Requiem for a Dream [Archive]

dillane

07-05-01, 10:53 PM

WEll, Steve, it looks like I'm the only other person who's seen it. I loved it, although I am rather upset that I only have seen the Hollywood Video version. But, for that version, it's still really an excellent piece of work.

I think that if adults REALLY wanted to prevent their children from doing drugs, they should think long and hard about showing them this film. And Ellen Burstyn turns in the best performance I've seen from her. Plus, Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly somehow learn to act and not just look good. And I always liked Marlon Wayans.

But, most interesting was the cinematography. The lighting, the gels, it's all really excellent. And what about that odd technique where he divides the screen in half and you can see Ellen in one looking at Jared and Jared in the other from outside. I thought that was spectacular!

Aronofsky is so excellent. I just hope he doesn't dim my faith in him with this upcoming Batman thing he's doing...

Steve

07-05-01, 11:59 PM

That Batman is going to be sick...

You ought to check out the dvd. It's the original directors cut, with commentary and all that noise.

Jared Leto could always act! (Btw...what an agent he has! He was in this, Fight Club, and American Psycho within a year!)

I found the editing to be superb...in that last 15 minutes or so, there must be hundreds of cuts, yet everything is still comprehensible.

ryanpaige

07-06-01, 01:27 AM

I still haven't gotten through Pi yet. I've tried several times, but I always put it on late at night, and I fall asleep really early on (not a comment on the movie. I just wait to long to put it in to watch it).

Falafel Fart

07-06-01, 09:24 AM

Nah, I have the Director's Cut for DVD :D

Falafel Fart

07-06-01, 09:31 AM

The cinematography is one of my favorite parts in the whole movie! Pulse Skips, Slit Screens, Frame Shakes, Tracking Perspectives, Fisheye Worldviews, Special Effects...EVERYTHING is so great with this movie. I loved it when Ellen was taking her breakfast, and everything would just disapear. One thing that I did notice which was similar in both this and Pi, was that when the characters take pills, it's the same type of sound, angle, etc.
Also, about making kids see this, yes, it would be effective, yet the characters could have ended up completely different. The whole story is about people pursuing (sp?) their dreams until they have them.
Also, the music in this movie is EXCELLENT. It's from the same people who gave you the music for Pi. I recommend you go out and by the Director's Cut DVD and pick up the soundtrack, too.

sadesdrk

08-24-01, 09:06 PM

Remember Jennifer Connely in 'Labyrinth'?Kind of a stretch from that to that gritty '*** to ***'scene.I was so greatfull that this movie wasn't another one of you're typical drug films where everybody is sticking needles in their arms-Requiem gives you eyes dialating and blood streams...genius.as hard as it was to watch it I loved every minute of it;even when I felt like barfing.The best movies are the ones that move you to do something.barf,cry,laugh,flip the screen off,whatever.:laugh:

mecurdius

09-11-01, 02:37 AM

Does the dvd have the edited out scenes from the hollywood video version??

sadesdrk

09-11-01, 03:49 PM

Jeez,I don't even know.you should ask Laura over on the DVD question thingie...she'll know.You know,just get on the home page and click on the DVD one.

Falafel Fart

09-12-01, 04:37 AM

It's got many a deleted scenes. And good ones, too :)

spudracer

09-12-01, 09:40 AM

The menu on it the first time I saw it was freaky. I thought I had it on the wrong channel or something...LOL

sadesdrk

09-12-01, 12:19 PM

Me too...that's so cool.lol...I kept trying to change the channel,when I finally got it I felt like a dumb-*** so I didn't tell anyone till now.lol.....awe,that's great,made my day.

Anton_Lavey

11-03-01, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Steve N.
I hope you didn't see the video version, from blockbuster or hollywood...

Man that really pissed me off. I rented the film from Blockbuster when it first came out and saw "Edited Version" in the title and was like "WTF"...

I still don't understand why they release such 'editied' versions as marketable. The same holds true with certain 'soft-core' pornographic movies..they make R rated and NR rated versions......

Now, if you're renting a soft-core porno film, you want to see flesh/sex, etc. Why get the R-rated version??

spudracer

11-03-01, 09:23 AM

The probably figure someone might get it for the storyline...LOL

Requiem was a very twisted and bizarre movie, saw it on DVD, and have to say that it's sad that people pretty much go through life with a very bad drug habit.

mecurdius

03-30-02, 04:49 PM

This is a great movie, i will never think about doing drugs after watching this. They should show this movie to all those addicts. I am changing my top ten for this. That last scene with the shocl therapy, i was crying.

