"Requiem For A Dream"

[Fearless Freep]

Last night I watched Requiem For  A Dream and since it was mentioned in the Dark City/Labyrinth/Jennifer Connelly  thread, I thought I'dsay a bit about it.

The general story is of following four people, Harry, his mom Sara, his girlfriend Marion, and his friend Tyrone,  who's lives are intertwined as they spiral down into the depths of the consquences of their addictions.

Honestly, I really didn't care for this movie.  It seemed like the filmaker tried to use camera tricks and shocking imagery to make up for failings in the plot/story/characterizations.  Reading the IMDB comments, I guess not many people share my opinion


***Spoilers***


First off, although the story was supposed to be about the addictions of four people, it was pretty uneven in that.   Sara's story could've been about her addiction to TV, but that would not have been drastic enough (or...to make TV addiction become something really serious, it would've taken a lot more creativity) so she ends up being addicted to 'diet pills'.    Credit where due; Ellen Burstyn did an excellent job as Sara and her speech to her son about wanting to be on TV and her later raving in the office about when she is going to be on TV is pathetically moving.  Unfortunately, she spends to much time hallucinating and the psycho fridge and infomercials are too comical to be really scary or moving..

The other unevenness is that Tyrone's character was never really addicted, not in a destructive way, and his outcome is more accidental from trying to help his friend than as an outcome of any addiction.

Speaking of Tyrone's outcome, the ending of the movie is very messed up because the timing doesn't make any sense.  There should be a connection in the timing of events; at one point Marion and Harry talk on the phone over long distance and this syncs the timeline between two disparate places, but if you look at what happens in one place (Marion) and the other (Harry and Tyrone), *way* too much stuff happens to Harry and Tyrone in too short a time to really make much sense.  The alternative is that while the movie is quick editing things together (all four of them at the end of their respective cycles) things that took place seperatley over a lot of time.   In the time that Marion gets dressed and goes to sell her body for heroin, Harry and Tyrone go to a hospital, get thrown in jail, get put on a work gang, Harry gets sent back to the hospital and has his arm amputated..  In the same time, Sara goes to find out when she is to be put on TV, gets put in a mental hospital, gets injected with drugs and finally given electro-shock treatments.  Events that should've taken weeks or months are compressed into a few minutes of screen time in a visual attempt to shock the viewer with fast cuts between the principals.  A more emptional attempt could've been made to shot thinsg more in correct timing order and as the first person (probably Marion) and than the second (probably Harry) fell victim, the audience would get an impending sense of hopeless dread out of what was coming up for the others.

Tyrone's whole situation was problematical.  He was never shown to be addicted to the drugs so his 'downfall' is more an accident of being with Harry at the wrong time than anything else.  He *could've* been addicted to the power and money and lifestyle, but the movie didn't really show that.  Tyrone could've also been a more sympathetic character if they had spent less time with theSara's Psycho Fridge and more time exploring Tyrone and his mom and showing Tyrone succumbing to some sort of addiction.

Harry's situation was sensible, but nonsensical.  First off, gangrene stinks, and I can't see how anyone, especially Marion would've not noticed his smell.  Secondly, I don't see why he kept injecting in the same place (other than the visual effect of watching him shoot up in a black, sickly hole in his arm)

Marion was a bit confusing too; she could've and should've been the prodigal daughter, coming to her senses and running back to her parents who apparently had a lot of money.  It's hard to feel sympathetic for her too much when she had an 'out', if she wanted.

All three of them seemed doomed not so much as an inevitable consequence of their actions as a result of poor decisions and some stupid luck (also known as the writer's cruelty).  Harry got gangrene..that's just careless or bad luck.  In other words, Harry and Tyrone seemed especially victimized by a malicious Deus Ex Machina out to mess them up.

In a movie supposedly about addiction, specifically drug addiction, it would've been stronger to see events unfold as natural, almost inevitable consequences of their actions rather than just stupidity by the characters and blind bad luck.

