Gasper Noe

Here is a director you might not have heard of. Noe's made a total of 2 films that I've seen: Irreversible and Enter the Void. Both are great but I showed a friend of mine who is an aspiring director Irreversible and he claimed it was one of the best films he's seen. These movies aren't for everyone, they are extremely disturbing. I'd also stay away from them if you get sezuires. They both have very unique filmmaking styles. Check it out. They're both streaming on the company that shall not be named, but they have a red envelope.

Noe = Garbage

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

I concur with Lime. His gimmicks get boring and his intention to shock the viewer seems to serve little to no purpose in the grand scheme of his films' plots.

From what I've seen, he's a flamboyant, insecure pimp, and I don't mean that in a good way.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

There are two kinds of bad films. 1: I regretted watching it, where's my indescriminate amount of time gone? Or 2: It's so bloody bad I'm insenced and simply must post about it, bloke.
Which one is Noe? I've never seen his stuff but if I just wanted to get in the conversation, should I watch it?

__________________
laser radiation when open - do not stare directly at my avatar, okayz?
This place is my new home and everyone is welcome!

He has many fans so I'd say that you should decide for yourself. Some think he's the greatest director going, but I feel compelled to tell people that you've been warned just in case you don't see what all the fuss is about. I wouldn't call the films bad but it's hard to tell when he doesn't have the guts to let the story speak for itself.

Not a fan of what I've seen so far, yet to see Enter The Void. I'll tell you what was terrible from him, well the film as a whole was a massive pile of rubbish, his section of Destricted, absolute mess.

I dig him, sure his films are trashy under the pretence of art but he's got the balls to do it and his films that i've seen have been interesting

__________________

Please explain to me what his gimmicks are. Are they that he goes against all odds and makes a truely unique film. One which the style of filmmaking challenges the traditional summer blockbuster? What he does with his films is he makes them his own. They aren't gimmicks. He isn't searching for money like most other Hollywood directors (i.e. Michael Bay). I'm not riding on you right now I'm just trying to understand why you think he just wants a shock effect. That's how he gets his message out. The point of that style is so that people can see a movie they've truely never seen before.

And you know this how? Or, maybe his money is controversy and attention? That's almost worse.

I'll also add that the Michael Bay reference around here is getting to be a bit much, and that's not only directed at you, kubrick.

What are his "messages"? Don't get raped in a tunnel or don't do too much drugs if you're in the game? He is obviously there for shock value because I don't see too much depth in his films, or he throws in a little something to justify what I believe is basically him jerking off. Speaking of what I've "never seen before", I'm pretty sure I didn't need to see two hours of floating above the ground or some dude's head getting smashed in.

But...seeing as you like Noe I'll recommend a contemporary French filmmaker with a unique style that you also might like: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0334930/

Agree to disagree I guess on Noe. And thank you for the recomendation, it is much obliged.

I respect Enter the Void, but I hate it too.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Anybody else seen I Stand Alone? It feels like Noe watched Taxi Driver, thought it was too tame and decided to shoot his own more extreme version.

I want to see Enter The Void as i hear really interesting things about it.

The use of strobe lighting. The contribution it does make to the mood doesn't weigh up against the fact that it's plain annoying.

What bothers me most is the shock value he puts into his films. That is what I think about when people mention Irréversible or Enter The Void, not the story, not the acting, not the cinematography, JUST the shocking scenes. And I don't think that's the point. I'd be okay with it if it actually served some kind of purpose, but it doesn't. Unless you can tell me the purpose of him showing a woman get raped and beaten half to death for minutes on end AND some guy getting his face beaten to a pulp by another dude with a fire extinguisher.

It contributes nothing and I believe Noé does this out of an urge for sensation. If I show this, then I'll get media attention and people will watch and talk about my films. And that stuff rubs me the wrong way.

If you go an make a film, don't you want people to talk about it?

I think your missing the point of what Brodinski is saying. There are no layers to Noe's films. He asks no questions of his characters or his audience. What are you going to talk about besides the violent and disturbing images in his films? Not much. There are tons of films out there where violent disturbing things happen but the filmmaker does more than simply reflect these things in the most shocking manner they can come up with. You can still watch these films and have more to say than "Wasn't that sick when that guy got his head smashed in?"

He is either going for shock value which I don't respect or need (I'm wide awake, thank you) or he's a very inarticulate filmmaker who has a very immature way of expressing himself.

1998I Stand Alone
2002Irréversible
2009Enter the Void

^^The only 3 movies he's ever made... there's probably a reason for that.

Worst argument I've ever seen.

So.... how is an artist ever to present challenging work?

Anything that goes far enough beyond the status quo is, by definition, sensational.

So.... how is an artist to experiment or go beyond the status quo without pissing you off?

....

Hence, why the status quo exists and closemindedness is somehow considered a virtue these days: because narrow-minded people use this totally ungrounded (as if you have any evidence for your claims of Noe's desires) claim of attention-seeking to justify their own narrow-mindedness.

Perhaps the "purely sensational" attraction to their work is a characteristic reaction from people like yourself, which you then attempt to generalize into everyone? Perhaps, for others, there is more than a sensational attraction? Perhaps you and others like yourself are the ones who react in a sensational way...

If so, his work is only "sensational" because people like you react to it in a sensational way. Perhaps he was never talking to you at all.

Maybe you're just projecting your own inability to grasp difference into the thing that is different?

Has it ever occurred to you that some people just think and feel in a different way than others and that not everyone immediately closes themselves off to something even remotely challenging?

Consequently, this is also why people are lambasting Occupy Wallstreet. The arguments against take the exact same form.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."