I had trouble with the R version, i dont know if i could take the NR one.

Falafel Fart

03-30-02, 07:52 PM

I don't think there's a difference in the actual movie itself between the edited and director's cut. I think it's just that the D.C. has deleted scenes and stuff like that....Am I right?

mecurdius

03-31-02, 05:20 AM

probably, but whats the actual version? Like the one realesed in theatres.

Marcellus

03-31-02, 05:22 AM

Aronofsky's audio commentary is also really cool.

Holden Pike

03-31-02, 07:12 AM

I've never seen the R-rated version of Requiem for a Dream. It was released unrated theatrically, for its entire art house run (one of the many reasons it never played at the multiplex or mall near you) too.

But even though I've never seen the R-rated version, thanks to the good ol' IMDb I can tell you at least one of the differences. Not only is this going to be a 'spoiler' of course, but it is also kinda graphic, so reader beware...

One of the differences bewteen the two versions comes in the horrific finale, as we see all four characters meet their unhappy fates, the prices they pay for their addictions.

Marion (Jennifer Connelly) agrees to go to Big Tim's (Keith David) 'party' and perform as asked for her drugs, since she has no money. In the unedited original vision of Darren Aronofsky - the version you would have experience had you seen it in the theaters, while in that circle of rich, disgusting onlookers, one of the men calls out for the next position: "@ss to @ss". After a large double-ended dildo is lubricated, there are quick shots - but clear enough, to show Marion and the other woman having anal sex.

In the R-rated version, the "@ss to @ss" line is completely excised, as are any shots of the dildo or implications of anal sex. Another series of shots showing a man having vagnial sex with Marion were used for that segment.

There may be other difference here and there, but as I never plan on watching the R-rated version, until the IMDb posts 'em, I won't be able to tell you what they are.

Falafel Fart

03-31-02, 07:27 AM

That's a little difference, but the deleted one has a bigger impact. I didn't know the two versions were actually different...good to know.

Holden Pike

03-31-02, 08:11 AM

You mean you thought the only difference in the two DVDs was in the additional materials provided? No, the films themselves are different. Requiem for a Dream was re-cut as an R for video so that conservative outlets such as Blockbuster and Wal-Mart can stock it. But it is definitely different, and not Aronofsky's original vision.

Aaaaah, America, where sex must be censored!

sadesdrk

03-31-02, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Holden Pike
Aaaaah, America, where sex must be censored! I agree with F. Fart, that the deleted scene had a bigger impact. The one I saw, was the one Holden mentioned in his spoilers, the NR version. I was shocked and horrified, but I wouldn't want to see the watered down rating.

However, as to your comment, Holden, of sex being censored. That wasn't a sex scene; that was victimization. A difference when it comes to censorship.

mecurdius

03-31-02, 06:06 PM

Where do you ppl think i can see the original unedited version odf this movie? Or do i need to?

Holden Pike

03-31-02, 07:10 PM

Find a place to rent DVDs other than Blockbuster or the grocery store. Any decent video store will have the unedited version. You could always buy it if you are a big fan of the flick.

As for if you "need" to see it, well that's completely up to you. The impact of that one scene in particular is greater, and I don't know what other little substitutions or amendments have been made, but basically it the same film. If you thought the movie was brilliant and want to see it again anyway, definitely track down the unedited version. But only you know if you "need" to see it again.

mecurdius

03-31-02, 07:13 PM

I think i will buy the unedited version, i mean i have to own everything in my top ten. Speaking of which what the hell is going on with that anyway?

sadesdrk

04-01-02, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by sadesdrk
However, as to your comment, Holden, of sex being censored. That wasn't a sex scene; that was victimization. A difference when it comes to censorship. Holden, this needs your attention...

HockeyGuy107

04-01-02, 08:16 PM

The only version I've ever seen is the unedited version on DVD. Requiem is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, regardless of how messed up some of the stuff in it was. It all tied together well. Aronofsky has some really good works to his credit, and Requiem is definetely one of them.

Steve

04-01-02, 09:22 PM

I'm going to jump into sades' argument, because, well, I'm rude. :)

However, as to your comment, Holden, of sex being censored. That wasn't a sex scene; that was victimization. A difference when it comes to censorship.

