Irréversible

[dansatorul_polimorf]

Sistemul este suficient de obiectiv incit sa functioneze practic. Exista controverse, exista exceptii, exista subiectivism. Si? Criticii nu sunt un element de decor, este o logica pentru care ei exista. Sau poate ar trebui toti concediati si trecut la power to the gospodina? Daca nu ar exista un sistem de apreciere valabil, care ar fi atunci rolul lor in societate?

Nu cred ca am fost agresiv si am precizat deja ca citatul cu pricina era o gluma. Oare de ce am impresia ca voi nu reusiti sa va desprindeti de propria voastra natura? Este subiectul acestui film extremist si ca atare adresat unui public redus? Categoric. Dar filmul este bine facut. Nu va covine subiectul, nu va uitati. Sa spui despre un film ca este prost pentru ca nu iti convine tema pe care o abordeaza este curata ipocrizie.

Iar sistemul valoric nu este al meu personal. Din cite vad, voi aveti o parere diferita de cea a criticilor si nu tocmai bine argumentata. Sincer, acum, ce credibilitate credeti voi ca aveti?

[Pauline Kael]

Uite ce e papushel,intelege tu ce vrei,ca oricum nu ne intereseaza parerea ta.Pe topicul cu "It's a violent pornography " mi-am spus punctul de vedere mai argumentat decat ar putea mintea ta unilaterala s-o faca vreodata.Asa ca subject closed and bullseye.
Eu imi propun sa te ignor daca mai scrii ceva despre subiectul asta,si sper ca vei comenta si alte filme,sau asta e singurul pe care l-ai inteles asa cum numai tu il puteai intelege?
Gospodin esti tu,tu n-ai argumente si esti pateticoid. Danseaza in alta parte. :sick:Stii de fapt care e adevarul? Ca ne plictisim f tare,dar nu atat incat sa nu putem ignora un si mai plicticos insolent si obosit ca tine.
Filmul este adresat unui public redus(mintal),si stii,cred ca n-ai vazut filmu',n-ai rezista,nu repeti decat ca e bine facut si atat.
Get lost.

[dansatorul_polimorf]

Ti-am citit punctul de vedere. Amuzant. Cel mult. Oricum se vede ca ai pus sentiment. Bye.

[Pauline Kael]

Mah stafilococule,cred ca tu n-ai mai vazut alte filme,si sigur nici p-asta.Bravezi.
Bye si tie.

[miercuri]

Sistemul este suficient de obiectiv incit sa functioneze practic. Exista controverse, exista exceptii, exista subiectivism. Si? Criticii nu sunt un element de decor, este o logica pentru care ei exista. Sau poate ar trebui toti concediati si trecut la power to the gospodina? Daca nu ar exista un sistem de apreciere valabil, care ar fi atunci rolul lor in societate?

Nu cred ca am fost agresiv si am precizat deja ca citatul cu pricina era o gluma. Oare de ce am impresia ca voi nu reusiti sa va desprindeti de propria voastra natura? Este subiectul acestui film extremist si ca atare adresat unui public redus? Categoric. Dar filmul este bine facut. Nu va covine subiectul, nu va uitati. Sa spui despre un film ca este prost pentru ca nu iti convine tema pe care o abordeaza este curata ipocrizie.

Iar sistemul valoric nu este al meu personal. Din cite vad, voi aveti o parere diferita de cea a criticilor si nu tocmai bine argumentata. Sincer, acum, ce credibilitate credeti voi ca aveti?

Unu la mana: vorbesti despre critici de parca ar fi o dictatura, unde se voteaza in unanimitate suprematia lui x si y. Sa inteleg ca tu aici esti un trimis special, venit sa pedepseasca spectatorii care au indraznit sa fie obraznici.
Asa, informativ, te sfatuiesc sa arunci un ochi si pe metacritic.com, unde Irreversible are o medie de 5.1 din 38 de reviewuri, daca tot imi trantesti povestea cu valabilitatea aprecierii oficiale.

Doi la mana: ce nu s-a inteles din repetatele randuri cand am precizat ca pe mine nu m-a deranjat subiectul filmului, ci incropeala, superficialitatea, praful in ochi pe care Noe il arunca, mizand pe psihicul slab al spectatorului. Poate unii se simt bine facand parte din experimentele meschine ale lui Noe, dar eu nu.

Trei la mana: eu consider ca am venit de fiecare data cu argumente valide, contrargumentele au lipsit cu desavarsire din partea ta. Vrei sa dezbati ceva, dar mai mult bati campii.

