Just watched Requiem for a Dream

[korme]

Fucked up. Any better of a way to describe it?

I know people have mentioned this movie before. I'd like some thoughts. Unrealistic? Realistic portrayal? Too much flashing around in my opinion, but I guess that is just to give you the feeling of some pretty messed up people.

[Tekneek]

Too early in the day to watch something like that.

[korme]

I now agree.

[KWhit]

Wierd. I have that movie rented right now. Thinking about watching it tonight. It's been sitting on my DVD player waiting for about 3 weeks (gotta love Netflix). I just haven't been able to get myself in the right frame of mind to watch it.

[QuikSand]

I found it very disturbing. I think it straddles the line between being well done and overdone, but on balance I give it the benefit of the doubt. I thought the two male leads were both very effective... and the whole thing was appropriately disturbing.

[rexallllsc]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
Fucked up. Any better of a way to describe it?

I know people have mentioned this movie before. I'd like some thoughts. Unrealistic? Realistic portrayal? Too much flashing around in my opinion, but I guess that is just to give you the feeling of some pretty messed up people.

"ass to ass"

[Calis]

Ass to Ass (http://www.141empire.com/141cinema/ass2assguy.htm)

[Calis]

Ok, I'll add some serious comments also since this is one of my favorite movies. I think it's a wonderfully done film, you can't help but root for the characters to turn their lives around. I love the style of cinematography that Aronofsky uses as well, I just find it really neat.

This film also has my favorite soundtrack out of any movie I've ever seen, I can't even begin to imagine how many times I've listened to it. The music goes a long way to adding to this flick.

Also, Ellen Burstyn gives one of the best acting performances I've ever seen, some very powerful scenes with her at the center. She did an outstanding job.

I recently read the book as well. Which was quite an exercise as well, for those not familiar with Selby's writing, he write in what is a rather odd style to say the least. It's very jumbled, no structure whatsoever. He basically has no grasp of any grammatical rules or general cohesiveness. He has an excellent grasp of human nature and emotion though, and it's really a great book. It's actually DARKER than the movie.

This movie was top of my lists as most depressing movie I'd seen until this weekend when I got Dancer in the Dark, the movie starring Bjork. Wow, that takes depressing movies to a whole new level.

edit: Bah, stupid vB code.

[Anrhydeddu]

I'm curious, as the risk of sounding stupid, does something so disturburing or depressing be any good?

[Anrhydeddu]

Let me rephrase that. I am reminded of the driver's ed movies that were required in schools long ago. Nothing was more of a deterrent to unsafe driving (whatever the cause) than see actual footage of decapitated heads and mangle corpses. Can this movie do the same? In other words, turn a negative into a positive?

[Calis]

Yes, most definitely.

The whole movie is actually a play on dreams/addictions/memories and how they can take over your life and ultimately destroy you. I think it's very much a positive message, but it's brought across in a more negative manner than we're used to seeing in film.

[QuikSand]

I think a movie can be good without necessarily being uplifting or good humored. This film does have cautionary overtones, and so it's certainly redeemable on those grounds alone. But I think it's possible for a film to be enjoyable and interesting, even if it's strictly negative, brooding, and dark. Even if the bad guys win, sometimes the story is worth telling and listening to.

[Anrhydeddu]

I just wish movies like '2 Fast 2 Furious' did the same thing. :( Just this past weekend, we had over 100 street races on the biggest city street. In the past when the first one came out, several have gotten killed.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I think a movie can be good without necessarily being uplifting or good humored. This film does have cautionary overtones, and so it's certainly redeemable on those grounds alone. But I think it's possible for a film to be enjoyable and interesting, even if it's strictly negative, brooding, and dark. Even if the bad guys win, sometimes the story is worth telling and listening to.

Only if the "bad guys" are identifiable and the audience knows what makes them bad. Too many times, I perceive the "badness" as being glorified and therefore, imitated and the downward cycle is perpetuated. You and I can discern but can everyone else?

[QuikSand]

Is it the responsibility of artists to push people toward good behavior?

[Anrhydeddu]

It should be the responsibility as a human being, imo. I think all of us here, at one time or another, spoken out against something bad that someone or some entity has done. If we cannot accept such things in real life, why accept an artist promoting or advertising the same thing?

[albionmoonlight]

It is not the responsibility of artists to push people toward good behavior. It is not the responsibility of artists to do anything than produce their art.

However, if an artist is getting paid by a studio to produce a movie, or is getting a grant from the government, they have the responsibility to live up to whatever they agreed when they took the money.

In college I knew a lot of English grad students who would bitch because of all of the restrictive strings that came with NEA grants for writers. They felt that a writer should be allowed to be as avant garde (sp?) as possible. I believe that if you want to be avant garde--DON'T TAKE PUBLIC FUNDS.

The same can be said for a movie studio that "forces" a director to make a movie that is more to their liking than to his. If you don't like it--produce the movie yourself.

However, with those narrow exceptions aside, an artist's job is to produce art. If people decide the art is worth preserving, it will survive. If it is not worth preserving, it will die. The artist is under no duty to produce anything in a certain manner, and we are under no duty to consume the art.

[Butter]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
It should be the responsibility as a human being, imo. I think all of us here, at one time or another, spoken out against something bad that someone or some entity has done. If we cannot accept such things in real life, why accept an artist promoting or advertising the same thing?

Hmmm.... I'll accept just about anything artistic if it is done entertainingly or thought-provokingly. Just doing shit to annoy people or encourage them to be asses or do something illegal is where I draw the line.

I don't really see the connection between this statement and this movie, if there was even intended to be one. This is a very strong anti-drug movie, maybe the strongest one ever.

[Anrhydeddu]

Butter, I think we have digressed from the movie with my response only coming from QS's question and not about the movie, which from my interpretation without having seen it, can become a positive message.

However, with those narrow exceptions aside, an artist's job is to produce art. If people decide the art is worth preserving, it will survive. If it is not worth preserving, it will die. The artist is under no duty to produce anything in a certain manner, and we are under no duty to consume the art.

I agree with that. If you draw the line at shock art, should we then have the responsibility to speak out against that and discourage others from consuming that particular "art"? I think we are afraid to speak out lest be ridiculed as close-minded and thus, allowing more and more of this stuff to perpetuate in the name of "art". This was the main criticism of public funding of the arts through NEA. There should be the freedom to produce art but there should also be the equal freedom to reject art.

[albionmoonlight]

Yes. Artists who try to "shock" the world and then expect immunity from criticism piss me off. Artists who do the same thing while taking public grants to do it really piss me off.

And we have drifted a bit OT.

[NoMyths]

I'd argue that Requiem for a Dream is one of the best films ever made. Certainly one of the two or three best of the 90's. Devastating film. If it had been bigger in theaters (which I can't imagine a film like it being :)) we'd be talking about how numerous shots (the mother cleaning her apartment, all the intense close-up work, Marion in the bathtub, etc.) stand as indespensible contributions to cinema. Darren Aronofsky is one of the small number of young filmmakers that are our era's answer to the greats of the 70s. More will hopefully be made of this film as time passes.

[CamEdwards]

Apparently Aronofsky's biggest contribution is the first use of an ass to ass lesbian scene outside of a porn.

Bravo!!! Bravo!!!! :)

[Leonidas]

Self-indulgent, artsy fartsy. And BTW, wasn't Jennifer Connolly simply masterful in her manipulation of that dildo? And who can forget her great audition scene in the lap? What a shame though, now that she has become a "respected" actress I suspect she won't do the raunchy sex stuff anymore. Such a waste of good hooters.