Film Requiem For a Dream

[L2R]

^ a common, yet completely irrelevant (to the story) complaint.

i find it hilarious how people on bl take issue with the unrealism of the drugs in this film, but then at the same time can't speak highly enough of pulp fiction, a film in which a drug dealer convinces a client to purchase HEROIN over COCAINE with an argument based entirely on what is more popular at the time.

 

[MrGrunge]

Mmmmm, I dunno man. I don't do heroin or cocaine but that dude's sales pitch was mighty convincing.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

totally not how i interpreted that dialogue. he's just telling him not to bitch about the price. like, you'll pay this much because so will anyone else; "it's a seller's market." how about when the cocaine addict somehow mistakes heroin for blow. guess she was drunk. once, under the influence, SWIM mistook blow for weed. or something like that. point is, it wouldn't light.

though i agree that the dilating pupil thing is not particularly important. kind of. irksome.

 

[ForEverAfter]

The dilating pupil thing is kind of important. It's a big research fuck up. Somebody is responsible. If you made a war film and you had a historical mistake in it, of that magnitude, then there would be some serious criticisms. The only reason Requiem gets away with it is because it is such a brilliant adaptation. It is so good, so perfect, so without any other flaws, that we excuse this. Still, it's pretty fucking considerable. It's a huge fuck up. There really is no excuse. But - fuck it - I love Hubert Selby Jr and I love Aronofsky.

 

[L2R]

lol grunge and hydro :D

forever, from what i understood, requiem had the pupil effect intentionally that way, in order to not put importance on the exact chemical in use.

 

[China Rider]

but in the book the drugs were clearly stated

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

book isn't the same as the movie. but they do say "skag" in the movie.

 

[ForEverAfter]

That doesn't make any sense l2r. Regardless of it being intentional, it is a mistake. If they meant for it to be ambiguous the pupils should have neither dilated or constricted.

 

[L2R]

what? that's just silly. the pupil thing communicates to the audience that a state of intoxication is taking place. it's clearly there for a story purpose.

and besides, how can something be both intentional and a mistake?

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

i doubt l2r's explanation. still, in any visual narrative or art, dilated pupils is a pretty common sign that someone is high on drugs. the cuts to the eye shots are to show the sudden change in state the characters experience. be a pretty lame looking if the eye didn't do anything during those shots.

edit:
yup.

 

[freddy47]

^Well as I recall (although it has been awhile since I've seen the movie) they cut to the eyes when they did other drugs as well. Especially when they were snorting coke and cocaine does make the eyes dilate. At least I think it was coke. Why else would they snort it when they are all obviously IV users of heroin?

So L2r's explanations makes some sense.

I dunno I gotta watch the movie again. Although I don't really want to. This movie makes me suicidal at times

In the end however I don't think the movie was supposed to portray as realistically as possible drug use and its consequences. The title Requiem For A Dream suggests that it is about the death of dreams. All the characters in the first act are pursuing dreams. And in the end all their dreams are destroyed. The drug use is important true. But it's secondary IMO.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

i don't think that's coke. only she snorts it, right? and even if it was blow, why wouldn't she just shoot it with her heroin? for whatever reason that character follows up her shot with a bump. anyway, my point is i had always assumed and still think that is more heroin the movie shows her snorting.

i think l2r's end that the film is trying to follow the book's footsteps in being about something bigger than the addictive nature of specific drugs is spot on. i also think aronofsky is liar if he says he wouldn't have those pupils constricting in hindsight.

edit:
again, i'm slow. i started my post before i saw your edit. which we all seem to be in agreement on.

 

[freddy47]

i don't think that's coke. only she snorts it, right? and even if it was blow, why wouldn't she just shoot it with her heroin? for whatever reason that character follows up her shot with a bump. anyway, my point is i had always assumed and still think that is more heroin the movie shows her snorting.

Yeah that snorting part was left a little ambiguous. Although I do remember a scene where Jennifer's character asks everybody "Wanna waste some time?" or something like that and then they all pop pills and it cuts to their eyes dilating. I guess I always assumed those pills were speed or X or something because it then cuts to them moving around really fast (sped up footage) and partying with friends. Although I guess those pills could just as easily been oxy or something. But why someone would want to party while on opiates is beyond me lol Whenever I was on the nod I just wanted to sit on my bed and watch movies and scratch myself into oblivion. Hectic parties were the last things I wanted to attend

i think l2r's end that the film is trying to follow the book's footsteps in being about something bigger than the addictive nature of specific drugs is spot on.

Totally

 

[freddy47]

i don't think that's coke. only she snorts it, right?

Hmmm I dunno. Again I have to watch the movie again. But I guess I assumed they all snorted it in that scene.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

yeah, i could use a re-watch too. i feel a little lame as i keep on going back to the book when it is not the work in question. but in the book, those pills marian offers up are specified as pharm speed.

 

[freddy47]

but in the book, those pills marian offers up are specified as pharm speed.

