Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé, 2009)

[colinr0380]

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?

It sounds a little like Apt Pupil (though the short story goes much further in the dream sequence of the boy's Nazi domination fantasies).

[antnield]

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?

It sounds a little like Apt Pupil (though the short story goes much further in the dream sequence of the boy's Nazi domination fantasies).

Definitely In a Glass Cage (aka Tras el Cristal), although the film's write-up in 100 European Horror Films does note its similarities to King's Apt Pupil.

[conspirator12]

Here's an interview with Noe and one of this board's favorite filmmakers, Harmony Korine: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/fea ... korine.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[j99]

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 one point of view from Alex. However, when we eventually meet the character, he turns out to be fairly placid, and contradicts Alex's view of him. If he was depicted in the film the way he is described then I would agree with your accusation of homophobia, but he isn't, and it's a negative reflection on Alex, his unreliability as a character. I think to accuse the whole film of being homophobic on the basis of that line of dialogue alone is a ludicrous position to take. I would argue that Alex is naive, even ignorant rather than homophobic.

[Antoine Doinel]

Had the unfortunate pleasure of sitting through this one recently and its utterly terrible. No, it's not provocative, daring, shocking or controversial -- it's utterly boring. In fact, I nearly fell asleep. Noé spends two and half hours fumbling around trying to make something interesting or vaguely important regarding the Tibetan Book Of The Dead while failing miserably in the process. The acting is atrocious from both leads, though it probably doesn't help that the script barely gives anything to work with. And the relationship crafted between the brother and sister would make Paul Haggis proud; it's seriously that cornball and melodramatic. And yeah, vaguely incestuous, but again, not drawn out well enough to be determined or really matter.

Noé has about a half dozen interesting camera tricks that make the first half hour somewhat engaging and then repeats them, over and over, for two more hours. If you want to see endless overhead shots of downtown Tokyo, a POV device that gets tired fast, and lots and lots and lots of breasts (or you just want to see Paz De La Huerta in various states of undress) then hey, knock yourself out. And the extended hardcore sex sequence is nothing that will titillate (by the point it comes up, you're really too tired to care) and it's fairly tame or rote by porn standards. And there are definitely moments towards the end of the film where people burst out laughing/groaned in the screening I was in.

One of the worst movies I sat through this year. And I saw "Grown Ups."

[knives]

(or you just want to see Paz De La Huerta in various states of undress)

In that case just watch the great The Limits of Control. Her character is even named Nude.

[j99]

Edit.

[domino harvey]

HOW DARE HE WATCH A MOVIE

[AALFW]

Any details/rumors on the US Blu release yet? saw this yesterday and loved it.

[Antoine Doinel]

I mention the comparison to porn because, knowing Noé's reputation and filmography (shocking isn't it?), the extended hardcore sex sequence is barely provocative and nothing you couldn't find with a cursory search on the internet. Moreover, it doesn't add anything to the barely there thematic arc of the film. "Enter The Void" is a mess but again, just my opinion.

As for "Grown Ups" it was an advance screening that I got tickets for and of the two movies, yes, if I was forced to choose one to watch again, it would be the one where Kevin James goes flying into a tree.

If Gaspar Noé really wants to be provocative, I'd love to see him cast Kevin James in his next movie.

[JonathanM]

Had the unfortunate pleasure of sitting through this one recently and its utterly terrible. No, it's not provocative, daring, shocking or controversial -- it's utterly boring. In fact, I nearly fell asleep. Noé spends two and half hours fumbling around trying to make something interesting or vaguely important regarding the Tibetan Book Of The Dead while failing miserably in the process. The acting is atrocious from both leads, though it probably doesn't help that the script barely gives anything to work with. And the relationship crafted between the brother and sister would make Paul Haggis proud; it's seriously that cornball and melodramatic. And yeah, vaguely incestuous, but again, not drawn out well enough to be determined or really matter.

I found it to be -- on a thematic and a technical level -- very much a revisitation of Irreversible. Both films are broadly secular but nonetheless 'spiritual' films that seek meaning through an exploration of metaphysical books, though Enter the Void does so with a good deal less subtlety and a good deal more self-indulgence and repetition. Both books make extensive use of 'swinging' camera movements and audio effects designed to provoke feelings of unease and tension. Both films use shocking imagery but Enter the Void does so in a way that is much more difficult to justify given the film's themes.

I agree that it isn't provocative, or thought provoking or even interesting. It is an intensely dull piece of film-making that suggests -- to me at least -- that Noe is increasingly wasted as a director and might well benefit creatively by stepping down to a DoP position as he clearly struggles with script and directing actors.

