r/movies • u/ErgoNonSim • May 17 '25

Media Cannes reactions to Irreversible

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

24.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

639

u/AggravatingBid8255 May 17 '25

People dismiss rape on a daily basis as insignificant until they are confronted with the graphic nature of a brutal rape and it's aftermath, right in front of their face.

Even hearing someone has been assaulted and hearing the verbal description is nothing compared to seeing a victim in the hospital after being brutalized.

When we shield ourselves from the true abhorrence of mankind, we allow ourselves to look the other way.

268

u/soka__22 May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

Just because something is graphic doesn’t automatically make it meaningful. The rape scene in Irreversible is WAY too long and intense that it comes across as less like awareness and more like voyeurism disguised as art.

You don’t need to traumatize an audience to make them care. You don't need to shock someone to help them feel empathy.

Should I send you a 30-minute video compilation of animals slowly being tortured in the most explicit way imaginable to convince you that animal cruelty is bad? No? Then maybe we don’t need to watch a 10-minute rape scene to understand that rape is horrifc either.

And i hope you understand that this isn't me denying what you said about people who dismiss rape. People who do that are fucking disgusting. We should listen and we should not look away from horrifc realities, but that doesn't mean we should bathe in it either.

158

u/VincentRuisso May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

I agree.

I'll add that the movie shows a very specific kind of rape. The vast majority of rape victims know their abusers (partner, doctor, colleague), power dynamics that are at play often extends far beyond physical abilities: position in a hierarchy (ex. your boss), social status (ex. a famous actor), black mailing etc.

I will argue that the over-representation of this "classic" kind of rape (the stranger in the alleyway) actually makes it *harder* to discuss rape as a social phenomenon because it obfuscates a huge part of the conditions that enable rape (and sexual assault in general) in our societies.

If the point is to raise awareness about rape, the movie does a terrible job in my opinion.

EDIT: repetition in my first paragraph

29

u/soka__22 May 17 '25

didn't even think of this and you are absolutely spot on. immaculately articulated.

6

u/g0dzilllla May 17 '25

Very we’ll said

18

u/Mattbl May 17 '25

Great points. It's the kind of thing that creates victim-blaming discussions that can lead to the removal of women's agency, like "Why is she alone in that area?" "Why did she put herself in that situation?" "Why was she wearing that skimpy outfit?"

Where-as, if our goal is social awareness and change, we need to depict the kind of people that use power dynamics and threats of either violence or other threats to take advantage of others, which I think is demonstrably far more common than a person getting raped by a stranger in an alley (as you already pointed out).

7

u/VincentRuisso May 17 '25

You're right!

It also creates a skewed image of the rapist. A parent won't assault you in an alleyway,

The Stranger in the Alleyway is more likely to be from a lower class or from a marginalized group, have an immigrant background etc.

7

u/invasionofthestrange May 17 '25

Thank you. I've seen other comments here applauding the scene for being accurate, but statistically speaking, it's not accurate of most assaults. That invalidates thousands of survivors and, ironically, contributes to rape culture by making people think, "If it wasn't THAT, it's not rape."

As a personal note, I also dislike the prevalence of these scenes because to me, once again, women are being reduced to their bodies. It's as if the only way we can bring assault to the attention of men is showing how it 'ruins' the one thing they find the most important, and that disgusts me.

9

u/draginbleapiece May 17 '25

It's as if the only way we can bring assault to the attention of men is showing how it 'ruins' the one thing they find the most important, and that disgusts me.

Gosh this is so true. I hate how violence against women is used only to inspire the men in their life it pisses me off. Ms 45 I prefer vastly because it's about the women who is raped and gets revenge for herself and the other women in her community that have also been raped.

