"Requiem For a Dream" Discussion: 4/21/02 - 4/27/02

[slade]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of Requiem For a Dream.

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either Morticia or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are excited and we hope this works (we're open to any ideas of how to make it better).

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[AnonomusBob15]

I had a hard time with this film. Visually disturbing. But, I still think it is one of the best, if not the best drug films out there.

Darren Aronofsky, knows how to move the camera. He knows how to capture the feel, and he knows how to give you a headache.

I love this movie, but I doubt I will watch it again for a long time, and yet it is still one of my favorites.

[hallcinematic]

"Requiem for a Dream" is a filmmaker's movie. Light on characterizations, but heavy on action, which in this film's case, is not bad at all.

What's intriguing about the film is Aronofsky's insistence on keeping the film subjective. With the use of close-ups and cameras attached to the torso of an actor which focuses directly on their face.

The movie begins slowly, then speeds, and speeds, and speeds, and slows. In a way, the film is paced like a druggie searching for drugs, finding drugs, taking drugs, and ultimately, being ruined by drugs.

The ending of the film is classic, a triumph of editing. By this part, the story's four characters fall head first into a seemingly unending abyss of hell. None die, which is especially unfortunate for Marion, an upper class girlfriend of a lowly drug dealer who is addicted to drugs, so much that she is willing to sell herself for it. We last see her smiling with a bag of drugs clutched in her hands.

"Requiem for a Dream" is scored by a techno producer Clint Mansell, and a classical music group The Kronos Quartet, who all create an atmospheric, melancholic, yet very beautiful theme song for all of the film's characters. In moments, the music is aggressive, uncompromising. Other times, the music is melancholic and sympathetic. Even hopeful, but temporarily so.

In a cleverly composed scene, we see Ellen Burstyn cleaning her room breathlessly. Interestingly enough, as she is moving quickly through her room, time is passing. This is paradoxical, right? If she's on speed, wouldn't she be able to move faster than time? Maybe there is something we don't know about speed.

[falling snow]

first of all, i don't think this movie is a "drug" movie. aronopsky pointed out that his movie is about ordinary people trying to achieve their dreams, and become obsessed with their goal, and drugs(in various forms) are more or less the method they used to get closer to that state, and addiction is a by-product of climbing to reach their dreams. once you listen to the commentary, you get a whole new perspective of the movie. and people often tend to overlook the msgs underneath the film by labeling it as a drug movie. personally, i detest drugs or films that depict drugs as a positive reenforcement. but this isn't that, if anything, it deters people from doing it by showing all consequences it derives. this is the reason why i love traffic(oh, i will be working at a design studio in toronto called HELIOS www.heliozilla.com, which authored traffic dvd for criterion, starting next month as an intern and hopefully they'll give me a copy!!). another film that people overlook is larry clark's KIDS. they label is as a sex film or even porn, but it's not! it's about kids in contemporary generation who live to self destruct in a downward spiral by non-safe sex, drug/alcohol abuses and violence. it's not JUST about sex.

also, if you liked REQUIEM, check out hubert selby jr's novel which the film was based upon, which is a bit different than the film(for example, the psychologist who dines with connely's character is seen as more sympathetic and caring then he was portrayed in the film-he actually offered some money instead of taking advantage of her). i've read many novels that are adapted to films and i have to say the film is as good as the novel(this is really rare, most often the novel versions are much better such as cider house rules, i love john irving!!, and sometime the films are better, such as shawshank redemption, the short story which the film was based on was written by stephen king, entitled "rita hayworth and the shawshank redemption"). the book is really innovative/experimental in its style of narrative but VERY difficult to follow as the book contains almost no punctuations or uses existing punctuations in a nonconventional way. for example, there aren't any quotation marks in the book, and there aren't any paragraph breaks and there's a scene where 3 people are talking at the same time so you have to pick up their verbal style to understand who's saying what.

if you like experimental novels, definitely check this one out, but i have to tell ya, it's not an easy reading. furthermore, check out chuck palahniuk's novels, the fight club, invisible monster, survivor, and choke. read in this order because fc/im are very non-linear and alternative and they are his first 2 books. also check out nancy huston's(canadian writer, may be hard to find unless you reside in canada) 'prodigy'. it's a book written entire out of people's thoughts so there's almost no direct dialogues and the story's very intriguing, about a mother who deals with her prematurly borned baby

[falling snow]

Originally posted by hallcinematic
What's intriguing about the film is Aronofsky's insistence on keeping the film subjective. With the use of close-ups and cameras attached to the torso of an actor which focuses directly on their face.

