NSFW! NSFW! The marketing campaign for Gaspar Noé‘s hotly, wetly anticipated “Love” (in 3D!) threatened to do for that acronym what early ’90s hip-hop did for the Parental Advisory sticker. But laying to rest any fears that it was all a publicity ploy and Noe was going to pull a massive bait and switch and give us “A Room with a View,” the film starts with a happy ending: the two attractive stars lie splayed on top of one another in media res of an act of vigorous mutual masturbation, that eventually comes to its predictable, sticky conclusion. You’ll be glad to know that the terrible infant’s latest film is almost wholly Not Safe For Work, unless you work at a porn store, or a sperm bank, or a film blog, in any of which cases it may seem unsatisfying for your purposes anyway, though for slightly different reasons.
READ MORE: Adults-Only Poster for Gaspar Noe’s ‘Love’
Perhaps I should start by mentioning that there are no winners in the game of defending “Love,” because there are many, many, many things wrong with it, any one of which would be cause enough to reject the film outright. It is snoozingly overlong and almost comically self indulgent (I say “almost” because the one thing this provocateur never wants to provoke is a reaction of laughter). To the latter point, I can’t remember any other director ever simultaneously imagining himself as the empty-headed, dickish but pretty leading man (an aspiring filmmaker who namechecks “2001” as is Noé’s wont); the leading lady’s older, married ex-boyfriend (who is called Noé); and a fetus (the baby is going to be called Gaspar even before he is born). It’s half a heartbeat away from displaying “Noe Woz ‘Ere” graffiti on every surface that’ll take a Sharpie. Additionally, it is heteronormative to its core, casually homophobic in language at times, and un-casually transphobic in its chickenshit treatment of its one transgender sex scene. It’s not particularly well-acted, except by the baby who is a Method genius, though the stars are certainly “brave” in the euphemistic sense, and the dialogue ranges from bland to risible. And yet, and yet…
And yet Noe, aided by DP Benoit Debie, does know a thing or two about arranging a scene for maximum beauty, and here seems to have been inspired to shoot the too-many acts of vigorous boning with a surprisingly lyrical wash over the graphic details of penises, pubic hair, boobs and bums (no vaginas, though, except once from the inside). An early threesome scene is a lovely tangle of limbs and hair and pink tongues, and the way he lights and choreographs sex scenes in passageways manages to make a blow job in a corridor look epic and romantic, rather than plain old seedy (which is obviously where it ends, though). And the film is slickly edited too, with the flashbacks and flash forwards signalled by blink-like cuts to black and often characterized by actions and framings that match across the edit.
The 3D also adds more than just the obligatory head-on ejaculation shot in which streams of rather fake looking semen spurt directly at your eyes (I’ll be honest, I’d have thought it a cop-out if one such shot wasn’t there). In fact the added dimensionality works best outside the sex scenes: a switch of stock to indicate home video footage gave a dizzying but enjoyable shift of perspective, and some of Noe’s traditional flourishes, like laser lit nightclubs and text on screen, look dipped in newness seen in 3D.
It’s telling that I’m this far into the review and I haven’t talked about story or character yet, but the outline is that Murphy (Karl Glusman) an American in Paris, meets and falls hard for Electra (Aomi Muyock). They experiment with sex and drugs, while the rock ‘n’ roll part is provided by an eclectic, fun soundtrack that includes Satie and Bach, cuts from various John Carpenter and giallo soundtracks, plus “Cannibal Holocaust,” among other unexpected treats (the posters that adorn the apartment walls also speak to Noe’s far-ranging but questionable cinephilia, I mean, “Birth of a Nation“? Really?) But then one of Murphy’s infidelities leads to a pregnancy and Electra leaves him. The film flickers between Murphy’s current circumstances about which he moans in whispered woe-is-me voiceover, and the rise and fall of his relationship with Electra.
READ MORE: A Clip From Gaspar Noe’s ‘Love’
So, yes, there is no real story, essentially. And its overweeningly aestheticized approach serves to divorce the often compelling images from the reality, or indeed the politics, of what they represent–so there is nothing of the manifesto here either. It’s not even about these characters, because they are too severely underwritten to get a feel for them as anything but the attractive fleshsacks between whom the fluids, recriminations and murmured endearments that Noe is actually interested in fly back and forth. This in fact is not a film about people, it is a film about the thing that exists between them — not “Love” necessarily, but as Noe proxy Murphy calls it: “sentimental sexuality.”
It’s a phrase that points to the no man’s land Noe ends up in — because while the sexuality is pushed far too far for mainstream audiences, it’s also true that Noe’s conception of sentiment and romance pulls the film back from being truly transgressive about its gender or sexuality politics. And it may be hardcore XXX but this is Noe at his most softhearted following the brutality of “Irreversible” and his most straightforward, following the mindfuckery of “Enter the Void” so it may even leave his fans feeling underwhelmed. Still it would be disingenuous to suggest I wasn’t diverted and occasionally dazzled by its 3D visuals, often entranced in that visceral, pure cinema kind of way, which is itself remarkable for happening during a Gaspar Noe film apparently designed to “give guys a hard-on and make girls cry.” I didn’t cry and as far as I could make out, not a lot of the other thing happened either, but a softer Noe (not a hard-on pun I promise) does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. [B-]
Check out our coverage of the 2015 Cannes Film Festival by clicking here.
I will say I\’m glad that I read the comments afterwards because what I took away from this movie was an answer to a question and this is "why not make a "good" porno movie" ? well… this is why
As a trans woman I was taken off guard by the trans scene. I found it very insulting as it seemed to be added in as a joke. The audience laughing made me feel very uncomfortable. I think it was in poor taste. And yes it was transphobic.