The filming style was also a bit annoying.  It seemed like the filmaker was enamoured of camera tricks like various speeds of filming and mounting cameras on the actors and such but a lot of it just seemed to cover up a lack of knowing how to carry the story forward.  The quick cuts of the four characters at the end seemed to be intended to be visually shocking but just drew attention to the fact that the timing between the events being shown was really out of whack.  The constant cuts to the pill-popping, cell expending, blood vessel moving, quick shots got old after awhile.  A *lot* of stuff just seemed gratuitously intended to shock; Harry shooting up in an infected arm, Marion standing almost naked in front of a mirror.  Not really needed, not really sensible, but 'edgy' and 'moving' and 'shocking', I guess.

I could go on, there were a lot more things that made little sense (like the entire city's heroin supply coming from *one* guy in Florida, and these two amateur guys are going to out-maneuver everyone else to get it..)

*** End Spoilers  ***


So, I didn't care for this movie.  Seemed to try hard to force situations to make us feel sympathetic for and revolted by the characters, but the situations didn't really hold together, so fast edits and shocking scenes were used to up the amps a bit to get a reaction.  I woudn't have been so hard on it if it was trying so *hard* to be a serious, moving, shocking, pretensious movie.



Post Edited (06-12-05 13:43)

[nobody]

"Requiem for a Dream" is one of my favorite movies- if not THE favorite. Here are some quick thoughts of my own on your post:

1) I don't think Sarah's addiction to TV was substituted for pills. I think the pills were yet another level of her TV addiction. After all, the only reason she was taking the pills was to "get in shape" for her television appearance.

2) If Tyrone was addicted to drugs in the same way as Harry, Tyrone's character wouldn't have been necessary to the story. Perhaps, as you've pointed out, a big part of Tyrone's problem was attaching himself to Harry, but I think his biggest problem was delving into drug dealing.
Yes, both Harry and Tyrone sold drugs- but Tyrone was much more focused on the dealing itself. He's the one who met with the big boys and was familiar with all the major players. I think the author of the book (it was a book before it was a movie) was trying to show different sides of drug addiction and the vast possibilities of problems they can get someone into.

3) I can't remember Harry's exact words, but he did explain (in drug/street lingo) that he had to shoot up in the same spot or he wouldn't get as high. This isn't by any means unheard of on the streets.

I can't really defend the film for anyone who doesn't like it. I can see how Aronofsky's style can irritate some viewers. But I did enjoy the movie a great deal and I highly recommend it to others.

[Fearless Freep]

1) I don't think Sarah's addiction to TV was substituted for pills. I think the pills were yet another level of her TV addiction. After all, the only reason she was taking the pills was to "get in shape" for her television appearance.

Well, that was the problem.  She started with an addiction to TV watching but that;s something really hard to turn into  something visuallly shocking unless she's messed up to begin with, so they had to throw in the drug (diet pill) addiction.  It was as if  the story was starting out to e about addiction in general but since the addicstions weren't strong enough, they had to go with diet pill addiction.  That's why it seemed uneven.  A movie about four different addictions would've been strong as a way of exploring how addictions affect people.  A movie about four heroin addicts and their different problems would've been strong.  As it was, Sara'sdiet-pil TV addiction seemed like a seperate Twighlight Zone episode off from the rest and with Tyrone not really having a addiction, the whole story felt uneven and unfocused; muddled.


Tyrone was addicted to drugs in the same way as Harry, Tyrone's character wouldn't have been necessary to the story.
  So Marion wasn't needed either :)  The problem was, Tyrone really showed no signs of any addiction and his downfall was more a result of bad luck.  Tyrone could'ver been addicted and that led to a *different* sort of problems.

Yes, both Harry and Tyrone sold drugs- but Tyrone was much more focused on the dealing itself. He's the one who met with the big boys and was familiar with all the major players. I think the author of the book (it was a book before it was a movie) was trying to show different sides of drug addiction and the vast possibilities of problems they can get someone into.


