Enter the Void

Gaspar Noé's big beast of a Cannes entrant showed for the first time in the UK this week in October. Gaspar Noé was there to introduce the film, which was a great kick for me, even though he didn't do a Q&A. His intro was quite funny, because he's not a grand intellectual, he's more of a sensualist. It's clear that he had a pretty dissipated youth and he talked about his experimentation with hallucinogenics and he always wondered as a kid why nobody was making movies with the images like he was seeing whilst high in them. So this is a movie I think he's wanted to make for a very long time, perhaps a couple of decades, but only now has he been able to get the freedom and funding to do it.

He said he had seen the film Lady in the Lake after taking a magic mushroom; this is a 1947 Raymond Chandler adaptation which is shot in POV (that is, the camera is like the eyes of the lead). Gaspar had also been reading about life after death experiences, or near death experiences. So he wanted to combine the hallucinations, POV shooting, and out-of-body experience material. The result is 2 hour and 43 minutes of masterpiece. It will leave the ciné-gourmand gorged and bewildered. For me it's a clear step-up, even an evolution, from his last feature film in 2002, Irréversible. The idea of having out-of-body experiences really frees up the concept of POV, Noé's not limited by the body (which can't just glide forty feet into the air, or halfway across the city). He's really freed up to shoot the fluorescent sexual labyrinth of Tokyo, which is shot only at night-time and in POV.

The story in the movie concerns a brother and sister (Oscar and Linda) who have a childhood trauma and end up moving to Tokyo in their late teens where they become involved in a heaving underworld. I think though that Tokyo is more of a metaphor in this film, I don't think he's trying to tell you anything about Tokyo the city per se, I think it's just the perfect pre-fabricated set for Noé. In the film it's a nerve centre, it's that place in life where we meet lovers, copulate, produce new life, and die. It's the mayfly (order Ephemeroptera, from the Greek for short-lived) part of the human lifecycle, which we experience in a heightened fashion through the eyes of Oscar.

There's a lot of stuff in here for you to take offence to if you want, If you have ever taken offence to a film on content grounds as opposed to intellectual grounds, you're likely to take offence here. Pornographic linkages between adult sexuality and the Oedipus complex, for me are brilliant, but will upset many filmgoers.

Those people who have decided that Noé is homophobic or misogynistic after seeing Irréversible are not going to have their minds changed by this movie at all. There seems to be a very strong link in his mind between sex and procreation. You don't have to consume the movie in a homophobic way in my opinion, but there may be a lot of upset gays after seeing this movie. Particularly as the gay character in this movie is portrayed as being on the same level as the rapist in Irréversible. There's no direct comment, but if you read between the lines, you may not like what you read.

I think the androphiles are going to love Nathaniel Brown who plays the lead teen, Oscar, in this movie, which is his first credited role on IMDb, straight as I am, even I can tell he's a heartthrob. Paz de la Huerta as Linda, his sister, is very eye candyish too. If you like to see beautiful things writhing (we're talking eye popping next level FX hallucinations here, as well as copious sex), then this is the movie for you.

I walked out of the cinema still tripping, the POV is so spectacularly well delivered that you feel almost like you're still in the movie when you come out, because the mode of perception hasn't changed.

The lasting images I am left with are from the Love hotel, a very strange pastel and fluorescent building that has holo-reflectors design on the outside and which Noé dedicates a lot of the later part of the movie to, the FX emanations are spectacular.

Saw this at the Melbourne International Film Festival. Whilst I didn't enjoy Noe's first film I Stand Alone, I loved Irreversible.

There is lots to like about ETV and much to dislike as well. An hour into the film and I would have given it perhaps an eight or nine but by the end of the film I was frustrated. Why? Noe just can't help himself and you get the feeling he either didn't know how to end the film or simply just wanted to be shocking for the sake of it.

Visually, I couldn't help but be impressed. Some amazing shots, lighting (strobe) and editing techniques. Noe also mixes up the story well as he did in Irreversible. You are not spoon fed the story and I love the way he told the back story of the two leads.

Plenty of people walked out at the screening after the hour and forty minute mark and I couldn't blame them. Probably not because they were shocked but just bored and frustrated. Noe pads this out and it is such a shame as overall it ruined the film as a whole.

The acting is quite wooden and doesn't ring true but that is only a minor quibble when compared to the film's bloated running time.

Hard to fault Noe for his creativity, energy and style and refusal to follow norms in terms of narrative structure etc. Still, I wish a friend or colleague had tapped him on the shoulder or given him some constructive criticism about the last half of the film.

I can only imagine how much footage Noe might add into a Directors Cut - Lord help us. Perhaps he could learn some lessons from this and streamline his storytelling and not feel the need to bludgeon the audience just for the sake of it.

I hate to give a NOE movie any less then an 8 rating. Especially a movie like this, that is so unique. But boy was it way to long to enjoy. The excitement and fascination just got kinda choked out of me while watching. Which is a shame. because there is a masterpiece in there.

And on that note a shout out to "short" art-house films like "Daft Punk's Electroma" and "The Tracy Fragments".