Hopefully you agree that it wasn't exploitative, and hopefully, also, you aren't defending the disgusting movements of the MPAA against sex scenes in movies. America is the only country in the world where movies that contain people's heads being blown off make hundreds of millions of dollars and are smiled upon, and movies with sex are ignored and largely don't have a chance with the general public, because the MPAA, the studios, and (sometimes) government dictate what we can handle.

Yoda

04-01-02, 09:33 PM

Steve, I know you like to go on and compare violence to sex, but I don't think the two are equivalent. I think sex is a lot easier to imitate or get messed up from. I think it's simply a bigger deal in these situations. You probably disagree.

Sex must be censored? What the? Do any of you even LIVE in the US? Sex is everywhere. The market is SATURATED with lust. It's everywhere. You can't escape it unless you're willing to slap on a pair of black suspenders and change your name to Jebediah.

Steve

04-01-02, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Steve, I know you like to go on and compare violence to sex, but I don't think the two are equivalent. I think sex is a lot easier to imitate or get messed up from. I think it's simply a bigger deal in these situations. You probably disagree.

I don't think it's easier to imitate, or get messed up from. YOu know why? It takes two (or more) people to have sex, and getting messed up from it requires one or both of them to have had lots of unprotected sex before. Anyone can find a gun and shoot someone.

And, comparisons aside, what do you find more offensive?

Sex must be censored? What the? Do any of you even LIVE in the US? Sex is everywhere. The market is SATURATED with lust. It's everywhere. You can't escape it unless you're willing to slap on a pair of black suspenders and change your name to Jebediah.

That's because if sex is selling something, then it's okay. Don't you see? The corporations are interested in nothing they can't benefit from, and a movie or work of art that deals frankly with sex is hard to sell. So it's dumbed down and made innocuous. I know you won't like this, but, in essence, it has a lot to do with capitalism IMO. I think they're hiding behind a facade of "doing what's right", now that I think about it.

Yoda

04-01-02, 09:50 PM

I don't think it's easier to imitate, or get messed up from. YOu know why? It takes two (or more) people to have sex, and getting messed up from it requires one or both of them to have had lots of unprotected sex before. Anyone can find a gun and shoot someone.

And, comparisons aside, what do you find more offensive?
I'm sorry Steve...I've written my exact feelings on this subject at least two other times on this site...I really don't feel like typing it all out again. I'm sure a quick search would yield results. I don't buy the "it takes two people" argument, though. How hard is it to find a teenager who wants to have sex? Sex is something we're built to want to do anyway. Going on a murderous rampage is not. I find it to be obvious that watching sex will arouse some kind of desire to want to do the same...but I don't think seeing Ah-nuld blow someone's head off will do the same thing for violence.

That's because if sex is selling something, then it's okay. Don't you see? The corporations are interested in nothing they can't benefit from, and a movie or work of art that deals frankly with sex is hard to sell. So it's dumbed down and made innocuous. I know you won't like this, but, in essence, it has a lot to do with capitalism IMO. I think they're hiding behind a facade of "doing what's right", now that I think about it.
So let me get this straight: people should not make decisions about movies in hopes that it will make their life easier...they should do it in hopes that some artist's vision will be seen? We're going to fault them for not completely putting themselves aside for some director? Wouldn't it be unreasonable of you to try to get Wal-Mart to sell an adult sex toy on their shelves, and then complain when they refuse?

Capitalism is the worst policy to have...except for all the others. No one said it's perfect (I sure won't)...but if you want to be upset with it, well, I don't think it should be for reasons at all like that.

Anyway, my main point there was that sex being censored is bull. It's everywhere. Say it's censored if there's not money involved if you want, but it's sure as hell not censored (I'm referring to Holden mostly here). It's accessible and in our faces day and night.

sadesdrk

04-02-02, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Steve
Hopefully you agree that it wasn't exploitative, and hopefully, also, you aren't defending the disgusting movements of the MPAA against sex scenes in movies. Obviously.:rolleyes:

That wasn't a "sex" scene. I have absolutely nothing to say about people having sex in movies. I like a good ol' sex scene as much as anyone, I was simply pointing out that Holden's comment was voiced at the wrong time, about the wrong movie. That wasn't sex.

Holden Pike

04-02-02, 07:21 PM

It was a sexual act. No matter what the context, clearly the MPAA is gong to balk at two women using a double-headed dildo. If that would have been two characters madly in love with each other, romantically and consentually exploring a fun toy, it would have been censored all the same.

