"Requiem For A Dream"

Phil....I agree with you somewhat.....you have very valid points....as does David. I'm definitely no "Requiem is the greatest movie, and you can' t tell me anything otherwise" kind of people. I found it a very *hard* movie to watch my 1st time.....and then again my 2nd, and 3rd....and everytime I see it on IFC......but I woudn't go so far to say it's a *Celebration of Misery*!!

It's definitely in the realm of Clerks, Pi, Fight Club, etc. People will definitely go out of their way to defend it to the bone. I just like it for what it is......the closest thing to the *Truth* I've seen portrayed from any drug movie. Whether it's *Art* or not? Well.....what is NOT art these days?

~reservoir~
 
"Depth" and Requiem:

I am truly confused by people who watch this (or any) film and boldly and confidently state that it 'lacks depth'. I've seen films that I've not understood but I am personally very cautious about just claiming "this film has no depth" because there's an equal chance that maybe it has depth that I just didn't see, or understand.

I'm sure many of the people making this claim know dozens (if not hundreds) of people that claim that fight club "has no depth" because it's just "about guys beating each other up, and then what the hell it's the same guy?" Are these people correct in their assessment, or are they just not getting it? I think it might be wise to accept the fact that you might not be getting it. Not that it's smarter than you (or you, it), it just might be thinking/operating differently than you.

Personally, if a movie "is on the boards every month", chances are there's something going on there besides just "arty cuts" and "drugs", because HUNDREDS of movies with more drugs and artier cuts are made every day, but something about this movie sticks, so it can't be entirely dismissible.
 
"Celebration of Misery" / Drug Use:

I went to the dictionary just to double check, and found that the word 'celebration' means "the act of showing joyful satisfaction in an event" or "expression of warm approval." I think it's fairly safe to say that the creators of this film have a pretty strong opinion about addiction, and none of it is celebratory. If you walk out of a film feeling miserable, chances are it wasn't a celebration of its subject matter.

Similarly, to say this movie is about "drug use" is to say that Fight Club is about "consumerism". Sure, it's an aspect of the movie, but it's not the only aspect.

thisiswells probably nailed it best, IMO when he said it was about "the decay of life because of addictions". I don't think that the heroin was any more or less addicting than the television, or the dream of the red dress, or the thought of being thin, or the fashion design dream.
 
"too arty" / "film schoolish":

I think of all of the complaints, I understand this one, as a knee-jerk reaction, more than anything else. Almost.

I think that if you really thought about the scenes where this happened you might not find the shots to be so 'mindlessly arty', they are very intentional, whether or not they are effective or distracting is subjective, but they are far from just "showing off".

For example: The scene where Jared Leto & Jennifer Connely are in bed, caressing and stroking one another, there is a very obvious ("and distracting") split screen. When I first saw it I thought "hey, that's cool."

But then I listened to the commentary, and learned his reasoning for it. He says (in the commentary) that he shot it that way to show two individuals trying to connect, trying to reach another, through intimacy, but being unable to, and separated in a very physical and emotional way. And then I thought "hey, that's pretty cool."

Is this, fundamentally, any different from Orson Wells using low-angle shots and optical illusions in Citizen Kane to emphasize Kane's power, but also the fact that that power is unappealing?

Now, your argument that it's distracting, is the exact same argument that someone would've (could've) made about the shots in Citizen Kane.

Of course it seems "arty." You haven't seen it before.

Right now you've seen so many ECUs, and low angle, and moving dolly, and etc etc shots, that you don't realize that they also started off as -arty- shots, they are just arty shots that have been accepted by the main stream, and repeated so often that they are part of the canon.
 
machardi said:
but something about this movie sticks, so it can't be entirely dismissible.
Click to expand...

BUT just for the record...this is where you lost me...I hear your entire 3 posts...but we're not talking about "entirely dismissing" this film...

Just 2 things...

1. Enough already of saying the same things again and again...until people agree with you...

2. If ANYONE (David for this instance) says different, let them...everyone is allowed an opinion...
 
I saw this a couple months ago.

