SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 32 Discussion - Enter the Void

G

Guestx

Guest
NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Confused about what's going on in here? See the following thread:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/could-a-sherdog-movie-watching-club-work.3237221/


@Zer is up this week and having now actually seen the film, I'll just say . . . well, it was a very Zer sort of week. So let's begin our discussion of Enter the Void.


24ENTER-1-articleLarge.jpg



Our Director


gaspard_noe________c_house__jean_picon_668694726_north_554x.jpg


GASPER NOE is an Argentinian film director who currently lives in France. He is best known for the films I Stand Alone, Irréversible, Enter the Void and Love.

Noe cites the films of Stanley Kubrick as his primary inspiration, saying that the experience of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey at the age of seven changed his life, and that without it he would never have become a director.

According to Wikipedia:

His work has been strongly associated with a series of films defined as the cinéma du corps/cinema of the body, which according to Tim Palmer share an attenuated use of narrative, generally assaulting and often illegible cinematography, confrontational subject material, a treatment of sexual behavior as violent rather than mutually intimate, and a pervasive sense of social nihilism or despair.[4]

Noé often breaks the fourth wall by directly addressing the audience through the use of confronting, and sometimes strobing, typography that aims to "disrupt and disturb" the viewer, similar to the typographical methods practised by Jean-Luc Godard.



Our Stars


Nathaniel Brown: www.imdb.com/name/nm1140926


7109.jpg


Paz de la Huerta: www.imdb.com/name/nm0209289


paz-de-la-huerta.jpg


Cyril Roy: www.imdb.com/name/nm3026521


Cyril-Roy-1433356502-117301.jpg


Masato Tanno: www.imdb.com/name/nm0849755


Enter+The+Void+-+Masato+Tanno+como+%25E2%2580%259CMario%25E2%2580%259D+-+V%25C3%25AA+aqui+o+trailer+e+faz+o+download+das+legendas+em+portugu%25C3%25AAs+pt%2521.jpg



Film Overview and YouTube Videos


Premise: A U.S. drug dealer living in Tokyo is betrayed by his best friend and killed in a drug deal. His soul, observing the repercussions of his death, seeks resurrection.

Budget: $16 Million
Box Office: $1.5 Million






Trivia
(courtesy of IMDB)​


* Most of the dialogue was improvised by the cast. Gaspar Noé stated that, as he didn't understand English very much, he needed someone to tell him if what the cast was saying sounded good or not.

* The film received a 15 minute standing ovation in Cannes.

* Gaspar Noé was inspired by the famous "star gate" sequence in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). For creating the special trippy atmosphere, the Norwegian VJ artist Glennwiz (Glenn Jacobsen) was contacted for use of one of his videos.

* Gaspar Noé planned Enter the Void (2009) over a period of 15 years - before his short film Carne (1991). He was around 23 years old, when he saw Robert Montgomery's Lady in the Lake (1947) on drugs. The film is shot in subjective camera, entirely from the point of view of the main character. For Enter the Void, Noé uses a subjective camera in the same manner. The main character Oscar is seen just once while the character is alive (in a mirror.)

* The ambient score of the film was assembled from existing music and sound sources collected by Thomas Bangalter from Daft Punk, whom Noé really wanted to compose the film's score but couldn't because Disney already tapped Daft Punk for the soundtrack of TRON: Legacy (2010)' at the time.

* After the Cannes Film Festival the post-production continued. Sensory, visual and auditory elements were accentuated. Gaspar Noé edited out 4 minutes of the film and added opening credits (about 2 minutes). The final, definitive version was presented for the first time at the Sundance Film Festival, January 2010.

* During the Cannes Film Festival 2008, the distributor Wild Bunch presented the first teaser-trailers of "Enter The Void", one year before the film was shown in competition 2009 at this Festival. The press book contains, beside the usual synopsis a note of Gaspar Noé. This director's note begins with a quote from Steven Spielberg: "Making a film is difficult, but making a great film is an almost impossible task."



7wGeEM5.jpg


Members: @shadow_priest_x @europe1 @EL CORINTHIAN @HUNTERMANIA @iThrillhouse @Zer @DaDamn @chickenluver @jeicex @MusterX @BeardotheWeirdo @Caveat @method115 @melvinj0 @Joseph Budden @In The Name Of @Coolthulu @CryptKeeper @Werdun
 
1fjpqv.jpg


I thought it sucked pretty bad. I will bitch about why tomorrow when time is at liberty. But I basically just found it pretentious -- the movie not being engaging on the surface level or stating anything grand on the thematic level. The visuals did not carry it at all and bleed into those other issues as well. Unconventional does not equate with good. Yadadada.
 