Well, showing Tyrone addicted to the lifestyle and getting in deeper and deeper trouble because of it would've been powerful, if his fall was because of getting into the drug connections too deep to get out.  As I said, the problem was that his outcome was just bad luck.  Harry came up with a scheme and needed a lift so Tyrone gives him a ride and then is nice enough to get Harry to a hosptial.  As far as the continuance of he story, Tyrone could've been Harry's inncocent friend falsely accused with the same outcome,for all it mattered to the plot and Tyrone's situation.  If Tyrone's fall had come from his addiction to heroin, or if it had come from his getting in too deep with the drug people, then it would've been strong, but his story was just a waste, in the end.  One of the best moments of the whole movie was when Tyrone is thinking of being a little boy and says that one day he will make good and his mom says he doesn't have to make good, he just has to love his mom.  He has a look of guilt on his face from that   If more of the running time had been devoted to Tyrone trying to 'make good' and getting in deeper and deeper because of it, and less time of the Psycho Fridge, it would've been a lot more powerful.  As it was, Tyrones ended up where he did by dumb luck.  A waste of a lot of potential story telling in that character.


3) I can't remember Harry's exact words, but he did explain (in drug/street lingo) that he had to shoot up in the same spot or he wouldn't get as high. This isn't by any means unheard of on the streets.

I would think that having an infected spot would motivate otherwise.  But again, bad luck.  How, why did he get gangrene?  Do all heroin shooters end up like that?  That just either seems like stupidity/laziness on Harry's part, or just bad luck.  If they had showed Harry being careful with his needles but then getting careless as the addiction got stronger, or he got distracted for a minute by something at a crucial point and ended up using a dirty needle, they could've shown how the results of his addiction and  the actions or decisions from that led him to get infected.  Instead it just sorta happens, with no reason.

I guess the moral of the story was that heroin addicts are unlucky, or at best careless.

The more I think abut Marion's role, the more that seemed mishandled as well.  Basically, she was too pretty for what happened to her.  She had already shown earlier in the movie that she could sell her body for money, and at least get a good meal out of it in the process.  If she wanted to make some money with her body, she didn't need to sink to depths she did.  A plainer looking, dumpier actress would've made more sense to get to such desperate acts as in her last scene.  This seemed another case of "let's degrade the character as much as possible for shock value, even if it makes no sense"



Post Edited (06-12-05 15:36)

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I gotta say that this movie is maybe the only one that I have ever considered walking out of.  And not because it was bad, or stupid.
 Technically it is absolutely brilliant, I love the "shoot up" scenes.  I just found it so gut-wrenchingly disturbing that I felt physically uncomfortable.   That makes it pretty damn effective filmmaking, but not "fun".  It was almost too much for me.  
Freep, you hit the proverbial nail with:
"This seemed another case of "let's degrade the character as much as possible for shock value, even if it makes no sense""
This sums it up pretty good if you ask me.

By the way... WHY did Tyrone get arrested anyway?  He wasn't on drugs, wasn't selling drugs, nor carrying drugs.  I think theres a pretty profitable lawsuit opportunity coming his way!

-Ed

[Fearless Freep]

By the way... WHY did Tyrone get arrested anyway? He wasn't on drugs, wasn't selling drugs, nor carrying drugs. I think theres a pretty profitable lawsuit opportunity coming his way!

Yeah, that was another senseless part.   They are driving along and Tyrone realizes Harry needs help, so he takes Harry to the hospital.  The doctor realizes/suspects drug use so he calls the cops but *never* helps Harry.  Harry and Tyrone are next in jail (why Tyrone?) and then in a work gang.  No trial?  No medical help? What that..??  Finally Harry gets medical help when they realize he can't work in prison.  Several months of judicial system activities compressed to...an afteroon?  Several really important steps missing, like a trial...and Harry getting medical help prior to a trial, like any reason for Tyrone to be there?



Post Edited (06-12-05 22:40)

[dean]

Whilst Freep makes some good points and has struck on some perfectly valid criticisms, I tend to enjoy this film entirely based on the editing style.  I am perfectly happy suspending disbelief in terms of plot [not always of course], but if the camera work sucks, or there is bad sound, I tend to be a bit more annoyed at the movie.  

I haven't seen it in a while, but yes, Marion's situation was very 'shock the audience' but that being said, the fact that she was 'pretty' and not some dumpy actress gave me the impression that it makes it much worse because she had an 'out' etc.

