Vortex

Françoise Lebrun delivers an outstanding and unforgettable portrayal as Elle, a lady in her senior years struck down with dementia and living in a world that's alien, confusing, bewildering and extremely dangerous. So convincing is her presentation that you spend most of the film half believing that she must genuinely be suffering, that this is a documentary, a fly on the wall observation. Similarly, Dario Argento fulfils the role of the loving but ever so slightly irritated grumpy old man, wishing to get on with his life while more often than not, turning a blind eye to his wife's descent, knowing only too well the consequences once others take control of the situation.

This film recognises what most people have gone through, or will go through, either directly or as close witnesses. Filmed in an imaginative style by the progressive Gaspar Noé, my only complaint is that I was extremely keen for the end to arrive as it outstayed its welcome by around 30 minutes and, as such, I'm unlikely to revisit it again any time soon.

Even by Noe's standards, Vortex is truly unflinching and horrifically brutal, and does so without showing the sorts of extreme sexual and/or violent content that can often be found in his other films.

There's no real optimism or sentimentality. This film is just "getting old is horrible and here's what can happen" with no filter. The characters are similarly honest- Dario Argento's character is asked how his wife is. He bluntly replies "Not good." His character's son echoes a similar sentiment.

It takes a similar premise to 2012's Amour yet makes it even more impactful. It uses a bolder stylistic decision too, which I won't spoil here (I think it kind of works. It makes some moments extra devastating, but I couldn't always work out its explicit purpose on a scene to scene basis).

While it's definitely not a fun or fast-paced movie, 142 minutes passed by surprisingly quick, which I think speaks to how absorbing and well-acted it is. It may well be Gaspar Noe's best film so far.

Well, I've been thinking about this one for a week or so. It's an incredibly special film and, to my knowledge, a very singular one. I've never seen such a realistic death-focused movie in my life. Though it has Gaspar Noe's signature bleakness, it is completely unlike everything else he's made, and feels much more humble. Though he's mentioned the correlation in interviews, it feels very clear that his own near-death experience (brain hemorrhaging a couple years back) shifted his heart in a sense. This is easily Noe's most heartfelt film.

Of course, this film is NOT for everyone. Aside from the bleakness of the experience itself, it also runs in what feels like real-time. Even for me, there were segments that were challenging to stay with because they were so slow, but in the end, it's all made with such great intent and vision that I think I might appreciate some of those sluggish scenes even more upon a second viewing. I mean, of COURSE it's slow, you are living in the shoes of an old married couple in their 80's during the last few months of their life!

I don't think I have ever seen a split screen implemented so effectively in a movie. I often found myself fascinated by the fact that when you have two ultra slow sequences occurring in each of the split screens, it adds up to one perfectly "normally" paced experience. And, all I will say is that, the split screen seems to take on more and more artistic purpose as the film goes on.

The acting performances from both leads are absolutely astonishing. As a diehard fan of Dario Argento's entire cinematic universe for the last 20 years, I have never seen him act in anything and had no idea what to expect from him in Vortex. He pretty much blew my mind - what he brings to the film is more warm and endearing than anything - in fact it is one of the most touching performances I have seen in years. Of course, this all leads to a high level of effectiveness when it comes time for his character to focus on what is the opposite of such light feelings. It comes as no surprise that the Italian maestro of murder cinema is capable of one of the most believable portrayals of death-centric scenarios when he's placed in front of the camera. This has truly brought the Argento legacy to a whole other level. And then we have the incredible Francoise Lebrun who truly makes the whole movie what it is - her portrayal of dementia is just beyond. It does not feel like you are watching a movie - it truly feels like you are LIVING in the realm of the real thing. It is hard to put into words beyond that. She deserves the highest of accolades.

There is so much to say about this film but I will leave it at that. Gaspar's genius seems to know No(e) bounds. It is definitely some form of masterpiece - the only reason I am giving it 9 instead of 10 is because it is simply not FUN to watch - it's grueling, of course! I hope that Noe has at least a couple more up his sleeve. I will watch his films until he himself is gone! Everything he makes!

A slow moving, disturbing, and emotionally powerful cinematic experience. Gaspar really doesn't disappoint, as this film packs some of the most potent performances in any of his previous films, Dario Argento, François Lebrun and Alex Lutz do a surprisingly amazing job performing. The split screen used in the film's visuals are wonderfully implemented with a clear artistic purpose, the film is incredibly well shot and though the pacing is very slow it never feels dull whatsoever. The disturbing moments are much more subtle and quiet when compared to Noe's previous works, though their subtlety doesn't hinder these moments whatsoever. The dialogue is wonderful, every bit of human drama between these characters feels like it was ripped right out of reality with how raw every second is, at points it feels like I'm watching a documentary rather than a drama.

