Moriarty's High On REQUIEM FOR A DREAM!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
If someone had told me at the beginning of 2000 that Ellen Burstyn would be the star of the two best horror films I saw in the theater this year, I would have laughed. But THE EXORCIST re-release currently playing is a reminder of what supernatural fright cinema is capable of, and Darren Aronofsky's shattering new film is easily the most original American horror film since SAFE. It's a bold window into a difficult subject matter, and it's also one of the most technically accomplished films I've ever seen, a masterwork in terms of expressing both idea and emotion. In bringing Hubert Selby Jr.'s piercing novel to the screen, Aronofsky has used every trick in the filmmaker's book, and he's even managed to expand the language of film just a bit. It's an amazing accomplishment, one that's easy to dislike because of just how brutal an assault the film can be. I know it's something I won't shake for weeks to come.
Films about addiction are certainly nothing new. TRAINSPOTTING is a great picture, but it's one that's totally different than this, as was RUSH, and SID AND NANCY and DRUGSTORE COWBOY and JESUS SON, and any other number of very good films that cover similar ground. They all work to create a visual equivalent to the experience of drug use, something that manages to convey the feeling, something that can somehow explain the rush that keeps addicts coming back. Some of the films are very successful. Others fall back on imagery we've seen before. It's one of those things that feels like it's been done to death. And then you see a film like this, and all those previous attempts are just sort of swept aside by the way this particular story's been visualized. Aronofsky is very aware of the power of fetish in the world of the addict, the way the ritual becomes just as important as the high itself. Whenever someone shoots up, it's the same series of rapid shots, impressions, the sizzle of the smack cooking, the pupil expanding, the plunger drawing back. Whenever someone rolls a joint, it's the same series of shots. A paper, the sprinkle of weed, the twist, the flame, that first inhale. He's also aware of just how broad the definition of addiction is. When Sara Goldfarb, Burstyn's character, sits down at the beginning of the film with her box of chocolates and her remote for her TV, she's just as methodical about chasing her pleasure as Harold (Jared Leto) and Marion (Jennifer Connelly) and Ty (Marlon Wayans) are about chasing theirs. She pushes the same buttons they do, but with a different set of drugs. The place that Aronofsky and Selby start their film is where many films wind up. This film isn't about the fun before the fall. This film is about the fall, and then the fall beyond that, and then the fall beyond that, and it is like dropping into an abyss. There's no bottom, it seems, to the pain and the horror, and everything we see makes us afraid to continue, afraid to see what's next, and at each step, we are rewarded with a magnification of the horror, with something worse. One of the people I went with compared it to slowly pushing your face into a meat grinder.
So why see it? Why subject yourself to something like that? I mean, this is the film that got the NC-17 and had to go out unrated. This is the grimmest of the grim. Who wants that? I want to feel good when I go to the movies, and so do you, right?
Well... actually... no. That's not why I go. I go because I'm looking for some reflection of the world around me on that screen, and because I'm looking for some window into some facet of the human experience that I haven't had before. I want to be transported just as much as I want to be represented. I go to be moved or challenged or shaken from the slumber that so much "entertainment" seems to encourage. And this film manages to reach right past all the defenses I normally have in place when I go into a theater. There's a sequence midway through the film when Harold visits his mother at her apartment and realizes that she's become addicted to diet pills that made me shake. That's not an exaggeration. The sequence is so painful, so sad, that it literally made me shake in my seat. Burstyn's heartbreaking in the scene, laying herself emotionally naked in a way that's almost too much to look at. Tears were a given, but the way it hit me viscerally was a surprise. I didn't expect to feel so deeply for these people. In the end, that's what makes this a great film about this subject matter. All the visual trickery in the world wouldn't matter if we didn't understand Sara Goldfarb, her son, his friends. If they weren't people that we can recognize ourselves in to some degree, then their decline would be meaningless.
