cine + octo = boo

Back in 2002, director Gaspar Noé unleashed the emotional onslaught Irréversible upon the world. At the Cannes film festival, reports of audiences walking out (and in some cases fainting) during screenings piqued interest in the film. Reactions poured in, and people questioned Noé’s motivation behind using acts of brutality and ultra-violence as centerpieces in the film.

As if by dare, cinephiles around the globe climbed into theaters to answer the question, “Is Irréversible a brilliant rebuttal to the revenge film, or merely an shameful exercise in gimmickry?” Defenders of the former argued that while sensational, the reworked timeline and presentation of the violent acts combined to create a dissertation on the fragility and futility of life. After all, the tagline for the film is, “Time destroys everything.”

Detractors felt Noé was guilty of painting a hateful and homophobic picture of homosexual men — specifically by portraying Le Tenia (Jo Prestia) first as a violent rapist, and later being beaten to death by Marcus (Vincent Cassel) with a fire extinguisher. The feeling at the time was that Le Tenia did not need to be homosexual for the plot to work, and that in doing so Noé created an opportunity to literally and viscerally gay bash.

My take, which is wholly based on multiple viewing of the film, is that Le Tenia’s orientation and backstory is actually used to create added confusion, something that is rarely captured in films dealing with these types of scenarios. Our brains are hardwired to seek out a sense of understanding when confronted with the unexplainable, and our desire to reason through the unreasonable often creates frustration when processing complex crimes such as rape.

Personally, Noé’s decision to reverse chronology trumps the accusation of homophobic revenge tale. We witness the crime resulting from Le Tenia’s actions before we ever see what he is supposedly guilty of. Note the word choice, as Marcus is as guilty (if not moreso) of committing a crime in the end. The ultimate message behind the film resonates more in the “what does revenge solve?” camp, than that of the redemption tale.

A film like this compels me to re-assess my life, my loved ones, and all manners in which I take for granted those around me. After initially screening the film back in 2002, I felt like holding my wife nonstop for as long as I could. I second-guessed moments of frustration and anger, knowing that each one was still far more endearing to me than the infinite possibilities that exist outside of the scope of reason. Take no one for granted, ever.

Many argued the implausibility of an attack like the one by Le Tenia on Alex (Monica Bellucci), but if the details of the recent gang rape at Richmond High School during a school function were relayed to you verbally, wouldn’t you instinctively believe it to be embellished? Crimes such as these are hurtful and inexplicable, and ultimately lead to a series of questions that should, for all intents and purposes, have reasonable answers. Why wasn’t the area where the 15-year-old student was raped better lit? Why were there no parents at the homecoming dance? These things can, and will, How could other human beings walk by this atrocity in action and not think to alert the authorities?

Like Le Tenia’s motivations, we will never truly comprehend the mindset of the assailants on that fateful night. In the end, does the sexual orientation of the assailants ultimately matter? No, the absurdity of the act, the random nature in which the victim was selected and violated will continue to confound, and all motivations go completely out the window when something of this nature transpires.

Unlike Vincent’s decision to seek revenge, the victim’s family is reacting in the only manner that truly steps towards making crimes such as these, though they may never truly be irreversible, preventable.