Just saw VORTEX
Added 2022-05-21 03:43:01 +0000 UTCI know a couple of you have seen as well. Quite the departure for Mr. Noe. Though, I was prepared for that, knowing the backstory of it. But what did ya'll think? Did the more subdued, more melancholy style of it work for you, or not?
Comments
Yeah, I agree but, I do think it's a major departure, even if it's still very much him.
Deepfocuslens
2022-05-23 17:39:33 +0000 UTCI wouldn’t say it’s as much a departure as you think it is. For Vortex, Gaspar Noe may have turned away from lurid, taboo subject matter (rape, incest, graphic sex) and his psychedelic dance club hellscapes, but he hasn’t abandoned his sensibility and worldview. He’s still a maestro of doom-laden nihilism, a Godard acolyte who embraced Nietzsche instead of Marx. “Time Destroys Everything” is still very much his credo. In taking on the story of an old couple in physical and mental decline, he also, for the most part, strips away his scabrous, sensationalistic technique (no disorienting camera movements, psychedelic imagery, or mesmerizing/nauseating pulse music). The only indulgence Noe allows himself (apart from his signature “blinking” edits) is a split screen shown for almost the entire film, meant to illustrate the growing disconnect between the two lead characters, played by Dario Argento and Françoise Lebrun. Upon hearing of the premise of Noe’s new film, I was skeptical of his ability to pull it off. In my mind, the two failures in his filmography are Enter the Void and Love. In large part, the reason being for their failure is that, out of the movies Noe has made, these two rely to a large degree on a human element being present in the story. That is to say, if you want to understand the full measure of a life after death or a couple in the throes of love and passion, you have to understand who these people are. In both films, Noe doesn’t fill in the characters; they’re two-dimensional at best. He utilizes tired, cliched melodramatic scenarios between the characters instead. The films turn fatally tedious and self-indulgent as a result (not to mention overlong. It should be said that Noe’s better films are the shorter ones. Less is more when it comes to him.). Irreversible works because it’s essentially a philosophical treatise on nihilism and destruction, and we don’t need to know the characters beyond their archetypal selves. And Climax…well, that collective trip to a drug-induced hell is, in spirit, not unlike that of a slasher film, with LSD as the bogeyman. Just enough characterization is given for it to work. (For the record, I have not seen I Stand Alone or Lux Aeterna.) Basically, Noe doesn’t do humanity. He does inhumanity. So given what Vortex is about, and the humanistic touch that is needed to tell such a story, I thought that this was going to be yet another misfire. But…Noe surprised me. He seemed to have turned a corner and learned from his mistakes. Or more likely, given his brush with mortality, he understood that such a subject didn’t need elaborate technique to evoke unease. In stripping down his aesthetic, he gives more room over to the characters and the actors playing them than ever before. He simply follows them around, showing them in the mundanity of their lives as the horror of their situation seeps in. For the first time in a Noe film, we get to know his characters as people (no, the toxic couple in Love do not count), which makes it all the more devastating when their lives descend into chaos. In handling Vortex with such restraint, Noe has shown a welcome new maturity that should be embraced, all the more so because, since the infernal spectacle of Climax, I think his flamboyant, sense-assaulting pyrotechnics have been played out. Which brings us to the elephant in the room. It is generally my belief that a film should be judged on its own merits and not have to be compared to other films before it. But, having said that, when you make a film about a couple facing the ravages of old age, you can’t talk about it without at least mentioning Michael Haneke’s Amour. It’s akin to reviewing a film about an early 20th century oil baron and not referencing There Will Be Blood. Amour is, quite simply, a masterpiece and is one of the best films of the 21st century, so it casts a large shadow. The magic of that film is how Haneke, a strident anti-sensationalist, applies an impassive, clinical sensibility to his filmmaking, and the wondrous paradoxical results that occur. In doing what he does, Haneke doesn’t pull the audience back; he gets out of their way. He knows that the actors and their characters, not to mention the situation they’re in, will be enough to forge a connection with them, and the effect is nothing short of extraordinary. Haneke crafted a sober, clear-eyed film that says so much about old age without wallowing in sentimentality or pessimism. I say all this only to point out the limitations inherent in Noe’s approach, at least on this subject matter. As I said, Noe hasn’t abandoned his nihilism, and so he fashions his story around that worldview. There’s nothing wrong with doing that in of itself, but I think it robs the film of nuance and complexity. It keeps the film from saying more about getting old and dying than it could (it’s what kept Noe from saying more about love and sex in Love), and so it pales in comparison to Amour. Haneke made a film where he told his characters’ story; Noe made a film where his characters played out the story he wanted them to tell. There’s a lot in that difference. Ultimately, I don’t mean to criticize Noe for his nihilism. If that is how he sees the world, then so shall that be reflected in his films (who is anyone to judge him for maintaining his artistic/philosophical integrity?). I only mention it as a criticism in this case because I believe that a story can encompass a worldview without being compromised in thematic richness. It could also be a simple matter of telling the right story that suits his philosophy. But I’m coming off as being too hard on Noe. As I said before, there’s maturity in Noe to be seen in this new film. We’ve never felt so much sympathy for his characters, and Noe, who could be criticized in the past for having indifference towards the depths of depravity and doom his characters sink to, shows a new emotion in this film. It’s that melancholy you speak of. Noe may be committed to the belief that time destroys everything, even the memory of two people (that final photo montage of the apartment still haunts me), but for the first time, I believe that Noe wishes that wasn’t the case. He’s growing as an artist, showing more colors, and I welcome it. I think he should take it further in future films and allow for his characters to be more fully developed, more real to the audience. David Lynch, an influence on Noe, allowed an emotional throughline for his characters to course through even his most surreal, dream-mired films (Mulholland Dr. and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me). Even Darren Aronofsky, a less accomplished filmmaker than Noe also given to dark extremes, made room for Ellen Burstyn to give a fearless, heartbreaking performance in Requiem for a Dream. There have been no shortage of brave, uninhibited performances in Noe’s films (he should build a shrine to Monica Bellucci), but none what you would call…substantial. Argento and Lebrun’s performances show a step in the right direction. I believe that Noe can make a film that contains one or two great, fully realized performances. If he can do that with a story that encompasses his sensibility and worldview without being compromised, and he doesn’t flatten the characters with his aesthetic like he’s done before, he could have a bleak masterpiece on his hands, surpassing even that of Irreversible. I’m rooting for him to do so. He’s too vital a filmmaker to fade away in decline.
Bennett Oliver
2022-05-23 01:24:27 +0000 UTCI haven’t seen it yet (probably will in a few days) but I think the idea is wonderful. Sometimes when Noé does something very different it’s cause for concern. Love is one of the most self-indulgent, shallow films I’ve ever seen, and it ended up having very little to say about the titular concept. It seemed like with that film, Noé set out to prove a point. That he could make an erotic love story in which the sex scenes were explicit. With Vortex, it seems like it comes from a much more purposeful and genuine place. So I’m very excited for that reason, but also because it’s interesting to see Noé grow outside of movies about drug culture. Especially hearing how almost dying has made him give up drugs and alcohol, it seems like he has a new perspective now and I wanna see it in this film.
Jackson Littlewood
2022-05-21 06:03:11 +0000 UTC
