200 Irréversible

Discuss Blu-rays released by Indicator and the films on them.

Moderator: MichaelB

Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 200 Irréversible

#101 Post by MichaelB » Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:38 am

tenia wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:20 am
I also wouldn't be surprised if the film elements were fully digitalised and all the post-prod, editing and al happened in the digital realm then. This means going back to the film elements for the restoration would be akin to having to re-do everything on the movie, except shooting the material.
That is precisely the situation - and to add to the above, all the reframing from the film's native 1.66:1 aspect ratio to the final version's 2.35:1 was also carried out in post-production. And that includes frame-by-frame reframing within the shot - for instance, the "pulsing" effect that's designed to induce nausea in the viewer.
mhofmann wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:32 am
I get all that and the circumstances surrounding its remastering. Maybe I should be really happy Noé is staying faithful to the film's roots and not redoing the post-production, changing aspect ratio, selectively recoloring the movie, ore adding Jar Jar Binks to the tunnel. :D
Talking of which, one of the digital special effects involved adding the silent witness to the tunnel in the first place...
Yet a few observations:
- Not every shot in this film uses visual effects, and most of the other post-production elements are regularly redone when restoring a new film scan from the negative (or other respective earliest) elements. So it might have simply been a question of budget, time, and/or willingness to do so, not a matter of impossibility. I'm probably OK though if the restoration philosophy was "can't get better than what people saw at theatrical premiere."
To all intents and purposes, every shot in this film was digitally post-processed in some way, even if it only involved reframing or digital stitching. You're still clinging to your original notion "well, they do this with other films, so why not this one?", but I've already argued above that this is a mistake - regardless of the material that passed through the camera, this film is effectively a digital work, and needs to be regarded as such. (Hence my Pillow Book comparison - that was notionally shot on 35mm film, but it's ultimately a high-definition analogue video work.)

And in both cases of course it might be possible to reassemble both films from scratch, but to what end? What percentage of their audience cares so much about achieving picture quality that wasn't achievable at the time of production that would justify all this effort and (inevitably) vast expense? (Assuming the original film materials are even available in the first place, which may of course not be the case.)

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 200 Irréversible

#102 Post by MichaelB » Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:50 pm


JabbaTheSlut
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Down there

Re: 200 Irréversible

#103 Post by JabbaTheSlut » Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:37 am

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Irrevers ... 88/#Review
Typically odd from Dr. Svet, but funnier than usual.
”I have seen Irreversible three times now, but only once because I wanted to do it. After my latest viewing of the film, which occurred earlier today, I can declare with absolute certainty that I will never revisit it again. I do not question its right to exist, and I will explain why below, but its message was crystal-clear to me back in 2002. The rest has zero entertainment value for me. Zlitch.”

” I am absolutely certain that it will be my last. I have always had a copy of it in my library, but only for reference purposes. I get its message and the rest does not have any entertainment value for me.”

User avatar
CSM126
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
Location: The Room
Contact:

Re: 200 Irréversible

#104 Post by CSM126 » Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:01 am

Hey, for once I agree with Dr. Bassoon about something: watching this movie once was enough.

The implication that anyone might get entertainment value out of this is a stretch though. I don’t want to meet the person who had a good time watching this.

JabbaTheSlut
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Down there

Re: 200 Irréversible

#105 Post by JabbaTheSlut » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:02 am

Ahah, agreed.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 200 Irréversible

#106 Post by swo17 » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:32 am

Y'know, I don't like Noé either (and I've given him dozens of chances) but there seem to be plenty of reasonable people that do right along with other films that I do like, and I also wouldn't want anyone to write me off purely because of one small sector of my taste, so can we all please play nice? Haven't the films of Gaspar Noé at least taught us that much?

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#107 Post by tenia » Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:17 pm

I expected Svet to score the movie quite low considering these statements but nope, 4 out of 5.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: 200 Irréversible

#108 Post by Finch » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:11 pm

The film wasn't meant to be entertaining in the first place so for Svet to say it had no entertainment value for him is missing the point of the film altogether.

Also, this line "I have seen Irreversible three times now, but only once because I wanted to do it" makes no sense. Is he trying to say that he would have preferred to see the film only once but had to watch it twice for the review (since he evidently saw it in 2002)? It's embarrassing that BR continues to employ this guy.

User avatar
soundchaser
Leave Her to Beaver
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#109 Post by soundchaser » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:17 pm

That parses fairly easily, at least to me: I’ve seen the film three times, but only one time voluntarily (i.e. not for review purposes).

Svet is, to put it charitably, not a good writer; but this is one of his milder syntactic sins.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 200 Irréversible

#110 Post by tenia » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:32 pm

Yes, it also read to me like this : first viewing was willfully, the other ones for work.

Post Reply