Enter the Void

I attended the International Premiere of "Enter the Void" at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. Fans of director Gaspar Noé, whose film "Irreversible" created a significant following, will not be disappointed. At two and a half hours long, this film is definitely not for everyone. But I knew that going in and got exactly what I'd hoped for and more. It's trippy, dreamy, and mesmerizing and left me shaking my head in wonder many times. Startling and risky performances punctuate the dazzling visuals. The biggest surprise for me: "Enter the Void" has much more of a narrative than I was expecting. I was prepared for a cinematic acid trip, which I got, but there is an actual storyline which threads through the experimental camera-work and effects which are at the heart of the film. I highly recommend this movie but with qualifications, though. There is a great deal of drug use and some explicit sex but the film is compelling.

Gaspar Noe gets a free pass from film festival directors and apparently (judging from the IMDb sample reaction) ignorant film fans with his intentionally provocative works. I've seen this dreck before.

With ENTER THE VOID we have a typical case of a film (or video)-maker infatuated with some technique and then running it into the ground. The floating "omniscient" camera p-o-v is unleashed early in the film after the first-person hand-held camera gimmick wears thin, and the viewer must suffer through it for over two hours, when Noe is not cribbing from "the ultimate trip", Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for his tedious light shows.

As a film buff old enough to have sat through 2001 several times in all its Cinerama glory, I can vouch for its trippy theatrical impact back in 1968; current fans do not have this opportunity so we don't have a fair appreciation of this masterpiece based on mere video screenings. Even given this advantage, Noe conjures here an ordinary rendering of the "cult of ugliness", making each shot pastel-pretty but with determined ugly = beautiful inversions. I would prefer an Abel Ferrara visit to the drug-infested gutter with his intrinsically gritty approach to Noe's SFX hokum any day of the week.

The bland anti-hero Nathaniel Brown was poorly cast, a dull presence in those few shots when we actually see him, and his sidekick Cyril Roy is embarrassingly there just to deliver exposition. Even in the most rudimentary, improvised XXX porn, I can't recall having the film's premise "explained" to me the way Roy lays out in detail the reincarnation theme from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and then, sure enough Brown goes through the out-of-body post-death claptrap as described. Paz de la Huerta is the recent indie flavor of the month girl (see: Jarmusch), but her lack of acting ability is evident, especially in her freakout scene here. In castng this eye candy role, anybody (read: any body) will do.

For porno content, Noe delivers considerable footage, none of which has the impact of real porn. Especially when compared to the work of Phil Prince, Joe Davian and other New York City pornographers of the '70s and early '80s, when s&m/b&d dominated (pun intended) porn features for a while, all fully documented on DVD reissues. Glamorizing then debunking the ecstasies/perils of the druggie life style is such an old hat concept in filmmaking that I'm surprised anyone gave Noe any credit for this rehash.

Parting shot: the infamous "penis entering vagina" shot in ENTER THE VOID is a corny ripoff of pornographer Luca Damiano, who has used this effect in numerous '90s porn videos, any one of which is more entertaining than VOID. Check out his EROTIC ADVENTURES OF RED RIDING HOOD for a prime example.

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.

If the following things disturb you, then you should probably avoid this film: strobe lights, drug use, shaky hand-held cameras, graphic sexuality, sperm, spinning cameras, psychedelic imagery, blood, gay sex, abortion, breastfeeding or a graphic auto wreck.

But if you're still intrigued then sit down and get ready for nearly three hours of mind-blowing imagery that you'll never forget! Although IMDb lists the Toronto Film Festival version as "only" 135 minutes, according to my watch we got the 163 minute version that was shown at Cannes. The presenter also warned us 3 times before the screening that anyone with epilepsy should leave the theatre due to the flashing lights in the film. She was quite serious about that.

I was a bit apprehensive prior to the start of this movie. I didn't "get" 2001 at all the first time I watched it and I positively hated David Lynch's ERASERHEAD. Would I enjoy ENTER THE VOID? Understand it? Walk out before the end? Yes, yes and no.

The film opens with Oscar and Linda, siblings from the United States living in Japan, looking out at Tokyo from an apartment balcony. It quickly becomes obvious that Oscar is both a drug dealer & addict while his sister works as a stripper. Their tragic family history is revealed in segments throughout the first hour. The entire film is seen from Oscar's perspective, either as: (1) First-person, shaky camera, blurry shots as Oscar walks around Tokyo, very high on drugs (2) An out-of-body experience where Oscar floats around the city observing Linda's life and the people that interact with her (3) Flashbacks to Oscar and Linda's youth, similar to (1) except that here we always see the back of Oscar's head in the shot rather than "through his eyes" (4) A surprise at the climax of the film.

Number (1) above may sound nausea-inducing to some, but there's usually interesting dialogue to distract you from the disorienting visuals and these scenes only comprise a small percentage of the total screen time. Technique number (2) could have been Oscar-worthy if it was filmed for a less controversial movie. Floating and spinning above the city of Tokyo and watching various dramas unfold from up above is absolutely incredible. You'll spend so much time watching from this perspective that it's easy to get lost in the images and forget what an incredible technical achievement you're observing.

Virtually all of the key plot elements occur within the first 90 minutes of the film. After that the film transforms into more of a psychedelic, visual experience while the story fades away. This phase of the film really tested my patience and I started to check my watch frequently but there were enough eye-popping scenes that I'm sure I'll view this a second time someday. The momentum returns during the final 10 or 15 minutes, and although this final phase is simply a logical conclusion of what had been blatantly foreshadowed earlier, it's nonetheless amusing and incredible to watch the taboo-breaking finale.

This film is very unique, disorienting and absolutely incredible & unforgettable. I can definitely understand why it's been compared to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but I found ENTER THE VOID to be more accessible and more comprehensible during my first viewing. It's too controversial and too bizarre to appeal to most people, but it will undoubtedly find its niche as one of the greatest cult classics of all-time.

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.