Be excited!

August 5, 2004 4:35 AM

Well, it doesn't look like the Requiem for a Dream site ever got posted here. So, um, here it is.
Flash. You know, they were going to get Aronofsky to do Batman? Fell through when the executives woke up with a hangover, I assume.
posted by Pretty_Generic (60 comments total)

Posted here
posted by ZippityBuddha at 5:22 AM on August 5, 2004

wow
posted by andrew cooke at 5:23 AM on August 5, 2004

Interesting site, which no doubt will spawn a debate about the film, which (to kick things off) I was disappointed with.
I felt that the characters were punished far too hard for their flaws.

PI was far better in my opinion.

How does one do the pi symbol?

[on preview]
you're in trouble Pretty
posted by kenaman at 5:23 AM on August 5, 2004

I agree with keneman; I liked PI a lot, but thought that Requiem was bleh and offensive. It was outrageous, but in predictable and unimaginative ways, and thought it depended too much on one-dimensional and cliched readings of easily identifiable flaws. But, I don't get on with reprehensible yet self-pitying main characters ...

Pi was good, though; mmm, PI ;)
posted by carter at 5:38 AM on August 5, 2004

OK, seriously... what kind of search engine can't deal with a search for "requiemforadream.com"? I have no idea why it didn't return the original post. This is going to keep happening until the lovely Matt fixes it.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:58 AM on August 5, 2004

Ok. I'm totally out of touch... forget if this is a new movie or it's DVD release. The site is "good" but frustrating if you're trying to find out anything about the movie. I guess I "don't get it."

Feeling stupid.
posted by scalz at 6:04 AM on August 5, 2004

It's an old movie, and I think making you feel stupid is all part of the effect. Also, it has a hungry fridge.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:12 AM on August 5, 2004

Clicking on the man and the woman takes you to different parts of the site.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:14 AM on August 5, 2004

Both a search for "requiem" and a search for "aronofsky" turn up the previous post on the first page of results. It's the first result for the "aronofsky" search. FYI.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:14 AM on August 5, 2004

There's a great story in the book Easy Riders and Raging Bulls about George Lucas. He had made THX 1138 and had yet to make American Graffiti. His friends told him that he should try to engage the audience's emotions, that he shouldn't make such cold movies. Lucas' response was something like, 'It's easy to get an audience emotionally involved in a film. Just show a guy strangling a cat to death on screen.'

Requiem struck me as a bit of a cat-strangling film.
posted by CrazyJub at 6:20 AM on August 5, 2004

monju_bosatsu: Um, no they don't. I'm using the site engine, looking at threads since day one. Are you using Google?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:23 AM on August 5, 2004

ass to ass!!
posted by balinx at 6:26 AM on August 5, 2004

goddammit, balinx beat me to it.
posted by dhoyt at 6:27 AM on August 5, 2004

PG: Yeah, I used the google search. I rarely even bother with the built in search anymore.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:28 AM on August 5, 2004

nor should anyone, clearly. Lesson learned.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:29 AM on August 5, 2004

Actually, I've met plenty of ex-drug abusers who've told me that Requiem was one of the most accurate films ever made on the topic. But it's fairly strongly an anti-drug (although it dosen't get into legalities or politics, which is commendable) and right now, being anti-drug is unfashionable among the audience who would go see this movie.
posted by jonmc at 6:33 AM on August 5, 2004

thank you balinx for the ass to ass link.
posted by Peter H at 6:54 AM on August 5, 2004

i didn't know it was a film site. i just thought it was cool - the best i've seen at mixing site narrative with broken site/computer/html errors (which is a concept i find attractive anyway).
posted by andrew cooke at 6:54 AM on August 5, 2004

He's clearly a brilliant director - he managed to wring a good performance out of a Wayans brother.
posted by Jart at 6:57 AM on August 5, 2004

I thought the drugs were kind of secondary to the portrayal of the mother-son relationship. Trainspotting was about drugs, Requiem was about needy/dysfunctional families, IMHO.
posted by carter at 7:09 AM on August 5, 2004

Apparently he's doing the Watchmen film. I was saddened to learn this.
posted by sudama at 7:56 AM on August 5, 2004

being anti-drug is unfashionable among the audience who would go see this movie.