[conspirator12]

there's a pretty hilarious documentary on vice where noe (who apparently hasn't slept for three weeks) talks about how he hasn't read the script in six months. and this is during filming. nathaniel brown also mentioned in an interview that noe told the actors the script was just "for show." there ya go!

[JonathanM]

That would suggest that Inland Empire is a decent point of comparison, methodologically speaking at least. At least Lynch didn't just re-make Blue Velvet when he decided to work without a a proper script.

[knives]

Finally saw this and while I went into it very skeptical of Noe growing up as a film maker the opening credits and hallucination scene changed that. Both are visually devastating and work significantly to raise hopes. Sadly Noe can't hold onto to this and within the hour I went right back to my starting point. Well, that's not entirely true. I do think as a director Noe has improved immensely, developing a bag of tricks, but that is mostly a sign of how dire he started.
While there are a couple of problems with the film there is only one that can't be swept under the carpet and that is that the film has characters. As an hour visual exercise this may have been a great film, but he adds in these characters and makes them talk and thinks there's something to be invested in, but doesn't give enough characterization for that to be true. If you were to take the film as it is and edit out every frame with dialogue on the soundtrack the emotions may gather momentum. As is the film stagnates.
An other problem in trying to develop such a traditional narrative is that while his tricks are exciting he hasn't developed much variation. There's about a total of six things he does here and he repeats them over and over again until they lose purpose and turn dull and bland. It doesn't help that it's all been done (better) before with the shots taken from Godard, WKW, Kubrick, and The Lady in the Lake.
It's particularly sad when I'm begging for more scenes of the misogynistic and homophobic type. After the initial rush those moments were the only thing keeping me awake. With the misogyny I could wax philosophical over the film and also gathered a couple of laughs. As for the homophobia, or rather the attempt to look cool resulting in homophobia, came up with the only entertaining character in the movie. Every scene with this guy was a relative blast just because of the character's absurdity.

Also it's a bit odd that there is competition enough for me to be able to say this film has the worst CGI penis I've seen in theaters this year.

[Nothing]

we find the characters simplistic, shallow and stereotyped and the ideas they illustrate puerile

My God, I agree with zedz for once... Although the picture is technically brilliant (anyone who says otherwise is in denial). The Love Hotel sequence is quite beautiful and would have made a good short for the Destricted project.

[zedz]

Who are you and what have you done with the real Nothing? I know you've been away for a while, but I thought those body snatcher pods were supposed to work overnight.

But yes, bad in so many ways, but worth seeing once for the R&D.

[swo17]

The only enjoyment I've ever been able to get out of Gaspar Noé so far is from trying to say his name like a pirate would.

[zedz]

Or a Valley Girl? GasPAR? No way!

[swo17]

I just figured out the opening line for my pirate-out-of-water-in-Beverly-Hills film, Shake That Booty!

[swo17]

In case it isn't obvious, that opening sequence would run thusly:

GUY ON BEACH (sees pirate): Gasp!
PIRATE: Arrrr!
VALLEY GIRL: No way!

End scene.

[domino harvey]

I always assumed it was pronounced "What else is playing?"

[Nothing]

Btw, for those who are interested, I must report that subtitles are forced on the French blu-ray. It is also lacking a Beavis & Butthead commentary track.

[R0lf]

I thought the movie was homophobic because it deliberately plays on heterosexual fear of anal sex. I saw this with a fairly loud audience and every time the gay drug dealer was on screen someone would let out some involuntary gasp or comment. It wasn't for me just that there was a bad gay character on screen who wasn't the nicest fellow - it was the fact that the film maker was using a fear of homosexual behavior to manipulate the audience. I found the audience reactions pretty offensive and I think those reactions are intended by the way the film is made.

[tenia]

I thought the movie was homophobic because it deliberately plays on heterosexual fear of anal sex. I saw this with a fairly loud audience and every time the gay drug dealer was on screen someone would let out some involuntary gasp or comment. It wasn't for me just that there was a bad gay character on screen who wasn't the nicest fellow - it was the fact that the film maker was using a fear of homosexual behavior to manipulate the audience. I found the audience reactions pretty offensive and I think those reactions are intended by the way the film is made.

So basically, it is homophobic because of the reactions of the people around you when you watched it (which are, of course, intended by the director).

When I saw it, we were about 40-50 people in the screening room, regularaly laughing when Bruno was here (especially the scene with his sexguy completely stone). Does it mean that the movie was meant to ridiculize gay people ? :-k

[conspirator12]

It's also worth noting that Noe originally wanted to play the dealer himself.