Talk:Irréversible

Untitled

the violence that is depicted in movies generally is either sensationalised or dilutes it was a change to see it depicted in detai here , what that really contributes to is to make us think about the reality of it, it affects us we perhaps puts us in that place and feel terrified most people turn away from this feeling. the act of revenge is perhaps justified when we are taken in to a dream at the end of the movie- that the heroine has of her would be children. About the revenge thing - there is an intention of revenge in the whole legal process that human race follow through out the world after a crime is committed.

I removed this paragraph from the "public reception" section, because I think this is a personal opinion. Certainly a good point, but I don't think this should be in an encyclopedia article. Sietse 18:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the shot at the park, at the close of the film, is not "time indeterminate"; alex is shown reading An Experiment with Time (zoom in on a dvd, you can make out the title, in english); she tells marcus and pierre about having just started it when theyre on their way to the party (describes a book about predestination, which is a misinterpretation of the dunne, where the proof is in yr dreams). Nateji77 08:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the section stating the blurred figure in the rape scene may be Pierre. There is absolutely no evidence it could be, it could be anyone it is that vague. Even in the DVD's making of effects documentary, the director never even hints the figure could be Pierre - just a random member of the public.

WRONG INFO ALERT

It said in the description that Le tenia attempts to rape one of the guys and that the other bashes his head in - in fact it is Le tenia's _friend_ who does all that and is killed. Le tenia - the original rapist - is completely unharmed and sort of stands there not believing what just happened - will fix, back to work! cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.132.18.18 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Language

I don't understand what "Gaspar digitally inserted himself because he might fear the film would be homophobic from viewers." is meant to describe. It should be rephrased.

I've gone ahead and removed that, since it was sourced tot he trivia section for the film on IMDB. Absolutely not reliable at all and it was phrased awkwardly. Nice catch. Millahnna (mouse)talk 12:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Scene

Should it get a mention? 92.24.83.87 (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CGI in Rape Scene (from plot synopsis)

quote: "The rape takes place after Alex encounters le Tenia beating Concha in a pedestrian underpass. Le Tenia then turns his attention on Alex and threatens her with a knife to her throat. The following rape scene is portrayed using a single, unbroken shot, lasting nine minutes. Although this scene appears horrifically realistic, CGI was used."

I don't mean to nitpick, but is this somewhat misleading? The CGI used is used only for the rapist's wang (seen when he rolls off the battered victim), not the act of rape per se, which is simulated without special effects. Perhaps it should be rewritten -- people who haven't seen the movie may get the wrong idea about this eminently violent scene when they read "CGI was used." 204.209.209.129 (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I went ahead a did some editing to the plot summary, nothing major -- my goal was to make things clearer and bring attention to some neglected details and fix some of the wording. Mind you, my edits may suck, what do i know? Some may feel the plot summary is too long, but later I would like to add more material to this page for balance, particularly the "reception" section. thanks. 204.209.209.129 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical Details

Is CGI quite the right way to describe how the fire extinguisher murder was achieved? Surely it's some sort of composite of a dummy and the actor, rather than "computer graphics" as such? Cardinal Wurzel 20:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually they use a mix of computer graphics, the latex dummy, and the live actor for this brutal effect. You can see this on the mini "making of" feature on the DVD. 204.209.209.129 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the film tries to present the action as "all one take". This is impossible anyway, as the film moves backwards. The previous section speaks of a "nine-minute take". If the film is presented as "all one take", how could we distinguish that nine minutes from the rest? I agree that the cuts are made invisible, but I don't think the goal of that was to create the illusion that the plot unfolds in one continuous take. I think it was a device to preserve the "drifting camera" motif established early on in the film.Banditteeth 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

I find it a bit bizarre that the title is spelled IЯЯƎVƎЯSIBLƎ in the article. Isn't the title just Irréversible (as the article is titled)? (And anyway, I doubt the official title has Cyrillic characters in it...) Cute, but I suggest we change it to Irréversible. Objections? — brighterorange (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, it's not Cyrillic, just (some) letters mirrored to match Cyrillic. The choice is rather strange, seems like only the characters that have Cyrillic equivalents are reversed. The only relevant cultural reference I can find is to Clockwork Orange (also w/ violence as a significant part of the plot and arbitrary use of Russian language).