What I love most in the film is the way Aronofsky establishes what the dreams are that end up dying. The title of the film is painfully apt, and the way he etches in the longing of each of these characters is almost a physical thing. A red dress, a spot on a television show, a business, a lover... these are simple things, simple wants, but they seem almost unattainable to these people. They all want happiness, comfort, some degree of affection, and they all find themselves off the tracks at some point, out of control, chasing the dream with no hope of catching it. Watching these simple things slip out of their hands, these people are helpless to stop it from happening. Or at least they believe they're helpless, which is ultimately the same thing. Aronofsky makes you feel powerless as a viewer, and it's wrenching. You want to stop the slide. You know you could do it if you could just reach into the screen for a moment and help out at just the right moment. But you can't. You're trapped, just like these characters are, and as things go from bad to worse to nightmare and then beyond, I wanted to run from the theater. I didn't know where to look, what to focus on. No one gets out of this black hole of misery. Seeing the spark go out in not one, not two, but four sets of eyes... it's devastating.
That's not to say this film is one note. There is humor here, in the most horrible and unexpected places. It's more a function of us holding on to any glimmer of light when everything is this dark, but when those few moments arrive, they're like an oasis. I was impressed by the way the film washed over the crowd at the Sunset 5 last night. Huge line outside, packed house, and they were with it. They all laughed in those pressure points, those release valves that Aronofsky so wisely built in, and they were silent through the really harrowing passages. At the end of the film, 2/3 of the theater stayed seated, silent, as every frame played out. Afterwards, everyone shuffled out to stand on walkway outside, looking down at the courtyard of the complex. People were smoking, huddled together in small groups, everyone buzzing. And no one left. They were all talking about the film. It was great fun to walk along, listening in on each conversation, listening to people wrestle with what they'd just seen.
The central actors in the film all deserve special notice. For the first time, Jared Leto's given a central performance in a film, and he proves to be up to the task. His physical transformation here is startling. I wouldn't recognize him as Angel Face from FIGHT CLUB or Jordan from MY SO-CALLED LIFE anymore. He's a guy at the end of his rope, burned out, hollowed out. He knows that Marion, his girlfriend, is the one good thing in his world, and he wants desperately to make a better life for her. It's easy to see why. Jennifer Connelly brings a sunny sweetness to the first half of the film that's mixed with an easy carnal quality that proves quite potent. When she spirals out at the film's end, it's particularly shocking and unpleasant because all of the lustful thoughts anyone might have about her are turned ugly by what happens to her. Her role takes a foul, bitter sexual turn that was a big part of that NC-17, I'm sure. There's a few images that are just unforgettable, and knowing why she's doing what she's doing just makes it harder to watch. In her last moment of the film, there's a slight Mona Lisa smile that plays across her lips that is chilling. It's a big step forward for her as an actress of merit. Same could be said for Marlon Wayans, someone I have never taken seriously before. Can anyone blame me? He's Marlon freakin' Wayans. Not Damon. Not even Keenan. Hell... not even Shawn. This is Marlon Wayans we're talking about here... and he's good. He's got a great sadness in the film's second half, like he's haunted. He knows what's happening, and he just has to let it, just watching as it does. When he's involved in a shooting, it's jarring and disorienting, and Marlon makes it totally real.
And then there's Ellen Burstyn. What she does here... it's not film acting. It's not anything as simple or as artificial as playing a role. She vanishes into the skin of this woman, this Sara Goldfarb, and she gives her all the dignity and character and depth that seem humanly possible. Burstyn made her name in the '70s, and she still embodies that independent spirit that marked the films of that decade. She's a treasure as a performer, without a false bone in her body, and this picture is a reminder of all the thunder she can summon. The makeup used to help her transformation is eye-popping, to say the least. She's frighteningly authentic in the part, and you spend much of the film in mortal terror for her. Never has the refrigerator been such an object of abject fear. Every time you think you've seen her hit the bottom, she finds somewhere else to go. I was ready to crawl out of my skin when she started grinding her teeth. I was ready to beg for mercy in her last visit to the doctor's office, when thing have gotten... confused. But when she decides to go check on the date for her to be on TV... dear god.
