Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé, 2009)

[zedz]

If anything Paz de la Huerta's character has the most agency that a female has ever had in one of Noe's films.

And this counts as a defence against charges of misogyny how?

[Phil]

If anything Paz de la Huerta's character has the most agency that a female has ever had in one of Noe's films.

And this counts as a defence against charges of misogyny how?

I assumed someone would say this. Perhaps mentioning her agency in the same response to a charge of misogyny was a poor/misleading decision on my part. So, to clarify: she is obviously a character with flaws (like everyone else in the movie), but she has the strength to make her own decisions - whether they're good or bad - and in the end she proves to be both the movie's emotional core and the source of its hopeful ending. There is nothing about her (or any female character here) that betrays a hatred of women to me. I would be interested to hear what people find to be specific examples that point to this.

[Tom Hagen]

I need to see it again but I'm still not getting why this was "homophobic" or "misogynistic." "The 16 year old boy made this" criticism I understand; the sexual politics criticism sounds like a rehashing of reactions to his previous film.

[mfunk9786]

See: amount of references to Adam Sandler in any given There Will Be Blood thread on the internet

[FerdinandGriffon]

There is nothing about her (or any female character here) that betrays a hatred of women to me. I would be interested to hear what people find to be specific examples that point to this.

She's nothing but a sex object for all the other characters, and especially for her brother.

Spoiler

She makes no decisions, unless you count getting a job as a stripper (which is just a decision to continue being a sex object) or getting an abortion (which is just a pathetic excuse for Noe to show a woman in extreme pain and have a cgi closeup of a fetus [and this scene really is completely uncalled for on a narrative and character level, as she goes through with another pregnancy with the same man later in the film]). All any of the women in the film are (three mothers and one sister included) is sex objects, or, to be more specific, tits and ass, as these are the only aspects of them that are given real screen time.

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

The two people who cause the most trouble for the protagonist (the drug dealer and the rat) are both homosexual.

the continuity of cinema space vs. cinema time

If there were any sign of life going on in the spaces between those directly connected to the narrative, Noe might have had something interesting to say about this. instead there were only stock backdrops, desolate streets, and empty rooms, which means that the overhead sequences consist of a completely straightforward narrative and timeline, padded out with meaningless and generic shots of nothing at all.

the way that emotions shift through the lens of memory/previous exposure

Uh, we have a straightforward narrative, followed by an enormous and clumsy block of exposition, followed by more straightforward narrative occasionally interrupted by a redundant and irritating flashback reminding us that the dude really wants to bang his mom/sister. There's no emotion, no memory here, just horniness and a complete lack of narrative economy.

but watching this movie and focusing on that before the sounds and images is just something I can't even imagine doing.

It's not that I focus on these things before the sounds and images, it's that they're there, and they're really obnoxious, and really, really in your face, and point to a way of seeing things that is so revolting and stupid that I soon lost interest in what was being seen.

Its commitment to the POV camera is incredibly rigid

Yeah, but it's also committed to other things completely arbitrarily. For example: in the out o body experience sequences, the camera moves almost exclusively horizontally. When Noe wants a close-up of the sister getting screwed, it breaks from this and moves vertically, but nearly all of the rest of the time this restriction is sin place. Why?

and so on and so on

[Phil]

She's nothing but a sex object for all the other characters, and especially for her brother.

Spoiler

She makes no decisions, unless you count getting a job as a stripper (which is just a decision to continue being a sex object) or getting an abortion (which is just a pathetic excuse for Noe to show a woman in extreme pain and have a cgi closeup of a fetus [and this scene really is completely uncalled for on a narrative and character level, as she goes through with another pregnancy with the same man later in the film]). All any of the women in the film are (three mothers and one sister included) is sex objects, or, to be more specific, tits and ass, as these are the only aspects of them that are given real screen time.

