Talk:Enter the Void

Film availability

When's this film going to be available for purchase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycherk04 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ending

The last scene is a flashback to Oscar's birth. It is not him being born by his sister or anything like that. Gaspar Noe explained this at the London premiere. If you watch it carefully (as Noe explicitly asked us to do before the film started) you see it's his mother's face, not his sisters. The point is that Oscar's life is meaningless and full of suffering, and he is destined to repeat it forever. Whilst the preceding scene is his sister having sex, it is not her giving birth. It's just a way to lead to Oscar's birth without it appearing totally out of place. 94.195.129.111 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the most comprehensive source for the ending I have found:

"at the end, when you see the baby coming out from the mother's belly, you don't see the face of [the central character's] sister, you see the face of the mother, so you don't know if you're seeing his original birth. He's recreating a false memory of that traumatic moment that was his birth when he discovered light and oxygen. Or is he just getting into a loop, and your perception of time is only likened to how your brain is built." Gaspar Noé Interview: Enter The Void, illegal substances and life after death Smetanahue (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly innacurate plot synopsis

Due to the highly interprative, surreal and ambiguous nature of this film, the plot summary needs to have adequate verifiable sources, or less detail. I have added several tags to the plot summary. 210.54.6.184 (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nathaniel Brown's debut role

This is sort of a weird thing to say because who the hell is Nathaniel Brown and why do I care that this was his debut role? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.48.162 (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Explain aloud

Second paragraph in PLOT section:

On the way, Alex explains parts of The Tibetan Book of the Dead aloud to Oscar: how the spirit of a dead person ...

It should either be 'Alex reads ... aloud ...' or 'Alex explains' (aloud not needed). Zipzip50 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enter the Void/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 08:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I usually don't like reading articles for films I haven't seen, but something's always put me off watching this one. No idea why, because I loved Irréversible. Ah well.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Few quibbles, doesn't seem to be anything major.
   "typecast first-timers" -> Typecasting is what happens when Jack Nance only ever gets put in the role of "distraught man with facial tic". A first time actor is a priori not typecast. Not sure what your intended meaning was here.
   "The film's soundtrack is a collage of various electronic pop and experimental music" -> seems a bit off. I'd drop "various" from that, or replace "music" with "tracks" or "songs".
   "Next, Oscar floats disembodied over Tokyo" -> I don't really think you can use "disembodied" as an adverb, which is what's being done here. Try "Next, a disembodied Oscar floats over Tokyo..."
   Is "Ayahuasca" a proper noun? The article on the drink itself is not consistent on its capitalisation so I'm not sure myself.
   The quote box in the "Visual conception" header is much wider than it really needs to be. Also, Heckel appears to be old enough that his work might be in the public domain, if you wanted to include a sample of it.
   "In both these countries, the film was distributed without reel number seven, from a total of nine" -> Try "In both these countries, the film was distributed without the seventh of its nine reels."
   "As of 20 July 2011, the website Box Office Mojo reported that the worldwide theatrical revenues corresponded to 754,249 US dollars" -> Use $ instead of the word "dollars", either as "US$754,249" (with the link to visually break up the sign and numerals) or "$754,249 US".
   The "See also" heading could be trimmed. I'd ditch Rick Strassman and New French Extremity as tenuously linked to the subject, and either keep French films of 2009 and lose 2009 in Film and Cinema of France, or vice versa.

   Fixed. The problem with Heckel is that I don't know which drawings they used in particular, it would feel wrong to just guess. Smetanahue (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   Makes sense. Fixes look good. GRAPPLE X 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS compliance is fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   References are grand. Reliable, consistent, and you quote the original French when using translations which is helpful.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems grand to me. Not too broad or narrow.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History is stable and controversial.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are grand. Used well and the only non-free image is tagged with a solid rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just going to hold this one until the listed 1A fixes are dealt with, though I can't see that taking much time at all. Article is in very good shape. GRAPPLE X 08:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   And we're done with this one then. Ready to pass it now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)