Keep repeating - it's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie

It was rather a 'heavy' Monday - sorry to put you all through some of the most harrowing and evidently shocking cinema you've probably seen - but i feel we came out alright in the end.

I find this module a difficult one - mainly because of the random nature of shock [who can forget Helen's example of a shocking text?] Of course this is what the examination board want - a dialogue - in what ways do texts becoming shocking?

















Ultimately the construction of film is the key to any answer within this module. If we focus on the elements that position audiences then we are able to discuss its effect. Rather than taking the approach that views each film as independent from another - and if it actually shocked you. Avoid all hierarchial discussion but recognise that film can position through micro - elements and the socio/ poiltical background you are coming from.














I think it is fair to say that the opening sequence of Irreversible is indeed a shocking experience - but rather than the content it may be best to focus on the actually way in which it is constructed. I think when i first viewed this sequence - i couldn't get to grips with the camera. This in itself is enought to discuss - this unnerving approach to the construction of mise-en-scene is wholly different to anything I have seen both before or after. I would expect to write about this in any essay - alongside a discussion of Noe's intentions - if we can ascertain them from this sequence. Clearly he intends to unsettle the spectator and not allow us to take a position. Which in light of why this scene begins the film is very clever - who at the beginning is the hero or villain? Of course we are not able to take sides - as violence is met with violence - is met with excessive violence. The screenplay gives no clues either - the language is coarse, it offends - but this comes from both parties.













All of this is bound up in that visual construction of the charcters descent into the club - we do not know who to back - who is right - who is wrong. Therefore as an opening sequence- whilst fulll of standard narrative enigmas - Noe refuses to let us stop and reflect or contemplate on what we are witnessing. You could say the camera operates as 'gut instinct' - it searches and roams for an answer - much as we do as an audience member. It is not until later within the reversed narrative of this highly controversial film that we are allowed a moments reflection - unfortunately - the only time we can 'look' without distraction is the event that forms the catylst for the opening sequence. Still Noe allows the horror to unfold and affect our sensibilities - it shocks us into inability - we can do nothing yet witness the horror. Its lack of cuts and camera angles simply plays the scene as one bursting with verisimilitude - it is real as comes. Are we spectators or witnesses?

Shocking cinema is an ever changing entity - it it not something we can neatly package and prepapre a question for FS6 on - there is no ideal template. This topic is grounded in the ways in which interact and react to film. Similarly multiple acts of viewing are not the same as the cinematic experience and this may need raising.

We will continue with this next week - but I just wanted to acknowledge your maturity and composure in dealing with film that does not simply aim to entertain. We have come a long way since this course started.

Only a few more shocking scenes to experience.

DON'T HAVE NIGHTMARES - REALLY - DON'T HAVE THEM