[dansatorul_polimorf]

Filmul are punctajul mic pentru ca cei care nu l-au digerat i-au dat note de 1-2, fenomen arhicunoscut in cazul tuturor filmelor controversate. Am luat la cunostinta argumentele tale inca de miercuri, azi e vineri. Consider ca nu au consitenta si o baza reala obiectiva, asa ca nu m-au marcat. Stroboscopul e meschin? La fel si machiajul, secventele 3d si lentila de la camera, nu? Ar trebui sa te hotarasti, ultrasunete sau infrasunete, pentru ca ai folosit ambii termeni. Probabil nici unul nici celalalt. Violul nu e realist pentru ca lumina e rosie, deci n-are cum, ma intelegi, lumina...(asta e una dintre preferatele mele)(nu mai vorbesc de alte prapastii de genul: filmul nu are plot. Thank you!) Poate vrei sa-mi explici exact in ce consta "felul voyeuristic in care camera o urmareste pe Monica Bellucci" si cand in vreun film camera nu a fost si voyeuristica. Si asa mai departe. Succesul lui Noe este evident din chiar intensitatea cu care ati reactionat impotriva lui. Si manipulate ati fost.

[corinka]

Sistemul este suficient de obiectiv incit sa functioneze practic. Exista controverse, exista exceptii, exista subiectivism. Si? Criticii nu sunt un element de decor, este o logica pentru care ei exista. Sau poate ar trebui toti concediati si trecut la power to the gospodina? Daca nu ar exista un sistem de apreciere valabil, care ar fi atunci rolul lor in societate?

Tocmai asta spuneam, si criticii se contrazic uneori. Au fost filme laudate de unii si desfiintate de altii.
Nici criticii nu detin adevarul absolut. Ei traseaza niste directii, dar nu esti obligat sa le urmezi.
Te-ai gandit vreodata ca poate au rolul sa provoace? Aduc niste argumente si ne fac sa gandim: sa le dam dreptate sau sa cautam argumente cu care sa le contrazicem pe ale lor, daca nu ne-au convins?

Iar sistemul valoric nu este al meu personal. Din cite vad, voi aveti o parere diferita de cea a criticilor si nu tocmai bine argumentata. Sincer, acum, ce credibilitate credeti voi ca aveti?

Tu nu ai pareri personale? Nu poti emite niste idei pe care sa le argumentezi? Iei de bun tot ce spun criticii, numai pentru ca sunt critici?

[corinka]

L-as invita pe ALS, in calitate de critic de film, sa ne spuna daca el se considera strict obiectiv in aprecierea filmelor. Stiu ca nu vrea sa mai posteze, dar poate ca face o exceptie si ne da un raspuns, daca nu in calitate de user obisnuit, macar in calitate de invitat. Si Pitbull scrie cronici de film, l-as ruga si pe el sa isi exprime parerea.

Asadar, in opinia dvs., domnilor specialisti, putem vorbi despre un sistem valoric universal si obiectiv in cinema?

[miercuri]

Filmul are punctajul mic pentru ca cei care nu l-au digerat i-au dat note de 1-2, fenomen arhicunoscut in cazul tuturor filmelor controversate. Am luat la cunostinta argumentele tale inca de miercuri, azi e vineri. Consider ca nu au consitenta si o baza reala obiectiva, asa ca nu m-au marcat. Stroboscopul e meschin? La fel si machiajul, secventele 3d si lentila de la camera, nu? Ar trebui sa te hotarasti, ultrasunete sau infrasunete, pentru ca ai folosit ambii termeni. Probabil nici unul nici celalalt. Violul nu e realist pentru ca lumina e rosie, deci n-are cum, ma intelegi, lumina...(asta e una dintre preferatele mele)(nu mai vorbesc de alte prapastii de genul: filmul nu are plot. Thank you!) Poate vrei sa-mi explici exact in ce consta "felul voyeuristic in care camera o urmareste pe Monica Bellucci" si cand in vreun film camera nu a fost si voyeuristica. Si asa mai departe. Succesul lui Noe este evident din chiar intensitatea cu care ati reactionat impotriva lui. Si manipulate ati fost.

Adu-mi argumentele cu o baza reala obiectiva, dar deja cred ca nu mai are rost sa-mi bat capul cu tine.

[dansatorul_polimorf]

copy/paste Sper ca review-urile astea o sa te lamureasca fara sa fiu nevoit sa scriu si eu o dizertatie personala pe aceiasi tema.