The inserted scene to get an R-rating is just as brutal, the exact same context of degredation, but shows her engaging in vaginal sex with a man. That, it seems, is OK in the minds of the MPAA.

sadesdrk

04-02-02, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Holden Pike
It was a sexual act. No matter what the context, clearly the MPAA is gong to balk at two women using a double-headed dildo. If that would have been two characters madly in love with each other, romantically and consentually exploring a fun toy, it would have been censored all the same.

Doubt it. If that wanted to get in under the MPAA, it might have...you can't say that for sure. What I'm saying is, go ahead and shout about it; it needs to be said, I just think the subject was broached over a highly graphic "sexual act". There was nothing stimulating or erotic about that scene, and if anyone was turned on by it, then I'm glad it came under the censor's noses.

mecurdius

04-03-02, 03:37 AM

I agree that this movie managed to make lesbian sex disgusting, but it would still be considered sexual.

sadesdrk

04-03-02, 11:47 AM

Yeah, I guess the fact that Jennifer Connelly looked like she was going to vomit, was arousing.:rolleyes:

Holden Pike

04-03-02, 12:52 PM

Why are you equating sex with sexy? It's not arousing (hopefully), but it is a sexual act.

sadesdrk

04-03-02, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Holden Pike
Why are you equating sex with sexy? It's not arousing (hopefully), but it is a sexual act. Okay. Fine...it's a sexual act of violence. I just don't see it as plain old,"sexual". They were indirectly being victimized in return for drugs.

mecurdius

04-04-02, 02:28 AM

Sades ITS A DOUBLE SIDED DILDO! TWO WOMEN ARE HAVING SEX USING IT!!! What isnt sexual about having sex?

sadesdrk

04-04-02, 12:32 PM

OMG! Merc! Shut-Up!
I'm surprised at you.
Those women were not enjoying them selves, okay. They were there for their own f*cked up reasons, but certianly not to get it on with each other. Connelly's charactor was there for the drugs...the other woman, who knows...same thing?
Do you call rape, sex? Yes, it's a sexual act, but you're leaving out the victimization part.

If you told people that in the movie Requiem for a Dream, two women engage in a sexual act using a double sided dildo, and didn't say anything else about it...what do you think they would expect?
They wouldn't expect there to be a circle of men standing around shouting at the women...being entertained by watching these women go at it like that, or the look of disgust and shame on their faces...
I'm not going to change my mind. Sex and what they were doing are different. Period.

Some woman who was raped, isn't going to tell her support group," I had sex. I engaged in a sexual act." She's gonna say," I was raped." Same as this. If Connelly's charactor was going to tell someone about that night, she wouldn't just say she had,"sex" with a woman...

mecurdius

04-04-02, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by sadesdrk
OMG! Merc! Shut-Up!

Some woman who was raped, isn't going to tell her support group," I had sex. I engaged in a sexual act." She's gonna say," I was raped." Same as this. If Connelly's charactor was going to tell someone about that night, she wouldn't just say she had,"sex" with a woman...

good point about the rape thing, it was kinda like that wasnt it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

The Silver Bullet

04-05-02, 08:21 PM

Seen the film!!

Okay.

Firstly, I have to say that I simply wasn't disturbed by this film. I was left after it thinking things like "I can't believe I was able to enjoy it." And so on and so forth. The story felt very flat for me. The only character I was able to connect to was Ellen Burnstyn's Sara. The other characters all had it coming, and I was almost thinking they deserved what the got for going about it all the wrong way. It was an unlikeable film, I found. I enjoyed it, but definatly not for the story.

Stylistically, this film was some of the best style I have ever seen. It was like numerous music clips (with some real scenes in there too) peiced together to make a terrorfying and rich collage of these people's lives and how drugs and their dreams collide. Cinematography, sure, that was good, but it was clearly the editing that made this film so amazing to watch.

I'm giving it four out of five.

Fez Wizardo

04-07-02, 09:49 PM

bollocks.

When you see people like that in real life, people whose most major fulfillment and satisfaction has come from taking an assortment of different substances and have therefore only lived to continue with intoxicating their bodies then that's disturbing, when you see it being portrayed so vividly and so accurately on screen whilst your mind panics thinking "f*ck, I've done that, I've done what they're showing, I've cut things like that" and you can really see how the characters took the steps they took then you feel that real disturbing chill in your spine.

