Gaspar No

Tools    





WARNING. THIS TREAD WILL TALK ABOUT A DIRECTOR WHO USE A LOT OF VIOLENCE IN HIS MOVIE.
Before starting anything, I just wanted to warn people because Gaspar No is very often known as being one of the gruesome directors.


In this tread, I want to know how you guys perceive No. I did not watch his movies because I am not there yet in terms of tolerance. I watched a couple weeks ago Requiem and wasn't shocked so I might one day see one of his movie. Also, I was really closed of seeing enter the void one night but amazon prime took it out. Anyway, I want to know if you see gaspar noe as a bad director who simply wants to shock the audience with gruesome images or is he a good directors who know how to use violence in good ways. It is hard for me to know because I haven't seen his movies. But at the same time, he is often if not always in Cannes often as unofficial selection. So is he really good or is it only because he is french??? I want to know what you guys think.



WARNING. THIS TREAD WILL TALK ABOUT A DIRECTOR WHO USE A LOT OF VIOLENCE IN HIS MOVIE.
Before starting anything, I just wanted to warn people because Gaspar No is very often known as being one of the gruesome directors.


In this tread, I want to know how you guys perceive No. I did not watch his movies because I am not there yet in terms of tolerance. I watched a couple weeks ago Requiem and wasn't shocked so I might one day see one of his movie. Also, I was really closed of seeing enter the void one night but amazon prime took it out. Anyway, I want to know if you see gaspar noe as a bad director who simply wants to shock the audience with gruesome images or is he a good directors who know how to use violence in good ways. It is hard for me to know because I haven't seen his movies. But at the same time, he is often if not always in Cannes often as unofficial selection. So is he really good or is it only because he is french??? I want to know what you guys think.
if you are not into extreme violence then dont watch his films. Pretty simple.



If only his primary intention wasn't trying to induce epileptic seizures and motion sickness in his viewers he might actually be good. He's the only director that comes to mind who's films can make me feel sick and it has nothing to do with the violence.
__________________



If only his primary intention wasn't trying to induce epileptic seizures and motion sickness in his viewers he might actually be good. He's the only director that comes to mind who's films can make me feel sick and it has nothing to do with the violence.
⬆️ He could be doing much better and have more narrative value if he didnt get carried away by the violence. He does seem to be using film as a medium to work through personal issues, more so than other directors.



I've only seen two of his works (Irreversible and Climax) and personally I love his work; His use of music and visuals are incredibly effective. His use of extreme violence may make you think he's a showoff, but I feel the extreme nature of his films is what makes them so engaging and distinctive.

People will always have their own preference for films; There will be films that they watch all the time and types of films they don't want to watch at all. If extreme violence isn't your style then you don't have to watch them. I've heard that Enter the Void and Love aren't that violent but I would have to watch them first before giving a definitive answer



the samoan lawyer's Avatar
Unregistered User
I'm a fan. Irreversible gets the most attention but for me, I Stand Alone is his best. Noe's films tend to make you want to shower after watching them.
__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.



Everything I've seen from him aside from a decent chunk of I Stand Alone and opening credits of Enter the Void has been either corny or boring to me.

There's a good handful of brief moments in each of the films I've watched that prove he knows his way around an image, but those moments pass and I'm back to watching something that hits me like the film-equivalent of drinking O'Douls. Even cathartsis in film quickly loses its edge for me after a couple reptitions (let alone many of them).



He's very hit and miss, sometimes in the same movie. I've seen 3.5 of his movies: Irreversible, I Stand Alone, Climax and half of Enter the Void.

I think the beginning of Irreversible is outstanding and is his best work that I've seen. I will always remember the first time I saw that. He got me real good with that one. I felt physically and mentally ill watching that and thought I was on the Highway to Hell. I Stand Alone is probably his best film start to finish and Climax, that first dance scene is fantastic, middle was good but the ending was awful. Enter the Void the opening credits were cool then it went downhill from there. Fell asleep and have never bothered to finish it.



Everything I've seen from him aside from a decent chunk of *I Stand Alone* and opening credits of *Enter the Void* has been either corny or boring to me.*

There's a good handful of brief moments in each of the films I've watched that prove he knows his way around an image, but those moments pass and I'm back to watching something that hits me like the film-equivalent of drinking O'Douls. Even cathartsis in film quickly loses its edge for me after a couple reptitions (let alone many of them).
Which No films (or specific scenes in them) would you consider corny?



Welcome to the human race...
He's definitely a mixed bag, especially when you can sense how the concept of recurring motifs in his work starts to make him seem less thoughtful provocateur and more unimaginative edgelord. I Stand Alone seems like his attempt to make an even more misanthropic version of Taxi Driver and I find it underwhelming for that reason, though the "countdown" is certainly a novel enough trick on its own. Irreversible also proves that it's more than just its two most infamous scenes as he shows enough self-awareness to skewer its characters' self-absorbed masculinity and the folly of revenge, all of which is rendered extra senseless by its disorienting audio-visual approach. Enter the Void is the only film I've ever walked out on, though that was more of a discomfort thing and I finished it years later. It's certainly the most visually interesting of all his films, which is saying something, though it's in service of a fairly whatever plot. Love is maybe his weakest film because he sets himself the challenge of making an artistic porno, which basically amounted to him slathering his characteristically abrasive style over a film full of unsimulated sex scenes that also had a plot and characters about as thin as that as a typical porno anyway, so it's pretty much a failure all-around. Climax is almost my favourite, though I weigh that with the understanding that it's his most accessible film (relatively speaking) - it's intense, certainly, but doesn't reach the extremity of the other films I've mentioned. In a weird way, it's almost fun to watch, but that doesn't make its more horrifying moments any less effective.
__________________
Iro is to reviews as Kubrick is to films.



I really like his work, I recently watched all his films and I was impressed