I haven’t seen it but am wondering when it’s going to be picked up for distribution in the U.S. IMDB doesn’t list any company yet – does anybody have any information on this?
However from what I’ve read in various reviews, the adjectives used to describe this film seem like just another entry in the extremo-porn genre. We have destructo-porn in 2012 and extremo-porn in Enter the Void and Antichrist. While I thoroughly liked Antichrist (which I didn’t think I would), I’d be shocked if I like Noe’s new film.
Heard of this one awhile ago, but haven’t seen it yet. Looks like yet another feelgood film by Noe, eh?
SOUDAIN LE VIDE EST LOOC BARJOT, balpeau neuf de Noé.
I am curious. The screen grabs I’ve seen, which accentuate the production design, make it look like hyper-real delirium.
Apologies for coming into this discussion with something as gauche as a link to a blogpost that I wrote not long after seeing this at the London Film Festival, but I’m exhausted & thought it worthwhile to at least let William check it out:
http://shadesofcaruso.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/how-gaspar-noe-broke-open-my-head/
I have to agree with everything he said. Enter The Void is shocking & explicit, but it really is uplifting. A genuine feelgood movie, @Deckard Croix! Hard to believe, I know, but it’s true. A lot of critical comment (such as the reviews in Village Voice & Variety) have approached Enter The Void as an empty exercise in shock, but as with Von Trier’s Antichrist (a howl of pain more direct and honest than I ever thought the great curmudgeon was capable of), there is zero cynicism here. Yes, there are horrors here, but there has to be horror. Early in the movie Alex describes the afterlife as depicted in The Tibetan Book of the Dead. It’s imperative you pay attention to this description, as it holds the key to parsing the rest of the movie. Without that knowledge, the movie will seem random & exploitative. With that key, the movie becomes something else: heartfelt & moving. On top of that, it’s the most astonishing sensory blowout in years. Your eyes & ears will buzz for days after experiencing it.
At the moment no one seems to want to distribute it. That’s a crying shame. It’s the next big cult movie of our time. I wish that the Prince Charles in London could cough up for a print and show it as a midnight movie on Saturdays. Word of mouth would make it a regular sell out after a few weeks. Until then, only a lucky few get to see it. Sadface.
The opening credits.
-when it’s going to be picked up for distribution in the U.S.-
US rights were acquired by IFC FIlms and, reportedly, they’re going to release on-demand & in theaters at the same time. I have seen a planned release date beyond “set for 2010” yet.
>US rights were acquired by IFC FIlms and, reportedly, they’re going to release on-demand & in theaters at the same time.
Antichrist was distributed exactly the same way…The On-Demand option is a life-saver…
> Enter The Void is shocking & explicit, but it really is uplifting.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is uplifting – I felt the same about Reygada’s Battle In Heaven, over which many critics expressed shock & horror, gorges rising—the whole bit. One must wait a hell of a long time, I think, before critics stop whinging about being brutalized by films like these, and get on with the business of actually looking at them (or not looking at them – but those hacks must scribble to pay the mortgage, after all…)
I couldn’t read all of Cecils post as I tought it could ruin it when I get to see this. But I was struck by his passion for it.
For valentines day my partner and I watched “Irréversible”.
He’s a challenging film maker and years ago I set my gauge for agood film as being ‘you may not like the feeling it leaves you with, but if you leave feeling something. it’s a good film’.
My partner has a very low torrelance level for crap. After we had enough of the prettys of “Avatar” and she’d had enough of Hollywood cliche and we left before the end. She never asked me to turn off “Irréversible” as hard going as it can be.
Witkacy is right, this will probably be sensationalised by criticts for all the wrong reasons. Where as I look forward to seeing it for the cinematic experience of a radical film maker.
I couldn’t read all of Cecils post as I tought it could ruin it when I get to see this. But I was struck by his passion for it.
For valentines day my partner and I watched “Irréversible”.
He’s a challenging film maker and years ago I set my gauge for agood film as being ‘you may not like the feeling it leaves you with, but if you leave feeling something. it’s a good film’.
My partner has a very low torrelance level for crap. After we had enough of the prettys of “Avatar” and she’d had enough of Hollywood cliche and we left before the end. She never asked me to turn off “Irréversible” as hard going as it can be.