Gaspar Noé's Irreversible is an amazing and profoundly disturbing experience, not just because it depicts a landscape of sick and lurid and evil things, but because it has the audacity -- and demonic skill -- to make you feel as if those things were happening, live, right in front of your eyes. Early on, the camera whips around in a disorienting frenzy, descending into the lavalike inferno of a gay sex club, where the somber orgiastic assault climaxes with a head-bashing murder that may be the most gruesomely terrifying event I've ever witnessed in a movie. What creeps under your skin is the ghastly suggestion that we're watching the ultimate act of sadomasochism -- i.e., that the murder victim enjoyed it.

Noé is like Kubrick crossed with de Sade in the age of underground vérité porn; he wants to scare the living hell out of us. Yet is he a moralist as well? ''Irreversible'' turns out to be a tale of rape and revenge told in reverse order, and the sexual violation, staged in a single, excruciating nine-minute take (Monica Bellucci's performance is, quite simply, heroic), is a catharsis of ugly truth that blots away the grimy memory of every exploitation film you've ever seen. After a while, a didactic overdeliberateness seeps into Noé's design, but there's no doubt that he's a new kind of dark film wizard: a poet of apocalyptic shock.

2

You can't see Gaspar Noe's Irreversible without starting a heated discussion with someone else who saw it, or part of it. Many viewers walk out midway through, during the nine-minute scene in which Alex, played by the beautiful Monica Bellucci, is beaten and anally raped in the lurid red light of a Paris underpass as Noé stations his camera and watches.
It would be easy and convenient to dismiss Irreversible as blatant sensationalism. But Noe's bruising film is too artfully crafted to write off as exploitation. To see it is to absorb it, even against your will. Noe, the acclaimed French director of Carne and I Stand Alone, tells his story backward, as in Memento, but offers nothing as comforting as amnesia.

Irreversible opens with the credits running backward. A strange man (Philippe Nahon) states, "Time destroys everything." We are then thrust into a scene of revenge. Alex's lover, Marcus (Vincent Cassel), and her ex-boyfriend Pierre (Albert Dupontel) enter a gay S&M club looking for the rapist and end up -- as the camera swirls among writhing bodies and hard-ons - bashing in the head of the wrong man with a fire extinguisher, a moment so brutal as to prompt walkouts even before the rape that follows.

It's the last third of the film that eases up. We watch Alex, Marcus and Pierre at a party where Alex and Pierre quarrel and she leaves, heading for the underpass. Noe then tracks further back to Alex and Marcus in bed, naked and tender with each other. Bellucci and Cassel, married in real life, give these scenes an erotic charge laced with affection and delicacy. It's this harmony that time destroys, except, of course, in Noe's film, where time is at the mercy of the filmmaker. Noe's considerable accomplishment is to examine the relationship between life and art, time and memory. Irreversible means to knock you for a loop. It does.

3

Gaspar Noé’s steely-eyed 1998 feature I Stand Alone was like a French Taxi Driver — only 22 years bleaker. It took us deep inside the mind of an enraged racist butcher who beat pregnant women, longed to sleep with his autistic daughter and (rather like some columnist for The American Spectator) described France as a “shithole of cheese and Nazi-lovers.” The movie divided not only audiences but individuals. When it premiered at Cannes, I asked an English critic his opinion. “I hate it,” he said. “It’s a masterpiece.”

The same polarized response has greeted his wantonly assaultive new film, Irreversible, an art-house rape-and-revenge flick that unfolds in reverse like a demonic version of Memento. But this time, far more viewers have been stomping out of festival theaters — at Cannes, at Edinburgh, at Sundance. That’s no surprise, for Noé is a punk provocateur who loves rubbing your nose in dung. Here he serves up gratuitously explicit footage of a fire extinguisher smashing a man’s head like a melon, followed by an already infamous anal-rape scene that runs nearly 10 minutes. Caveat emptor.