Claiming that she's "nothing but a sex object...especially for her brother" in the face of the numerous scenes that point to the emotional bond caused by their isolation seems to be pretty willfully misreading what is being presented on the screen. And moreover, I would argue that if we're going this route, then Linda's advances towards Oliver are far more explicitly realized in actu (the awkward neck kissing scene) than his ever are. Also, fwiw, unless I missed something (which I'll fully admit is possible)

Spoiler

the child isn't with the same man - the first was with the boss of the strip club, the second is with Alex from the night in the sex hotel, no? That scene also seems inarguably relevant to me insofar as it provides another of the numerous life/death mirrorings in the film.

The two people who cause the most trouble for the protagonist (the drug dealer and the rat) are both homosexual.

The drug dealer didn't "cause" any more trouble for Oliver than Alex or Linda or anyone else in the film; if anything he's the person Alex seems to have the least troublesome relationship with. And the kid is sniveling and nerdy and just generally sort of pathetic but there's nothing that openly marks him as a homosexual.

Yeah, but it's also committed to other things completely arbitrarily. For example: in the out o body experience sequences, the camera moves almost exclusively horizontally. When Noe wants a close-up of the sister getting screwed, it breaks from this and moves vertically, but nearly all of the rest of the time this restriction is sin place. Why?

It has plenty of vertical moves? Up and down buildings in particular, and the numerous shots that move around a circular object before entering it (which obviously isn't the most elegant metaphorical-symbolic motif on the face of the earth).

If it didn't have any emotional impact on you that's fine. I can safely say that for me personally - and for all the people I saw it with - it did, and that its structure played a big role in it. Where you see nothing but horniness and objectification I see a very nakedly drawn portrait of the emotional relationship between two siblings; one that, yes, does sometimes cross the line between what is acceptable in the expression of said emotional bond amongst most people with good manners, but a lack of good manners isn't something I'm ever going to fault a film for.

[rosko]

Is it not possible that portraying nasty gay characters is in fact NOT an attempt to say that homosexuality is degenerate (which I find highly unlikely given the interviews I have read where he talks about Irreversible's S&M club) but rather an attempt to say that, all parts of society contain repulsive characters and accepting this is part of the process of coming out of the common teenage boy mentality (which is all about repulsion/titilation) and accepting the confusing and twisted reality of adulthood. i.e. we cannot only look at those parts of society which we find to be consistant with our political view. For instance, to be in favour of full gay rights as a humanist, as both I am and Noe are, but then to refuse to accept that a portion of the gay community are involved with subcultures which most of the rest of society would be scornful of, is to do humanity or cinema a diservice. In addition to this, there is one particular scene in Irreversible - where the club customers choose not to help the drug-dealer while he is being beaten - which is nothing to do with homosexuality, and in fact is something that I have witnessed myself in a drunken nightclub full of heterosexuals. He is not saying, this is my world view, he is saying, look to society's fringes to understand the nature of its wider problems, because here we can see them in a distilled form - and yes, in a form which seems to fascinate teenagers, boys and girls - for good reason, they are going through changes which will stick with them for the rest of their lives.

And as to the misogyny, I would not wish a career in stripping on any female friend of mine, but does this mean that I should turn away in denial when I meet a woman, as I have often done, which seems comfortable to treat herself as a sex object, quite seperate from the obviously unjustifiable way that many men may objectify women? The Monica Belluci character from Irreversible is not particularly out of the ordinary in some of her attitudes and habits (several of which contradict one another) - she may not please feminist commentators who wish society was some other way, but she does reflect a real social phenomena, and something which does not exist in certain parts of the world. If Noe had made 50 movies, and every female character was more or less identical, then there would be a point to be made.

Stripping and the sex industry is a massive social phenomena, maybe not on this discussion board, but it has massive influence on most of the internet and modern cities as well as on many women's concept of their own sexuality. To try and deny that most people find something about it appealing, while also knowing that there is something very wrong about it, and that this can be validly portrayed cinematically, beyond the titilation of pornographic material, is again to edit the reality around us for no good reason. Also, why are film makers generally so obsessed with strip clubs - is Noe making a comment on the way they are often portrayed as a 'cool' backdrop for some cop/crime drama? I don't visit strip clubs and never have done because I believe that it is hypocritical, on the one hand to be disgusted by the idea of e.g. your girlfriend simulating sex with a customer, then to go and try to partake yourself. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of people who are not troubled by that contradiction as well as a growing number of people that seem to adopt a polygamous lifestyle in order to try and reconsile their different sexual interests. It is not a majority of the population, but it is a growing extreme - Noe is basically saying in interviews that sexual instinct has not been adequetly accepted for what it is by most people and not integrated into their lifestyle, so he tries to portray what he sees as some peoples failed attempts at doing so.

