SHAM034 - House on the Edge of the Park: The Archive Conversation

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

I see what you mean and figured out as much when I watched it. I've just never considered Irreversible to be a particularly 'deep' film. However, if you compare it to other rape-revenge films, it is probably more interesting and involving simply because of its construction.

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I see what you mean and figured out as much when I watched it. I've just never considered Irreversible to be a particularly 'deep' film. However, if you compare it to other rape-revenge films, it is probably more interesting and involving simply because of its construction.

I think half the time it's to do with the way the film is marketed since there is a super fine line between art and exploitation.

Irreversible becomes an art film because the DVD box features the names of several big film festivals, a quote describing it as "important" and a nondescript image of a fully dressed woman walking down a corridor.

I Spit on Your Grave (since I don't know any artwork for HotEotP), for example, features a semi-naked woman, injuries indicating violence and a whopping great big knife.

Suddenly one is art and one is exploitation. One gets praised and released uncut, the other is derided and cut.

I Spit on Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust and House on the Edge of the Park could all be art films but they were marketed as exploitation. Irreversible could be exploitation but it was marketed as art.

I think this is where a lot (not all, but a lot) of the issue lies.

[Prince_Vajda]

The only message of Irreversible that I could make out: vigilantism can be really hairy and ineffective, especially when you massacre the wrong fella.

It's a disturbing movie, and I don't mean that in a positive way. For me, it's in the "Let's make something totally different just for the sake of being different" -section of movie making. I didn't like it at all, and would certainly not rewatch it.

Greetings!

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Well said, Sarah. I imagine there will be plenty of arthouse film fans who will have gone to see Irreversible and have left the cinema feeling disoriented, shocked or even sickened.

The same can't be said for those who went to see I Spit on Your Grave, The House on the Edge of the Park, Last House on the Left etc as they knew what they are going to see and 'let themselves in for'.

[the blob]

I can't agree at all about the perception of Irreversible here. It's far deeper than something like HOTEOTP. The meaning is in the title itself. To me it's quite a poignant, brutal and realistic portrayal of how one small moment of stupid behaviour, wholly irreversible, can erupt into the eventual destruction of five lives (counting the guy that is murdered and the unborn baby). The reverse timeline just adds to the sadness as you end up with a portrait of a couple who are totally in love, without being able to get the rest of the events out of your mind.

Anyway, carry on!

[Rhodes]

well put blob, i agree.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by the blob

I can't agree at all about the perception of Irreversible here. It's far deeper than something like HOTEOTP. The meaning is in the title itself. To me it's quite a poignant, brutal and realistic portrayal of how one small moment of stupid behaviour, wholly irreversible, can erupt into the eventual destruction of five lives (counting the guy that is murdered and the unborn baby). The reverse timeline just adds to the sadness as you end up with a portrait of a couple who are totally in love, without being able to get the rest of the events out of your mind.

Anyway, carry on!

Whilst I can see those elements at play in the film, it's still an exploitation film dressed up as arthouse in my opinion. And a dishonest one, at that. Dishonest in that it's pretending to have some worth and validity, whereas it's really a film designed to draw in the punters and make money. Can anyone honestly say that everyone involved did it to lose money? My cynicism says that Noe threw in the 9 minute, unflinching anal rape (remember, the rapist has come from a gay club, so we assume he's gay, which is an exploitation device in and of itself if ever there was one) simply to sensationalise the film. Be honest, how many were drawn to the film simply because of its notoriety?

In interviews he talks about how he wanted to put Belluci in a hardcore porno, but that wasn't going to happen, so he decided to make a full-on rape-revenge flick. I don't think there were any deep meanings at play as such. It's kind of unique in telling the story in reverse - but that's simply a gimmick. Let's get to the heart of the film - it's basically a rape-revenge film that ends with tenderness rather than brutality, because the story is back to front. But again, that's simply a gimmick. To me, films like I Spit On Your Grave are more honest in their approach. There are no artistic pretensions, just presenting rape as an ugly and abhorrent act. Of course, one could argue whether it needs to be quite so in-your-face to get its point across, and in that Zarchi, Craven et al have to hold their hands up and admit they were maybe a little heavy-handed. That being said, I found the rape in Irreversible dwelt on it in equally as much protraction as any of the aforementioned films. It lasts around 9 minutes and spares us no details. We even see his genitals after the act, still in a state of arousal. It's brief, but it's there. To me that's unnecessary and more than a little exploitative.

No, Irreversible is very much an exploitation film. It escapes that tag by being 'foreign' and has a gimmick. Not sure if it's very clever to reduce the serious issue of rape down to a mere plot device or gimmick, but there you go. The same could be argued about contentious elements in all films at that rate, I suppose.

But we all have different views and that's cool, I'm just sharing mine.

[Peter Neal]

@Daemonia: You just saved me a lot of time by summing up 100% percisely what I also feel about "Irreversible".
Besides, the "Tell it Backwards" gimmick wasn't even new when "Irreversible" arrived as "Memento" had already made prominent use of it before.
I guess it'll be an unsolvable dilemma that "serious" critics and censors alike will always be more willing to embrace the "meaning" in a film presented like "Irreversible" than any "exploitation"-labelled fare.

[dustdevil]

Originally Posted by dream demon

Ah, yes, but Irreversible is an art film, see?

and subtitled meaning you have to be able to read to follow it - therefore you are more intelligent than the average viewer and could not possibly think that is an instruction manual

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Eurosleaze

Just a quick request on an update: has House on the Edge of the Park been submitted to the BBFC yet?

...and if so, may I ask a few questions about the extras?

Is it possible to ask for clean editions of 'Sweetly' and the incidental music? In particular, the incidental music played between the rape scene between David Hess and Annie Brilliand? It might not be viable in any case since this scene was removed in its entirety in the last Vipco submission but it's worth asking anyway.

If Riz Ortolani has the originals for these, that would be great!

I've checked with Shameless and House on the Edge of the Park has been been submitted to the BBFC and they are now waiting to hear back.

As for "Sweetly", Shameless have assured me they'll try their best to locate it and include it without effects as a track but they can't guarantee this.