I cannot heap enough praise on the craftsmen who made the film. Matthew Libatique is a cinematographer who must be paid attention. He shot this and PI for Aronofsky, and he also shot the mournful little SATURN, Rob Schmidt's film I reviewed earlier this year. His work's on display in TIGERLAND right now, a film I haven't seen, but which has drawn high praise for its gritty handheld style. Matthew Rabinowitz, the film's editor, also cut the quirky and brilliant films MOTHER NIGHT, CLEAN SHAVEN, and DEAD MAN, and he's established himself to my mind as someone who thinks outside any convention. He is a rule-breaker, and he's been fortunate enough to work with adventurous filmmakers who have benefitted from his willingness to try anything. Clint Mansell's score, performed in large part by the Kronos Quartet, is incredible. One of my favorite pieces of music in the world is Gorecki's third symphony. I'm listening to it right now, as I type. What moves me most about it is the way it rises and falls, like a prayer that grows louder, then softer, then louder again. Mansell's work here is like that, ebbing and flowing, and it lends real weight to these images. There are many places in the film where the score is absolutely essential to what Aronofsky's doing. This isn't just sonic wallpaper designed to cue easy emotional reactions. This is another level at which the film works on us, prods our expectations in an effort to provoke. The production design, the sound design... it's all masterful. Aronofsky seems to have pushed his entire crew into making something special and lasting.
And what do I think of the rating... or more accurately the lack of a rating... that's keeping this from the eyes of any audiences under 17? Well, it's a tough call. I think REQUIEM is a resolutely adult experience, and it's one that I don't think younger viewers are fully equipped for. It deals with very subtle disintegrations, and it is unblinking in how it portrays these things. Would younger viewers be scared off drugs for life by this film? One can only hope so. Anyone who would willingly pollute their bodies with these substances after watching this film is hopeless, lost already. The intensity of this film is what earned it the NC-17, but if you tone it down to make it approachable for younger viewers, then you risk cutting those things that define the character of the film. Once again, we find ourselves butting up against the imperfections in Valenti's outdated system. PG-13 and R seem to be almost interchangeable at this point, and NC-17 remains impossible, foreboding. There's nothing else, no option that indicates adult films about adult themes, and it's a shame. Aronofsky has been let down by the MPAA. We all have as viewers. We're not being protected by economically censoring something as direct and honest as this. We're being screwed out of being able to make our own minds up, and it's arbitary. If SCARY MOVIE can get an R, then this film certainly should. Artisan got shafted, and if I were them, I'd be mad as hell about it. I'd roll this out, town to town, and introduce it as the film the MPAA doesn't want you to see. Seems like a badge of honor, based on their track record.
Is this the definitive movie about drugs and drug addiction? No. I don't think there can be just one definitive movie. There's too many variations. No two people stumble in the exact same way. This is just an exciting piece of cinema, alive. I give it my highest recommendation, and I hope you'll see it not just to support a great filmmaker who is finding his voice in an exciting way, but also a studio that had the guts to release the film they made without cutting it. Keep your eyes open as the limited release continues to roll out. Check out the psychotic official site, probably the most surreal since FIGHT CLUB's last October. Let's reward Artisan for supporting the filmmaker, for actually putting the art before the commerce. I pray it pays off and serves as a smart example. Mainly, I hope Warner Bros. somehow falls under Aronofsky's evil hypnotic influence and lets him make the genius Batman film he's capable of. I'll certainly do whatever I can to help that process along. Right now, I'm off to bed, off to a sleep that will be haunted by the final images of these characters, each of them curled up, alone, no comfort to be found. I'll count my blessings as I wait for sleep to find me. I'll be grateful that I'm not alone, that I'm not addicted, that I'm not killing myself with each new day. I'll be grateful for the arms of Marla Singer, a place I find solace. I'll convince myself that there is hope for these broken souls, and maybe then I'll be able to set this film aside, get it out from under my skin. Just maybe...