You could look at a TV series like 'The Sopranos' where we see a more tortured, guilt ridden polygamy and sexual objectification, but then why does all portrayals have to be like this? - after all, that is not how people experience these things in the moment. What if, rather than prejudging and anticipating our feelings, we were to use such films as thought experiments, to help us understand the characters - rather than the director trying to make characters appeal to us, bend our imaginations towards the point of view of these characters. Clearly that's not going to be an altogether pleasent experience, but it may still be worthwhile. Better than feeling good about ourselves as we enjoy a film which is covertley objectifying women, as many highly praised films do. Most of all, I watch Noe for the honesty - I find it a breath of fresh air (all be it followed by something stinky).

[zedz]

I need to see it again but I'm still not getting why this was "homophobic" or "misogynistic." "The 16 year old boy made this" criticism I understand; the sexual politics criticism sounds like a rehashing of reactions to his previous film.

Well, as I've said before, the gratuitous equation of 'homosexual' with pedophile and 'drug you, rape you, shit in your mouth' is prima facie homophobic. That's a big hole for Noe to dig himself out of, and all indications from the rest of the film are that he'd rather just wallow in it. It's not like it's a big plot point, but as far as I'm concerned that just makes it more indicative of the director's bigotry.

EDIT, in response to above post: And that's not a realistic portrayal of a negative gay character (in the sea of all those neutral or positive ones, huh?), it's the cheap caricature of an ignorant stunted adolescent. Sure, some gay men are involved in 'subcultures' (though why you'd want to divorce the gay subcultures from the straight or bi- or orientation-neutral ones begs plenty of questions) - but Noe's example throws all the most sensationalistic ones into a bucket. And that's the entirety of the character. Completely indefensible.

[Tom Hagen]

I suppose my confusion concerning the particularities of homophobia or misogyny in the film stem out of my sense that everyone involved in the proceedings was played by Noe to be an irredeemable, selfish, nihilistic asshole. I suppose that in parsing out Noe's contempt for humanity at large, I missed his contempt for particular parts of it.

[Zot!]

I think he's keenly aware that this is going to be the reaction, since he's by reputation a provocateur. If anything, it's a little bit too calculated.

[knives]

I think he's keenly aware that this is going to be the reaction, since he's by reputation a provocateur. If anything, it's a little bit too calculated.

Yeah, I don't think he is actually misogynistic nor homophobic (he is himself bi, correct?) but he turns his films into those things to stir controversy and appear 'cool'. What gets people to talking about something more than pissing them off? It's just an other element of his arrested development.

[rosko]

Well, as I've said before, the gratuitous equation of 'homosexual' with pedophile and 'drug you, rape you, shit in your mouth' is prima facie homophobic. That's a big hole for Noe to dig himself out of, and all indications from the rest of the film are that he'd rather just wallow in it. It's not like it's a big plot point, but as far as I'm concerned that just makes it more indicative of the director's bigotry.

EDIT, in response to above post: And that's not a realistic portrayal of a negative gay character (in the sea of all those neutral or positive ones, huh?), it's the cheap caricature of an ignorant stunted adolescent. Sure, some gay men are involved in 'subcultures' (though why you'd want to divorce the gay subcultures from the straight or bi- or orientation-neutral ones begs plenty of questions) - but Noe's example throws all the most sensationalistic ones into a bucket. And that's the entirety of the character. Completely indefensible.