Bronze Horse award

Maybe someone should include a note on what that is.

"Limited to cinemas and tertiary film studies courses"

Should explain what this means. That it is banned from film studies courses before university? T.V., etc.? --Samuel O'Malley 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a source for this information, but I gather what it means is that it is only allowed to be shown in cinemas, with the exception that students (presumably tertiary level, i.e. college or university because of age restrictions) who are studying the film can use the film for their studies. I do know that the BBFC in the UK assess films differently for cinema than for video release - in fact the BBFC news article on Irreversible on their website stated that although it was released uncut in cinemas, they would reconsider it when it came to be released on video (although it was released uncut on video as well). Their rational seems to be that, first of all, it is much more unlikely for underage viewers to see a film in the cinema, and secondly that video gives the opportunity for parts of the film to be watched on their own, apart from the rest of the film, as many times as the viewer wishes. This is why they are especially hard on sexual violence on video. Obviously the BBFC are not the New Zealand film censors (whatever they're called), but I imagine their reasons are similar if not the same.Liquidcow (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sanctions Rape

The article includes a (unsourced) statement that the film has been accused of sancioning rape. I have never come across any film critic saying this. I have heard of accusations that it eroticises or dwells on the rape by presenting it so unflinchingly, but that is not the same thing. This is quite a strong comment to have here without a source to back it up.Liquidcow (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Albert dupontel3.jpg

Image:Albert dupontel3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Irreversible ver2.jpg

Image:Irreversible ver2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot section.

This is in reverse order. While I understand that it may be easier to understand the 'plot' like this, it is terrible as a description of the film. I suggest pruning it radically and reversing (again) the order. pablo 10:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically, I suppose the "plot" arguably refers to the storyline (in chronological order) as opposed to the narrative (as shown in the film)? Not sure of the policy on this.

As it stands, it states there are 13 scenes in reverse order, then followed by nine paragraphs. To aid the reader, each paragraph should represent a different scene, therefore with 13 scenes, preferably numbered. —sroc (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the plot can be put in a table with each scene in a separate row, so that the reader can choose the order the scenes in narrative (ascending) or chronological (descending) order by scene number? —sroc (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In the wp article for the film Memento there is a very cogent discussion of the difference between the chronology of the plot and the chronology of a film's narrative (in the section 'Film Structure'). Either referencing that text, or copying it, or ??? might help explain what is going on this film. 174.65.10.224 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:PLOTPRESENT:

If it makes the plot easier to explain, events can be reordered; for instance, a backstory revealed later in a novel can be put first, or a non-chronological structure made chronological. See, for example, Pulp Fiction.

—sroc 💬 11:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but Pulp Fiction's structure is not primarily presented chronologically on its wiki page, nor is Memento's, Reservoir Dogs', or Kill Bill's. I don't see how describing it chronologically for Irréversible is in any way terribly helpful or enlightening. Damienivan (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot II

The taxi scene is missing in the plot description. 212.186.99.222 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong transcription / translation?

> A title card reads: "Le Temps Detruit Tous" ("Time destroys everything")

"Tous" actually means "everyone". "Tout" would mean "everything". I don't have a copy of the movie handy so I can't settle this question but either the transcription or the translation is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallais (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Second Taxi Scene

I believe there were two taxi scenes, rather than just one, as shown in the plot on this page. The first scene, in the order in which it is shown in the film, is the scene after it was stolen from the driver, in which Vincent breaks the windows. Only after this scene do we see them hail the cab and get in with the original driver, making it its own separate scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfinjest (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Film ending

Whoever posted the plot description has failed to grasp the significance of the film ending. The woman reading An Experiment With Time is not Alex, rather she is Alex's pregnant mother, with Alex inside her. Both mother and daughter, perhaps a quarter of a century apart, have the same 2001 poster on their wall.

This film draws plot elements from two Kubrick films, 2001 and A Clockwork Orange, but the main structure (beginning with an act of animal violence and ending with the fetus) is all 2001.

This is a wonderful film, and the 'chronological' re-ordering of the plot does it no favours.

StephenJPC (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)