Venice Film Festival 2019: Reverse chronology in Gaspar Novars irreversible

Christopher Nolan, speaking of Memento (2000) in an interview to write the creative screen, said that he and his brother Jonathan (who reached the story) felt that the most interesting approach was to tell the story from the perspective of the first person, the rights of the public in the mind of the hero but how.

“How can I tell the first story through someone’s eyes when someone meets, not knowing when or how they met (first) or whether they should be trusted.

The answer is to bring the audience to this position. Nolan’s solution was to tell the story back, depriving viewers of information denied by the protagonist.

It works, for example, when we say that we are in the hero’s position, (see section below), “I lie here about how long I have not been on my own … How can I fix if I don’t use the time?”

Time is located in the heart of Gaspar Noes (2002). The film opens and concludes along the line “Time destroys all things”, and this story, too, is listed in chronological order.

Why is this strange selection of a film about a pregnant woman ending a strange rape? At first we see her lover kills the assailant, then we see her find this attacker.

Then we realize that her friend has been beaten, then we see the attack, then we see the couple at a party, then look at them in bed (surprisingly) romantic feeling), then see that the woman uses Test your pregnancy and see it as positive.

Wouldn’t we (emotionally) respond better to rape if we knew this woman, knowing that she was pregnant, rather than meeting him first, as an unknown woman being assaulted?

Of course, it is inevitable that we respond to the attack ourselves, which is incurable.

She plays for a full 10 minutes, starting from this woman threatened with a knife by a man in the subway.

Before coming, a conversation could revolve around a horrific rape scene in the minds of Stanley Kubrick’s orange.

The woman slapped and slapped. Closes her dress slowly with scissors, initially with holes in the breast area.

She soon became completely naked, but the camera focuses only on her struggle, her writing and her plight. We don’t see the rape itself.

We only understand it. But in “irreversible”, there are no wounds – the camera looks at every aspect of the rape and the battery (her animals cry through her fingers in the mouth, her face hits her feet and then the cement floor later.

He also opposes all this (and some might argue that this is precisely the point, for us to experience, in detail in drawing, what passes when a woman is raped), if we pass this stretch you will not have to sit.

Does it help the victim to know better? Crime is a crime, whether it’s about a stranger (we learn from a newspaper) or someone we know personally, but in this latter case our participation is certainly greater.

Why does anyone want this partnership? There is at least one explanation in the Roger Ebert review.

It starts with violent viewers, shows us the worst right away … creates a reverse chronology.

Towards achieving a surprising return

“Because of our ugliness at first, Gaspar Noe forces us to seriously think about the sexual violence involved.

The film doesn’t end with rape as its climax … it starts with it, and we are asked to sit for another hour and process our thoughts.

So it’s moral – at the structural level. An interview with IndieWire, Noe tackled the issue from a structural point of view.

“I think many people in my film suspect that the end of my film will be worse than the beginning because of how the film’s climax works.” The truth is that if they live they will find something that erases these first images.

” Even in a video interview, he later mentioned films such as Touch of Evil, and long shots – minimized In terms of the “moral” angle Ebert is talking about.

Either way, the posts about this movie will be fantastic  MeToo

I want to finish the third phase of reverse chronology, Harold Pinter’s The Betrayal of Betrayal (1978) and Screen (1983).

The play was reportedly inspired by television presenter Joan Bakel of Pinter, while she was still married to actress Vivian Merchant. Scene 1 begins in 1977, with Emma and Jerry meeting two years after the first scene ends.

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.