Care to back that up with a link?
posted by Vidiot at 7:57 AM on August 5, 2004

Goddamit, balinx and dhoyt and Peter H all beat me to it.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:59 AM on August 5, 2004

fashionable anti-drug comic book
posted by Peter H at 8:19 AM on August 5, 2004

Wow, I pretty much disagree with the sentiments on the film here in the thread. I think Requiem is one of the best films of this century, tied with Mulholland Drive. I also think the performances are fantastic across the board and that Ellen Burstyn gave one of the best screen performances by an actress ever.

Matthew Libatique's cinematography was extraordinary (best and only justified use of a snoggy cam I've ever seen) as is Jay Rabinowitz's editing and Aaronofsky's direction.

As Jonmc has posted, the film has been called a very realistic portrayal of addiction (the film is "about" addiction, not drugs). Hubert Selby Jr has remarked that it did justice to his book, which is indeed saying something.

On the other hand, I think PI is a piece of poo, story-wise, so what do I know. :)
posted by dobbs at 8:48 AM on August 5, 2004

If they made just one Requiem for a Dream for every 10 Men In Blacks, then cinema would be a great thing.

I think it's one of the 10 best films I've ever seen.
posted by eas98 at 9:00 AM on August 5, 2004

Care to back that up with a link?

Well, you don't find many people publicly willing to say "ain't drugs really kinda cool and glamorous," but the general sentiment that I get from people in the films target audience (young, arts-oriented, intellectual, and FWIW, I'd consider myself somewhat a part of that audience) drug use is winked at or embraced as a sign of sophistication and worldliness.

Look, I've done my share of drugs and I'm actually pro-legalization and I acknowledge that there is plenty of hysteria surrounding drugs. But at the same time I'm not about to discount the ill effects that drugs of all sorts have on people and our society.

Requiem was an excellent movie precisely because it's condemnation of dope didn't stoop to hysteria, merely portrayed the degrading pathetic life that results from addiction, without heavy-handed moralizing or comforting platitudes.

And that comic book is "ironically" hip, meaning that it's embrace has more to do with saying "hawhawhaw, aren't these anti-drug people hilarious," than any real anti-heroin sentiment.
posted by jonmc at 9:06 AM on August 5, 2004

To agree with dobbs, I love this film.
And I certainly think the score is one of the best pieces of film-music I'll ever hear.

I think the power of Requiem For A Dream, as I see it, comes from my experience watching it for the first time. I had missed it in the theatres, and was on vacation staying at a friend's house late one night. He and his girlfriend mention we should watch a movie and offer for me to pick. I hadn't heard anything about Requiem, except that I should see it, so I enthusiastically picked it and asked him to play it. Both of them had this really hesitant look but he put it in the player anyway.

Not knowing anything about the movie, I laughed HARD for the first twenty minutes or so. Seriously, it's got such a bizarre, almost Schizopolous like beginning (further exploited by the DVD menu of Tappy) The more I laughed the more I could feel my friends getting uncomfortable. Then, of course the film changes course and gets so grim I can't even see the humor I saw in the first viewing. But it was that first experience, of sort of being sling-shot from incredible comedy to tragedy, with that unbelievable Kronos Quartet score, that made the film incredible to me.

The following night, even, I asked them to let me watch it again. But we watched Pooty Tang, instead. Which I could also say, on first viewing without any hype, is one of the funniest films ever made (but doesn't stand to repeated views)

So this was a great week in movie watching.

Also, to further agree with dobbs, Pi has an awful ending. Kind of ruins the whole buildup. Especially since he survives the big sacrifice. I think the two films show that Aranofsky is best with a script he didn't write, particularly if it's from one of America's best writers .... which makes me think he could handle Watchmen pretty damn well, actually.
posted by Peter H at 9:14 AM on August 5, 2004

Of course Watchmen is written by one of England's best writers, not America's. But it's all Queen's english, aint it?
posted by Peter H at 9:16 AM on August 5, 2004

'It's easy to get an audience emotionally involved in a film. Just show a guy strangling a cat to death on screen.'

except that's just completely inaccurate. You have to be convinced that you care about the cat; you have to be convinced that whoever is strangling the cat has some reason to do so, some conflict that is believably forcing them to do it etc... To just show someone killing an animal for no reason or something won't necessarily be emotionally charged. It's true that we all bring our histories with us, and so we can find meaning even when the director doesn't supply it, but I think that's the difference between a film that feels emotionally involving, and one that feels like simple manipulation. A movie about someone dying of cancer is likely to be sad just because of the subject matter. But if the characters are simplistic & uninteresting, the story contrived or boring, then it won't be emotionally involving...

