Hi Djordjije,
I'm not sure why you a clockwise movt of the camera would be impt for a
psycho-analytic reading...but I do agree with Bob that the camera is not
always rotating in that particular manner, and for me, it does not
matter whether the camera movt was clockwise or not, but that it was an
intentional movement, rather than the effects of bad cinematography (as
I suggested in Blair Witch, and also I'd now like to extend to Dancer in
the Dark -- which aims to be bad -- and I don't mean it as a joke).
I felt that Noe's work was precise and yes, I agree with Bob that he has
chosen to present in a 'reverse' order of events that have taken place.
And perhaps, the title 'Irreversible" is to signal that it is impossible
to undo what time does in a linear fashion, but by presenting it
backwards, it at once shows that cinema has the power to subvert our
traditional experience of time, it allows an opening up of the
temporal. Yet, paradoxically, especially as the film draws to a close,
the idea of the irreversibility of time takes on a more profound
significance. The narrative itself is able to subvert even the power
that cinema has over time. It does a double take. We are more aware of
the tragedy that we have just experienced and its powerlessness to be
soemthing else.
and I must add here, that whether it was Noe's intention to have
generated responses/readings/reactions etc doesn't really figure into
the potential film concepts that are opened up by it, as Deleuze says at
the end of his Cinema 2 book, that the ideas for film theory can only be
presented by filmic images, and although they are intrinsic to each
other, the two practices are distinct from each other.
He is a fascinating film-maker, the shot of the rape scene, as difficult
as it was to watch and about 30 people walked out of the session i was
at (we were interviewed afterwards and was told this) and all the fuss
made about it. It is a reflection on the society we're living in -- I'm
in Sydney Australia where Baise-moi was banned and so was Salo and even
Romance was going to be banned... I mean how can all these women sit
through the bashing of this guy's head to a pulp (admittedly, the image
became more and more unreal and perhaps a object of 'attraction' in
Gunning's sense) and not sit through this incredible piece of acting by
this actress - who no doubt put herself 'out there' to make this scene
so realistic and unbearable to watch. But the camera stayed with here,
it didn't move, it was on the ground, where she is, it reacted in a
stilted, jerky manner before it hit the ground. As though it is freeing
itself from its 'optical unconsciousness' (if I may be permitted to draw
such a conjecture here).
And yes, I'd like to continue this conversation, but again, time is
flitting past and I have to again abandon this conversation. But until
next time.
Janice
p.s. Bob, I'd be interested to know what else Noe said, and also did you
get the interview published? can i read it anywhere? and have you seen
any of his other works?
--------------
Janice Tong
Cinema Studies
Department of Art History and Theory
University of Sydney
Ph: 61 2 9351 6908
Fx: 61 2 9351 4909
|