I was REALLY happy to see that this was on Netflix. After watching
it I was REALLY surprised to see that this was on Netflix.




After the cremation scene I thought, what is left to be
resolved; then it hit me like a load to the face.




Oscar’s monotone voice in the beginning was killing me. The biggest
problem being that it sounded like my voice and I’ve always hated my voice. Not
until after the bathroom scene did his voice start to have inflection, thank
God.




This was one of the more realistic movies I think I ever
seen. Not the idea of a ghost following people around, but, the dialogue and
interaction between characters. I’ve dabbled in the drug/stripper world, not in
Tokyo of course, but the culture seems universal. These characters were portrayed
as real people with real emotions. It was refreshing to see.




Over all I really like this movie!




It reminded me of “Less Than Zero.” When I was in high
school one of the parents had a movie night for me and a bunch of my friends to
watch Less Than Zero. The idea was to scare us strait, it didn’t work. In fact,
me and a buddy slammed a six pack and smoked a joint on the way there.




It was long but was it to long? I almost got a second FAP in
but I’m not a young man anymore. So…. Not long enough?
 
I watched this 18 months go after my first 1P-LSD trip (150micrograms)... well, it wasn't 'after', it was toward the end of it. IDK, it was an alright movie... I felt like it wandered around too much, it didn't make enough sense for me. It was definitely fucked up. I didn't 'dislike' it but it wasn't my favorite movie and I don't feel like I really learned anything from it.


I actually don't remember if I finished the whole movie or not but I did watch most of it for sure.
 
Yea, so here is the thing. The movie always feels very gritty and raw to me. Even the way Oscar dies is given that extra punch to the gut by filming it in a cramped and dirty toilet. The way Oscar and Linda's parents were killed right in front of them by a head on collision in the family car, just really gritty and stark. As children they were damaged by the death of their parents and separating them was just another hard hit.

The movie was a big illustration of how difficult life is for some people. Its the fact that people have tragic lives that makes the film gritty and rough, it feels real. Linda ends up a stripper and is getting banged in a dressing room. The movie just felt desperate. Even though the characters were surrounded by the madness of Tokyo neon and sounds, the characters seemed to be stuck in austere lives.

I don't know exactly how I feel about this film but I know it had an effect on me. I actually felt tired after watching it like it had drained some of my lifeforce.
 
All in all, I thought it was a film that did some interesting things from an artistic perspective but that narratively it had a hard time holding my interest. I suspect it's a film that is primarily going to appeal to a) people who have a lot of experience in the drug world, or b) people who don't have much experience but find the subject fascinating. I've done my share of drugs here and there over the years, but the underbelly of the drug world is not something I've ever really gotten close to, nor do I find it particularly glamorous or interesting, so I suppose that puts me outside the target audience. I'm going to give this film a 6/10, which really is a combination of an 8/10 or even 9/10 artistic score . . . and a 4/10 narrative score.

But from here on out, I'm not going to attempt cohesion in my thoughts and instead just post random things:

* Immediately, I was reminded of Victoria, with the film's follow-you-around style and understated acting. Shooting the film in first person was interesting to me, especially since many years ago--I guess about a decade now--I had an idea for a film set a party where everything would be first person. It wouldn't just stick with one character, though. It would switch back and forth between multiple characters' perspectives, but each time the view would be first person.

* Interesting decision to set this thing in Tokyo. I was not expecting that. When I was a kid and really into martial arts, I thought for sure I would live in Japan one day. In fact, if you had asked me when I was like 11, I'd have told you I would go to Japan and join a ninja clan. As you might expect, that never happened. Actually, I'm not even sure I'd like to live in Japan anymore.

* There were some shots here that I wasn't entirely sure how they were gotten. It seemed to be a combination of live action in the real world, miniatures, and CGI. Debie impressed me with his cinematography in Spring Breakers, and continued to impress me here. Beyond the use of color and lighting, there was a ton of moving camera stuff in here that was frankly pretty awe-inspiring.

* Speaking of Spring Breakers, I thought this film had some strong similarities on some fronts: The use of color as well as the use of editing to jump back and forth in time especially. In fact, I'd say you'd need to have some pretty strong reasoning if you actually liked this movie but you didn't like Spring Breakers (which of course I find to be a stronger film overall).

* Holy fucking shit, this movie is almost three hours long! I think that is one its biggest mistakes. When you have an idea like this that is strong visually, but pretty loose narratively, I really think you need to get in, hit it hard, and get out. 90 minutes tops. Don't give it time for the novelty to wear off and for the audience to lose interest.