In respect to Enter the Void, I cannot comment right now fully informed, but in relation to Irreversible, the main rapist in the story is not necessarily a homosexual - he frequents an S&M club, which appears to be mainly frequented by men but this may be on account of the extreme nature of the bondage and abuse, rather than any banning of women. I don't believe it is ever confirmed that he is homosexual, the tepia that is (the tapeworm) - I believe the reason why Noe has made him a drug dealer that hangs around this type of club is to demomstrate that people who are prepared to regularly abuse e.g. prostitutes, or rape or abuse people generally, have a curious type of sexuality which is not hetero, homo or bi - they are kind of A-sexual with regard to non abusive sex - violence and sex have completely merged. And of course drug dealers will simply go wherever the money takes them. Equally, while society may brand the patrons of the club 'gay', I'm not sure that it's quite as simple as that - they seem to be almost a seperate sexual group, again relating to abuse and violence - perhaps they have girlfriends waiting at home? And rather that trying to say, 'look how disgusting these people are', the extra footage on the DVD suggests that Noe is very curious about this subculture himself, while being a bit scared. So to compare that to teenager going around slagging off 'homo-gimps' or some similar insult, is a bit simplistic. I take it that the paedophile comment relates to Enter the Void, so I will have to look into that further, but I still feel that people are disgusted by being shown an aspect of society that they wish did not exist to contradict their own moral outlook with regard to minorities. I can fully understand this - I feel very uncomfortable watching movies about jihadis, because I grew up amongst peaceful muslims and struggle to recognise this type of muslim - doesn't mean they don't exist though.

Again, he has only made 2 films containing fetishistic characters which may be gay or bisexual, so why do we infer from 2 films that he is painting all gay characters the same? In Irreversible, gay characters have eventually called the police and assisted the injured men medically, so it's not like they just burned them alive and danced round the fire - reality hits and the emergency services are on the scene - the erotic trance is over. There is only 2 characters in the whole film which have little or no redeeming qualities - one, Philipe Nahon, is clearly heterosexual, and the other as I have explained is ambiguous and not necessarily gay.

If you ever have the misfortune to come across this type of violently sexual individual, I think you will discover that they like to toy with people's perception of their sexual identity to scare them - but usually they are not really gay as such, in my experience. Also, if you're going to say that most mainstream gay characters are portrayed negatively, you will have to back that up with a few example - they seem like more of an ignored group or backround group in films not specifically about a 'gay scene', rather than actually being portrayed in an overtly homophobic way. I think of all the media groups, hollywood is probably the least overtly homophobic in its portrayal of gay characters - would a big popualr TV drama or docu-drama have ever been made about the story shown in films like 'Philadelphia' or 'Milk' - doubt it. Six Feet Under is the only major hit which comes to mind which isn't using gay characters for comedy. The type of S&M culture shown by Gaspar, while being a minority element, has been very influencial in the history of the gay scenes and sex scenes generally around the world, as shown in documentaries such as Sex:The Revolution, so why try and censor it from being shown in a raw format? The editing of such things out of movies is phobic, phobic of the modern world.

[zedz]

Yeah, I don't think he is actually misogynistic nor homophobic

Though if his films are, isn't that a moral distinction that's dainty to the point of insignificance? Shouldn't Noe have to take responsibility for the representations he manufactures?

I'm not being flippant here, I actually think yours is potentially a much more interesting line of argument than most of what has been put forward to this point.

[knives]

I agree with you fully. It's far worse for a film to be homophobic just to gain popularity instead of it being sincere. It reminds me of the southern strategy a bit and that is completely foul. Noe's goal with these portrayals don't seem to be so much, "the gays are terrible little perverts," so much as, "let's gross out people with these characters hur-hur." The interview I linked to gives a perfect example of this when he gets upset by people laughing at a penis that was intended as 'dramatic and scary'.

[Phil]

Well, as I've said before, the gratuitous equation of 'homosexual' with pedophile and 'drug you, rape you, shit in your mouth' is prima facie homophobic.

But like I said before, when Alex says this about the drug dealer (whose name I'm blanking on) Oliver just sort of looks at him like he's talking like an idiot and proceeds to go over to the dealer's apartment by himself a half dozen times throughout the course of the movie without ever having anything approaching a negative experience with him (from a sexual perspective or otherwise). This "gratuitous equation" only exists in one character's words - it plays much less like Noe's worldview than the potential homophobia of the opening of Irreversible. The falsity of these accusations is driven home in the love hotel scene when the dealer is just sitting around in the room getting high while other people are fucking, a bit of passive spectatorship that's a pretty good distance away from raping and shitting on people.