But it's fairly strongly an anti-drug (although it dosen't get into legalities or politics, which is commendable) and right now, being anti-drug is unfashionable among the audience who would go see this movie.

It's interesting that until you said that, I never even thought of it as an "anti-drug" movie. To me it seemed to be about self-destruction, loneliness, manipulation... drugs were a method, but not a cause of the tragedies of those lives, to my mind.
posted by mdn at 9:23 AM on August 5, 2004

To me it seemed to be about self-destruction, loneliness, manipulation... drugs were a method, but not a cause of the tragedies of those lives, to my mind.

Those things may be the drives that led the characters into heroin, but you dont get abcesses, withdrawal, AIDS, or driven into petty theft and prostitution from those emotions by themselves. That the movie unflinchingly shows the effects of heroin and speed use tells me that the movie has an anti-drug POV. That fact that it shows understanding of the drives that may propel people towards addiction only adds to the credibility of it's message.
posted by jonmc at 9:33 AM on August 5, 2004

or to put it another way: you don't walk away from Requiem thinking that dope is cool, glamorously decadent, enlightening, or enticingly "dark." Just the impression that no matter how bad your problems are heroin and speed will only make them worse.
posted by jonmc at 9:46 AM on August 5, 2004

If ever were asked for an example of a movie that was 1) skillfully done, and at a number of levels, 2) wholly oppressive to the extent that watching it, for me, came close to torture......

It would be "Requiem" : I thought "Last Exit To Brooklyn" had more to recommend it, and the punishing "Pixote" dramatized the now even deepened plight of Brazil's urban homeless children.

But, some people here loved "Requiem". As always, in matters of taste.....
posted by troutfishing at 9:48 AM on August 5, 2004

I got the impression from "Requiem" that if you do certain sorts of drugs, your arm will get cut off or sumthin'. For that alone, I loathed the movie. It's much too heavy with the stylistics besides. Its showiness belies the fact that it beats, absolutely pounds, you over the head with its message (see: arm-cutting scene) regarding addicitons of all sorts (TV, prescription medicine, heroin), that the dream to which its title refers is the American Dream, etc. It's a hack movie, all decked out in hipster garb.

I didn't think you watched movies, jon. Just a by-the-way thing.
posted by raysmj at 10:59 AM on August 5, 2004

You can't do justice to Watchmen in a movie length format. It's why Gilliam gave up on the project. It needs to be a miniseries, in the vein of The Singing Detective.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:07 AM on August 5, 2004

I think he might surprise us.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:21 AM on August 5, 2004

I didn't think you watched movies, jon. Just a by-the-way thing.

*shrug*

It was on cable. I haven't been to a movie in a theatre since the 20th century and I haven't rented one since Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back.

I got the impression from "Requiem" that if you do certain sorts of drugs, your arm will get cut off or sumthin'. For that alone, I loathed the movie.

What, it shows the very real risks of heroin abuse. Why is that something to be hostile towards?

I'll tell you why. At this particular point in history, to a significant segment of the American public, to make any kind of remotely anti-drug statement, even an informed one, is to be all "family values" Nancy Reagan uncool. Just like to another segment, to say anything remotely pro-drug makes you a filthy drooling drug addict hippie. When the hell are we gonna be able to talk sensibly about it?

Just Say No to cultural polarization, kids.
posted by jonmc at 11:26 AM on August 5, 2004

Again, jon, the amputation and ass-to-ass stuff was beating you over the head with its message. I'm a fan of nuance, thanks. Ray Charles did heroin and lived until 73, older than counless Americans who've died from eating too many fatty foods or using too much salt (it happens, I know it from personal experience). Ray went to prison a number of times, and certainly suffered ... but, then again, he'd suffered before, from blindness and racism and all that other stuff you can hear (along with the sweetness) in his still-amazing rendition of "America the Beautiful." Stan Getz, too, lived until retirement age. His life was hellish for a long time too, but then again he'd been born to parents who let a band leader adopt him, given that they were too poor to provide for him. Etc., etc.