* What's the deal with pervy sis trying to mack on her bro? What was that even about? It was just something that was there with no real explanation. Just weirdness for weirdness sake.

* Speaking of the boatload of weird sexual shit, this film is essentially the definition of gratuitous. The whole idea of the Love Hotel, and then its 15 minute graphic demonstration at the end of the film, didn't seem to really be there for any narrative reason. It was just there. This is the first Gaspar Noe film I've seen, but I already had heard some stuff about him. And what I heard basically made me think that the guy is obsessed with sex and sexuality and this film does nothing to make me think otherwise.

* Speaking of the aforementioned time and location jumps, I did think that was handled well. As I said, there were both camera and editing tricks that allowed us to jump back and forth between times and locations effortlessly and I liked that.

* I was pretty amazed by that one scene with the crying kid in the car. Scenes like that make me go, so how exactly did you direct that? Do you just say, "Okay, cry like a maniac even though you're not actually sad?" I dunno. Seems harder than it looks. I'll also say that it's borderline irresponsible to put a young kid in a movie like this. They're going to grow up and it may not be something that they actually want to be associated with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you ever watched a movie that begins with a gunshot and ends with a cumshot?

No?

Well I just did...

One of the most horrifyingly beautiful psychedelic experiences that I have ever witnessed. This movie was a TRIP. It was something that I visually and emotionally desired. A deranged array of colors and sounds is what I've been craving lately. A film I can't say I enjoyed, but I definitely felt during a lot of it. The ending got a bit over the top and uncomfortable. Unconventional in almost every way, this opened my eyes to a specific extent of confusion and appreciation.

Gasper Noe has got one delightfully unhinged imagination......

giphy.gif
 
Have you ever watched a movie that begins with a gunshot and ends with a cumshot?

No?

Well I just did...

One of the most horrifyingly beautiful psychedelic experiences that I have ever witnessed. This movie was a TRIP. It was something that I visually and emotionally desired. A deranged array of colors and sounds is what I've been craving lately. A film I can't say I enjoyed, but I definitely felt during a lot of it. The ending got a bit over the top and uncomfortable. Unconventional in almost every way, this opened my eyes to a specific extent of confusion and appreciation.

Gasper Noe has got one delightfully unhinged imagination......

I think you ultimately walked away from it with more appreciation than I did, but I can somewhat understand what you're saying. For me, there are movies that I would call a "hard watch"--not exactly pleasant, not exactly entertaining--but ultimately there is something there that made the experience rewarding. On at least some level, I'd put Enter the Void into that category.
 
BTW, for anyone who's up for it just do a Google Image search on Paz de la Huerta and it's pretty obvious that bitch is just totally wrecked in real life.
 
Have you ever watched a movie that begins with a gunshot and ends with a cumshot?

No?

Well I just did...

One of the most horrifyingly beautiful psychedelic experiences that I have ever witnessed. This movie was a TRIP. It was something that I visually and emotionally desired. A deranged array of colors and sounds is what I've been craving lately. A film I can't say I enjoyed, but I definitely felt during a lot of it. The ending got a bit over the top and uncomfortable. Unconventional in almost every way, this opened my eyes to a specific extent of confusion and appreciation.

Gasper Noe has got one delightfully unhinged imagination......

giphy.gif

The film, while not for everyone, was draining to view. At least for me. I attempted on my first film selections to sneak this one in because its so mind blowing once its examined but it missed being in the tie breaker by 1 vote.

MV5BMTU4NTA4NTE5Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjU5ODY3Ng@@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg
 
BTW, for anyone who's up for it just do a Google Image search on Paz de la Huerta and it's pretty obvious that bitch is just totally wrecked in real life.
I'm not normally one to say that someone gets roles just because they like to get naked on camera, but in her case it's totally true.
 
All in all, I thought it was a film that did some interesting things from an artistic perspective but that narratively it had a hard time holding my interest. I suspect it's a film that is primarily going to appeal to a) people who have a lot of experience in the drug world, or b) people who don't have much experience but find the subject fascinating. I've done my share of drugs here and there over the years, but the underbelly of the drug world is not something I've ever really gotten close to, nor do I find it particularly glamorous or interesting, so I suppose that puts me outside the target audience. I'm going to give this film a 6/10, which really is a combination of an 8/10 or even 9/10 artistic score . . . and a 4/10 narrative score.

But from here on out, I'm not going to attempt cohesion in my thoughts and instead just post random things:

* Immediately, I was reminded of Victoria, with the film's follow-you-around style and understated acting. Shooting the film in first person was interesting to me, especially since many years ago--I guess about a decade now--I had an idea for a film set a party where everything would be first person. It wouldn't just stick with one character, though. It would switch back and forth between multiple characters' perspectives, but each time the view would be first person.