Irreversible roars into horror-show high gear with Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Pierre (Albert Dupontel) bursting into a gay sex club, the Rectum, that’s like the worst acid trip John Ashcroft could ever imagine, a teeming beehive of sanguinary light, leering blowjobs and guys fucking other guys against walls. Someone gets murdered, and then, almost before we’ve registered what’s going on, Marcus and Pierre are suddenly shown on their way to the Rectum, and we gradually grasp that the story’s being told in reverse. Things keep moving back in time until the pivotal sequence in which Alex (Monica Bellucci) walks into a pedestrian underpass wearing a dress so clingingly wispy — a suggestion of perky nipples has actually been sewn into the silken fabric — that you immediately wonder whether Noé is saying that she’s begging to be raped. Which, of course, is precisely what happens, in graphic, though not pornographic, detail. (There’s nothing remotely sexy about it.) Alex’s savage violation casts a shadow over everything that “preceded” it — we now understand the motive behind the opening murder — and everything that follows, as the film moves backward through a rowdy party sequence, a jolly métro ride and some tender, post-coital moments back in Alex’s apartment. Gliding ever more swiftly into a hopeful past, we see, as the characters cannot, the fragility of their happiness.

The opening 50 minutes are brutal, but if you can take the punishment, you’ll probably be wowed by Noé’s skills as a filmmaker. Each scene in Irreversible was done in a single shot of roughly 10 minutes, and they’ve been welded together seamlessly: It feels as if we’re watching time unspool backward. Noé is a full-service auteur — he wrote, directed, shot and edited the film — and formally Irreversible is a tour de force, from its stunning wide-screen compositions to its ever-modulating camera style, which begins in a hallucinatory frenzy at the Rectum and gradually grows calm, even pensive, as the story moves Alex, Marcus and Pierre back toward the night’s peaceful beginnings.

Although Noé is notorious for ratcheting things up until you want to jump out of your skin (if he made slasher films, they’d induce heart attacks), Irreversible’s most interesting scenes may well be the “normal” ones, which capture the slippery sexual dynamic of Alex, her lover Marcus and her shifty ex-boyfriend Pierre; there is, for example, a hilarious bit on the subway when the overbrainy Pierre is horrified to learn that Alex has orgasms with Marcus, though she rarely if ever did with him. A superb director of actors, Noé wins Bellucci’s most natural performance in years, helps Dupontel evoke Pierre’s worm-in-the-apple slyness, and pushes Cassel to a rich, versatile performance that plays like backward Method acting: As the movie progresses, he gets quieter and more internal, moving from rampaging fury to touching tenderness.

I’ve heard complaints that if the story hadn’t been told in reverse, it would be obvious how thin it really is. While that’s undeniably true, such an objection could be raised to the whole career of Alain Resnais. The movie’s real problem lies in its flaccid intellectual underpinnings. Insofar as Noé has any ideas (and, being French, he feels that he must), they’re a cassoulet of male clichés that border on the idiotic. If you’ve seen Straw Dogs, you’re not surprised to find proto-fascist blood lust lurking inside an overintellectualizing Parisian limp-dick. If you know your Noé, and are familiar with Bellucci’s ample bosom, you can predict that this film will use her as a fertility goddess or feminine principle who gets abused by men — a madonna treated like a whore. Even more than Norman Mailer, Noé subscribes to a gaga metaphysics of the orifice: front side good, back side bad. Nowhere is this more blatant than in Noé’s treatment of the sex club, a conception so thick with homosexual panic that it makes Jimmy Kimmel look like Elton John. Despite the harrowing violence, I found myself chuckling at just how banal Noé’s idea of evil can be. (Ooh . . . sodomy!) Later, I again had to stifle laughter when Marcus, who’s learned the whereabouts of Alex’s rapist, keeps grabbing people and screaming, “Ou est le Rectum?” Ou, indeed.

George Orwell wrote that Salvador Dali was a genius — from the wrist down. I’m tempted to say that Noé is a genius from the retina out, but the truth is actually trickier than that. He’s a surrealist trapped in the blood-spattered uniform of a torturer. The totalitarian bully in Noé wants to control our emotions, as he did in I Stand Alone when he used random offscreen gunfire to keep us continually on edge. Here, he carries on with Alex’s rape long after we’ve grasped its horror — and long after we’ve become horrified that we’re no longer horrified. Noé’s not turned on by sexual violence the way Brian De Palma has seemed to be; rather, he gets off on the idea that we won’t like watching it. His filmmaking hero is Stanley Kubrick (Noé calls Irreversible his Eyes Wide Shut, though it’s really more like A Clockwork Orange), and they clearly share a certain misanthropy, a certain homophobia and a desire to clobber the audience. But where Kubrick’s baleful vision was mature in its breadth of interest, Noé too often seems like a post-adolescent bad boy who’s read a few slim volumes of Bataille and now is hell-bent on proving that the rest of us can’t face up to reality as unflinchingly as he does. At his worst, he seems prepared to keep working us over until we start shrieking, “I admit it! Life is buggery! Deep down we’re all killers! I’m so bourgeois I can’t bear seeing the truth!”