It's only the casual "pure" mind that may look at them and say, ha they're getting what they deserved, and this is why the story of Sara Goldfarb is so important. It takes away "drugs" as being the main issue, it changes the approach to "addiction" being the issue. Her addiction was T.V. and food, that led her onto the wizz.

I don't care as much as the snazzy editing and the classical hip hop sounds or whatever the **** - what shocked me was the incredible accuracy of the drug commentary, the kind of "pill talk" that came out, the way Sara felt after that much speed, the way one pill just doesn't compare anymore, the feeling when you don't have what you want when you want it, and you don't want to feel sober, you want to feel as good as you did last time, it's all there, it's all so true, and it's all so hard to put across which is why I found this film so amazing, because it did manage to put it all across.

I didn't "enjoy" the film as much, I didn't feel "entertained" I felt someone had smacked me in the face and said "thank f*ck you're still in good health, don't do that sh*t again"

It wouldn't do any good to be shown to kids, they wouldn't understand, it will just be another dream scenario, it will mostly affect people that have been closely involved with that culture (when i say affect i mean "change perception")

Let's say a kid smokes, and another one offers him a skunk wrapped J, he's not going to think, this is skunk, omg, this is illegal, my parents will screw, it might lead to harder drugs he's more likely to think, f|ck it, why not. He might then go on to become a less casual smoker of weed, and lets say progress onto something a bit harder when the weed stops doing it for him (we are talking about more of a specific personality here - the personality which is hard to satisfy, the moreness of it all! ) and face it, if they told you weed was really bad, and you find out how harmless it really is, how much have they lied about all the other drugs? it's all there.

My fav scene is Leto crying for his mother becuase she was on drugs. The worst part of addiction is you never know you're addicted, it's impossible for you to accept, it's not like thinking "ok, i'm addicted, no hold on i don't want to think that" it's "other people are addicts, i'm just a recreationl user" and your mentality continues like that until one random day it hits you that you've lost 3 stone in a couple of months as well as losing the feeling of reality, the knowingness of existence the grasp of date and time, it's all just escaping...all I can say is Hubert Selby Jnr is a very clued up 74 year old (and the director was probably a druggie :D)

Oh and the book's also known as "Delusion over Addiction"

Anarchos

04-08-02, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
The story felt very flat for me. The only character I was able to connect to was Ellen Burnstyn's Sara. The other characters all had it coming, and I was almost thinking they deserved what the got for going about it all the wrong way. It was an unlikeable film, I found. I enjoyed it, but definatly not for the story.

Maybe you should be a little(a lot) more remorseful. The whole point of the movie is that each of the characters has a dream that they want to achieve, that they strive for, and that the dream itself isn't bad. But they're imperfect, just like everyone else, just like you and me, and they have sucumbed to drugs. This should make you feel sorry for them, to could see themselves ruin their own lives, but couldn't do anything about it!

All things considered, they are all good people: they have no evil thoughts or hatred, they don't do anything to intentionally hurt anyone else. Maybe you weren't paying attention, but Jennifer and Jared [I don't remember their characters' names] were in love, they had a great, loving relationship. He tries to help her start a sketching business... are these the same people deserve to ruin their lives through drugs?? No! It's a ****ty world out there and these people screwed themselves over. The reason this film works is that you identify with the characters, you want them to succeed, and then as you see them cycle downwards you get pulled down with them.

And aronovsky makes sure to send you on your way through the depressing music, the rhythm of the scenes and characters, the sound bites, the coloring and lighting, and he does it better than anyone else. Sure you might not like to be depressed, but his ability to control our emotions in such a profound, encompassing way is not easy, it's very impressive. Especially considering that the audience doesn't want to be depressed, people usually want to go to a nice, light, comedic movie, and come out feeling good. How much can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight, that's what I want to know. With Requiem for a Dream you'll get your fight, and it won't feel good, but it was never supposed to.

LordSlaytan

11-07-03, 03:01 AM

Requiem For A Dream is one of those movies that I hear is great but never get around to see for myself. Then, the other day, I see an ad for cheap DVD’s and it’s in the stack, so I think to myself, “What the hell” and buy it. Tonight I sat down not knowing a single thing about it and having no idea of the plot or what to expect, and then BLAM! That sucker punches me right in the nose.