* Interesting decision to set this thing in Tokyo. I was not expecting that. When I was a kid and really into martial arts, I thought for sure I would live in Japan one day. In fact, if you had asked me when I was like 11, I'd have told you I would go to Japan and join a ninja clan. As you might expect, that never happened. Actually, I'm not even sure I'd like to live in Japan anymore.

* There were some shots here that I wasn't entirely sure how they were gotten. It seemed to be a combination of live action in the real world, miniatures, and CGI. Debie impressed me with his cinematography in Spring Breakers, and continued to impress me here. Beyond the use of color and lighting, there was a ton of moving camera stuff in here that was frankly pretty awe-inspiring.

* Speaking of Spring Breakers, I thought this film had some strong similarities on some fronts: The use of color as well as the use of editing to jump back and forth in time especially. In fact, I'd say you'd need to have some pretty strong reasoning if you actually liked this movie but you didn't like Spring Breakers (which of course I find to be a stronger film overall).

* Holy fucking shit, this movie is almost three hours long! I think that is one its biggest mistakes. When you have an idea like this that is strong visually, but pretty loose narratively, I really think you need to get in, hit it hard, and get out. 90 minutes tops. Don't give it time for the novelty to wear off and for the audience to lose interest.

* What's the deal with pervy sis trying to mack on her bro? What was that even about? It was just something that was there with no real explanation. Just weirdness for weirdness sake.

* Speaking of the boatload of weird sexual shit, this film is essentially the definition of gratuitous. The whole idea of the Love Hotel, and then its 15 minute graphic demonstration at the end of the film, didn't seem to really be there for any narrative reason. It was just there. This is the first Gaspar Noe film I've seen, but I already had heard some stuff about him. And what I heard basically made me think that the guy is obsessed with sex and sexuality and this film does nothing to make me think otherwise.

* Speaking of the aforementioned time and location jumps, I did think that was handled well. As I said, there were both camera and editing tricks that allowed us to jump back and forth between times and locations effortlessly and I liked that.

* I was pretty amazed by that one scene with the crying kid in the car. Scenes like that make me go, so how exactly did you direct that? Do you just say, "Okay, cry like a maniac even though you're not actually sad?" I dunno. Seems harder than it looks. I'll also say that it's borderline irresponsible to put a young kid in a movie like this. They're going to grow up and it may not be something that they actually want to be associated with.

Excellent thoughts, many of which I also shared - particularly the 3rd to last and last paragraphs.
 
So like most of you, I had a difficult time ranking this one.

I'll give it a 7.5/10

- I probably will never watch it again and I can't see myself recommending it to anyone. So that normally doesn't tell of a great movie.

- Like @europe1 , I also found it somewhat pretentious. Not as pretentious as The Skeleton Twins, but almost. Outside of the tragic back-story, I didn't feel much for the characters.

- I just started to get into the story when Oscar entered the nightclub and got shot lol. Like @MusterX , I thought that gritty cramped toilet scene was excellent - degeneracy on full wretched display. It reminded a little of Trainspotting.

- I kept thinking of Joe Lauzon every time Oscar was onscreen. I didn't mind his voice actually. I found his character the most-interesting and again, was just getting into the film when he got killed.

- I did find the Gopro filming was a bit messy. Oscar would fumble and struggle with simple tasks more than normal it seemed to me. It could have been used some but not as much as it was IMHO.

- The overhead camerawork was pretty cool and I'd say worked other than others have mentioned, the film started to drag on. I believe a lot of the overhead camerawork kept getting reused except when they'd enter certain rooms. But still that was well done and unique.

- I'm all for long movies which are a rarity. But that would be more for a Ben Hur or The Revenant type movie. This one could have been a 90 minute film like @shadow_priest_x said. It was too long for what it was unless you were on DMT or something yourself.

- Now regarding the child actors. Again, I share some of @shadow_priest_x s opinion. But I'll go a step further. I'll suppose that they went the extra mile in making this gritty but subbed the children out in particular scenes and used CGI to recreate the scene. I mean parents get crucified on Facebook for showing children bathing and even worse with the nude mom. And breast-feeding. Unless the children are from that gorgeous model mom with perfect breasts, these scenes bordered on inappropriate. But with a film like this it's almost expected because it walks that line. That doesn't change my mind about that much. Probably more so was when young Oscar walked in on his parents having sex doggy style. One can only hope that the scene was edited to make it look like the child actor was watching. And regarding the car wreck scene. That was quite intense. The little girl in particular deserved some kind of award for her acting. Was a darker rendition of Ricky Schroeder in the Champ. Much darker - what with the blood and brains all over their faces. One hopes it doesn't turn the child actress into a real life Linda when she grows up. So anyway, I have some reservations when children are involved and I have a feeling the director didn't spare them much.