My point is that there's more often than not something deeper to addicitions, usually, than just, oh, wanting to get stoned. Why were these people, the ones in the movie, so in need of a crutch? The movie never told us why, really. There wasn't enough background, not enough character. It was mostly flashy displays of technique and stylistics, combined with arm-cutting and ass-pounding. Could you have made a more interesting movie about addicition if, say, you took drugs out of the equation and stuck to, say, gambling?
posted by raysmj at 11:40 AM on August 5, 2004

to make any kind of remotely anti-drug statement, even an informed one, is to be all "family values" Nancy Reagan uncool.

I disagree, jon.
I think drugs will always be in and out, but currently kids drink more than smoke pot. Alcohol's what's in right now, which is right in line with family.

I think the hard-stuff (heroin, coke, etc) is fine to be against in a hipster sense. I don't think Requiem is neccessarily a statement film, though. But it does deal with addiction and vanity in an amazing way.

If anything, If I was on dope, I'd want to throw out my television set, infomercials and all, sooner than give up my hardcore drug habit after watching that film.

In the commentary on the disc, Aronofsky describes Requiem as a monster movie, just where the monster is the addiction or something. With that as a consideration, the monster is Tappy, so is the dope, so is the ass ass man, etc. And I like that. They're all one being, like some sinister myst or something. I really love this film.

Ha, if you wanted to, you could say Requiem is a film about the devil and the devil's temptations. Throw in some scripture and you've got a Mel Gibson movie. It's certainly violent enough.
posted by Peter H at 11:48 AM on August 5, 2004

Could you have made a more interesting movie about addicition if, say, you took drugs out of the equation and stuck to, say, gambling?

Of course you could.

One reason Charles and Getz lived to ripe old ages is because they put down the needle. I've jnown many people who've used heroin, I've never met a single one who told me they were glad they did it, for what it's worth. I still indulge in plenty of vices myself, but I'm not blind to the negative effects of any of them.

If you don't like the movie for aethetic reasons, that's fine. But your comment implied that it was somehow bad to show horrific effects of drug abuse, so that's what I was reacting to.
posted by jonmc at 11:51 AM on August 5, 2004

It was an aesthetic objection. It's not bad to show horrific effects, but the movies uses it as a crutch, as a means of saying something "powerful" when it could have done so with more characterization, more depth in general. The monster movie interpretation makes sense, in hindsight, but the artiness and Kronos Quartet music and whatnot lead people to think this film is far deeper than it really is. It's a pretentious monster movie.

Ray Charles kept putting gin in his coffee, by the way. He had to have something. Stan was a far more severe alcoholic for a long time afterwards too, and was apparently far more unpleasant to be around on booze than heroin.
posted by raysmj at 12:06 PM on August 5, 2004

the amputation and ass-to-ass stuff was beating you over the head with its message. I'm a fan of nuance, thanks.

The winter segments of the film were indeed grim but what about the scenes with Leto and Connelly on the roof? Or their "sex" scenes which were among the most original I've ever seen. You don't call those scenes nuanced? I certainly do.

Why were these people, the ones in the movie, so in need of a crutch?

Because it's a movie ABOUT addiction. It's not a movie about people who just happen to take drugs. Aaronofsky and Selby wanted to tell the story they told, not the story you wanted to see, obviously.

Could you have made a more interesting movie about addicition if, say, you took drugs out of the equation and stuck to, say, gambling?

Well, I think the movie is plenty interesting, but besides that: no, you couldn't. Because people always bring their own baggage to a film. Were it about gambling, it would disappoint people who think that gambling is "mostly/usually" harmless (just as, often, drug using is).

I'm reminded of the Cannes press conference for Do the Right Thing in which someone commented that the movie was horseshit becuase you can't make a movie about Bed-Stuy without drug use and expect to be taken seriously. It's part and parcel of the fabric of the community. But Spike Lee didn't want to make a movie about drugs. They were irrelevant to the story the same as the happy, hell-free life is irrelevant to this story of addiction.

Yes, many people who take heroin live long lives (you forgot to mention Burroughs). However, other people don't. Selby (who did heroin and didn't die young) wanted to tell this story. Just because it doesn't show every side of heroin use (though again, the scenes of Connelly and Leto high and in love are far from horrific) doesn't mean it isn't worth telling.