Readers Talkbackcomments powered by Disqus
+ Expand All
Oct. 23, 2000, 2:05 p.m. CST
I've heard NOTHING but good things about this film. Now come to San Diego, my sweet, and let me partake of thee. Bill
Oct. 23, 2000, 2:12 p.m. CST
by The Gline
I read Selby's novel REQUIEM back when I first discovered him as a writer (when I bumped into LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN in my parent's bookcase). I'd never read anything even close to the level of emotional honesty and intensity that this man provides. He is easily one of the two or three greatest novelists currently working in the English language, and I know how cheap praise like that is to sling around, but read the book(s) and see for yourself. What's also amusing is that at one point I wanted to film the book, although I had no resources to do so. Then I found our Aronofsky was already all over it -- and I went "Argh!" and "Yes!" at the same time. Frustrating that I would probably never get to do it, but elated that someone of his creative power would. For a detailed review of the novel, looky here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560252480/
Oct. 23, 2000, 2:12 p.m. CST
by The Gline
http://www.thegline.com/book-of-the-week/2000/10-23-2000.htm Sorry about that.
Oct. 23, 2000, 2:28 p.m. CST
its a different type of minimalism, if u compare it to glass, adams, reigh and the sort its a different approach, i read cause during the commie days he was not exposed to all that, however u should get harold weiss arche, i think its out of print, but if u want i can burn it, its pretty good, in terms of symphonies in my top tier is the gorecki 3rd and mahler 6th the kronos quartet are prolly the best performers of new music out there, their philip glass stuff is very good and their black angels cd is the also well done
Oct. 23, 2000, 2:32 p.m. CST
i'm going to start by going on record as saying that i think it is a decent movie, but it's got a lot of problems, and it's far from great. in a nutshell, the story is completely overwhelmed by what moriarity referred to as filmmaking "tricks". while i agree that the cinematography, the editing, and the music are all beautiful, not to mention worthy reasons to see the film, i think they are so at the expense of the story and the development of the characters. those definitive moments that moriarity was so moved by, such as the scene where harry realizes that his mother is addicted to pills (another one that stands out is where his mother goes to the tv station to confirm her appearance on the tv show) are powerful because the filmmaking tricks have all been supressed for those scenes, and the actors are allowed to do their things, and do them well, too (i smell a big academy award push by artisan for burstyn). the tricks that aronofsky uses so excessively here only serve to obscure the fact that there is no real story, no real over-commable conflict for the characters to experience. there is no arc for the characters to follow, only a gradually increasing spiralling decent into hell. and don't rry and tell me that a gradually increasing spiralling decent into hell is a developed enough conflict to sustain a movie--it isn't, it's merely a premise. now, i'm just as bored to tears as the next guy by a standard, hollywood, bullshit three act structure with plot points at just the right page counts, but give me something to work with-through me a frickin' bone. it reminds me a lot of pi in that respect--a beautiful looking film with a ton of potential that falls agonizingly short in terms of story and dramatic resolution. you wanna see cinematography, editing, and music that are inventive and dynamic that advance a story without eclipsing it? go watch goodfellas. i think aronofsky is a gifted director whose movies are always thought provoking and interesting, but...i don't know...maybe he's just not that good of a writer. i'll still go see all of his movies though. and about the shot at valenti's outdated rating system--while i don't disagree that the system is probably dated, is it really the fault of just the mpaa? maybe it's also just as much the fault of the big newspapers who won't carry ads for unrated or nc-17 rated films, and the big theater chains that won't carry those same films for fear of losing money and pissing off their more conservative (at least in terms of movie tastes) customers?
Oct. 23, 2000, 2:35 p.m. CST
by Ambrose Chappell
This is the best Harry Head yet! Good job, Cartuna! The Coens should be very happy!
Oct. 23, 2000, 3:18 p.m. CST
But there it is, two sentences from the end of your review: you declare once again, for all the world to see, that you do indeed have a girlfriend. Congratulations. Please enjoy. Just please leave us out of it, you desperate tub. I mean - you even have a code-name for her... it's from "Fight Club"... it's cringe-inducing... it's too much... it's just too damn much.