In a nutshell, Gaspar Noe's often exasperating but always visionary Enter the Void follows a man on his journey from his last hours on earth, through his death and his journey into the afterlife. The first twenty minutes or so follows Oscar as he takes a hit of DMT (a very potent hallucinogen) and goes on a visually arresting, if slightly over-long trip. He then leaves his house to give his friend a stash of drugs he owes him only to be chased and shot by police when he gets there. From there, his death and afterlife mirrors the philosophies behind the Tibetan Book of the Dead which theorises (I'm sure I'm putting this very crudely) that one's soul floats around, watching the world without them until they figure out how to leave their old life behind and move on. To recommend this film to audiences is perhaps a wrong turn, as it is bound to strike most as indulgent, immoral, needlessly vulgar and uncomfortable (particularly in Oscar's tendency to watch his sister having sex whenever possible). However, with suitably forewarning, this is a film that any self-respecting cinephile should make a point of seeing, and especially on the big screen.

Noe proved with Irreversible that he was a technical genius and that his eye for original visuals knows no bounds. He also proved that he wasn't afraid to shock his audience and has quite the nasty streak running through his stories. In both visual content and shock factor, Irreversible was merely a precursor to his magnum opus Enter the Void. With an endless stream of nasty images and depressingly dead-eyed unpleasantness, it is difficult to feel anything for any of the characters, but none of this dampens the impact of Noe's probing, soaring, spectral camera as it floats in and out of lives and deaths. I don't know if it has ever been done before but the camera-as-spirit conceit is highly effective and one which puts a very interesting moral spin on the voyeurism of this film. Noe takes voyeurism to extreme, as Oscar's spirit jumps in and out of bodies in often very unusual and even shocking circumstances.

The trouble with Enter the Void is that it is difficult sometimes to know whether to laugh or be shocked. Some of the content is pretty outrageous and even quite silly. However, for every roll of the eyes, there is a gasp of astonishment in terms of the intensity of the cinematic experience. Having now seen this film twice (it premiered at JDIFF 2010 in February), I must say I was pleased to see some superfluous scenes towards the end cut out, giving the film a somewhat more streamlined effect.

Your tolerance for Noe's self-indulgence will most likely decide your level of enjoyment of this, a film I imagine will very much divide audiences, but it is at the very least a visual milestone that should be seen on as big a screen as possible (though somehow I can't see this one gracing Screen 1 in the Savoy anytime soon). A flawed piece, but one flooded with moments of genius.

Enter the Void is exactly the kind of polarizing film that cinema needs right now. Too many films these days play it safe, being concerned with keeping the audience comfortable, safe and happy. Enter Gaspar Noe, who clearly has no regard either for the well-being of either the audience or his actors. We have antagonistically long (but brilliant) takes, beginning in an apartment and ending in a bar, several blocks over. We are given characters and are exposed to their darkest moments, but are never given a real reason to care for them, or to perceive them as anything but wretched. We are also shown some sexually discomforting things that we never really wanted to see on the silver screen (if you've seen it you probably know what I'm talking about). Also, the film is almost completely in first-person viewpoint, so you're constantly feeling confined to what Oscar is looking at, which are mostly psychedelic images. In effect, the feel and tone of the story are immediately off-putting for the viewer, but since you've already bought a ticket, what can you do but follow it through?

This is definitely the kind of film that can be approached in the wrong way, both with the medium that you view it through, and with your state of mind. Enter the Void is meant to be a transportive film (i.e. you living directly in the viewpoint of another, and feeling how that person feels, and perhaps even thinking how that person thinks). To technically maximize the experience, the film should really be experienced on the big screen. I'd imagine an IMAX screen to be ideal.

I also think a film like Enter the Void really needs to be approached with a separate set of goals than that of a normal film. First of all, chuck any notions of entertainment, or even enjoyment, out the window. While you're at it, remove any notions of positivity that you can think of. The only reactions that Enter the Void will draw from you are negative ones. Personally, the only emotion I consistently felt was a slight nausea, tinted with the occasional horror, or perhaps a shameful arousal, as there is excessive sexual content that is all wretched in one way or another.

The film is shot with a certain frame of mind, and sticks to it with remarkable faith. It's in the point of view of a small group of friends who are confined to the drug and clubbing scenes in Tokyo. He then films them in the most abrasive ways possible, showering the viewer in infinite neon lights, and fish-eyed close-ups, and then Noe lets his frames linger on these unsightly images for uncomfortably long. Even with his tracking shots moving from one location to another, when the viewer is normally given a moments rest, he rapidly cuts across hallways, stairs, and streets, and never gives the viewer a free moment to settle down.

Despite the film's antagonistic feel, and despite the physical and psychological discomforts that the film drew from me, I still found Enter the Void to be a worthwhile and even inspirational experience. More to the point, Enter the Void may not be a friendly experience, but this exact kind of experimentation and determined expression are just what cinema needs in order to be taken seriously as an artistic medium, when so many other directors air on the side of caution and safety. It might be a difficult ride, but just watch it once and you'll carry it with you forever.