[colinr0380]

So, to clarify: she is obviously a character with flaws (like everyone else in the movie), but she has the strength to make her own decisions - whether they're good or bad - and in the end she proves to be both the movie's emotional core and the source of its hopeful ending. There is nothing about her (or any female character here) that betrays a hatred of women to me. I would be interested to hear what people find to be specific examples that point to this.

I'd agree with you and think that this is a nice description of both how the butcher's daughter in Seul Contre Tous and Alex in Irreversible is used as well. But, at least in those two earlier films, this 'emotional core and hopeful ending' character is used as just a signifier of that - once Noé gets to that aspect it is as if he doesn't really know what else to with this idea apart from display it kind of reductively at just face value.

This goes back to my main criticisms not really being based on perceived misogyny or homophobia, or racism, or class based, which actually would provide some interesting material to debate the film and filmmaker on, but on the more damning feeling that these elements come about in Noé's films not by any directorial intent (either a positive or negative intent) but through a lack of thought about what such images might be conveying, even before the idea of taking such images and then actually doing something fresh or imaginative with them, making their portrayal deeper or trying to critique them in a novel way is even considered (which is something that, if successful, could have the potential to make a film a masterpiece). The technical aspects of Noé's films effortlessly take familiar visual ideas (voiceovers, unbroken camera shots, long takes) and then surpass almost any other film out there - it is just a shame (and often very frustrating since there is obvious talent there) that the actual content is not as lovingly detailed and engrossing.

That AV Club interview, I think, is highly revealing in Noé's comments on the end of 2001 as mostly being of interest to him as a drug trip experience, while not seeming to understand (or care) about the way it fits into the narrative. That might be a fun way to look at the Stargate sequence but it misses the way that it is a quite close attempt to portray the journey in Arthur C. Clarke's book (which is why the film keeps briefly cuting back to show Bowman throughout the sequence - to show it not purely as something first person and experiential but still tied to a character - something which Noé doesn't seem to understand the point of).

The content is there in 2001 - there can be issues raised with how subsumed it is under the visual 'wow!' factor of the Douglas Trumbull imagery, and whether the imagery overpowers the story for too long a period (and the whole film imagery as empty spectacle versus dry, prosaic description in the Clarke novel), but it is that underlying narrative that anchors the visuals and gives them greater power than if the Stargate section were just experienced in isolation.

It seems very 'film 101' to say this but both 2001 and Zardoz, both of which seem strong Noé influences, might be best remembered for their visuals but stay longest in the memory for the way those visuals accompany and deepen their respective narratives. Even a wacky off kilter narrative such as that of Zardoz provides that interesting framework on which to embellish with the visuals.

[Galen Young]

In this video interview with John Waters, he's asked "what are the most obscene films ever made?" (at around 06:30), he runs down the usual suspects then says "Irreversible is a great great shocker. That's a great movie. I'd put that at the top of my list." I'm happy to agree. Had to laugh in this interview with Noe where he says "Enter the Void is Avatar for the art crowd" -- reminds me of when Peter Greenaway said "Prospero's Books is the Terminator 2 for intellectuals."

[knives]

In this video interview with John Waters, he's asked "what are the most obscene films ever made?" (at around 06:30), he runs down the usual suspects then says "Irreversible is a great great shocker.

Anyone know what the holocaust movie he's thinking of is?

[MyNameCriterionForum]

In this video interview with John Waters, he's asked "what are the most obscene films ever made?" (at around 06:30), he runs down the usual suspects then says "Irreversible is a great great shocker.

Anyone know what the holocaust movie he's thinking of is?

Been a while since I've seen it, but might it be In a Glass Cage? Great film, regardless.

[knives]

Thanks, sounds interesting and appears to be on DVD, plus who better to trust on outliers than Waters?