- I kind of feel for the actress who played Linda. She has an innocent naive girl way about her. Googling her, she does look chewed up. That's too bad. Actually she reminds me of a second cousin of mine with the exact same personality.

- There was definitely an incestuous element and innuendo. When she first meets up with Oscar, she kisses his neck and bites his ear. That was weird. Then when he wakes up she's lying on his bed naked with breast exposed. I don't doubt this stuff happens when drugs are involved so I don't think we were reading into anything. Oscar does refuse her advances after that though, back to the protective older brother.

- So obviously the director was going for something that rivaled Nymphomaniac and The Brown Bunny, but the long scene at the end (in particular) didn't seem to have much of a point. Except maybe in the healing power of sex and a climax to a meandering visual.

- The film and acting felt quite authentic. But overall it was just okay with some interesting, disturbing and unique elements.
 
Last edited:
Oh and I forgot to mention.

I don't think there was any life in Oscar after he died except maybe his Spirit floating around observing. So maybe that was it. But it was that combined with a retelling of their story mingled in. I think it was more about their story than anything else.
 
OK, It's 2:15 am and I just finished watching it so I don't really have much time for a mega-post. Not a well-written one anyways.

Enter the void: Sex, drugs, and muddled EDM... mixed with some reincarnation, and incestuous love.

Like the rest of you I have mixed feelings towards the movie. My main complaint was the run time, and the actual story, or lack of one... The first 45 minutes were great then it just went downhill, slowly culminating in a boring ending. All the cool-angled symbolic shots were great early on, but by the end I was pretty damn sick of the movie dragging it's feet.

Enter The Void started with the ending so to add two hours of extremely slow-paced explanation made no sense.

The way it was filmed was pretty marvelous. The shoulder cam shots filmed from Oscars point of view while he walked through Tokyo with Alex told us that Oscar was the main character, this was important to establish since having a main character who dies so early on is very unusual... mainly because the whole movie is shown from Oscar's perspective.

The shoulder cam was used exclusively until right before Oscars death. Immediately after Oscar is shot and killed the camera angle changes to an overhead view where it stays for the rest of the movie, well most of the rest. We were still watching from Oscars point of view as Oscar watched on from heaven. That's why Linda said the coma-version of Oscar wasn't her brother, and it's also why she felt like Oscar's spirit had been watching over her. He was watching over her, from heaven. He was reincarnated as the sperm that turned into the child that his sister gave birth to, fulfilling his promise to never leave her side.

Much of it was filmed in a way that makes the viewer disoriented, hopefully giving the viewer a sort of contact high. I was already high so I can't comment on the effect the movie has on sober people, but I have to imagine it would be somewhat inebriating.

The car crash scene was filmed / cgi'd beautifully. Probably my second favourite (interior view) after the crash scene in Whiplash. I put about 30 seconds worth of thought into that so if I missed some other scenes, forgive me, but to chime in cause I always enjoy watching car crashes... even though I've been in a bunch of them, some which left me really banged up.

Lots of circles, holes, and tubes were used to transition from scene to scene, and circles were shown in many of the hallucinations. This is probably symbolizing the inter-connectivity of life, the circular (infinite) pattern of reincarnation connecting all living beings together.

The ending was a recreation of Max's ascension to heaven shown through the model village, which Oscar was looking at earlier in the movie when he described his version of heaven. He wanted it to be like the model village, he would arrive, go to that neon building and participate in an orgy there. Their private parts wee glowing to signify the exchange of spirit, when you die you become a sperm (according to the movie) ... I wonder if the aborted fetus was also Oscar, in his souls first attempt to re-align it's life force with his sister.

Overall, my rating is pretty much the same as Shadow's. Visually, artistically, it was a near masterpiece, but fuck... there wasn't nearly enough story to justify the run time, it should've been 90 minutes as others have said. And of course the main question, what was the point of it all?

Drugs are bad and reincarnation is good. Fair enough, but again, you can convey that message in 90 minutes.

Random thoughts:

- the hallucinations were very realistic looking, when he closed his eyes and saw the patterns and colours dancing around, but they were in super slow motion.

- When Oscar looked at himself in the mirror he didn't even look high... he was barely even in the movie, they could've found someone willing to get fucked up for the role.

- Oscar didn't like the idea of reincarnation as it meant he was stuck on this shit-hole (earth) forever, ironically it allowed him to fulfill his promise to his sister.

