imjacksfilmclub:

I’ve been wanting to write this review for two weeks now, but I was scared I would somehow overanalyse Love. Then, a few hours ago, I realised that was impossible. Gaspar Noé wouldn’t make a film he knew would be controversial and highly criticised without really getting into details. There’s a lot of different aspects that I’d like to discuss separately and meticulously, but here’s my brief overall opinion.

Love is a film representing Murphy’s (the main character) trip to the past when he finds out his ex-girlfriend, Electra, is missing. As Murphy, a young man who is studying cinema in Paris, says in the film, his “biggest dream is to make a movie that truly depicts sentimental sexuality”. Whether this character has some biographical connection with Gaspar himself or not, is something discussable, but his statement is undoubtedly related to Love.

Some might say Love is a romanticised porno, with unnecessary shots and scenes which only purpose is to make it even more controversial than it would have already been without them. It is not a lie that Noé chose several provocative shots with explicit sexuality, and decided not to show the awkwardness of sex. Some say Love does not represent what sex really is about because of omitting that. However, if the point of the film is to “depict sentimental sexuality”, if the title itself is summing up the whole point of the plot, is it really necessary that we see this couple literally cleaning up their mess, or going through the process of getting it right physically? Of course, if that’s not important to Gaspar Noé, so shouldn’t be most of the, as many say, cheap close-ups. The question is: if we all know what happens after sex, and we also know what happens during sex, what was Noé’s intention? What is it that distinguishes Love from a regular porn when it comes to sex scenes? I believe that if Gaspar had represented the triviality of sex, most people would finally agree he did something completely different from the banality of most drama films related to love issues, and that he got the pornographic part to work perfectly because it represented sex exactly as it is. I also believe that these people are the ones mistaking Noé’s goal. Let me break this to you: Love is not a porno; not because it didn’t turn out like one after editing, but because it wasn’t made to be one. Love is a drama, and what the film is trying to represent is love in sex.

As Murphy claims, “(…) sex while you’re in love. That’s the best thing.”. Right from the open scene, we are engaged in an intimate moment between this couple we don’t know. We even get the feeling that the scene is going to end at any moment, because that’s what usually happens. We don’t know if they’re in love, we don’t know who they are, and we don’t know what’s happening to them. All we know is that there stand two relaxed people, enjoying each other calmly, and we can feel the love right away.

Sex is the ultimate vehicle of transmission of love. The magnum opus of human interaction. Noé knows this, and he brings us this couple that can’t take all the sentiment inside and so has to pour it out skin on skin. It was necessary that the film was as explicit and real as possible, so it could ascend to its own purposes (and expectations, too). Because if you want to do something different, you can’t imitate what’s been done, you can’t imitate art, you got to imitate life.

But if on the one hand Gaspar managed to create something entirely new, he also stepped on ordinary themes such as drugs, adultery and even violence. Once they put drugs on films, we know something’s about to go down. Following the first scenes involving narcotics, we’re presented with moments where Murphy and Electra try to elevate their sexual experiences to a whole new level and experiment all kinds of different stuff. Which, if I may say, doesn’t exactly pleases Murphy.

It is also likely that viewers will question the existence of love between the main characters since they cheat on each other several times, but it seems that what Gaspar was trying to do was to demonstrate how desire and love can work separately. While discussing the cheating part of the film with a friend, I was given a whole new perspective that I hadn’t honestly thought of before that. The true and real betrayal happened when Murphy gave Omi the baby that was meant to be given to Electra. Throughout the film, there are an extraordinary number of almost idyllic conversations about babies. Murphy says they did everything together, except for making a baby. They even picked out names for this imaginary child that never existed. It was like they had built a dream together and Murphy gave it away to someone else. That was something Electra couldn’t forgive, and that was what killed her. Of course, Murphy ended up paying for what he’d done, broken and lost in memories of a love® long gone, and the moment of acceptance comes when he’s desperately asking God for a second chance and for Electra’s safety, while recalling the beginning of their relationship.

I think everyone expected Love to be a soft-porn, something light in terms of emotion and heavy in terms of sex. Some actually see it that way, and most don’t have enough sensibility to feel the deep complex plot. Love flows sweetly and gently, violently and roughly. But in the end, we feel it all.

kraljlca:

It’s possible to be cool and to speak up.

skamlesbians:

a playlist for noora healing from an abusive relationship and learning to love girls [listen here] 

hard feelings/loveless lorde/ like a fool keira knightley/ next to you misty miller/ i wanna get better tinashe/ no mercy makthaverskan/ think of you ms mr/ plot twist sigrid/ alaska maggie rogers/ don’t kill my vibe sigrid/ gravel to tempo hayley kiyoko/ girls beatrice eli/ happy marina and the diamonds/ learn to let go kesha/ bird set free sia/ girlfriend icona pop