Of course, many modern artists are cheapjack nihilists, but it doesn’t much matter — they don’t have the talent to put their vicious imaginings across. Noé does, and what gives his work such primal force is that he’s also an authentic surrealist. His work gets under our skin because it starts out under his, in the dreamy netherworld of the unconscious. You can’t intellectualize the rage that fills I Stand Alone’s horsemeat butcher; you can only feel it and tap into it. You can’t choose to portray a gay club with such visceral fear and loathing; it must spring from deep in your belly. Like David Lynch, Noé is drawn to things he doesn’t want to understand or control. (Indeed, Irreversible is rife with obsessional imagery, like that symbolic series of tunnels linking the Rectum to the rectum.)

It would take a psychologist to explain why, like a husband who can only feel love for his wife after he’s beaten her, Noé once again needs to frog-march us through a chamber of horrors before he allows any glimpse of peace. That peacefulness does come in the last third of Irreversible, which slowly builds to an idyll of creative, intimate love between Alex and Marcus (Bellucci and Cassel are a real-life couple). Although the movie’s tag line — and its original title — is “Time destroys all things,” that’s not really the point, for Noé shows us how art puts things back together again. If you find yourself at all moved by the film, as I unexpectedly was, it’s because Noé hacks his way through all that nightmarish violence to discover human beings in a state of radiant innocence. Indeed, the movie’s final shot is a portrait of bliss that may be the most thrilling movie image you’ll see this year, a vision of heaven to match the hell of the beginning.

But then, as the film closes, Gaspar the Torturer reappears, assailing us with a technique made famous by Tony Conrad’s 1966 film, The Flicker — a series of strobing flashes known to cause headaches and nausea and epileptic attacks. It says all you need to know about this amazing director’s profound human limitations that he deliberately chooses to end with something that might give his audience seizures.

IRREVERSIBLE | Written and directed by GASPAR NOÉ Produced by CHRISTOPHE ROSSIGNON | Released by Lions Gate Films | At the Regent Showcase, Laemmle’s Monica 4-Plex, Laemmle’s Playhouse

[miercuri]

Si toate astea nu sunt subiective, comparatiile cu Kubrick, "a superb director of actors"... Nu mai are rost sa continuam discutia.

[dansatorul_polimorf]

Madam cu scobitorile care l-a luat pe nu in brate. Articolele de mai sus au aparut in LA Weekly , Rolling Stone si ReelViews. Bineinteles si parerea ta conteaza. Doar trebuie sa gasesti unde. Impertinenta ta a devenit ridicola.

[corinka]

Dansatorule polimorf, pe forumul acesta intra multi amatori de film, pentru a discuta despre cinema, a schimba pareri etc.
Toti citim cronici de film, dar aici intram ca sa comentam, sa ne exprimam, nu sa copiem si sa expunem parerile altora, ca atunci nu mai are rost sa scriem.
Nu avem pretentia ca opiniile noastre cantaresc foarte greu, doar discutam intre noi. Daca pentru tine nu conteaza decat parerile criticilor, de ce mai citesti ce se scrie aici? Vrei sa ne "luminezi"? Chiar nu este nevoie, stim si noi ca exista critici de film si stim unde sa cautam ce scriu acestia.

Pentru copy/paste exista un topic special [la cafenea, cred], se numeste copy/paste-uri, dadaisme, aberatii. Dar acolo postam diverse chestii mai mult sau mai putin nostime gasite pe net, nu ce scriu criticii de film, deoarece critica de film este ceva serios, nu o aberatie.

PS Nu este nimic impertinent in a refuza conditia de oaie si de a combate o opinie la care nu subscrii.

[dansatorul_polimorf]

Cind se ajunge la aberatii de genul: eu am dreptate si critica mondiala ba, permite-mi sa intorc capul, spectacolul e penibil. Daca parerea unor persoane avizate,. inclusiv aici pe forum este ignorata dezinvolt, ce mai conteaza ce cred eu? Am folosit articole scrise de critici, tocmai pentru ca au mai multa greutate si am vrut sa transez controversa asta gratuita. Nu sunteti amatori de filme, ci doar amatori.

