Requiem for a Dream

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...



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.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

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.

__________________
You don't have to be sober to weigh spinach.

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!

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.

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

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

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.

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?

Holden, this needs your attention...

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.

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

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.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Obviously.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.