Oct. 23, 2000, 3:55 p.m. CST
I think the only thing more self important than the actual film is that review. It is exactly that type of over-hyped masturbation that wrecked the whole experience of this film for me. After reading Harry and others jizz all over this film, I was expecting something pretty ground breaking, even life changing from the way they were talking about it. As a huge fan of Pi, I went with an optomistic enthusiasm that I haven't had for a film since like Episode One. Much like Episodee One, I was met with nothing but dissapointment. Now, I'm not saying the film is terrible, it's O.K., there have certainly been better films on the subject, (Trainspotting, Drug Store Cowboy, even Basket Ball Diaries). What does get me, is reviews like this that blow it so out of proportion that you feel like the film will reach out and give you a hand job. If you like being beaten over the head with the central theme of "Drugs are bad", then this movie is for you, but the film does little more than convey this message over and over. By the films climax the situations these characters are in such dire predicaments, the whole thing just seems silly. Now, I am as big a fan as cool visuals as the next guy, but when it starts taking the place of character and story, I get really annoyed. Aronfsky's MTV visuals, while cool, distance you from really buying into these characters or there stories. While I do think the film is worth checking out, I would beware of self righteous dick heads like Moriarity who feel the need to preach on their cyber-pulpit to us mindless sheep, who can't seem to from an opinion of our own.
Oct. 23, 2000, 4:03 p.m. CST
I am so proud of Artisan for taking the risk of not caving to censorship on this film. Artisan is quickly becoming the studio that Miramax should have been 6 years ago before being sanitized/infected by Disney. As much as I am not a fan of the MPAA, I really believe they are not the main problem with movie ratings in our country. It is the theater chains who refuse to play NC-17 films, the newspapers and television stations that will not run NC-17 advertisements, and the video retail stores (who quietly edit hard R rated movies already) who will not carry NC-17 films that cause economic censorship. Studios aren
Oct. 23, 2000, 4:54 p.m. CST
Teach me, Moriarty. Teach me how to woo the women. I am a lovable but lonely loser in need of guidance. Good review, by the way. I'll be seeing this one first chance I get.
Oct. 23, 2000, 6:03 p.m. CST
I get a kick out of how PowerVideo says there's been nothing but good things said about this movie, then 2 out of the next 3 posts are negative reviews. Well, here's a 3rd: Requiem might be worth catching to see the editing and musical "fireworks", but it will leave you dissapointed, especially if you expect it to be as good as Harry and Moriarty say it is. The story is weak, and the movie is extremely derivative. I already posted my review in the TalkBack to Harry's review, so you can read it there if you're interested.
Oct. 23, 2000, 6:51 p.m. CST
by THE SALEM SLUT
Isn't that the sequel to "The Eyes of Laura Mars"?. Seriously though, I think that was a great review. Contrary to other TalkBackers, I don't think you can overrate any movie which deals with human weaknesses in an honest fashion. I've heard enough about this movie so far to know that it doesn't cop-out at any point, and that's the best thing you can say about any movie, no matter what the subject matter. I'll be checking this one out.
Oct. 23, 2000, 8:05 p.m. CST
"Anyone who would willingly pollute their bodies with these substances after watching this film is hopeless, lost already." Moriary, I'm not going to let you get away with that, because I honestly believe you're too smart for it. You and Harry both have a habit of making grandiose statements in the heat of your passion for a particular film, but this is just dumb. What substances? Pot? Twinkies? We live in a society partly built around substance use and self-medication. The idea that there is some horrific, monstrous category of substances out there that is so inherently evil that they will eat us all alive at the merest sniff, is pure Reganist bullshit. And you know it. You all know it. Let's get quite brutal and specific here. You and Harry have another thing in common. You use food. You don't just eat it, you use it to entertain yourselves. You use it to get off. If you don't stop, eventually, it will kill you. People use all manner of things to alter their state. When you say drugs, you're talking about smack, sex, lattes, relationships, and Resse's peanut butter cups. Don't ever allow yourself the arrogance to believe that "drugs" are this special mysterious thing done by dark, edgy people. Talk about physical vs. psychological addiction all you want. The fact remains that anything can be used to excess, any "drug" (yes, even smack, crack, or coke) can be used once, and walked away from. What is never adressed by any anti-drug propaganda is: What is different about addicts, that getting high appeals to them so much? That's the core question, and I don't think anyone has an answer for it yet.