Tyrone/Wayans' character [and acting] was fantastic, and I agree his role wasn't expanded enough, but that being said, I found that because you have so many pathetic characters in the movie, you need one to be a bit more pitied: even though he was a drug dealin' scumbag, he was also a 'good boy' and as a viewer, I felt bad that his luck wasn't better.  Just because he wasn't extremely addicted, having a character to elicit more sympathy from the audience was a good contrast to Harry's character.

Which brings me to Harry: I hated him, he annoyed the crap out of me, and it was perfectly fine for me to accept his gangrene, despite the suddeness and me thinking 'what a moron, that obviously isn't good for your arm.'

Sara's story was fantastic.  Didn't she win an Oscar for that role?  Anyway, I don't think the whole TV addiction thing should have been expanded on in anyway: I thought the way the whole thing was handled great.  I understand how the camera/editing can annoy people; its not exactly inviting, but most of my enjoyment from this story can be found in how it was done technically.  Besides, the comical value is probably just there so that the 'let's shock the viewer' scenes can be all the more shocking.  

Also, I loved the soundtrack, but that bears little importance here I guess.

Overall, despite its flaws [which, for the most part, Freep has outlined well] I found myself drawn into this film and the pathetic characters that inhabit it.  I tend not to sweat the small stuff.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I liked the soundtrack as well.  There was some good dub going on there.  It was not a bad movies, just not one I enjoyed watching.  As I get older my tolerance for disturbing goes down.  
-Ed

[dean]

>>>>>>It was not a bad movies, just not one I enjoyed watching. As I get older my tolerance for disturbing goes down.


I know what you mean, though my tolerance for disturbing films seems to be getting more extreme: I have been rewatching Cronenberg films and various other extremely nasty films.


Its kind of odd, but I watched Requim for a dream during my 'drug movie' phase, along with Traffic and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.  Fear and loathing made me feel much worse than Requim, but Requim was more gritty and, well, nasty really.  Funnily enough despite this I really liked both films.

[Fearless Freep]

I don't mind disturbing if it's actual sensible.  Too much of what was in Requiem just didn't seem to make a lot of sense.  Like it was just for the sake of trying to be distrurbing to emotionally effect the audience.

A lot of the editing/camera work seemed like that.  Split screen of different things happening at the same time I can see...but split screen of two people lying next to each other talking to each other seems really contrived.  Fast edits between seens to show action can work ,but fast fast edits between seens that logically should've been days, weeks, or months apart just seems like an attempt to manipulate the emotions by false juxtaposition

Style over substance

..and the ony reason I make a deal of it is because the movie is so seriously pretentious.  A stupid alien invasion movie with these characteristics I would just laugh at.



Post Edited (06-13-05 19:15)

[LH-C]

Personally, I like the way it was made (although it did go into that 'style-over-substance' mode a few times, I must agree), the story, and the acting by Ellen Burstyn and Jennifer Connelly. As for Jared Leto and Marlon Wayans, I'd have to say that Leto was much worse and more annoying. Marlon was somewhat annoying, but if he had had someone else (better) to play off of maybe he would have been better as well.

[Mr_Vindictive]

I'm one of the people that actually love Requiem For A Dream, and not for any specific reason.  I bought it on a whim on DVD when it was originally released just because I was a huge fan of Aronofsky's earlier film Pi.  

Sure the plot isn't too strong, but the acting is decent (except for Jared Leto) and the style is there.  I can see how the style of the film can be off-putting and seen as pretentious, but I find it quite interesting.  Aronofsky certainly isn't a "normal" director, and his films aren't for everyone.

The film is gritty, dark and dirty with characters without redeeming values.  As Dean said, if I were to compare this to Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, I'd have to say that I was more disturbed by that picture than by Requiem.  

I've probably watched Requiem twenty times or so and I can't really give a solid reason why I enjoy it so much, I just do.

[Phantom 187]

I agree with Ed. This movie is extremely gut wrenching and hard to watch. It is about the real world. I have the film on DVD.

[SaintMort]

I can only watch this if I'm having a bad day to be honest. It's just too depressing to watch on a good day.