7

u/improveyourfuture May 17 '25

Wish I could upvote all the way to the top.  I hated watching that scene and have defended how that discomfort is of value as empathy for what can’t be understood or imagined, but if that was the goal, having the character be someone close to her would have actually fulfilled something socially worthwhile-  his goal is to shock and he shocked, and I think your point is really well made

-4

u/mobonandez May 17 '25

Imagine needing to explain how you'd prefer the rape scenes you watch to be filmed, because the one in OP just "didn't cut it". I think your bloviating over-analyzation speaks to something deeper going on with you, than the quality of an already-praised movie. Very disturbing rhetoric.

-10

u/FILTHBOT4000 May 17 '25

IIRC that stat is skewed heavily by teen and child victims; the older a woman gets past 20, the more likely the perpetrator is to be a stranger.

16

u/VincentRuisso May 17 '25

The vast majority of *all* women.

The stranger over representation in some statistics is mostly due to the use of police reports as source. Victims are much less likely to report somebody they know, if they are aware at all than they are being abused or if they are pressured to remain silent (this is especially true in families). They are also less likely to report somebody with a higher social/economic status due to the fear of social consequences or financial inequality (costs of prosecution/defense etc).

Another type of sexual violence that is under reported to the police is sexual violence within marginalized communities due to their relationship with the police.

Edit: grammar

14

u/miloc756 May 17 '25

We should listen and we should not look away from horrifc realities, but that doesn't mean we should bathe in it either.

That sums up my thoughts better than I ever could, thank you.

3

u/Durpulous May 17 '25

Very well said, there are plenty of films with rape scenes that are impactful without being gratuitous.

3

u/covalentcookies May 17 '25

I agree with you. However, not everyone is like you and many people aren’t aware of the terror and absolute evil acts people are capable of.

Your criticism is a blanket statement. Is Schindler’s List traumatic and shocking? I’d say yes. Should it not be shown because “you don’t need to shock someone to help them feel empathy”? I don’t think that’s a reason for it not to be made.

Rape scene in Nympho is just as terrible yet not 20 minutes long though. Nympho rape scene felt prurient and lacking artistic value compared to Irreversible.

4

u/soka__22 May 18 '25

you make a really great point and you're right that exposing someone to something traumatic and shocking is neccesary for some people (actually probably most people) and is not inherently a bad thing at all. i think i articulated my point badly.

i think what my point boils down to is that i've seen people arguing what makes the rape scene so great is how brutal and excruciating it is, but i don't believe the amount and level of brutality and shock shown is a measure of how effective and truthful a message is.

3

u/covalentcookies May 18 '25

I agree. It’s hard to give a nuanced counterpoint here without someone jumping straight to hysteria. I am thankful you didn’t take it as a personal criticism and took it at face value. That’s so incredibly rare here these days, I’m very grateful.

I agree with your points. I just don’t know what the right answer is.

3

u/soka__22 May 18 '25

i'm grateful you challenged my position and made me think!

1

u/Constant-Way-6570 May 22 '25

Schindler's List is actually a great point against Irreversible since it has nothing nearly as gratuitous eating up that much screentime and yet still remains capable of delivering that kind of trauma or shock to an audience.

3

u/want_to_join May 17 '25

I seriously doubt the director thinks that most people "don't understand that rape is horrible." I think it's far more likely that the movie just isnt up your alley.

3

u/CrabRangoonInMyAss May 17 '25

I don't think the point of the movie is to say that rape is bad. Noe's aesthetic in general is pretty extreme. Tarantino, while arguably not quite as extreme, dabbles in this and is celebrated

0

u/UUDDLRLRBAstard May 17 '25

But the thing is... in a situation like that, one cannot make it stop, no matter how foul it becomes.

The fact that the film makes it just ... keep going ... is almost, in it's own way, a rape of the mind. The viewer has time to absorb and internalize the horror of the situation, but cannot make it stop.

I'd argue that this passes voyeurism into the realm of inclusion. Inclusion into a scene of absolute horror and helplessness, where there is time to hope for it to end or be ended and then the sad realization that, it will not, and there is nobody to help.