My main issues lie with the film's narrative feeling a little scatter-brained and random, a few plot threads feel picked up and dropped without much development and though I appreciate the use of empty scenes that feel like nothingness as a way to illustrate how our lives are made up of 50% nothingness, there's a point where those additions aren't needed anymore.

I had the opportunity of seeing Gaspar's newest film at the 74th Cannes Film Festival this year. Being an admirer of his entire filmmography as well as one of my favorite working directors, I was very much excited to see this premiere. I knew close to nothing about it, but the poster and title seemed to offer somerthing both different and promising.

And I think we will all agree this is different. I was expecting a new version of "Enter The Void" this time dealing with old age instead of DMT, but this wasn't the case at all. This film isn't exactly completely new territory for Gaspar, but it's the first time he lazer focuses on making an emotional impact mainly through his actor's performances. In so many of his other works, his directing style is bold and brash, making use of several filmmaking techniques to match the style of his films in accordance with their substance. In "Irréversible", he filmed every scene in one take to add a sense of immersion and show both the ugly and the beauty of the events with little artifice. He also showed the events backwards, to add to the theme of time being the ultimate destructor. In "Enter The Void", he used POV shots and special effects to make the camera go through walls, in "I Stand Alone" he made great use of transitions between shots etc...

All of his previous films have had something to do with violence, drugs, sex, trauma, the human condition, time and death. His cinema now has the reputation for being intensely extreme, filled with shocking content and insane stories offering one-of-a-kind experiences for the viewer. And although this film is definetly a Gaspar Noé film, it truly doesn't fit in neatly with the rest of his filmmography.

Forget all the neon lights and the stroboscoping effects, forget the explicit sex scenes. Forget the hallucinogenic escapades and the nightmarish parties. This film deals with an aging couple comming to terms with their deaths and the impending doom that awaits them. In short, it's a film about old age, dementia and death. The first 20 minutes or so will clearly set the tone for the rest of the film, as they are almost completely silent, long takes of the two characters waking up and starting their day while someone on the radio explains the ways in which people cope with death and the meaning behind how we deal with grief.

There are still traces of Gaspar's filmmaking, most notably in his signature transitions using a black screen for one second between some shots, as well as the decision to have the entire film happen in split screen. According to him, this choice was to showcast the character's different expriences happenning at the same time, since, to quote from "I Stand Alone" : "we are born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Alone with your flesh, alone with your life which is like a tunnel that's impossible to share". Here, the split screen serves as a way of constantly reminding the spectator of this "tunnel".

However, these are the main two stylistic choices and the rest of the film rests entirely on the shoulders of the actors to carry the emotions in every scene, especially with a subject matter this bleak. When it comes to this, every one of them did their job perfectly (especially Françoise Lebrun), allowing for some of the most tragic, personnal and saddest moments in Gaspar's entire career. Never before had we felt this level of intimacy in so many scenes. You could find similar moments in "I Stand Alone" with the father/daughter relationship or the brother and sister love in "Enter The Void". Here, these moments are the core of the film, and when they come, they sure do it their mark.

However, there is one major problem I had with this film, which is something I have said about some of his other films, notably "Enter The Void" : it's just way too damn long. So many scenes and sequences drag out for minutes without any noticeable action or involvement. The characters are seen in their daily life and we are shown the incidents that come with living with somebody's dementia, notably Alzheimer's. As I've mentionned before, the film begins with very long takes of those daily actions, and how Françoise Lebrun's character copes (or rather how she fails to cope) with her disease. This goes on for the entire film, and the only moments breaking from this excrutiatingly slow pacing are the scenes of dialogue between the couple and their son, played by Alex Lutz. These scenes are incredibly well acted, and just like most of Gaspar's films, they were mostly improvised and you can tell. This felt right, since it adds to the sense of naturalism the film was clearly going for.

Unfortunately, I think the film falls short of greatness because of this. This reminded me of two other films : the first one is "Amour" by Michael Haneke for obvious reasons, but Haneke's style seemed more fit to tackle this topic in this manner. The second one is David Lowery's "A Ghost Story", which deals with grief and most notably, explores death and how we cope with it from an existential point of view. In "Vortex", Gaspar also explores these themes, but with a 2h20min runtime, he bores and eventually loses the spectator before the film's final minutes can truly have an impact.

I still enjoyed it for what it tried to be, and for the performences. It's also very refreshing to see a more personnal film from Gaspar, away from his usual reputation and for the first time without an R or NC-17 rating. But I simply cannot put aside how long this film seemed. Just like with "Irréversible", he wrote a 10-page script and ended up with a 2 hour film, which is one of his shortcomings. I will probably watch it again sometime, when I'll really be in the mood for this again, and maybe I'll give it a 7 instead of a 6 after a few more viewings. But for now, this will definitely not be his masterpiece.