Requiem for a Dream

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:49 pm

A unique experience for me.

1. I very much appreciated the filmmaking aspects of the making of the... film. Extremely creative, extremely provocative, extremely X-TREME in all aspects. But:

2. I have no desire to ever watch, or even be anywhere near a copy of, this movie ever again. As a person who tends to thrive on negativity in movies, finding that far more interesting than smiley, happy people, I can honestly state that this was the most disgusting, nauseating movie I've ever seen. I began to feel physically ill during the final half-hour. And this NEVER happens to me. I swear, baby, this is the first time that's happened.

So, do I give it **** for its outstanding production/direction values, or let my own personal revulsion taint the ultimate score? I think I will, but only a little bit. And, I guess I really can't get behind giving full points to a movie whose ultimate message is the rather hackneyed "drugs are bad, m'kay?"

***1/2.

Worm · Post by **Worm** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:11 pm

But they are!

I guess I'll check this out. Am I going to have to discuss the movie with the stoner kid working the counter when I get back? I heard kids in my school liked it so therefore I really don't expect to enjoy it.

Violet · Post by **Violet** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:28 pm

I watched this movie with my ex-boyfriend. He said it was a cinema classic. I was very impressed with it but then again when the person your watching it with is cowering in puddle at the site of a person getting a tube shoved up their nose you know something is wrong. With them of course, only with them. It didn't taint the viewing but it made me not want to see it again due to the connection. I thought the ending was great but painful as well. I agree most whole heartedly with you pinback.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:01 pm

Worm wrote:I guess I'll check this out. Am I going to have to discuss the movie with the stoner kid working the counter when I get back?

It's not really about pot. More about heroin.

(And diet pills.)

Personally, after watching that movie, I needed a drink.

Inappropriate Gen X-L Kid · Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:34 pm

[quote="Violet"]I was very impressed with it but then again when the person your watching it with is cowering in puddle at the site of a person getting a tube shoved up their nose you know something is wrong.quote] HAW, He should see someone getting a tube shoved in their penis ... or a beer bottle.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:44 pm

Naturally:

BANNED!!

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:05 pm

What on earth is "Generation X-L"?

Worm · Post by **Worm** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:47 pm

They called fat kids it in this one news show. I thought it is a great way to describe my generation.

bot · Post by **bot** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 1:58 am

I don't know, Pinback. I fail to understand why the fact that the movie is able to provoke a visceral response (and not only from you, it affected me in the same way), should count against it. It's undeniable that the film scores extremely high on the style meter, so high in fact that the style of the film transcends mere style and becomes content (in the form of evoking physical effect).

Futhermore, your summary of the film's "meaning" is highly simplified, and actually wrong. The point of the film is not that drugs are bad, but that psychological addiction - and this entails fetishism, narcissism, solipsism, and so on - give rise to intractable barriers that serve not only to seperate people from each other, but ultimately to alienate people from themselves. The drugs are the trees, but you missed the forest. The end result is that the movie does not yield a moral, as you presume, but simply serves to describe an unfolding existential tragedy.

-Quite courageously, I might add, because if RFAD is a painful movie to watch, just think of how painful it must have been to make.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:12 am

bot wrote:I don't know, Pinback. I fail to understand why the fact that the movie is able to provoke a visceral response (and not only from you, it affected me in the same way), should count against it.

Well, getting a chainsaw dug into your skull might be great art, too, but I'm certainly not going to go around recommending it to my friends.

Futhermore, your summary of the film's "meaning" is highly simplified, and actually wrong. The point of the film is not that drugs are bad, but that psychological addiction - and this entails fetishism, narcissism, solipsism, and so on - give rise to intractable barriers that serve not only to seperate people from each other, but ultimately to alienate people from themselves.

Yeah. Like I said. "Drugs are bad."

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:12 am

pinback wrote:Well, getting a chainsaw dug into your skull might be great art, too, but I'm certainly not going to go around recommending it to my friends.

I would like to go on record and state that Ben has recommended a chainsaw (a "jagged edged" one, if I remember correctly) to my face several times throughout our history.

Usually when talking about movies, too, funnily enough.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 12:40 am

Remember how I said I never wanted to be near this movie again?

Well, I watched it again today, just for fun.

Still sickening, but less so this time. That was almost... disappointing. Watching it the first time was such an intense experience, everything just seemed a little subdued the second time.

But MAKE NO MISTAKE, friends, this movie is about SARA GOLDFARB. The rest of the stuff is essentially filler. This is the SARA GOLDFARB STORY.

Juice by Sara!

Love that.

This film also gets my vote for the most amusing DVD presentation, with the Tappy tape playing upfront, and then the "Order Now!" screen for the main menu. Very amusing.