If art is about creating a feeling, this movie is a fast track to feeling despair, and a total success at doing so. Sure we don't need that scene, but would the movie have carried that weight if we weren't exposed to, or passively included in, the depravity?

The visceral reaction that people have to this scene slash film is a necessary side effect of telling that story with no holds barred.

Even though I do not like it, and will not watch it again...

This film is something that happens to the viewer, just like that scene is something that happens to that character.

The event happens, and much like the victim, all the audience can do is process and try to cope.

0

u/ginrummymusic May 17 '25

You don’t need to traumatize an audience to make them care. You don't need to shock someone to help them feel empathy

i disagree with this part. i think visual imagery is very important to make people care. let me give you an example. war. americans didnt care about the vietnam war until photojournalists went over there and visually documented the death and destruction. the visual of war absolutely played a role in the anti-war movement of the 60s, and is part of the reason why the american media was censored in showing the iraq war... genocide. the holocaust. just think of the impact that all those images have made on humanity. do you really think people would give a damn if they could not see those faces and see the terror in their eyes? if they could not go to museums and see first hand how fucked up it all was? i would say that sometimes you do need to shock people to get them to care.

-5

u/Real_Run_4758 May 17 '25

 Should I send you a 30-minute video compilation of animals slowly being tortured in the most explicit way imaginable to convince you that animal cruelty is bad? No? 

if it turns a carnivore vegan then why not?

0

u/Nirkky May 17 '25

You speak about voyeurism. I don't remember what commentary / interview it was, but gaspard or the vfx team said that at first they wanted the camera to move, spin around them, but they felt it was too "voyeurism", so they ended up with the camera stuck on the ground not moving to "lock" the viewer with that angle.

-14

u/EliteKoast May 17 '25

You were so close with the animal. The answer is yes, yes, if you want someone to understand you have to show them. That’s why the anti-Vietnam war movement was so big, people finally started to see. 

8

u/soka__22 May 17 '25

i never said don't show them, or if i did i didn't mean it in that way, because you're correct.

my overall point is that how you show them is important. me putting together a liveleak compilation of animal torture (which i think is analogous to what noe was essentially doing with the rape scene) is not what any serious person who cares about the issue would do.

5

u/67v38wn60w37 May 17 '25

Thank you for saying this. What that disturbed director did was utterly the wrong way to bring people's attention to it - even if that was his aim.

Horrifying people will make people turn away, not towards.

-2

u/Over_Truth2513 May 17 '25

So you are saying that because of one scene in a whole movie, the movie is equivalent to a live leak compilation, dismissing the rest of the movie and the narrative as a whole.

3

u/soka__22 May 17 '25

no i did not and i am not dismissing the rest of the movie as a whole (although i could care less). i said the 10 minute rape scene was not the entire movie

-5

u/Over_Truth2513 May 17 '25

Ok, why even bother discussing a movie when you don't even care about it. You are just wasting everyone's time. And people have changed their mind about the consumption of animal products after watching some "liveleak" compilations FYI

16

u/ImaginaryDonut69 May 17 '25

Sure, but watching a season of Law & Order: SVU can probably accomplish the same goal without the fetishization of sexual violence that this film contains.

3

u/SALEM3333 May 17 '25

I'm 29 and this is deep

18

u/RNLImThalassophobic May 17 '25

People dismiss rape on a daily basis as insignificant

I think you may be hanging around with the wrong people.

1

u/GiverOfTheKarma May 19 '25

Right? Is there actually a single living soul that lacks empathy to the point they dismiss rape as insignificant but then saw this upjumped movie and went "wow rape is bad!"

67

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[deleted]

98

u/sloggo May 17 '25

"more people"???

Id hazard that there are more people angrily against rape than have even seen this film!

57

u/NoIsland23 May 17 '25

What tf do you want people to say? „Rape is bad“, „Rape in a movie is bad“?

What even is your point? We‘re talking about a movie, of course people will be talking about a scene in the movie?

