Film Requiem For a Dream

[Trip.my.Wire]

Originally posted by AmorRoark:

Tabby Tibbon's show was entitled "Month of Fury"- I estimate the duration of the film would be about a month

I could have misunderstood but I think the duration is actually spread out over a period of a few months. Summer. Fall. Winter. Winter being where the climax and such happens.
Another thing I love about this movie is the music. It's one of the most haunting parts. After I saw the movie I made myself a cd of all the songs. It's so beautiful and still a real mindfuck, especially the song that plays during the climax. It's called meltdown I think.

 

[Tech Kinetics]

Originally posted by Finder:

Did anyone else notice that the third rule in the JUICE infomercial spot is no orgasm?
1. No red meat.
2. No sugar.
3. No orgasm.
If you have a DVD player with zoom you can see it pretty clearly. This aspect, IMO, kinda adds a sexual aspect to the movie. Notice how when the nurse asks if Harry has anyone to call and he mentions that Marion "won't come" almost as if he's being haunted by the fact that she won't orgasm during intercourse. This is speculation, of course, but I thought it was an interesting thing to point out.
I'm still confused about the 3rd rule "No Orgasm". If the mother was trying to follow the rules to get on the show. What's not having an orgasm have anything to do with part of her diet??
And BTW, where did you see the words "No Orgasm" during the commercial??? What was the size of the lettering??

 

[trifecta]

Knowing now that the director has never done any drugs has ruined this movie for me. It has lost all of its authenticity in my eyes.
Jennifer Connelly is still damn hot though. (But she needs to trim a bit.)
[ 16 January 2003: Message edited by: trifecta ]

 

[Tech Kinetics]

^^^
Who cares if he didn't do drugs!? The film is still a masterpeice!!!
Would you hate the "STAR WARS" series if you knew that George Lucas was an ACID FREAK back in the 70's???

 

[wanderlust]

^was he^ ?

 

[trifecta]

The fact that the director has not done drugs ruins the movie for me because of my own personal experiences. Drugs can be a very personal part of one's life and create life changing experiences, which I'm sure most of the people on here can attest to. Thus, the fact that he made a movie, which I'm beginning to believe is some type of anti-drug propaganda, on a subject which has significantly affected my life, but with which he has no personal experience with, destroys any sense of respect I might have had with the movie. (I strongly agree with Brainrape's post on the 1st page of this thread.)
On the other hand, does the fact that Michael Mann probably never has never led a criminal lifestyle or robbed a bank before ruin Heat for me? Not at all, because I've never had the experience of robbing a bank, so I don't really know the in's and out's of robbing a bank to critique the movie. Does the fact that Oliver Stone vehemently opposed the Vietnam War (I think) ruin Platoon for me? Not really, because I've never been to war. This one is actually not a good comparison however, since the Vietnam War obviously significantly affected his life. If, for example, the director of Requiem had a close friend or family member affected by drugs, which in turn affected his life in some way, then I might have a different opinion on the movie.

 

[Goodspeed]

I agree on the trimming comment trifecta
anyway, great movie but no matter what everytime I watch it I leave with a feeling of sadness and sickness to my stomach which is what I believe the director was shooting for,

 

[beanergrl]

everyone keeps telling me i have to see this movie. ive came close to watching it a few times as its on a few of the movie channels this month. after reading this thread though i am going to avoid seeing it. i think that everyone wants me to watch it so i can be disturbed too or something. i dont want to leave from a movie feeling sick and depressed.

 

[CuPillar]

Tabby Tibbon's show was entitled "Month of Fury"- I estimate the duration of the film would be about a month.
the movie goes for 3 seasons, summer, fall, winter. if you also look at this, in the summer its all good, during the fall, their lives start to 'fall' apart, and then winter when it turns cold and bad!!!
love this movie, and its soundtrack, saw it when it first came out!!

 

[Petersko]

The fact that the director has not done drugs ruins the movie for me because of my own personal experiences.
After seeing his earlier work, Pi, I don't believe him. Not even a little bit.
Too many shots in that movie show a clear understanding of edgy psychedelic trips. I believe he's experimented.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

Agreed, the guy was doing a public promo for his new film, not sure he'd want to get into his drug use with strangers like that and see it turn up in a tabloid or something.
If he's never done drugs, I have to say that the man needs to be institutionalized in a small, padded room. "Pi" is not the product of a healthy, non-drugged brain :D
--- G.

 

[EbowTheLetter]

movie is overrated.

 

[inonzi_prowler]

I had the distinct feeling that whoever was making the movie didn't have the greatest amount of drug experience. That aspect def had an MTV feel to it. That kinda irratated me, but i didn't see the movie as a focus on drug addiction, but on the whole selfishness thing and spiraling situations. It was very disturbing - I'll give it that. All in all, I did enjoy it.

 

[Tech Kinetics]

Originally posted by Morrison's Lament:
Agreed, the guy was doing a public promo for his new film, not sure he'd want to get into his drug use with strangers like that and see it turn up in a tabloid or something.

^^^^
Whats the name of his new film??

 

[Petersko]

At the time, the new film was "Requiem for a Dream".

 

[CuPillar]

the movie is purposely based around the seasons!! maybe not the realson i said but its just the timeline i was looking at

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by sounygordna:
How can the personal life of a director effect your opinion of one of his films?
good point. i can view a movie as a work of art independent of the 'real world' but sometimes, the backstory puts the movie in a contect which makes one se it from a different perspective.
take Apocalypse Now. most would agree a great movie. one of the greatest, even.
add in the backstory about the trials and tribulations of it getting made - it's a wonder it was ever finished - and one views it in a different light.
not right or wrong. just different.
alasdair
[ 09 March 2003: Message edited by: alasdairm ]

 

[bopbopbear]

i definitely agree that this movie has a way of cutting to the core of the viewer, especially that viewer who has had some sort of experience with addiction, either their own or someone close to them. it takes the lives of the characters and shows them in such a desparate pathetic way that it really makes you think about your own.
also, i do believe that the plot relates directly to the timeline of the seasons.
i have never noticed the orgasm thing, but that is interesting.
and finally, i do believe that someone who hasn't experienced with drugs can create something like this. it does take talent to show something which you have personal experience with, but it takes even more talent and skill to be able to empathise with someone else's situation and portray it in such a powerful and honest way.
but does it really matter if he did or didnt? i think thats his business.

 

[alasdairm]

^ hi
you post seems to contradictitself a little but i think i understand where you're coming from.
perhaps the old cliche of confusing the art and the artist applies?
is the work of art "Billie Jean" or "Billie Jean in the context of Michael Jackson's life". well, it's for the individual consumer to decide.
if that choice isn't what art's all about, i don't know what is.
all the best
alasdair

 

[trifecta]

"How can the personal life of a director effect your opinion of one of his films?"
In this case, assuming the director has never done drugs insinuates to me that the movie is some type of anti-drug propaganda. Granted it might be anti-drug propaganda even if he had done drugs, but the fact that he hasn't done drugs is a stronger indication that it's more on the "anti" side of the drug issue. (Did that make any sense?) Anyways, that's my 2 cents.