Oct. 23, 2000, 10:53 p.m. CST
Drug abuse is a bad thing. Very, very bad. I
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:34 p.m. CST
by Toby O Notoby
Downloaded the mpeg. Twice. Now tell me why the #$%* it isn't recognized by either QuickTime or MoviePlayer. This is driving me nuts...
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:47 p.m. CST
by Toe Jam
Christ almighty, you'd think I wouldn't have to correct so-called film experts. But all is forgiven. Does anyone else feel that Moriarty is infinitely more articulate and observant and intelligent than Harry? I mean, his reviews are much better reads than Harry's, no?
Oct. 23, 2000, 11:59 p.m. CST
But that's neither here or there. Quite simply, I thought it was a fantastic movie. I don't know about this 'over-hype' bullshit everyone seems to be shovelling now but I, too, felt the movie was far more an emtional experience that simply a story. I FELT what was coming through the screen. I know it sounds cheesy or cliched but let me tell you something: I FELT, had an emotional responser to this movie that I've never had before. The story doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. The fact that we really don't have all that much character development doesn't matter. It's the emotional response the movie stirs inside of you that matters. Anyway, I'm with Moriarty on this one. Ny the way, personally, I think the last 10 minutes are what's responsible for the NC 17. Not just the sexual thing with Conelly but, like Moriarty said, just the overall intensity of what you're seeing, the unrelentless bombardment. You don't see shit like that in most movies--Last time probably was CLEAN, SHAVEN.
Oct. 24, 2000, 12:03 a.m. CST
by Toe Jam
...in regards to the whole rating system: it's pretty much a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. What are they to do? Obliterate ratings altogether? We all know how unreasonable that is. The current system? We're all aware of how imperfect it is. If the MPAA were to introduce additional rating designations, you would never hear the end of bitching about it. People would complain that one movie got a certain rating, while another movie got a stricter rating even though it was obviously much more tame. Fewer ratings would be totally unfair. I think the current system is fine, personally. I just feel that the MPAA should use more prudence in issuing ratings and be a lot more subjective, rather than the hardline fucks that seem to be running the organization currently.
Oct. 24, 2000, 1:04 a.m. CST
by Toby O Notoby
You're email is still down. Thanks for the help, but unfotunatly I use a Mac. Oh well, better luck next time.
Oct. 24, 2000, 3:33 a.m. CST
by Boss Hog
If some lucky bastard had that on film it would scare me off drinking real quick. Seriously though, I think you AICN guys are getting way too wound up on this films "gritty-ness". Making out like this film is soooooo brilliant because it shows how ugly drug abuse can be, and be, and be again and continue being. And the MPAA thing, I know that charges you up too. You guys are horror and gore freaks that get hammered and stoned all the time. Quit playing like this movie is some social masterpiece that must be seen to save the kids from drugs.
Oct. 24, 2000, 8:02 a.m. CST
where do you download this mpeg??
Oct. 24, 2000, 12:56 p.m. CST
while you may feel personally that the nc-17 rating came from the "overall feeling" of the last 10 minutes of the picture, the mpaa has come out and said specifically that the rating was for strong sexual content, making little to no mention of the drug use, the amputation, or the shock treatment. since this sexual content occupies literally a total of probably 30 seconds of film, it just goes to show how fucked up not necessarily the rating system is, but how fucked up the people administering the ratings system are. and clean shaven? come on. that film looked, sounded and felt like it was written and directed by a nyu film school freshman compared to requiem.
Oct. 24, 2000, 12:58 p.m. CST
It's downloading at my house as we speak, while I sit here at work, not working ;) I've had a crush on Jennifer Connely ever since "The Rocketeer". I don't care if she has unruly body hair, it's just a fantasy for me ;) Is there nothing porn can't cure? IAmLegolas....OUT!!!!