- I liked how he fumbled trying to open the baggie. He could've ripped it open with his teeth, but that wouldn't have worked in first person point of view, and it wouldn't have added to the suspense. I doubt anyone predicted that Oscar would be shot through the door after that, it seemed like he was going to get away. It was a nice way to shock the viewer without it being too far-fetched. I once went to a Nine Inch Nails concert and it took me 45 minutes to get the stupid tiny baggie open in the dark, I didn't want to rip it and lose my tabs. They can be a real pain sometimes. He could've flushed the whole bag, it wasn't that big.

- This is the kind of movie that you want to see in the theatre. That reincarnation scene right after he died with the whole screen pulsating white with flashes of other colours in the background. Seeing it all on a big screen, while high would be an amazing experience. I think it was Shadow that said the long run time only makes sense if you're watching while tripping out, and I don't really know how else Gasper was able to justify his decision to make it so long, I think it was done for those tripping out at home, or in the theatre.

- One downside to filming from an overhead position was the lack of facial reaction shots. That's why it came as a huge surprise when Linda said she'd been feeling suicidal ever since her brothers passing. We hadn't seen her facial expressions so it was hard to gauge just how much people were bothered by Oscars death. We know his friend that set him up was devastated based on his reaction, which we could hear, and was partially portrayed through his flailing body as the cops dragged him away.

- Alex was carving I want 2 live into the post, and then it changed to I want 2 die a second later... not sure what that was about... Anyone?

- Why do you think he included the sister-brother love relationship. She was sucking his ear, tried to get him to kiss her in that light shop, dressed half-naked, and during one scene Oscar sniffs her panties too so they were definitely more than just brother and sister, or wanted to be anyways.

- Was that his sister at the end? It was blurry but I think it was her and Alex was his father.

- I'd already seen Paz De La Huerta in The Editor, put out by the fine folks at Astron-6. She was pretty normal in that movie, but she does get naked in it once.

- I disagree with the movie's anti-abortion agenda.

I just skimmed the other posts for now, that's it for tonight.
 
Last edited:
I was REALLY happy to see that this was on Netflix. After watching
it I was REALLY surprised to see that this was on Netflix.

I don't know what kind of coverage you guys get in Americaland, but the most surprising thing I've found on Netflix was probably The Daughter of Dawn, a 1920 film soley about Native Americans. It only has around 150 ratings on IMDB. How the hell that movie ended up there I'd like to know, especially since Viking Netflix features only a few films from before the 80's to begin with.

So obviously I had to see it and... it was pretty average as concerning what movies from the 20's were like. Badly paced too.

Shooting the film in first person was interesting to me, especially since many years ago--I guess about a decade now--I had an idea for a film set a party where everything would be first person.

Strange Days had some really great and visceral first-person scenes, especially the opening bank heist. The rest of the first-person was mostly, funnily enough, the kind of smut scenes that we also saw in Enter the Void. I guess there is just something about the first-person camera that makes directors want to act like perverted vouyer.:D Even Hitchcock had allusions to this in films like Psycho.

The best example of a film doing most of it's shooting in first-person that I can think of would probably be Dark Passage with Humphrey Bogart, where I think around 50% of the film was in first-person.

* Holy fucking shit, this movie is almost three hours long! I think that is one its biggest mistakes. When you have an idea like this that is strong visually, but pretty loose narratively, I really think you need to get in, hit it hard, and get out. 90 minutes tops. Don't give it time for the novelty to wear off and for the audience to lose interest.

really is a combination of an 8/10 or even 9/10 artistic score

Much of it was filmed in a way that makes the viewer disoriented, hopefully giving the viewer a sort of contact high. I was already high so I can't comment on the effect the movie has on sober people, but I have to imagine it would be somewhat inebriating.

My main complaint was the run time, and the actual story, or lack of one... The first 45 minutes were great then it just went downhill, slowly culminating in a boring ending. All the cool-angled symbolic shots were great early on, but by the end I was pretty damn sick of the movie dragging it's feet.

Overall, my rating is pretty much the same as Shadow's. Visually, artistically, it was a near masterpiece, but fuck... there wasn't nearly enough story to justify the run time, it should've been 90 minutes as others have said. And of course the main question, what was the point of it all?

See, I think it's here where the movies biggest and most fundemental flaw lies.

Why were we shown those endless shots of psychedelic lightning, trauma and gratuitous nudity? Why the glacial pace and endless running time? Why did the director chose to do his film like this instead of in some other manner.