On preview: I understand your objection to it on aesthetic reasons but personally, I had no problem with it. The effects (the frigde, the arm hole/cutting, the ass to ass) seem to me, to put it far too simply, pathetic fallacy. Lear has the wind and storm; Burstyn has the fridge. Sure, it ain't weather but it certainly is a physical manifestation of "nature" which represents the interior thoughts/fears of the characters involved.
posted by dobbs at 12:21 PM on August 5, 2004

I could also add the screaming-in-the-tub scene as an example of beating the message over your head. Meantime, plenty of people above, myself included, noted that the movie was about addiction, not drugs per se (thus the TV addiction), and another (quoting the director) went as far as to say that it was a monster movie in disguise. But then again it was about drug use, right? So why not tell us something more about what drives drug use, or what drive this human need for addicition?

Really. You're more or less saying that we already know that H use isn't normally a positive thing. I don't need to see someone's arm amputated to know that, and not everyone who uses ends up in such a bad way. What's the movie's reason for being? Propoganda? If is wants to send a message, shouldn't it use Instant Messenger?

Oh, and a uniquely directed and performed sex scene doesn't tell me what drives the characters. I meant nuance as far as motivation, etc.
posted by raysmj at 1:03 PM on August 5, 2004

Regardless of message or motive, the film was harrowing in a way that is extremely rare. I generally laugh along at horror and "monster" movies, maybe admiring the techniques used to scare people, but in an abstracted way. But in this case when I left the cinema, I thought me and my friends had been through a warzone together. That's got to justify the art by itself.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:11 PM on August 5, 2004

And, "ass to ass". That's got to justify the art by itself.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:13 PM on August 5, 2004

If is wants to send a message, shouldn't it use Instant Messenger?

You know, no offense - and i know you were making a joke - but that line was more heavy handed than five aronofsky movies, including the three he has yet to make!
posted by Peter H at 1:20 PM on August 5, 2004

Oh well. Didn't want to use the "Western Union" line again, a la this headline.
posted by raysmj at 1:25 PM on August 5, 2004

I'm with trout, Pretty_Generic et al -- it was tough, tough, tough to make it to end of the movie. I think it was one brilliant movie, and I love Selby more than you can imagine, but I'll never watch Requiem again. it was a physically painful experience
and I second the Burstyn raves. had Brando been born a woman, he would have acted like Burstyn did in Requiem.
posted by matteo at 1:26 PM on August 5, 2004

doesn't tell me what drives the characters. I meant nuance as far as motivation, etc.

Raysmj, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think movies have to show motivation, nuanced or not. In fact, I think motivation is a lot of horseshit. Why do people self-destruct? Why do people waste their lives? Procrastinate away the best years of their lives? Chase fame, take drugs, destroy one another? For the same reasons they can become intensely attracted to someone, fall in love, live a second/secret life, or hate someone because of the color of their skin. I think nine times out of ten the answer is, no one knows.

I would rather see a film that asks questions than offers answers. I couldn't give a shit why Jared Leto's character takes drugs. In fact, I'd say that if the film went out of its way provide motivation for the character to behave that way, it would be less successful.

Why do the salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross shit all over each other? In Sweet Smell of Success, why does JJ Hunesucker trample over everyone in his path? Why does Five Easy Pieces' Bobby Dupea alienate himself from everyone? What makes Jonathon Feurst hate women so much in Carnal Knowledge? Why is Popeye Doyle (French Connection) a racist? Why can't Wilson Joel get over his wife's death in Love Liza? Why is Joe Gideon such a womanizer in All That Jazz? Why is Hud such a prick when his father and brother are so excellent? Why does Jerry Black take his promise so seriously in The Pledge? Why is Barry Egan (Punch-Drunk Love) so fucked up? Why is Laura Brown in The Hours so depressed? Why don't Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid change their ways? Why is Charlie Kaufman (in Adaptation) so bad with women when he's so intelligent in other ways? What makes Mulholland Drive's Diane/Betty so deadset on stardom? Why is Frank pure fucking evil in Once Upon a Time in the West? What the hell's wrong with Taxi Driver Travis Bickle?