Let me start off by saying that I agree with everyone out there that says this may be Ellen Burstyn’s best work ever. My heart broke watching her descent into madness and her despair from loneliness, and her perfect love for her son Harry. Never have I seen such a brutal portrayal of a person in the throe’s of addiction while being completely oblivious of her plight. After seeing her performance in this, I am upset, even more than I was, that Julia Roberts won the Best Actress Oscar for the year 2000.

I thought that Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, and Marlon Wayans, all performed exceptionally as well. My heart went out to all three characters, though I wish that Wayans character was allowed to have as much depth as the other three.

I wish that I could say that I enjoyed this film, but it isn’t a film that is enjoyable. It’s rather like watching medical TV, where a surgeon is hammering away at an open knee cap, all the while singing Moon River. It’s a surrealistic view of life in hell from the perspective of men and women who are good people and don’t necessarily deserve to be condemned there. Yet they are the ones who bought one way tickets and gladly boarded the bus that is able to take them there.

At the beginning of the film I could relate on a more enjoyable scale, because I’ve personally had a long history with drugs and the people who use them, and remember the good times associated with it all. The scene where Harry and Tyrone get their first cop of the pure and decide to have a taste and fall over laughing from the unadulterated exaltation of it being purer than anything they had had before, I found myself smiling and remembering fondly of days when I had a good friend to share my crank with. Then reality sets in and the enjoyment is gone. Drugs of that magnitude is a one way ticket for most who become addicted, and we see where it can, and usually will, lead us. Straight to dementia, degradation, incarceration, and death. I didn’t enjoy it, but I find that this is a beautiful movie for it’s unconditional love for the truth. This is the best anti-drug movie since Drug Store Cowboy.

The Silver Bullet

11-07-03, 03:08 AM

I just read my original review. This was a film that took a few extra screenings to fully appreciate.

Requiem for a Dream
2000 | dir. Darren Aronofksy
****

LordSlaytan

11-07-03, 03:24 AM

I just read my original review. This was a film that took a few extra screenings to fully appreciate.[/size]

Yeah, I read your original post, but I remembered you mentioning in others how much you loved it. I liked this movie more for its story than its style. How about you?

The Silver Bullet

11-07-03, 03:51 AM

I love it for both.

LordSlaytan

11-07-03, 03:53 AM

Wha??? I was watching you in the "Who's Online" area, and it seemed you were posting forever here...and this is all the discussion I get! Fine. :(

The Silver Bullet

11-07-03, 04:02 AM

I had the page loaded but was out at the kitchen table, eating dinner.

The style is overwhelming, but in a way that very much supports what's happening in terms of plot and character. Usually, the technique [especially when this flashy] distracts the viewer from what's actually going on in terms of story, by far the more important level of any film. In Requiem for a Dream, the substance is heightened by the style. Emotionally, you take as much from the film in its high-tech state than you would were it done more traditionally. And I think that's remarkable. Because it's [i]so stylish.

Anyway, the only thing I can really disagree with you on is Marion. I understand her motivations, but I cannot stand her. I love the performance and everything, but I just cannot stand her final state. She seems ignorant to what drugs have done to her. The others are all aware.

She smiles as she curls into her final position, and I hate her for it.

LordSlaytan

11-07-03, 12:33 PM

That's a good point concerning the style, I agree completely.

I don't agree with your assessment of Marion though. I think, since you've never had a drug problem, that you might have misread Marions happiness. While she was clean at the party, she was miserable. She hated the way her life had turned from the moment the love of her life had her prostitute herself. Of course she had the ultimate choice in it, but she herself knew it was the only way to stay high. During the party she was in hell, yet afterwards, she was high.

The smile she showed was satisfaction of the fix, not what she had done to get it. It looked to me that she had at least a half ounce of whatever undisclosed drug it is, and her smile is that look on a druggies face that happens when you have enough drugs to not have to worrry about copping again.

She loved Harry sweetly, and if it weren't for their massive addictions, they probably would have lasted as a monogamous one. But in the end she turned into a whore for the drug. There will be much more unhappiness for her. I love and pity her.

Mark

11-08-03, 05:28 AM

Let me start off by saying that I agree with everyone out there that says this may be Ellen Burstyn’s best work ever...After seeing her performance in this, I am upset, even more than I was, that Julia Roberts won the Best Actress Oscar for the year 2000.