It was a very interesting examination on addiction and how it can ruin lives. The movie creeped me out however, and I will not watch it again anytime soon.

As for the style........i thought it fit the material very effectively, but it'll be interesting to see if he can pull off something a little more maintstream.
 
I don’t deny that there are quality cinematic innovations. The sound was excellent, too.

But much like “Natural Born Killers,” which was fabulously shot and cut but nauseating in its celebration (yes, celebration) of over-the-top, gratuitous violence, it doesn’t really matter when the subject matter is so ugly.

You say it’s NOT a “celebration,” yet we are certainly supposed to sympathize with the main characters (as opposed to, say, the bald guy Connelly sleeps with for money, who hasn’t messed up his own life; no, he’s a villain) as they make conscious choice after conscious choice to further their own spiral down the drain. I had nothing but contempt for all of them. Whatever “beauty” there may have been in the film was stomped out and smashed by what they took it upon themselves to do.

When “art” is about the ugly for the sake of the ugly; when “art” is about people who have the power to save themselves (or others) but choose not to, then that’s just sad, and speaks badly of humanity, no matter how innovative the delivery.
 
the actors assembled could do a much better job on their own than with directorial trickery.

I would have like to see more performances. What a waste of a great cast.
 
I thought the performances were great in Requiem. I don't think it merely dealt with addiction, it also dealt with the theme of the American dream. Perhaps what makes the film so troubling is that every characters dream is subverted and perverted by addiction. The mother's desire to be on that trite show leads her to an amphetamine addiction. I'm not gonna spell anything else out, but this seems less a discussion about the film and more an attempt to dismiss the each others opinions.

It's not an easy film to watch. It's beautifully shot, and like a lot of you I don't want to watch it again. We don't have to agree on liking or disliking the film, but when I read some of these responses it's less of a dialogue and more of an attempt to try and focus the film in one perspective.

I really like that this film exists. It reminds me of another film that deals with a subverted American Dream, Midnight Cowboy. I may not always like films like Requiem, but I think they're essential for the challenge they present to viewers.

As far as the style goes I thought it fit the fleeting elation of drug use. The timelessness of users and how each fix is so quick.

I think it's perfectly alright to have contempt for all the characters. I felt a bit of that after watching the film. I felt like I never wanted to be in that position. It's pretty amazing that a film can make you feel that way. :beer:
 
As far as *Drug* movies go.....I prefer Trainspotting. In the end it seemed to have a message of hope / recovery / survival. Good Film. "Choose Life"

~reservoir~
 
reservoir said:
As far as *Drug* movies go.....I prefer Trainspotting. In the end it seemed to have a message of hope / recovery / survival. Good Film. "Choose Life"

~reservoir~
Click to expand...
Good call! I agree.
 
Phil said:
BUT just for the record...this is where you lost me...I hear your entire 3 posts...but we're not talking about "entirely dismissing" this film...

Just 2 things...

1. Enough already of saying the same things again and again...until people agree with you...

2. If ANYONE (David for this instance) says different, let them...everyone is allowed an opinion...
Click to expand...


Not to call you out as a raving illogical hypocrite because I suspect that you aren't, but your two things are wildly at odds with one another. These are my first three comments about the movie, comments which I haven't made before, and your immediate reaction is "Enough of saying the same things again and again until people agree with you" followed shortly by "if anyone says different, let them, everyone is allowed an opinion." Or maybe that everyone is -just- David?

Second, I wrote three relatively coherent emails about the movie and your kneejerk response was "fine whatever, best movie ever." Which was mildly reminiscent of an argument I had with someone the other day. Only after -that- argument, I put them on time-out because they were 6.

At any rate, I only used the phrase "entirely dismissing" because I recall seeing a bunch of posts that seemed to say "it was just a movie celebrating drugs, and not very good" which seems pretty dismissive, and not entirely accurate, to me.

M.
 
I don't think we're supposed to 'sympathize' with the main characters, at all. I don't think that that is part of the filmmakers intention, because they aren't very sympathetic characters.