[sammy h]

From what I had heard and read beforehand, I was expecting Enter the Void to be like Irreversible, but its not an intense assault in the way that film was. It may have more in common with something like Kaufman's Synecdoche, New york thematically, than it does with Noe's previous work, in that both are about looking for meaning in the texture of existence, memory and love. I was blown away by it, and urge everyone to see it on a big screen instead of waiting for the DVD. It's a wild emotional ride, and except for maybe a moment here and there, it works extremely well. It didn't feel too long at all. And for all its amazing visual/aural spectacle, the thing that resonates the strongest is that the film is drenched in a sadness and beauty for life-it's the simple quite scenes that stay with me the most. Noe takes so many insane risks with this movie, it's unbelievable. And its worth respect for that alone.
It seems like many negative opinions of the actual film are based on what people think of Noe's previous movies and what they infer is him being merely a provocateur based on interviews, which is ridiculous, and avoids dealing with the film directly. And to the criticism that it's too simplistic, all I can think of are of the negative reviews that greeted 2001 when it first came out. Every film should be taken on it's own terms- for what it is, and not what it isn't. Enter the Void is a straight up masterpiece.

[rosko]

Yeah, I don't think he is actually misogynistic nor homophobic

Though if his films are, isn't that a moral distinction that's dainty to the point of insignificance? Shouldn't Noe have to take responsibility for the representations he manufactures?

I'm not being flippant here, I actually think yours is potentially a much more interesting line of argument than most of what has been put forward to this point.

I respect these last few critiques much more than previous attempts - this point by zedz is central - should Noe have to take some sort of responsibility for the terrible behaviour of the characters he creates (and possibly insert content to show this)? Its a worn out argument in the world of music, with added layers of complexity in films. There is clearly a fear that some people are watching these films as shock pornography, getting off on the brutality/extremity in an entirely puerile way. This is something that deeply concerns me - when I offered to bring a friend of mine along to Enter the Void, I forewarned him about the content and he said - 'whoa, sounds cool, trippy.' - a response that worries me slightly if that's the only reason he wants to see it.

To balance that, I have to say that I am surprised that so many people are so shocked by a lot of the things that are portrayed - I would not regard most of what goes on as particularly unusual, but then maybe that's just my own social experiences. Clearly there are also things which are so bad they are barely watchable - most of all when Monica Belluci is beaten and raped in the previous film.

So I don't think that the films are as shocking as people remember them - which poses an interesting question of why they stick in peoples' throats so much. Secondly, in order to see if we were being fair to films, we would have to compare the social responsibility, or lack there of, to another film - Michael Winterbottom's "The Killer Inside Me" would be a good one to choose because it contains similar controversies but a totally different general approach to film making and aesthetics. Another good comparison to make would be 'Inside', the french horror - because it attempts to be far more shocking that Noe or anything else, yet despite sounding like it would be on paper, it just does not have the same psychological impact on viewers as Irreversible - and as far as I can see they are 2 totally different categories of film, not that you would know it from people's descriptions of them. I would place Irreversible's content in the same category as films like Closer, A Ma Soeur, The White Ribbon and The Woodsman - uncomfortable films about people who think they have good/righteous intentions, but who end up abusing people anyway (carried off by brilliant acting). All of those films made me uncomfortable about what the director/actor was trying to say exactly, as with Noe, but in the end I concluded they were all worthwhile and in some ways a breath of fresh air in an industry that too often wants to either indulge or lecture the audience.

[zedz]

Your defences of the film keep insisting that the people who don't like it have that opinion because they are shocked (shocked!) by the content or subject matter, which is not what anybody around here has been arguing. And I haven't noticed anybody equating the characters' behaviour with the filmmaker's, either - how Noe chooses to construct and characterise his characters is an authorial decision, and if we find those characters simplistic, shallow and stereotyped and the ideas they illustrate puerile, that's the director's failing, not the character's.

[Max von Mayerling]

Mr. Noe, quoted in the New York Times:

"It's funny to shock people, play with them, make them cry, get them horny," Mr. Noe said matter of factly in a recent telephone interview. "You're just playing with very simple emotions."

[sammy h]

yeah, it's called making movies.