Great post, Brian! (I only copied part of it above). I was as pissed as you were when I realized Julia Roberts beat Burstyn. Burstyn's performance gives credence to the entire film! I fell in love with Aronofsky's syle. I love it when directors go out on a limb and do the "unconventional." It reminded me of the way Fincher did the unconventional with the camera and editing in Fight Club.

I bought the two-pack of Pi and Requiem for $15, and it's probably the best value I've ever purchased. A lot of similar camera and editing techniques in Pi.

The Silver Bullet

11-08-03, 06:02 AM

There will be much more unhappiness for her.
Yeah, and you're right, my opinion is based [as is everyone's] on my own personal experience. I don't think I'm reading it "wrong" though, just "differently".

The thing is, because of who I am and the way I live my life, and the fact that, yeah, I haven't had a drug problem before [bar diet Coke – and that is a problem], I feel that she has learnt nothing from her experience. She will keep putting herself through this unhappiness. To me, through my eyes, it's self-inflicted in a way that, unlike the other characters, will not [for a time, at least] teach Marion anything, let alone stop her from destroying herself.

led_zeppelin

11-08-03, 11:18 AM

I watched this movie a week ago, I must say I've never been so inerested in such a disturbing movie before. Sara's drug addiction scared me because some of my friends were selling the same sh** at school! We're only in 8th grade. Although I was never confronted by them to buy any of it, I just think, "what if they weren't caught? Could they end up like that?" :sick:

LordSlaytan

11-08-03, 01:48 PM

Yeah, and you're right, my opinion is based [as is everyone's] on my own personal experience. I don't think I'm reading it "wrong" though, just "differently".

The thing is, because of who I am and the way I live my life, and the fact that, yeah, I haven't had a drug problem before [bar diet Coke – and that is a problem], I feel that she has learnt nothing from her experience. She will keep putting herself through this unhappiness. To me, through my eyes, it's self-inflicted in a way that, unlike the other characters, will not [for a time, at least] teach Marion anything, let alone stop her from destroying herself.

But, do you hate her?

ANd zep, it's never shown what drug exactly it is they're hooked on. I think its so people who might be using a particular drug can't say, "Well that won't happen to me because I use the other kind."

led_zeppelin

11-09-03, 06:02 PM

ANd zep, it's never shown what drug exactly it is they're hooked on. I think its so people who might be using a particular drug can't say, "Well that won't happen to me because I use the other kind."

Well, she was taking speed pills, and they were selling speed pills. To me, it makes no difference what the EXACT brand is, as long as it's addictive, it's bad.

The Silver Bullet

11-09-03, 07:11 PM

But, do you hate her?
Ultimately, yes.

And zep, it's never shown what drug exactly it is they're hooked on. I think its so people who might be using a particular drug can't say, "Well that won't happen to me because I use the other kind."
I wouldn't say that. Yeah, so many drugs are used that users in the audience are unable to distance themselves from the consequences of the film, but you can just as easily tell what individual characters are hooked on [and also what they use on the side]. In terms of addiction [and only addiction], Harry and Tyrone are heroin addicts, Marion is hooked on cocaine, and Sara on uppers.

By the way, I was just reading back on this thread:
Sadie was without a f_cking clue.

LordSlaytan

11-09-03, 07:15 PM

but you can tell what individual characters are hooked on [and also what they just use on the side]. In terms of [only] addiction, Harry and Tyrone are heroin addicts, Marion is hooked on cocaine, and Sara on uppers.

You know, now that you mention that, it is more apparent than I first considered. Of course there was no problem clueing in on Sara's.

Well, she was taking speed pills, and they were selling speed pills. To me, it makes no difference what the EXACT brand is, as long as it's addictive, it's bad.

Sorry, I haven't been very observant lately. I didn't notice you mention Sara's name in particular.

LordSlaytan

11-09-03, 07:29 PM

That was blatantly blatant

Yes. As far as the other three, the drug was never named, only generic nicknames that are universal, but I didn't think about their reactions after taking the drugs. I never saw Sarah use anything separate from what the males used, so what makes you think her drug of choice is coke? After reading your post it seems obvious to me that heroin was the drug used, especially when Harry does the "nods".

I still have a hard time understanding your feelings of hate for Marion. You said, " She seems ignorant to what drugs have done to her." Why should she be hated for not following the same timeline that the men did? They had to face up to their predicaments because the show was over. If they had gotten to the doctor on time and still copped, don't you think they would have continued in their ignorance, self proscribed or otherwise? And Sara didn't seem to have her faculties at all anymore, she was beyond hope, so in essence, she was ignorant too.