Makes sense. In the end I think it is safe to assume that all the characters are polydrug users. Tyrone always has a joint or blunt in his mouth it seems. Marion pops pills and snorts whatever it is she is snorting. And Harry knew right away that his mother Sara was on uppers.

 

[L2R]

if i really wanted to be pedantic, i'd complain that sarah's "grinding teeth" was just her jaw shivering. how would you film grinding, really? is it worth hitting up a freaky aeon flux (anime) shot from inside the mouth? no, you shoot the most recognisable close thing, that is the chattering teeth of someone shivering from cold.

these things don't matter in the visual medium of film. what matters is the use of imagery and sound which convey specific ideas relevant to the information flow of the story, and the best use is the most minimal one which works. anything more is either stylisation or inefficiency, both of which can distract from the story. often, sadly, it is intentionally made to distract from a story which the makers know is lacking. its a special thing to use stylisation or even special effects which enhances story.

in this sense, i think aronofsky is an excellent storyteller. i'm still spewing he backed out of wolverine. with him at the helm, it was one of my most anticipated future projects.

 

[ForEverAfter]

i doubt l2r's explanation. still, in any visual narrative or art, dilated pupils is a pretty common sign that someone is high on drugs. the cuts to the eye shots are to show the sudden change in state the characters experience. be a pretty lame looking if the eye didn't do anything during those shots.

The shots shouldn't be there.

We already know they are intoxicated. Dilation/Constriction therefore indicates a particular kind of intoxication, which - if they are attempting to be ambiguous - is misleading.

Aronofsky is an excellent storyteller. This was a mistake.

 

[Foreigner]

Watched this movie for the first time tonight, after much resistance. I'm a stiffler for accuracy, and this movie pissed me off. Almost everything it portrayed, from the drug use itself, to medical procedures and due process, was wrong. I get that the drugs were just a plot device to illustrate delusional thinking and failure to fulfill the "American dream", but still. From an HR perspective this movie is unethical, and seems like anti-drug non-sense. Seems like hollywood is still totally incapable of an accurate portrayal.

There is nothing in the movie that speaks of agency, of ways out, of different ways people could find help. It illustrates total abuse yet we don't get to see much back story to find out why the characters are such fatal abusers. It just makes the world seem like this frigid, barren place where everyone and everything is going to fuck you over if you fall for drugs.

The whole thing goes south when they can't score. But you're telling me there was no heroin in NYC because a couple of gangs had a shootout? It doesn't make sense.

How does the mother go from being admitted to the psych ward to "unfortunately our treatments aren't working, you need ECT!" in like 24 hours?

Can someone verify that you can be arrested in the U.S. for having an arm with an infected injection site? And that the hospital would not treat you for obvious sepsis before sending you to jail?

I don't know why people like this movie so much. It's just the usual hollywood exaggeration bullshit. The only thing good about the movie was the cinematography, and parts of the soundtrack, except for the whiny violin song at the end. I like Clint Mansell but if you watch the end on mute you won't be shaken by the music, and you can see how ridiculous it all is.

This movie is overrated.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

there is much more backstory in the book. actually, it's hardly backstory. they don't start as hopeless addicts; they break their rule and start progressively abusing their selling supply. the mother's stay in the psych ward is fleshed out as well -- much uglier and not everyone involved with her treatment is onboard with the ECT, but where is her drug-knowledgeable kin to sign off on one decision or another? that said, the book and the movie are pieces independent of one another.

you need backstory to accept that a group of friends have become significantly addicted to heroin? and that the resulting world is cold? and yeah, that isn't the theme. it's the vehicle. theme is that the insatiable human-need to consume leads to self-destruction and creates a "frigid, barren place where everyone and everything is going to fuck." the writer would tell you this is life; there is one way out. that's fine to disagree, but realize you are focusing heavy on vehicle over theme.

they are not looking for a bundle. the ring they were operating in is destroyed. the source decides to sell directly, but finds it cannot work with the area in the resulting structureless state. the friends can't spend their last bit of money on folds, stamps, bags, whatever. they need to score raw in weight or they will forever be in need. or that's how they feel. yeah, she can fuck a dude for some h. they can walk down the street and cop cut-up, overpriced street dope -- what do you think he's shooting on the way down to florida? that's not what they need. or that's not what he cares about. there is a schism on where the dope money needs to go. she is further lost than he.

na, they don't need to treat you for shit before they send you to jail. and i don't think the audience is to assume they were arrested for an abscess. it's reasonable to assume there is dope in the car. we know there are used needles. shit, i know someone who got arrested for (alleged) dope rubbed into their pants. and that wasn't a black guy down south.

along the lines of what you said about the american dream, the movie is focusing on certain western values and the society and individual those values create.

the movie doesn't give a fuck about HR. so that's a weird lens to watch it through. might play a part in developing a negative opinion about the movie.

edit:
that ER to incarceration scenario is dated. i have a hard time seeing it go down quite that rough. when i said "na, they don't treat you for shit before they send you to jail," i meant, "you'd be surprised what and how long something can go untreated for an arrested or incarcerated individual."