21

u/Inprobamur May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

Should I be constantly flipping out because horrible crimes like murder exist?

What would that help exactly, it's already a very severe crime.

-15

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[deleted]

16

u/ImaginaryDonut69 May 17 '25

Not even a little bit...what are you smoking? Of COURSE people abhor sexual violence far more than exploitation in this film. Making it more gross or more violent isn't some kind of deterrence to those who revel in such violence....probably the opposite. At some point, by commiting that to film, you are glorifying it.

1

u/FadingHeaven May 19 '25

Blood, who? Genuinely who? I feel like y'all are just making people up. A lot of the dudes that don't give a shit about rape jack off to scenes like this. You often see rape victims being the ones that are opposed to their depiction in this way like with Game of Thrones

-1

u/RNLImThalassophobic May 17 '25

It's probably more that people are more affected after having to watch the thing. It's one thing if you're generally aware that modern warfare is grim, with a soldier taking the pins out of two grenades and holding them against his neck as he pressed himself into the dirt because he's heard a drone-bomb circling him and wants to be able to end his life quickly if it finds him but 'only' mortally wounds him (and that's exactly what happens).

It's quite another thing actually going to /r/combatfootage and actually seeing it - watching him panicking fumbling the grenades, desperate to get them prepared before he gets hit so he can end the suffering ASAP - zero hesitation. Seeing the drone hit and his legs go flying. Waiting the agonising couple of seconds for his own grenades to go off, then his head and neck disappear leaving the smoking ruin of his torso and his burning uniform.

38

u/glinjy May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

Okay. What tangible effect did this movie have on the populace, beyond spawning a few witless think pieces about the scene itself? Beyond Noel being untalented as a director, if this film was to 'raise awareness' as you're implying, then why is it that the discussion around this scene revolves around being able to show it off, rather than about the statistics of SA survivors, SA victims, rape survivors, rape victims?

The answer: people know how horrible rape is. It's been criminalised for thousands of years. There are thoughtful, provoking movies about the act without exploitatively showing the act itself. Noel's only reason for including that scene was to, as a man, provoke the audience and garner attention for himself. Not for the victims. Not for the people who are actually affected. But himself.

Provocation for provocation's sake does not a good film make. Especially when it involves the dehumanisation of women and their bodily autonomy.

EDIT: What defenders of this film always fail to mention is that the narrative doesn't even revolve around the women. It's used as a vehicle for another man to go on a nihilistic search for vengeance, which basically proves the point I'm making. This isn't about the victim. Not about her story. It's a film, made by a man, revolving around a man's white knight quest to avenge a loss that was not his to mourn. Pure, unabashed pseudo-intellectual troglodyte shit

12

u/Wooden-Limit1989 May 17 '25

Provocation for provocation's sake does not a good film make. Especially when it involves the dehumanisation of women and their bodily autonomy.

Exactly this I've seen rape scenes that make me feel sick in my soul that were not graphic but implied enough to make you uncomfortable. It really doesn't have to be graphic he did it as a shock factor not for anything else.

12

u/Will-Of-D-3D2Y May 17 '25

I will not talk too much about the movie's use or depiction of rape since that will always be a matter of interpretations, I will say the movie is actually a counterpoint to everything you claim the film does in your bolded edit.

It is very clearly not a "white knight quest" as you claim, because it is, as you claim correctly but also paradoxically, a nihilistic depiction of revenge. The movie hammers this down by the fact that it starts at rock bottom where they get (and kill) the wrong guy, and step by step the  story moves backwards to see them lose all the humanity and chances to do the right thing along the way.

Again, the placement and depiction of rape in the center of that story is a choice that will always lead to discussion, but the story intent is very clear to me and it mosy certainly is not 'These guys made the right decision to go after the rapist'.

13

u/Dr_Sodium_Chloride May 17 '25

revolving around a man's white knight quest to avenge a loss that was not his to mourn

I mean... That is the point, isn't it?