What "drives" any of these characters to behave the way they do? Thankfully, we never find out. Same with Harry, Tyrone, Sara, and Marion in Requiem for a Dream.
posted by dobbs at 1:37 PM on August 5, 2004

We do know why the men in "Glengarry Glen Ross" shit all over each other. They've been put in an impossible situation by their supervisor. Those who don't put out will be gone. It would be best for them to all work together, but basic group psychology tells you that it the vast majority of cases they wouldn't. It's pretty simple. We know a good deal about the motivations of Jack Lemmon's character besides - his glory days being behind him, his wife's being in the hospital, etc., all of it making him a great deal more desperate than anyone else in the group, and more motivated to cheat.

Anyway, in most of the cases considered, no particular societal problem was at the center of the movie. They had no messages to impart.
posted by raysmj at 2:01 PM on August 5, 2004

i still do plenty of drugs, and i loved Requiem. i thought Pi was ambitious, but lacking a real story, i.e all show, no blow.

(i'm not stupid enough to try heroin. i've read too much Burroughs and seen coworkers on it. not pretty, and extremely dangerous. some people might be able to handle it, but i don't know any.)

that said, i appreciate the technical skills that went into the site, but i'm not a fan of the content. also, that movie is way old, dude. yet still i post!
posted by mrgrimm at 2:07 PM on August 5, 2004

I've been an addict (though, thankfully, not to heroin).

Seeing Requiem reminded me why I never want to be one again.
posted by nath at 2:09 PM on August 5, 2004

Why is Charlie Kaufman (in Adaptation) so bad with women when he's so intelligent in other ways?

Because he's a geek! One mystery solved.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:13 PM on August 5, 2004

Raysmj, I'm saying one thing and you're hearing another or you're saying one thing and I'm hearing another. I'm not sure which. Either that or our basic views on life (or drama) are completely out of whack with one another.

I know why the salesmen in GGR want to make sales: third prize. However, I don't know why they treat each other like shit. Your "basic psychology" answer doesn't cut it (if only because you're unwilling to apply it to Requiem when it would do just as well for an answer). In addition, lines like this: "They've been put in an impossible situation by their supervisor" seem to me to be just a matter of moving the line, so to speak. If you need motivation for characters, why do the supervisors behave this way? Do you see what I mean?

They had no messages to impart.

You're only saying that because no messages were in the movies. For each of those films, you could easily have put a message in, no? It would have been very easy for Bob Rafelson/Carol Eastman to have given Bobby Dupea a "reason" for being the way he is. Or Jules Pfeiffer/Mike Nichols to have done the same for Jonathan Feurst. How simple it would have been for them to drop in the message that Mothers who treat their male offspring poorly leads to men who womanize! Or, for Friedkiin to have stuck a "drug" message in French Connection. Same for any of the characters in any of the movies I cited. But I'd argue that the more "reasons" you give a character for being the way they are, the less people you're going to connect with them.

I'd also argue that this is why, 20 years from now, Requiem will be a classic, and Traffic will still be a piece of shit (an oscar-winning piece of shit but a piece of shit nonetheless).

Lastly, I'll say that to provide motivations (not wants, but reasons for being) for characters in drama does exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting: it plants a message. This because of that. That because of this. Life's not that simple. Fortunately, either is the best drama.

Why is Charlie Kaufman (in Adaptation) so bad with women when he's so intelligent in other ways?

Because he's a geek! One mystery solved.

Smartass. :) But that's exactly my point. He's a geek. It's a movie about a geek who's writing a screenplay. It's not a movie about why he's a geek or even a movie about why he is writing a screenplay--same as Requiem is not a movie about why people become addicted to things. It's a movie about people who are addicted to things. As soon as you start adding motivation, it's a slippery slope. At what point can one stop explaining why people are the way they are and just accept that we really don't know?
posted by dobbs at 2:38 PM on August 5, 2004

dobbs: You've totally lost me. My problem was that this movie is imparting a message, or at least is in the eyes of many of its biggest supporters. It's talking about a societal problem. THEN it gives us no motivation, nor even the slightest hint of motivation, for why these people are the way they are. It's basic message is thus, Additiction is a bad thing, and can be potentially lethal or just leave you with one arm and in a living hell. Or rather, it told use, in what was more or less your words, what we already know. It's a big, "Duh." Consequently, I didn't get all the fuss about the movie, and actually found it curiously offensive, for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on. I can agree that keeping things ambiguous in re motivation can be a great thing, and help you connect, but in this movie gave me zero clues, and a heavy-handed societal message on top of it all.