Enter the Void is, at it's most basic, a mood piece. The narrative is incredibly sparse. Mostly of it's run-time is just an attempt to enthrall you with the sort of atmosphere it tries to set. It tries to lull you into a special sort of consciousness. You are supposed to float along with the movie, subsumed in it, engage with it on an emotional level. It's not about thinking conciously, it's about flying along on this drug-induced ride, experience it with raw emotions and sensory stimulation. Your ordinary mental faculties are not supposed to be alert during the film.

The movie absolutely failed at this. The proof? Everyone is bitching about the running time. We all FELT how long that movie was. Nobody is writting about how the visuals enthralled them, submerged them into the movie, how they just floated along until the end. If the movie would have succeded in that goal, we wouldn't be bitching about how long it was. The very fact that we felt it drag is a testement to it's failure as a mood piece.


This is -- for me -- the films chief and overriding artistic failure. Gaspar created a Mood Piece yet none of us appears to have gotten into that mood. Sure, I guess you can characterize the visuals as pretty and creative. But what did he do artistically with all that prettiness? Nothing. They did not enchant us on any level as a viewer expect going, "hey that's kind of pretty". We were never in the same state that it was in.

I can really love mood pieces. My favorite movie of all time, Stalker, is mostly a mood piece and couldn't outrun a glacier in it's pacing. But the atmosphere and tone set by the movie is so enchantingly mesmerizing that I'm with it from beginning to end. It's a pretty movie whose prettiness serves it's artistic ambition.

Or, to take another example as a comparison with Enter the Void, Mario Bava Blood and Black Lace. That more has a purposefully delirious visual style. You feel "off" watching it. Now, I can't say that I enjoyed experiencing that aspect of the film, but at least Bava achieved exactly what he was aiming for artistically, using his visuals to disorient the viewer. Fear and Lothing in Las Vegas achieved something similar in my eye, an unpleasant tone but at least the film achieved what it was aiming for.

Enter the Void's visuals left little impression. They weren't immersive. They were pretty yet not artistically successful.




* Speaking of the boatload of weird sexual shit, this film is essentially the definition of gratuitous. The whole idea of the Love Hotel, and then its 15 minute graphic demonstration at the end of the film, didn't seem to really be there for any narrative reason. It was just there. This is the first Gaspar Noe film I've seen, but I already had heard some stuff about him. And what I heard basically made me think that the guy is obsessed with sex and sexuality and this film does nothing to make me think otherwise.

What was fascinating to me was how lascivious almost all of those sex scenes where filmed. The composition was made so to focus more on the carnal, salacious aspects of it. Excluding the final fuck, there was little-to-no-kissing involved, no intimacy so to say. The participants where often positioned so that their bodies where apart except at the loins. And there was a definitive focus on the constant moaning of the female partners.

All of this works to focus on the more lewd, bodily (mechanical even) part of sex -- rather than the romantic or passionate part. I wonder if this is just Gaspar's personal pet-peeves or if he meant this composition as to say something about the main-character's psyche. Why is he so thoroughly and squarely focused on sex at it's most primal, animal-like? Is he fundamentally maladjusted? Did the death of his family and his relationship to his sister halt him from developing more healthy, wholesome attitudes towards sex? Did his trauma narrow his focus on sex to only the lurid parts of it? His sister does, after all, seem to share this sensebility.

EDIT: And to add to this -- almost all the sex-scenes where of a perverted nature. The strippers having sex with their customers. Oscar banging his friends mother. The incest. And so on. All the sex seems to be illicit or immoral somhow.

Except maybe in the healing power of sex

Continuing on this theme, I don't think we're supposed to interpet the sex as a healing factor just based on how lewd and lurid on it's. It lacks the personal touch, the intimacy that can come with sex that can be healing. They are just bodies going at it ad infitum. For a "healing part" to be involved, we need something more emotional or psychological to cling to, where the healing can take place and foster.

- I just started to get into the story when Oscar entered the nightclub and got shot lol. Like @MusterX , I thought that gritty cramped toilet scene was excellent - degeneracy on full wretched display. It reminded a little of Trainspotting.

Even the way Oscar dies is given that extra punch to the gut by filming it in a cramped and dirty toilet

Got to love how those floor-bound toilets just added to the sordidness. Wouldn't have been so dirty or undignifying if it had been a Western-styled toilet.:D

- I kept thinking of Joe Lauzon every time Oscar was onscreen. I didn't mind his voice actually. I found his character the most-interesting and again, was just getting into the film when he got killed.

Haha. I have to admit that had I thought of that while watching the film I'd probably have enjoyed it more.:D

- Now regarding the child actors. Again, I share some of @shadow_priest_x s opinion

I'm going to play the cynic here and just talk about it from an craftsmanship standpoint. It's kind of... cheap really. We -- as well-adjusted humans -- have been properly conditioned to react strongly to the dismay of a child. It hits us hard on a gut level. In that way, featuring a little girl hysterical with sadness is a really cheap and easy way of gaining our empathy.

