust your opinions to some degree once you've had firsthand experience with the results of Noe's developed cinematic vision.

[rosko]

If you are curious, look first before you decide anything.

I appreciate the intelligent and sensitive way in which you are approaching the subject, but I really must suggest that you take your own advice and watch the film before criticizing my judgment. Certain things I said will make much more sense to you when you have the necessary context. The way you're describing it now is attractive but idealized (and very close to how I would have been genuinely happy to have found the actual film), and I think you'll probably adjust your opinions to some degree once you've had firsthand experience with the results of Noe's developed cinematic vision.

As I said, I will be watching the film at the first possible oppertunity in Glasgow, which is next week.
I've seen pirated clips and what I was describing in terms of Noe's general approach was based on Carne, I Stand Alone and Irreversible, which are the only 3 I have seen. The erotic destricted piece sounds like crap and does not look too good from the online clips so I have not bothered with that one - afterall, I'm not a member of some Noe worshipping cult as the 'it's all trash' expert seemed to think I was - indeed, Noe may well have come across as an idiot when you met him - doesn't mean he is.

[Phil]

and I think you'll probably adjust your opinions to some degree once you've had firsthand experience with the results of Noe's developed cinematic vision.

Well, I have seen it and I'll still take issue with basically all of the negative descriptions you put forth of it.

misogyny/homophobia

I can understand this claim being leveled against I Stand Alone and Irreversible even if I think it's a misreading in both cases, but I just don't see where you're coming from with it here in the slightest. Because there are lots of shots of naked females? Because someone has to work as a stripper? If anything Paz de la Huerta's character has the most agency that a female has ever had in one of Noe's films. As far as homophobia I don't think there's much of an argument to be made here that what is present is an expression of Noe's worldview (which I can understand re. Irreversible) rather than just a trait of a character in Alex who has plenty of other flaws - no-one else seems to give much of a shit one way or the other that the drug dealer is a homosexual...Oliver just sort of looks at him like he's an idiot when he's going on and on about it.

crank-freudianisms

Watching a Noe film for the ideas that are coming out of the characters' mouths just seems to be doing it entirely wrong to me: all of the arguments here for me all formal: the continuity of cinema space vs. cinema time, the way that emotions shift through the lens of memory/previous exposure (I said this in the thread about Promises Written In Water, but structurally the use of repetition/modulation here is as truly jazzy as cinema gets), the pure power of sound and light. I'm not going to argue that some of the incest stuff isn't goofy, because it obviously is, but watching this movie and focusing on that before the sounds and images is just something I can't even imagine doing.

inconsistent cinematography

Again, I just don't see this in the slightest. Its commitment to the POV camera (1st person when Oliver is alive, druggy Dardennes after he's dead) is incredibly rigid, as is the candy-colored palette that it's working with. Its repetition of certain camera moves is so thorough that it starts to border on Joyce or Pynchon in its obsessive symbolism. Where exactly is the inconsistency here?