Witkacy is right, this will probably be sensationalised by criticts for all the wrong reasons. Where as I look forward to seeing it for the cinematic experience of a radical film maker.
I couldn’t read all of Cecils post as I tought it could ruin it when I get to see this. But I was struck by his passion for it.
For valentines day my partner and I watched “Irréversible”.
He’s a challenging film maker and years ago I set my gauge for agood film as being ‘you may not like the feeling it leaves you with, but if you leave feeling something. it’s a good film’.
My partner has a very low torrelance level for crap. After we had enough of the prettys of “Avatar” and she’d had enough of Hollywood cliche and we left before the end. She never asked me to turn off “Irréversible” as hard going as it can be.
Witkacy is right, this will probably be sensationalised by criticts for all the wrong reasons. Where as I look forward to seeing it for the cinematic experience of a radical film maker.
-I felt the same about Reygada’s Battle In Heaven-
Me too. As much as I didn’t care for Irreversible, I did really like I Stand Alone, and I’m looking forward to seeing this.
I cannot wait for this one. I saw Irreversible for the first time a few weeks ago and I was pretty blown away by it. I’m still not sure how I really feel about the film but it was most definitely a hugely affecting experience. I’ve been looking forward to seeing this one ever since.
@T: could you explain to us what “SOUDAIN LE VIDE EST LOOC BARJOT, balpeau neuf de Noé” means?
This film was only shown in Cannes last year in France, it will be in the theaters normally on the 21st of april, i can’t wait to see it!
I saw the opening credits and a teaser for it and can’t wait to see this, it looks like this film will definitely appeal to me. Hopefully they’ll play it at my local art house when it gets a decent release
>I did really like I Stand Alone
The Butcher’s a paradigm of nihilism – right alongside Johnny Boy in Mean Streets, Johnny in Naked, Ray in Nil By Mouth, and the sewer-dweller in Carax’s Merde…
Having just seen the film, my eyes hurt too much to read anything above but I’m interested to read what others thought once I recover from the experience – after having studiously avoided reviews of the film before I had a chance to see it.
Half of the film is like watching google earth. The other half is like watching the world’s ugliest screensaver while someone masturbates with rave glow sticks. The most unpleasant experience I’ve had at the cinema in a long time. But I have a feeling that as it spins around my head, I’ll probably grow to appreciate it more.
Yes, I marvel at the fact that Noe can do absolutely anything with a movie camera, but does he really need to prove how far he can shove it up his own ass?
hmm, a little scary NOE is 2 letters off.
It will never cease to amaze me how virulently people react against the filmmaker who created something that many people absolutely love – and for what reason? Because it didn’t please them? To enter a thread where someone calls the film a ‘celebration of life’ and then say that the filmmaker is merely ‘shoving the camera up his own ass’ seems to be an insult to the thread’s creator, personally, and others who find something worthwhile in the film that they would not have found interesting in Noés colonoscopy.
Well, you haven’t read what I’ve written closely and you take yourself too seriously. Personally, I think Noe would be proud of my apt comparison.
You have managed to craft what some would call clever witticisms about the film, and on that point I congratulate you. It’s a skill, no doubt, and some will appreciate it. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, and I hope they will bring you as much success as you have found in this thread.
Thank you, I do try my hardest. But getting back to Enter the Void. Cecil says that the film is life affirming. But I’m not sure if I can take that aspect of the film very seriously. While the film is definitely affirming of Gaspar’s prowess as a filmmaker and shows what he can do unencumbered by any kind of external restraint, the film still feels like an exercise. Is the film actually meant to be taken seriously as an adaptation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead? It seems even Gaspar says not (I’ll use his first name so you don’t fear the close resemblance, Nohea!). And isn’t the conclusion lifted too closely from Irreversible?
Anyway, I think my mixed reactions to the films stems from the fact that about 10% of it I found genuinely riveting and exciting in the way I get excited when I see someone doing something that I haven’t seen before. The other 90% of the film just felt like an utter mess of pointless excess (not excess in imagery, mind you, or content but excess in style and excess in length). And, sadly, Gaspar show his weaknesses in his failure to write a compelling narrative, with truly awful dialogue and shallow characters so no matter how much he twists, turns, and contorts it he’s still left with a very shallow core. I wish Gaspar would adapt other people’s scripts and have a producer behind him to tell him no. Oh, and as scenester “it girls” who don’t mind exposing themselves in film go, Paz de La Huerta really can’t act.