He was reincarnated as the sperm that turned into the child that his sister gave birth to, fulfilling his promise to never leave her side.

Huh? Man I must have been abscent of mind during those last 5 minutes. When the camera panned to the side and showed a little boy watching them, I assumed we were back to Oscar's recollection of his parents having sex. I thus interpreted the conception as Oscar watching his own conception being made.

But that would place the movie in a circular narrative, Oscar re-living his life ad infinitum, instead of one about reincarnation where he is reborn as a diffrent person. So I suppose your point about being reborn as his sisters kid makes more sense.

I liked how he fumbled trying to open the baggie. He could've ripped it open with his teeth, but that wouldn't have worked in first person point of view, and it wouldn't have added to the suspense. I doubt anyone predicted that Oscar would be shot through the door after that, it seemed like he was going to get away.

He should have headed for the nearest river like in Pusher.:D

- I disagree with the movie's anti-abortion agenda.

I found that fetus rather fascinating. It's tiny yet recognizably developed as the basis of a human being. Is it even legal to make an abortion when the fetus is at such an advanced stage? If not, it would be some damn cynical manipulation on Gaspar's part, making the fetus purposfully more human-like so to twist our emotions.
 
Last edited:
- There was definitely an incestuous element and innuendo. When she first meets up with Oscar, she kisses his neck and bites his ear. That was weird. Then when he wakes up she's lying on his bed naked with breast exposed. I don't doubt this stuff happens when drugs are involved so I don't think we were reading into anything. Oscar does refuse her advances after that though, back to the protective older brother.

* What's the deal with pervy sis trying to mack on her bro? What was that even about? It was just something that was there with no real explanation. Just weirdness for weirdness sake.

Ah yes... the incest.

Firstly, if we forget the sister-diddling for a while, did anyone else notice that Oscar seems to have similarly sexual fantasies about his mother? In his flashback with her, he sees her naked in the tub, her breast in full-view. Right after that, in a pool, with her bikini on. And lets not forget the doggy-fucking that he seemed to fascinated by.

So, what Oscar shows of his mother, is definitively tinted sexually. His strongest memories of her have something to do with sex. The guy is inordinately focused on the carnally alluring. I think that is rather revealing of his psyche, he's constantly pre-occupied with sex, even with his female family members. (or maybe this is more of an reflection of Gaspar than the character).


As with his sister, I read their incest and promiscuity as a result of their trauma in losing their parents. Growing up, their only emotional attachment where to each other. Their inability to bond with other people eventually meant that their love-impulses would be directed only at themselves. Thus they formed passionate attraction to each other.

I previously wrote about how carnal all the sex is in this film. It's all very lewd and bawdly. Even when she takes her brother to the party, all the dancing is overtly salacious.

So here we have two people. All of Oscar's sexual thoughts seem to be overtly lewd in nature. And his sister always acts in overtly lewd ways. Why do both of them act and think this way? It is as if they can only express themselves through sex. Notice how horrible their verbal skills are! They are rather inarticulate.

Maybe both of their preoccupation with sex -- and their incest -- is a result of the childhood trauma. It stunted their emotional growth. They've failed to develop more healthy, natural, wholseome ways in which to express themselves. Thus the only avenue open for them is the carnal, that which plays on very raw, animal-like impulses towards sex. They fact that their only emotional attatchments are towards each other also means -- in-coupling with their overt and raw sexual attitudes -- that they start to love each other and therefore direct their warped sexuality towards each other. Which manifests in how sexual the sister is near Oscar and how much Oscar seems to think about her sex-life.
 
Some other things.

*Tibetan book of the dead? Talk about a mission-statement. Yup, this will be a movie about reincarnation. It's even a bit crass I feel. It's such an unsuble way of stating your intentions as a filmmaker.

*The setting of Tokyo gave the film a rather alien setting. You're in an unfamiliar culture (even their toilets are diffrent!). You don't understand the langauge of the population. And the dominance of neon everywhere gives of an odd impression.

*Both Oscar and his sister does seem a bit... vapid. They don't seem to have a lot of stuff going for them that they feel are emotionally rewarding or fulfulling. Is their drug-use a way of filling that hole inside them? Do they take drugs so that the sensory impulses will give them a sense of stimulations that mitigates the underlying spiritual hole in them?
 
Got to love how those floor-bound toilets just added to the sordidness. Wouldn't have been so dirty or undignifying if it had been a Western-styled toilet.:D

That's an odd thing to post. I didn't say anything about the style of the toilet.
 
Back
Top