I think that there is a large difference between violence (sex, whathaveyou) for gratuity’s sake and a graphic level of violence (et al) that is there to make a point. Films like “Hostel” and whatever the next slasher franchise is, are only around to titillate (the filmmakers or the audience, it doesn’t really matter) and so they conceive of more and more violence, gore and bizarre ways to tell the same story over and over again (like pornography). The films that explicitly show violence on-screen but are more concerned with how it affects the characters and/or the audience is a different piece of fruit altogether. I would firmly place Irreversible in this second grouping.

Gaspar Noe, while one for the extremes of celluloid, is certainly not someone who takes his depiction of violence lightly. I think that there are a few things happening in Irreversible between social commentary, exploring character actions, and exploring audience participation. His first feature, “Seul contre tous”, dealt with such a despicable main character that there could almost be no sympathy, or really any other connection, between him and the audience. Noe was representing the dregs of society. He opens Irreversible on the same character, years later, after being released from prison, and rather quickly descends (and ascends) to our main characters, who, for the most part, are just your regular citizens. Noe is saying, partially, “okay, so you didn’t like my first character because you couldn’t relate to him, here’s an everyman put in an—unfortunately—common situation. If this were you, how would you react?” With Irreversible, Noe is asking us to decide if we—the moralists—could conceivably turn our heads to our morals and let ourselves avenge a wrong.

The tricky thing about the film is that we do not know that Noe is asking us this question until after the film is at least half-way over. We watch with horror, repugnance or fascination as the two main characters brutally kill a man, only to find out later that it was perhaps justified. This man supposedly raped and put Marcus’ girlfriend in a coma. When this is revealed Noe is asking his audience to stand up and account for their ethics. Is the murder now justified that we found out it was done unto a man who brutally raped and beat Marcus’ lover? As the story continues to unfold, however, we realize that the person who they killed was the wrong man—and the man who did rape Alex was standing by at the club enjoying the whole thing. For those members of the audience who had answered that the murder was justified, this revelation brings a pretty big slap in the face. When vengeance is meted out, it is questionable that it is ever just.

As the film wraps up, the jocular and reactionary Marcus actually gets depth to his character when he is alone with Alex—we are witness to the private moments of a couple in love—which of course not only makes what we have already been through that much more excruciating, but also gives more motivation to Marcus’ vengeance. Throughout most of the film Marcus is really just a boy—reveling in whatever vices are put in front of him—but in private, he is able to reveal his weaknesses, his humanity. He hasn’t “grown up” by the end of the film, rather he has become a true child (with the “2001” Star Child above their bed as an indication not only of Alex’s pregnancy, but more to the point, of Marcus’ own naivete and childishness). The coda to the film exists almost out of time. Alex is alone with her book in a park, the perfect expression of a pastoral (suburban) landscape, as the camera starts to twirl, a flicker illuminates the screen. It isn’t the black and white alternating frames, but, rather, there are stars in the black field. We are sent into the cosmos, into the vision of the Star Child: of the universe before us, where time has no meaning because everything has been destroyed and is surviving at the same moment. Time may destroy all, as Noe closes out the film, but timelessness incorporates all.

To address the actual structure and style of the film is, for me, where Noe is able to push this journey into a great piece of art. What some filmmakers have been playing around with (Tarantino, Nolan) Noe is able to execute without the hindrance of a conceit. I do not believe that this story could have been told any other way without it loosing its artistry. Put in chronological order we get an average revenge story told fairly well, but the moral questions of the film would not really be there, and all of the “reveals” would become normal plot conventions (the victim is pregnant, the perpetrator gets away with it) instead of a moral thermometer for the audience.

I, for one, don’t think that the film revels in its base characters. I think that it is unflinching, but what it shows is a necessary evil. It is more important that realistic depictions of common horrific events get shown to try and offset the cartoon violence that almost every Hollywood action film puts out. There are no moral questions in films such as “Lord of the Rings” but in films like this or “Funny Games”, the directors are asking the audience to actively be a part of the proceedings. It is less an examination of a story than it is of one’s own self. These are the works of art that are able to stand the test of time because the questions they are posing are the universal ones.