But, that said, I’m still not sure how to evaluate the film. While its flaws are glaring, it definitely has something.
Gaspar Noé in the editing room: “We really need to do this? Damn. Do this crazier that you can.”
I think that Gaspar Noé have a big problems in his mind.
Gaspar Noé in the editing room: “We really need to do this? Damn. Do this crazier that you can.”
I think that Gaspar Noé have a big problems in his mind.
VICTOR BRUNO: i think you suck
Is the film actually meant to be taken seriously as an adaptation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead?
I take the film seriously as the visions of a dying body who has recently had the Tibetan Book of the Dead explained to him. There is far more evidence for this approach than anything else.
And, sadly, Gaspar show his weaknesses in his failure to write a compelling narrative, with truly awful dialogue and shallow characters so no matter how much he twists, turns, and contorts it he’s still left with a very shallow core.
I wasn’t aware that a filmmaker was compelled to write a ‘compelling narrative’ or write ‘great dialogue’ or write ‘dense characters’.
But, that said, I’m still not sure how to evaluate the film. While its flaws are glaring, it definitely has something.
Peter Greenaway says that it is much, much harder to be a great viewer than it is to be a great filmmaker. I think you illustrate this point perfectly. Your inability to evaluate the film meaningfully is no surprise to anyone, and with this in mind it is no surprise that you feel the fault lies with the filmmaker as this is simply another instance of your inability to meaningfully evaluate the film.
Cecil says that the film is life affirming. But I’m not sure if I can take that aspect of the film very seriously.
Getting back to this point: Is it any surprise with your difficulties in evaluating the film that you can’t make sense of this aspect? Why, then, if you are having such struggles, did you make that original post? Do you always speak before you are capable of evaluating what you say? That seems like a problem. Your insulting bile then is not a result of a calculated attack but merely flippant thoughtlessness. Color me surprised.
’Your inability to evaluate the film meaningfully is no surprise to anyone, and with this in mind it is no surprise that you feel the fault lies with the filmmaker as this is simply another instance of your inability to meaningfully evaluate the film."
So what exactly am I not grasping in the film? Please enlighten me with your wisdom. The film is the visions of a dying man? Yes, that’s quite obvious. But then how is the film supposed to be “life affirming”?
But it’s pointless to have a discussion with you so I won’t take your bait. Your response is too typical of righteously enraged self-serious windbags who instead of trying to debate and discuss the merits of a film finds it necessary to attack the poster for not sharing their uncritical enthusiasm.
“I wasn’t aware that a filmmaker was compelled to write a ‘compelling narrative’ or write ‘great dialogue’ or write ‘dense characters’.”
I’m sure there are a lot of things you aren’t aware of.
So what exactly am I not grasping in the film? Please enlighten me with your wisdom. The film is the visions of a dying man? Yes, that’s quite obvious. But then how is the film supposed to be “life affirming”?
Did you read the opening post?
But it’s pointless to have a discussion with you so I won’t take your bait. Your response is too typical of righteously enraged self-serious windbags who instead of trying to debate and discuss the merits of a film finds it necessary to attack the poster for not sharing their uncritical enthusiasm.
Yes, you have pegged me. I wish I had your ‘critical enthusiasm’.
“Yes, you have pegged me. I wish I had your ‘critical enthusiasm’.”
OK, so long as we understand each other.
“Did you read the opening post?”
Yes, in fact I did. And Cecil’s interpretation of the film, like many other positive ones, seems to hinge on not viewing the film as the drug-induced, psycho-neurological visions of a dying man but of an actual process of reincarnation, a more literal reading of The Tibetan Book of The Dead. Otherwise, the film is just about death (and a fairly stupid & pointless one) or just a pointless rehash of the “end as beginning” of Irreversible (which at least had a compact and compelling narrative structure to give it some weight). But please correct my apparent feeble-mindedness.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
I saw this a couple weeks ago at the London Film Festival and absolutely loved it – it’s now in my Top 5 films of all time.