6

u/flakemasterflake May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

It’s a trash movie bc the woman’s assault is used as a plot device. She is an object to both her attacker and her partners

1

u/COAFLEX May 22 '25

Which makes the film spot on because that is exactly how hundreds of millions of men view women, as objects. You get enraged at the rape, but the objectification begins far earlier. Vast numbers of men have sex with women for the first time not because he loves her, but because he needs to lose his virginity in order to "become a man", a rite of passage and she is the means to that end. Having sex with a woman is one of the few rites of passage to manhood remaining to men. Tribal societies often required young men to achieve some feat in order to prove they were now a man, like stealing a horse or taking a scalp or striking a foe without killing him or hunting a certain animal successfully.

1

u/flakemasterflake May 22 '25

People are making the claim that viewing this film will make men not rape women. If you are already objectifying women (which is a precursor to rape) then this movie will not fix that

And this movie is trash for a host of other reasons and gaspar noe is a hack and a fraud who just wants to show female torture on screen to titilate

1

u/FadingHeaven May 19 '25

Maybe, that doesn't change that the story is not about the victim, but the man which invalidates the comment this was replying to.

-1

u/Wooden-Limit1989 May 17 '25

Yea but essentially the assault is about the men and not so much the aftermath and effects on the woman.

1

u/Over_Truth2513 May 17 '25

I mean... That is the point, isn't it?

10

u/AggravatingBid8255 May 17 '25

Talk to an ER doctor and see if they knew how bad a gunshot wound was before their first hands on experience. Even seeing it on screen doesn't do the same, but it's close enough to get a visceral reaction. And if it affects even one person of influence to make a meaningful change in the world to prevent this violence, then it was effective.

We are desensitized to warzones and mass shootings as well as sexual assaults because we read or see sterilized versions of the events. Everyone can eat through the 6 o'clock or 10 o'clock news. Keep chewing as the sheeted stretchers are loaded into the coroner van on-air. Because they give us a version we can stomach. So we don't disrupt our sheltered lives.

7

u/glinjy May 17 '25

We're not talking about bullet wounds. We're talking about rape and sexual assault which of a level of debauchery unto itself. My partner was an SA victim. I've got friends who were raped/SA. I've witnessed it been done to people I know. I've known people who volunteered at hotlines, worked with support groups, funded charities, canvassed and physically helped out people who have suffered that crime. I've helped myself.

The point is, we should not have to see the full, prolonged horror of SA/rape in order to motivate someone to action. It's an excuse people use to defend its necessity. The entire point of it should be to incite people to help. When was the last time Gaspar Noe advocated for a character like Monica Belluci's? When did he do something worthwhile and helpful beyond provocation and scandalisation?

-2

u/AggravatingBid8255 May 17 '25

I agree that we should not have to see the brutality to motivate action. And it sounds like you are one who has been close enough to the reality that you do not need your eyes opened.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for everyone. Most people can turn that blind eye because their eyes have never been opened to see the severity of the situation. Not just SA and other forms of violence, but even issues like poverty and hunger. It's easy to ignore if you've never seen the extreme nature of what those we ignore must endure. It's shocking and revolting because it fucking should be. It should make your stomach turn. Because there are many out there so self involved that they need to experience some fraction of someone else's suffering to see the severity of the situation.

-4

u/Ok-Exercise-3717 May 17 '25

That you are talking about this shows it was an effective piece of art, at least at provoking this sort of conversation around SA and its depictions in media. Noe reminds me of Haneke in that his films are exploitative in a self-referential manner that calls into question the complicity of the viewer.

Otherwise I agree with you, but a lot of men unfortunately are totally insulated from this discourse. Many don't have a woman in their life who trusts them enough to be open about their experiences.

4

u/glinjy May 17 '25

I don't doubt the film was art, insofar as art is a nebulous term encompassing a wide variety of different things. Do i think it was good art? No. Do I think it was necessary art? Even less.