I vastly prefer Drugstore Cowboy, meantime, for a movie about an addiction, that also happens to be, in a much stronger way, a character study.
posted by raysmj at 3:05 PM on August 5, 2004

raysmj, my comments were in response to your "no motivation" remarks, which I took to be "It never tells us why these people become addicts." I don't care why they're addicts. I don't watch (narrative) movies to learn things or be told "this=that" (Tommy's mom treated him like shit so he grew up to be a womanizer; Jennifer hung with a wrong crowd and now she does crack). I watch them for the same reason I read fiction: to experience emotions.

Your example of Drugstore Cowboy... I don't remember the film that well, though I thought it was fine. By no means did it impress upon me anything, really. I recall that there were scenes of syringes and hats and whatnot floating thru space and I thought those effects were heavy-handed and out of place (probably the same way that you thought the camera work and effects were in Requiem). To me, though, the syringes floating thru the air were laughable and cliche (I am tired of movies showing "trippy" scenes while people are on drugs). There was nothing laughable or cliche about the horrors the people in Requiem face as a result of their addiction. I liked that it was a movie with addicts that was not predictable. Drugstore Cowboy was never surprising.

Much of Drugstore Cowboy (I'm thinking of the Max character and the whatsherface... Heather Graham character and the relationship between the cop and Bob (I think that was his name--Matt Dillon's character), all of which seemed to be narrative 101 or lifted from other stories) was humdrum and way too familiar (in a bad way). Did I really care about anyone in the flick? Not really. Did I experience any emotions? Nope (okay, I laughed a few times).

But I think Requiem succeeds because I experienced a severe range of emotions while watching it and I really never knew what was going to happen next.

I think the disparity in our viewings of Requiem stem from your feeling that the film is "talking about a societal problem." I don't agree. I think it's portraying (rather uniquely) human behaviour.
posted by dobbs at 4:20 PM on August 5, 2004

Your example of Drugstore Cowboy... I don't remember the film that well

BOB

Most people don't know
how they're gonna feel
from one moment to the next.
But a dope fiend has
a pretty good idea.
All you gotta do is look
at the labels on the little bottles.

________________________

DIANE

You won't fuck me
and I always have to drive.

________________________

/Kelly Lynch fan
;)
posted by matteo at 5:10 AM on August 6, 2004

dobbs: The camera tricks in "Drugstore Cowboy" were not cliched when they came out, but instead were pretty novel, and you find reviews from that time to show as much. It was filmed in the late '80s. Plenty from "Requiem" will seem dated as time goes by. Maybe directors shouldn't try to be so damned flashy and with it. But that's another story. They were also used every single second in "Requiem." (And Jennifer C.'s screaming in the bathtub is already high camp, when seen out of context on pay cable.) If "Drustore" is boring to you now, just wait 15 years before declaring that a favorite of yours now will be a classic on down the line.

And I think I stated earlier that I dind't think it was just about a societal problem, but you more or less did, whether you think it's more human than societal being a fine distinction. I thought gambling would be interesting, but ... well, people think that's supposed to be cool. Or something.

Bringing up other films is ridiculous anyway, meantime. Mamet manipulates the audience, etc.? Of course David Mamet is the puppet master. Of course he drops in devices without which the story wouldn't work, of course he steers you in certain directions only to lead you astray, in plays and movies about con artists. And the story in "Glengarry" is more than somewhat metaphorical. It's set in the'80s, in an era of downsizing and divide-and-conquer economic politics. The guys are, meanwhile, in a fairly rough side of the real estate biz. But enough info is passed on about all the major characters that we have some idea of motive beyond the device that drives the plot.

Larry McMurtry, moreover, suggests that something is behind Hud's assholishness besides just being born an asshole. The acorn never falls far from the tree, or so they say.
posted by raysmj at 11:59 AM on August 6, 2004

"Hud" is also of course hugely metaphorical, both in regard to the American western, the myth of the west, American individualism v. traditional morality, etc., and grew to have a larger resonance that its makers intended due to what was going on in the country when it was released.
posted by raysmj at 12:21 PM on August 6, 2004

kenaman: p (π)
posted by abcde at 12:23 PM on August 6, 2004