Oct. 24, 2000, 1:28 p.m. CST
to my last dying breath for the sheer claustorphobia it conjures. You think it was the work of an NYU film student...Well, so wasn't Spike Lee's 'She's Gotta Have It' and I enjoyed that one, too. Anyway, though, in regards to the sexual content in 'Requiem'...God damn...There is just that one full frontal nude shot early in the movie (which is pretty tame compared to what's in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE) and that final sex act--Which I won't go into--But it's pretty friggin' ironic, isn't it? To show 'the apparatus' in a movie is no problem, even bludgeoning someone to death with it is no problem, but to actually use 'the apparatus' in the way it was SUPPOSED to be used (more or less) can't be shown.
Oct. 24, 2000, 2:57 p.m. CST
by All Thumbs
Why in the world would anyone want to download the scene with Jennifer Connelly? Yes, she's a very beautiful woman and I'm sure any of you would love to see her naked and performing such a sex act, but the CONTEXT of the act...of that scene...doesn't that creep you out in the slightest? It's like the guys who would download and freeze frame the rape scene in "The Gift" just to get a glimpse of Katie Holmes' "boobies."
Oct. 24, 2000, 3:02 p.m. CST
The film is about ADDICTION, not drugs! I thought The Old Man had when he pointed out that Sara's TV and chocolate binging was given the same montage treatment as Harry shooting up heroin, but apparently not. And IAmLegolas- if you think that Connelly clip is porn then you are a sick fuck. That scene is about as far from arousing as it is possible to get. I really have nothing to say to the people who think Trainspotting or (Goddess give me strength) Basketball Diaries were better films, other than- you are wrong. Twenty years from now people will look back on Trainspotting the way we look back on, I don't know, Shampoo, as a film that well encapsulated its period, and starred a couple of people who did better work, or went on to bigger things. Nothing more. Requiem, on the other hand, will be right up there with Clockwork Orange as a timeless, challenging piece of film-making. I'm sorry for you if your knee-jerk reaction to the attention the film is getting is to dislike it, or if you just couldn't handle what the film was throwing at you. Try watching it again a few years from now- you may be surprised at what you missed.
Oct. 24, 2000, 3:23 p.m. CST
Well honestly I have yet to see this movie, or the mpeg for that matter, but since every other mpeg on DarthPsychotic's website is pretty porn-ish with pretty young Hollywood actresses doing there thing, I figured it was in the same vein. If it's some rape scene or whatever, then I'll just delete it. All I know it's a huge file and I just started downloading it this morning. Just clarifying that IAmLegolas is some whacked out deviant. Thanks for the info, all :P
Oct. 24, 2000, 3:25 p.m. CST
Me fail English? That's unpossible!!!
Oct. 24, 2000, 5:43 p.m. CST
by The Gline
Because they feel good, plain and simple. Most everything else that is written or said about drugs doesn't feature that simple idea. That and something else: that what separates an addict from another person is that the addict will do a great many more things to satisfy their addiction than someone else. Some people are not as susceptible to drugs as an addiction as others, but that doesn't mean that drugs are harmless and that only people are to blame for the whole mess. I am not against the idea of someone using chemicals to explore their consciousness, but it's hard to tell sometimes where self-exploration ends and self-destruction starts. And the problem with the philosophy that everyone should be allowed to go to hell in their own way is that more often than not, you're not alone when you do so. (See an essay I wrote on this for more on that nore: http://www.thegline.com/thought/2000/10-03-2000.htm) The point is that addiction to anything -- whether it be drugs, TV, false hope or what have you -- is a terrible way to go through life. William Burroughs made the same points in "Naked Lunch", although in a completely different manner, of course. Selby's book makes the same point in blunter terms. Also... the idea that people use drugs to "escape" from something isn't completely honest. Many people do things to escape from their lives. As long as we keep thinking of drugs in themselves as a problem per se rather than a type of solution that people apply to their problems (usually with negative results), we won't get much of anywhere.
Oct. 25, 2000, 2:44 a.m. CST
20 years from now when people look back at requiem, they will see the exact same thing that clear-headed, intelligent movie goers not addicted to mtv and therefore incapable of being hoodwinked by an extremely aggressive PRESENTATION saw today--that is, a beautifully shot, edited, and scored movie severely lacking in strong narrative content or discernable character development. which, ironically, happen to be two of the major reasons that a clockwork orange is in fact a classic. get it yet, anton?