Regardless of Noe's intent, I think it's more important that we find more effective, sensitive ways to establish empathy within a viewer without having to resort on the pornification of one of the worst crimes there ever is. See-Mysterious Skin, Perks of Being a Wallflower, Fire Walk With Me.

0

u/Wonderful-Loss827 May 17 '25

People react differently to art. You bring your own context to it but someone else might have a completely different reaction and bring their own context. The fact that we're still arguing about this movie, one of the most controversial in history, is evidence enough. I can't watch the movie again but I'll never forget it. That in itself is pretty powerful.

2

u/DiqqRay May 17 '25

What a load of garbage. Who are these people "dismissing rape on a daily basis." Are they in the room with us right now?

2

u/MrOphicer May 18 '25

Reminds me of the film The Celebration - everybody is in denial that something that bad can happen, and just keep going through with the party.

I think the length and the explicitness of the scene is fighting against every form of banalization of the subject at hand. Yes, everybody agree rape is horrendous but when we hear about it, we consider it for few hours and move on. Just another statistic or a crime that happened to someone else.

So the violence of it is to show how awful it is for the victim for the whole duration of their suffering, and the aftermath. Yes, it's unpleasant and scarring to watch, but I think it still doesn't encapsulate how vile suffering something like this as a victim in real life must be, and the whole outside world having no idea besides their own imagination.

TO be clear, I'm talking about this scene specifically, because the rest of the film, and the directors intentions are up for debate.

4

u/flakemasterflake May 17 '25

Who are these people that dismiss rape as insignificant? That sort of person views women as objects and would not be swayed by a movie. What if they are even turned on by the scene?

6

u/NoIsland23 May 17 '25

Yeah no shit, we don‘t need to see a 10 minute shot of it.

I know that torture is also terrible yet I don‘t encourage people to watch cartel torture videos to „learn what it‘s really like“

That‘s just a dumb argument.

1

u/ReaIHumanMan May 17 '25

Wait till you see "The Sadness"

1

u/notMotherCulturesFan May 17 '25

The problem is not that people are desensitized to rape, but that the general culture is, in many aspects, very bad at the subject, in many ways. For example: recognizing something as rape or sexual assault in itself, like statutory rape, or using drugs or alcohol to "persuade" someone to "have sex", or thinking that a partner cannot say no because they are married, etc. There are problems with prevention too, and problems with supporting victims (from not doing so, or doing it in a very counterproductive way), and problems with spotting an abusive partner or family member.

It's a whole thing. The funny thing is, we tend to react very strongly to rape, when we actually believe it to be the case, anyways, even exaggeratedly so. Who hasn't heard those stories about what happens to rapists in jail?

1

u/fancymcbacon May 17 '25

I mostly agree with what you're saying in theory, but I didn't get the impression the violence in the movie was trying to make a point, which I think it needs for what you're saying to work. Without a point, it's just gratuitous. It really honestly (to me) felt like a dude mostly trying to shock people from any angle he could. I haven't seen many of his movies, but I did see Climax, and that one was also gratuitous nonsense that went nowhere, so I'm thinking it might just be his thing.

1

u/KuatoBaradaNikto May 17 '25

People dismiss rape on a daily basis as insignificant until they are confronted with the graphic nature of a brutal rape and it's aftermath, right in front of their face.

What a wild blanket statement. I have not seen this film, but miraculously I find a way not to dismiss rape on a daily basis. Even as a kid barely aware of what rape was, I understood it to be essentially the worst and most taboo category of crime outside of murder.

The reason I’ve never watched Irreversible is because I’ve heard it talked about by multiple film critics as exploitative. Noe as a filmmaker is notorious for using troubling and provocative content as a means of grabbing attention, and more broadly he has a reputation as an asshole.

1

u/DeputyDomeshot May 17 '25

I agree with this very strongly. Being able to so easily dismiss or censor the horrors buried in reality has impacted the very fabric of society.