Contempt for all of them? Even the Mom? I have no doubt that someone in your life that you care about deeply is on some sort of Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor, because that's what the doctor suggests, and I'm sure you don't have contempt for them.

I think if you take the context out of what these characters are doing (drugs drugs drugs) and look at the essence of what these characters are doing (trying to live out the American dream, by the way that makes sense to -them- because of their situation and education) you might find them harder to have -contempt- for. I'm not suggesting that you'd like them, or want them to be your kid's godfather, but you might understand where they are coming from, and hell, even generate a little sympathy after all.

"When “art” is about people who have the power to save themselves (or others) but choose not to, then that’s just sad, and speaks badly of humanity."

I've watched this movie a few times, and while I don't think it's the greatest piece of cinema to hit the screen, I think it's good. I don't think that this movie is about people who choose not to save one another. I think this is movie is about people who try to, and in the words of the last knight on the grail quest, they choose poorly.

The Mom: Wants to be happy again, wants to be a family again, wants to be on a game show so she can tell everyone how much she loves her child, but is embarrassed about her weight, and diets, as per her physicians orders, to do so.

The Son: Wants to get that last big score so that he can help his girlfriend start up her clothing store, and quit using altogether. Also wanted to provide for his mom, by getting her a new TV.

I forget the Wayans Character's deal, I don't think he was as well developed, but c'est la vie.

These are people that wanted more, for the people around them, but just had flawed decision making processes. I know I've tried to do the right thing for people I cared about, and made wrong choices about how to go about it. I think rather than that being an affront to humanity, I think that it's one of the definitions of humanity. Maybe you disagree.

M.

Jubal28 said:
I don’t deny that there are quality cinematic innovations. The sound was excellent, too.

But much like “Natural Born Killers,” which was fabulously shot and cut but nauseating in its celebration (yes, celebration) of over-the-top, gratuitous violence, it doesn’t really matter when the subject matter is so ugly.

You say it’s NOT a “celebration,” yet we are certainly supposed to sympathize with the main characters (as opposed to, say, the bald guy Connelly sleeps with for money, who hasn’t messed up his own life; no, he’s a villain) as they make conscious choice after conscious choice to further their own spiral down the drain. I had nothing but contempt for all of them. Whatever “beauty” there may have been in the film was stomped out and smashed by what they took it upon themselves to do.

When “art” is about the ugly for the sake of the ugly; when “art” is about people who have the power to save themselves (or others) but choose not to, then that’s just sad, and speaks badly of humanity, no matter how innovative the delivery.
Click to expand...
 
machardi said:
"Enough of saying the same things again and again until people agree with you" followed shortly by "if anyone says different, let them, everyone is allowed an opinion."
Click to expand...
I meant that as the hardcore people who keep saying the same things over and over...Not JUST you...I meant that as a whole, and for you to take it so personally...is quite a reflection of your ego...It was just a generalization, not an attack...

machardi said:
Second, I wrote three relatively coherent emails about the movie and your kneejerk response was "fine whatever, best movie ever."
Click to expand...


Because this just keeps going on and on...You really are saying the same things that someone else has JUST said...

machardi said:
Which was mildly reminiscent of an argument I had with someone the other day. Only after -that- argument, I put them on time-out because they were 6.
Click to expand...


Nice...Insulting...hope this makes you feel better. (By the way, why are you arguing with a 6 year old???...) You're one of those people who just likes to argue...

machardi said:
At any rate, I only used the phrase "entirely dismissing" because I recall seeing a bunch of posts that seemed to say "it was just a movie celebrating drugs, and not very good" which seems pretty dismissive, and not entirely accurate, to me.
Click to expand...

..."not very good"...WHICH I HAVE NEVER SAID!

Again, it seems since day one, that David said one comment, and everyone commented on it, I agreed with the "celebration" idea...and was dragged into it...Then it was brought up again...and people started saying the same things over and over...

I'm not saying this movie is good bad or if David or anyone is right or wrong...I'm just saying, let him have his opinion. I'm letting you have your opinion too...it just seems...

**** this...I'm through talking about this ****

And now that I have stood up for someone, I'm being insulted...Nice real nice...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top