The credits, taking up the opening two minutes of the film, really do set the tone. The first lot of names appears in fairly ordinary, bland writing except it is shown via strobe lighting as the names flicker in to and out of sight. After about half a second it goes to the next lot of names which go very much the same. Over the following two minutes the changing of slides worth of names grows more and more frequent, the names get more and more colourful and near the end of the credits names start moving around the screen leaving trails. It is practically hypnotic.
The plot follows Oscar. He and his sister Linda lost their parents in an accident when they were both very young and he promised her that he would always look over her. Now they live together in Tokyo, he has become a drug dealer there whilst she has become a prostitute. The film starts as Linda leaves for the club she works at whilst Oscar stays at home. Throughout the film we see everything from Oscar’s point of view, through his eyes. He stays at home and trips on some drugs during which we see a mesmerising pattern of lights, colours and shapes. Some while later a friend of his rings the door bell taking him out from the trip – Oscar has to deliver some drugs to a buyer at a nearby club, The Void, so he and his friend both go there through the streets of Tokyo. Throughout this first half hour there is not a single cut (except, if you want to be pedantic, the blinking that occurs every few seconds) – we see everything in real time, or at least what Oscar perceives to be real time. We hear his thoughts and get a taste of the seedy world he lives in. When they arrive at the club Oscar enters alone, but alas he has been sold out to the police by the buyer. Oscar tries to escape from the police in one of the most thrilling, heart-racing scenes I’ve ever seen but things go wrong and he is shot. It is a deafening boom after which all sound goes silent as Oscar falls to the floor. He is dead. And we now see his body curled up on the floor from above.
Even in death Oscar keeps his promise to his sister and now his soul floats detached from his body. From this point on the film is made up almost entirely, the exclusion being near the end of the film, of two types of scene. The first are sequences where his soul floats around Tokyo. These sequences are completely unedited as he looks in on the lives of all those affected by his death, but mainly his sister. And when I say unedited I mean unedited – to get from one place to another the camera will either float through walls and above the city, or alternatively will head in to something, usually a light bulb during which we are exposed to painfully bright light, and come out the other end somewhere else. The other is flashbacks. But these aren’t your traditional flashbacks. Instead they flow stream of consciousness style. Short scenes will jump to other short scenes that look similar visually, link to what is being said or follow on from similar themes. One of my favourite bits in the film is the first time we get a sequence of flashbacks which largely focus on Oscar and Linda when they were very young and their parents were still alive. It is a beautiful, nostalgic sequence which heads in to a shocking climax.
And trust me when I say shocking climax I mean it. I won’t disclose what happens but I am very keen to mention the extraordinary effect it had on me during the film. The first time it happened was the scariest moment I have seen in any movie yet. It was truly horrifying. I was recovering for a good couple minutes afterwards but I thought I was over it. It happens again though only 15 minutes or so later and is still horrifying. And this completely coloured the effect of the whole movie for me because throughout I was afraid, paranoid, that Noe would show us the scene again. Every time the music from the scene pops up or I saw Linda dreaming or anything like that I was afraid Noe would cut to it again. He is smart enough not to until very late in to the movie but it really does show the overwhelming effect of this scene to haunt your memory throughout the run time just like it haunts Oscar and Linda.
Though in some of the earlier flashbacks we get scenes of beauty and innocence for the most part the film is very dark and nasty and difficult to watch. When something miserable is happening to a character it really hits you like a ton of bricks – throughout the film Noe shows that he can make raw hatred and aggressive acts and generally depressing circumstances all impact you as if every single one of them was the crux of the film. It must be said that throughout the first half he does insert little comic moments that are very amusing but for the most part the film is extremely challenging. In fact near the end I was worrying that Noe would just leave it at an extremely grim conclusion and say that the film is just about death. But he doesn’t. In fact he does something truly remarkable about the film and manages in the last minute or so to turn it around in to a film about life. I will say no more other than it is extremely well handled and that, in its own weird way, this film was far more life affirming (I hate using those two words but they really are appropriate this time) than some many films that usually get given that label.
I thought this was absolutely brilliant. One of the best films I have ever seen without a doubt. It is a powerful film that manages to be both relentlessly ugly and breathtakingly beautiful as well as utterly hypnotic. It’s not for everyone but for me it was terrific.
So, has anyone else seen this masterpiece?