there are two films that showcase subjective/objective narrations by using camera distances. strangely enough both films deal with a protagonist dealing with death of a family. subjective one is called "ponette" http://us.imdb.com/Title?0117359, it's about a lil girl, aged 3, dealing with the loss of her mother. she turns to her family, peers, religion in order to make sense of what death means and trying to bring back her mother. throughout this 90 minute film, the camera doesn't not move more than 3 feet away from ponette's face, she's almost ALWAYS in the composition thus making this film very personal and subjective to a character's emotions, feelings and state. the objective one is japanese film called "maboroshi" http://us.imdb.com/Title?0113725 about a woman who's dealing with the death of her spouse. there's not a single close up shot of her face, it's often seen from at least 5 feet away from the character. the camera's very steady, often long takes of establishing shots of people walking from one end of the shot to the other. we don't see the woman's facial expressions or how she looks like. i had difficult time distinguishing a character to another because you don't see anyone's faces. these two are very interesting to study contrast in every way.

[AnonomusBob15]

Originally posted by falling snow
first of all, i don't think this movie is a "drug" movie.

He also said that the film is about how anything can be a drug. TV, coffee, nicotine.....anything. Which explains the whole Tappy Tibbons thing.

[MrTony]

I just watched this for the first time on Tuesday, and I'm having trouble coming up with something to say. I would agree with what's been said so far, that it's more about addiction as a means to an end as opposed to just drugs.

I might have more to say later, but for now, suffice it to say that it kicked my ass. The only other movies I've seen that left this kind of impression on me are Apocalypse Now and Brazil. Definitely a modern classic that can't be ignored.

[Welles and Ford Fan]

I saw it last night on Sundance, and haven't stopped thinking about it yet. Ellen Burstyn was absolutely heartbraking in her portrayal (though the entire cast was uniformly great). I liked the movie's dazzling style, in that the editing and speed shifts and camera positions provided a sort of rush for the viewer while the character experienced a real rush.

The reviewer here @ DVD File said he didn't particularly care about some of the characters, and I suppose it is true that it is only the wretchedness of their situations that made me "care" for them. Over all, while it can be called "dazzling",or a"technical tour-de-force" , I'm stuck with "heartbreaking". I thought the ending was absolutely shattering.

[MrSoze]

Greetings!

Hey. Just found out about the forum, been purusing the back posts. Pretty interesting discussions so far.

I've seen Req. for a Dream a few times now, but I saw it in the theater for the first time at a midnight show about a month back, and I think my opinion was slightly changed because of it.

I think, first and foremost, that it is most definitely a director's feast. The visual quality of the movie is not to be denied, and Aronofsky actually does a pretty good job, although not perfect, of making the camera less of a character than it could have been. I've always been a pretty firm believer that the camera doesn't need to become a character in the film to acheive an artistic impression. It all comes down to the fact that, in this movie, the visuals are everything.

The script is actually on the thin side, IMHO. First and foremost, he's dealing with four main characters and trying to aspect our their personalities through his camera work and acting, but I think that the dialogue suffers tremendously in the film because of it. The exchanges between Leto and Connelly especially border on the tedious side; watching their characters, and reading the script on the page, it doesn't leap with the qualities that make a great screenplay happen. I have an idea that this actually plays pretty well into what Aronofsky was going for in the first place, as the movie moves so quickly for it's time period setting I'm amazed watching it. It's little more than 90 minutes, yet it feels like a bunch of time has passed. That's a credit to how Aronofsky moves his camera and paces the movie so well.

Still, I think a previous poster points it out best- you only care about the characters because of the horrendousness of their situation, not because of a large amount of depth in the script. I think that the acting is tremendous, given what they had to work with, as Connelly still breaks my heart in half each time I watch that ending, with her sad smile curled up on the couch. And the fact that Ellen Burstyn didn't win the Oscar is just a crime; sorry Julia, but you know it.

All that having been said, this is the ultimate director's movie, where the movie couldn't have worked without the director's hand guiding it, and couldn't have worked as well as it did for another director. That to me is the ultimate compliment I can pay an artist, that no one but them could have created the work, and I pay it to Aronofsky. I wish the script was slightly better, but that's a pretty gentle problem for such an experience in cinema.

Liked this one quite a bit.

Yours in the Force,
Rick Poehling: vader1:

[Morticia]

Welcome to the Forum, MrSoze!

I'm flattered that you chose our little Film Class for your first post.

Great observations, so please.....feel free to stick around and continue to participate!