[corinka]

Bine, ai dreptate. Poti sa ne si ignori, nu stiu de ce iti mai pierzi timpul cu noi. Tu nu vezi ca suntem prea prosti ca sa pricepem? Eu inca nu te inteleg, dar nici nu imi mai bat capul, ca tot degeaba, pentru ca nu ma duce mintea mai mult, dar sunt convinsa ca ai dreptate, chiar daca eu nu sunt capabila sa te inteleg deoarece nu ma ridic la nivelul tau intelectual.

[miercuri]

Madam cu scobitorile care l-a luat pe nu in brate. Articolele de mai sus au aparut in LA Weekly , Rolling Stone si ReelViews. Bineinteles si parerea ta conteaza. Doar trebuie sa gasesti unde. Impertinenta ta a devenit ridicola.

Puteau sa fi aparut si in Monitorul Oficial, nu le face cu nimic mai obiective.
Spre deosebire de tine, eu am o parere, care conteaza in primul rand pentru mine. Parerea "criticii mondiale" (care repet, nu a fost unanim favorabila in cazul filmului asta), e second place in ierarhia mea. Nu am zis nimanui sa nu aprecieze filmul, am spus numai ca eu nu il apreciez si de ce. Pentru asta vii tu sa-mi dai in virtual cap. Ia-ti pastilele inainte sa te mai inscrii pe un forum.

[ulrich]

capodopera in completa definitie a cuvantului. vazut ca pe astia care au descoperit filmu (si pe g. noe) alaltaieri i-a cam speriat nihilismul fierbinte si disperat care roade rapid si pana la cotor habitusurile lor mentale…lenese, lancede si despre care ei insisi stiu ca sunt doar niste minciuni confortabile (nihilism impins pana la ruperea resortului e si in “no country for old men”, dar acolo e alta temperatura, e premeditare rece venita din partea unor regizori care se cred mai isteti decat publicul lor).

Daca stii unde sa cauti, din doua click-uri gasesti pe net video-uri pe langa care scena aia de viol pare blanda. Si nu toate sunt simulate.

Nihilismul e banal si uneori da bine in adolescenta. La adulti denota in general stupiditate sau lasitate.

Irréversible e echivalentul unui film porno. Cine n-a mai vazut unul, e normal sa se scape in pantaloni si apoi sa scrie pe toate forumurile ca a descoperit o capodopera. In fond e o mizerie, dar poate ajuta la anumite defulari.

[Cinemania]

Daca stii unde sa cauti, din doua click-uri gasesti pe net video-uri pe langa care scena aia de viol pare blanda. Si nu toate sunt simulate.

si trebuie neaparat sa privim acea scena ca atare fara sa ne uitam putin dincolo de aspectul 'pornografic'? asta e modul ales de Noe pt a o prezenta...de altfel asta e o caracteristica a stilului sau
violul e trigger-ul faptelor celor doi prieteni de la inceputul filmului

Irréversible e echivalentul unui film porno.

cred ca exagerezi...de ce porno? pt o singura scena de viol explicita? asa putem spune ca e echivalentul unui 'snuff' avand in vedere matrasirea aluia cu extinctorul...ceea ce iarasi nu e corect

Cine n-a mai vazut unul, e normal sa se scape in pantaloni si apoi sa scrie pe toate forumurile ca a descoperit o capodopera. In fond e o mizerie, dar poate ajuta la anumite defulari.

oarecum de acord...foarte multi retin din film acea scena (din motive de ejaculare precoce, superficialitate...naiba stie)

multe discutii pleaca mai mult de la stilul lui Noe care parca isi propune sa sodomizeze privitorul

[ulrich]

@twinsen

ai inteles din ce-am scris eu toat atata cat ai inteles si din film.
sa fim seriosi, nu violenta si pornografia (cum bine a observat cinemania, care “violenta” si “pornografie”??) v-au facut pe voi sa va simtiti inconfortabil, ci ideile subterane ale filmului; curgerea distructiva a timpului spre entropie, spre degradare ireversibila (potentata aici de inversarea sensului cronologic) si nelinistea ca lipsa oricarei reguli de acolo oglindeste de fapt anomia din viata reala. ca sa ma fac priceput mai bine, as spune ca “benjamin button” m-a zguduit la fel de tare ca filmul de care vorbim.
mi-e greu sa explic asta unor sobolani de net care n-au trait/citit/vazut/calatorit, dar …hei, n-aveti nici nici o scuza, ca in definitiv si gaspar noe era relativ tanar si ignorant cand a facut filmul, insa nu numai ca a simtit “cum stau lucrurile” (ca sa citez din marele filosof kurt vonnegut ), dar a si reusit sa exprime asta.