Oct. 25, 2000, 2:46 p.m. CST
by Clark Nova
Not to be too critical, but I'm surprised to hear someone with Heywood Floyd as a user ID complaining about the lack of narrative and character development in a picture. Kubrick (may he rest in peace as the greatest filmmaker ever) was the grandmaster of narrative and character development evasion. His distanced and unsympathetic approach to his characters offered the very opposite of these qualities that Heywood says are lacking in Requiem. In the end, I'd say that Requiem is more "Kubrickian" than one may realize. (And that ain't nostalgia talking neither.) -- Clark Nova
Oct. 25, 2000, 5:52 p.m. CST
I saw the film this past Friday at the Denver international Film Festival. I enjoyed it. I loved 'Pi' and figured I'd enjoyed this film as well. I wont ramble on about the film. I will say I was a bit shaken up after this film. and I will also go on the record as saying that Drugstore Cowboy, Trainspotting, and all the other 'drug' films as of late do not reflect, or add up to, this one. Not taking anything away from those films...you just have to see 'Requiem' to enjoy it. Now, I've sat back and seen this movie 'flogged' to death, for whatever reason, on this board. I respect other views and opinions if they have viewed this film and THEN decide they didn't like it, for whatever reason. But, I will not stand idylly by and let these folks with IQ's smaller than their show size, who have not seen the movie, bash it into the ground. Shut the fuck up if you haven't seen it. That's all I really have to say...with the exception of a few things... 1) All Thumbs: Thank god we have people like you to voice their opinions regarding the MPEG file that I am Legolas has. If people knew the context from which that picture comes from...well, I'd hope that they'd delete it. 2) I am Legolas: Have you even seen this movie? Don't be spreading around pics. of Jen Connelly, just because she's attractive. Not from this film (or at least that part of the film). It is sick and wrong you fuck. 3) Would anyone talk so highly of Kubrick if he hadn't died. I'm sorry and no disrespect to him. but come on get over it. Yes he mad some great movies, Eyes Wide Shut not being one of them. Let it go everyone. 4) Darren Aronosky, should be someone to look forward to for a long time. 5) everyone needs to take some Valium around this place. Way too uptight. Everyone relax a little bit, okay? 6) Cannot remember who wrote it...but if you're going to quote the Simpsons...for the love of all that is holy use quotation marks!!!!!!! You know who you are. ....That's all...for now. Later. D>
Oct. 26, 2000, 12:26 a.m. CST
i aploogize for getting off topic, but this talk back is winding down anyway, so i'm just gonna say it. i'll agree with clark nova that kubrick was definetely one of the greats, and that he did maintain a distanced and unsympathetic approach to his characters, but that hardly came at the expense of a strong narrative or character develpoment for the very reason that it was merely an approach, a filmmaking approach. within that approach (read, admittedly over-simplified, as filmmaking technique) his characters all underwent monumental changes (ie development) and his stories were always strong. think of alex in clockwork swinging from sadistic criminal to reformed guinea pig and at least part of the way back again. think of private joker in fmj starting as a scared draftee and ending up a killer. think of jack in the shining starting as a relatively decent family man and turning into a monster. and don't forget bowman in 2001 metamorphosizing into the starchild--there's a hell of a development. my point is that nothing of even a remotely transformative nature happens to anyone in requiem, they all just go into the shitter head first. i don't mean to jump on you, i can always appreciate an intelligent discussion of kubrick, but i did want to clarify.
Oct. 28, 2000, 2:38 a.m. CST
I have to say, on the one hand I fully agree with Anton_Sirius
Nov. 9, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST
by Sick Fixx
Why did they have to shock Sara? She wasn't even exhibiting violent tendencies!!! Why couldn't Marion enjoy the ass to ass??? Why did the doctor violate the Hippocratic Oath by calling the cops on Tyrone and Harry??? And why did he pocket the morphine Harry could have used before he called the cops???
- THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES Trailer Has Arrived! -- 351 total posts 351 posts
- A New Tease For DOCTOR WHO Season / Series 8!! -- 85 total posts 85 posts