Sedai

11-14-03, 05:55 PM

They use the term "Push off" a few times in the flick and I believe that is a slang heroin term. Also Jareds arm crater is a black tar heroin side effect. I watched an HBO special called "Black Tar" and they discussed the deterioration of the flesh around the areas where they would inject this crap.

I just can't understand why anyone would ever try something like that when there are so many obvious deadly effects.

_S

tendercare

06-26-05, 09:31 PM

Darth Stujitzu

06-26-05, 09:56 PM

Usually when a film is hyped up I tend not to like it ... not so with this movie.

What I liked best about it was the cinematography -- the composition -- (good use of symmetric images); the close-ups (though after the first few times the eye dilations and other drug close-ups got a bit tiresome)

...but most of all the lighting.

It's a fantastic film, and it should have been more widely seen. Why this film wasn't more popular than Trainspotting, I'll never know. The performances are excellent, and Aronofski's direction is brilliant. I love the scene towards the end, where each of the characters dependance on drugs increases, there is the scene with Wayans when the film seems to jump and dislodge that is very original.
I've recommended this film to so many people, it's not a feel good movie, but it's well worth spending a couple of hours over.

mogwai

06-28-05, 02:26 AM

I love this movie. I had to wait forever for it though becasue it did not come to any of the theaters where I live. The day I rented it, I had to go and buy it.
Very cool soundtrack as well.
Excellent score to the film.

possum`

03-08-06, 06:50 AM

On the soundtrack there is a song called "Marion Barfs" - does Marion actually 'barf' when this song is playing? Otherwise, it is a very unusual choice of title!

I love the soundtrack, though.

Twain

03-08-06, 12:33 PM

it's not a feel good movie,

Definitely not. :D This movie could do more to turn people away from drugs than a truckload of PSAs.

KnicksRIP

07-06-06, 04:27 AM

Excellent, excellent, excellent movie. One of the best ever, IMO.

diego_sapphire

07-31-06, 06:43 AM

hey i have a pretty simple question - did Jennifer Conelly actually perform that final sex scene herself, or was there a "stunt double" involved? Can't imagine that an actress of Jenn's caliber would submit herself to a lesbian sex scene and a double sided dildo in front of soooo many men...and actually, if you break down the scene into individual shots, I don't believe you actually see Jen's face when you have the actual scenes of...ah, them actually using the dildo, let's say. Darren cuts from an above shot of two chicks bumping and grinding to Jen's face, but it doesn't nec. mean it's actually Jen getting nasty...or is it????

Sedai

07-31-06, 02:33 PM

Wrap spoiler tags when talking about the end of a movie! Arggggg!

Holden Pike

07-31-06, 03:05 PM

Wrap spoiler tags when talking about the end of a movie! Arggggg!

Or realize that when you enter a thread on a movie board devoted to a flick that is nearly six-years-old and currently has seventy posts that, yeah, there's probably (or at least hopefully) going to be a level of discussion going on that it has moved beyond "It rocks/It sucks" and will likely give details about the plot.

Arggggg!

diego_sapphire

07-31-06, 08:48 PM

Or realize that when you enter a thread on a movie board devoted to a flick that is nearly six-years-old and currently has seventy posts that, yeah, there's probably (or at least hopefully) going to be a level of discussion going on that it has moved beyond "It rocks/It sucks" and will likely give details about the plot.

Arggggg!

yes thank you...and i apologize - i just assumed as what was explained by Holden...so to my question, does she or not?

Sedai

07-31-06, 09:33 PM

I just knew Holden went on a rant because of my post. Awwwww ;)

I think I'll go watch some films!

NewDawnFades

08-08-06, 08:08 PM

A fine film. Although, I found Pi to be better. But this film was like a punch in the face. A great effort by Aronofsky.

gloriapie

07-04-07, 04:13 PM

I just realized now that the version that I watched first was the unedited version. I watched it off of veoh and had no idea that there was an unedited version. And after today being my second time watching it, I went to go search for things about the movie, and I came across the unedited version... and I thought what else could they have done in the movie.
Anyways this movie is definately one of my favourites.
If you want to see the ending on veoh (no download required) here's the link...

(currently I am not allowed to post links, but just go to veoh.com and then search 'requiem for a dream' and look for part 4 and there you have it.)