@HUNGRY not sure if you\’re making a proclamation or responding to me. well if I did need more dick, I certainly got a ton of dicks via this comments page.
@JORDANDODD Not me, not there, unpack it if you want or can but no. It\’s interesting the way u choose to hide behind semantics. the idea that someone can\’t be homophobic because they don\’t use certain words or a certain language is as ludicrous as GASPARD believing a homophobe can\’t be homosexual. was hoping for more on the way Noe uses homosexuality, open to the possibility I\’d missed something, after all this is a movie discussion section, but judging from the cliché responses I was probably right first time. BTW @GASPARD, you\’re a trip, what\’s with you and your bizarre daddy baseball game, sorry neither fetish does anything for me, or is that another one of your homosexuality cures; homophobia and baseball games with dad, maybe it\’s you who should go.
"I mean it cannot be denied that Noe\’s got some weird gay s**t going on."
Now who is homophobic?
Homophobia? If you are seeing that in his films, that is on you. His films can be interpreted in so many different ways.
Can anyone link me to a direct quote where Noe says something homophobic? No?
Funny, that.
I don\’t think Jessica was dismissive at all. She stated outright the problems with the content. Anyways, as to the review, very well-written and it made me laugh more than a couple times. I am surprised that she would give the film a B- after what seemed like a fairly scathing review. I have no interest in seeing it — and I say this as someone who thought Irreversible was affecting and nearly brilliant. But I will say that from what I\’ve seen in clips, it does look like a beautifully shot film. It just seems clear that it\’s pretty much an empty film. Noe can do better.
Lulu Mills , please go watch a baseball game with your dads
bummer.. was really hoping oliver would review this one
Needs more dick.
Wait a second, @ GASPARD you thought that if you vehemently spouted homophobic beliefs that somehow meant you couldn\’t possibly be gay? Awkward, @GASPARD that\’s kind of revealing.
@ GASPARD LOL, you have absolutely no idea who you\’re addressing and your notions are provincial and insane..Listen cause you need to hear this. Pick up some books – non fiction, human psychology would be a great start – give yourself an education, trust me you\’ll love it, the world will open out for you in ways you never imagined, even at the movies. Seriously dude, someone can\’t be a homophobe and a closet homosexual?
He can\’t be a homophobe and closeted at the same time?
Dear Lulu, first off you\’re not going to destroy anyone or anything, you\’re going to cry and watch Oprah\’s O channel. Second, you can\’t have it both ways. Gaspar Noe surely can\’t be a homophobe and a closet homosexual, you sound stupid and attention starved. Grow up, be a man, talk to your dad and quit sounding like attention starved dweeb in the comments section of movie website that all of twelve people still go to.
@TIGER have u seen the sodomites, if it\’s the one i\’m thinking of it\’s a woman being sodomised by a beast, am I wrong? @BUKKAYEBOYARDEE Noe\’s supposed to be an artist not some guy commenting on a huffington post article, blind intolerance does not cut it for an artist, he\’s supposed to be plumbing depths not skating on the shallows via clichés. @TIGER re Noe\’s cameo, possibly there\’s more sub text going on that I\’m missing amongst his odd portrayals and my own incandescent rage, I\’d like to hear more on that vein if anyone has anything, I mean it cannot be denied that Noe\’s got some weird gay s**t going on.
Mills, I\’m at the stadium. Where are you? Do you want money to buy hotdogs? Bring some pepsi too.
LULU
Maybe Noe is far less of a coward than you think if he is bold enough to present his opinions, political flaws and all.
All in all, everyone wants their needs catered to now-a-days. Everyone is looking to criticise something for being homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic/bigoted in general. It\’s really quite pathetic.
@tiger these people get bored if they dont have something to complain about at all times.
I really don\’t understand where these claims of homophobia are coming from. You\’re talking about a director who made a film called The Sodomites, which featured just that, and then later went on to make Irreversible, where he showed himself masturbating inside a club called "Rectum"
if find all these claims of homophobia very strange, when talking about a director who\’s first film The Sodomites, featured just that, and on top of that the director himself can be seen sitting inside the gay club called Rectum and mastrubate.
And let me stamp my boot on Noe\’s face one more time. After Von Trier\’s Nymphomaniac this movie\’s unnecessary, totally redundant.
I\’m with u @MILLS and screw u @GASPARD MORON, even if you want to ignore the casual acceptance of bigotry, homophobia in a art house film supposedly exploring sex is nothing more than cowardly child\’s play. A true artist wouldn\’t have such pedestrian fears and all the while the flick\’s being promoted as dangerous? envelope pushing? irreversible was a joke, Noe\’s such an idiot homophobe he had the gay guy commit the violent rape of the female lead. The director doth protest too much, give us something truly dangerous and revealing by dealing with your odd, surely latent homosexuality. And homophobe commentators beware, I will destroy u.
Mills, get over yourself. It\’s not about you. Go watch a baseball game with your dad or something : /
Great honest review, can\’t wait for this to open then not actually go see it.
Thanks for your review. I am a bit troubled that you advise of sequences being homophobic and transphobic in the film without delving into this. If a displayed racism or anti-semitism, I would think there would be a more space given in the critique to exploring that. I don\’t think it would be trivialized with a the film is racist yet… sort of response. This is a director who has been accused of homophobia in the past. As a viewer who is queer, it seems to trivialize a serious matter to act as if it is no big deal. Giving a sentence to this before moving on to what you find awesome is surprising. I know it is in late in the day there. You are a wonderful critic which is why I find this cursory comment distressing.