requiem for a dream

[Gold Trumpet]

Memory doesn't serve me well again. Requiem for a Dream isn't very good at all. I was stunned recently watching it how amateur the film came off in the context of presenting most of the scenes. Too many times (especially for Ellen Burston's character) each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect. Worst case, one effect (usually a disjointed camera angle) lasted the entire scene. There was no breath for presenting the scene typically or even with other effects. Some scenes were done typically and others tried to juxtapose mutiple tricks to sustain the length, but overall effect I felt the film had all the ambition to be "avant garde" without realizing the trickery of the avant garde had all the limitations of bad storytelling and filmmaking.

The film needed a base. It needed a composition to the filmmaking that wouldn't overdue the story. That composition would lead to the use of effects. Yet the film begins with effects and tells the story afterward. Even the very best and most imaginative films of camera trickery hold up more naturally than Reqiuem does. An example would be Richard Lester's The Knack. It has all the daring of film trickery to sustain the length of five versions of Reqiuem for a Dream. Yet it is a perfectly imagined and executed film.

[polkablues]

Wow.  I really think you're off-base on this one.  Way, way off-base.  Out of the stadium and standing in the far corner of the parking lot off-base.  Requiem for a Dream is a story and a film that would be powerful even if every scene was told in one static shot.  The performances, the subject matter, and the power of Selby's language could sustain a radio play if one were so inclined.  The "camera trickery" serves to amplify and subjectify the storytelling, not to mask weak narrative. 

And I feel like to view Aronofsky's aspirations for the film as avant garde would be a mistake.  If anything, he took a huge step back from avant garde in the move from "Pi" to "Requiem".  There's very little that Aronofsky attempted in the film that hadn't been attempted many times before and used very successfully in other narrative films (for a great example of a film full of techniques that people confused as being revolutionary in "Requiem", just watch John Frankenheimer's "Seconds".  All those subjective camera and editing techniques were there back in 1966, in a mainstream Hollywood movie). 

[RegularKarate]

GT, when you're on a roller coaster, do you spend the whole time counting the bolts and gauging how high up you are? 

[Gold Trumpet]

Requiem for a Dream is a story and a film that would be powerful even if every scene was told in one static shot. 

Thanks for beyond-argument fanboy identification. Next!

GT, when you're on a roller coaster, do you spend the whole time counting the bolts and gauging how high up you are?

Were you on the old board? As far as back as I can remember, you treated every review of mine with a one sentence rebuttal to undermine my entire stance. Some comments were actually harsh. These days they are kind of affectionate. Always in transition, do you have names for your periods of yelling at me? Does this one have a name?

[RegularKarate]

GT, when you're on a roller coaster, do you spend the whole time counting the bolts and gauging how high up you are?

Were you on the old board? As far as back as I can remember, you treated every review of mine with a one sentence rebuttal to undermine my entire stance. Some comments were actually harsh. These days they are kind of affectionate. Always in transition, do you have names for your periods of yelling at me? Does this one have a name?

Yes, of course I was on the old board (or were you being sarcastic?).
You're right, I've treated a good deal of your reviews with one sentence replies.... and they used to be harsh.  I used to get upset at you and your reviews, but I got over it... I don't dislike you at all, but the truth of the matter is that you often take an awful lot of time to make yourself look like you just don't have taste-buds.
You view everything as formula, examining it for it's ingredients and judging it by number and chemical make-up, but you never actually taste it... you never experience it.  I think you blind yourself by turning everything into a mathematical equation.
I think you're a good person and you're serious about film so I try not to get onto you or show my annoyance with your reaction to certain things as often as I used to and probably more often than not, I actually agree with most of what you have to say, I just wish sometimes that you could actually feel a movie instead of examine it with litmus paper and a calculator.

I hope this doesn't seem too mean.  I hold you in high regard and hope you can take all this into consideration.  Maybe it's not true, but it certainly comes across like that a good deal of the time.

[Gold Trumpet]

I hope this doesn't seem too mean.  I hold you in high regard and hope you can take all this into consideration.  Maybe it's not true, but it certainly comes across like that a good deal of the time.

My evolution is all in the due process of just finding my voice. I respond very emotionally to movies, but I also have the science of criticism to learn and try to apply. Intelligence often takes prescendence. Thanks for the consideration though.

As it so happens, a few years ago you mentioned I likely was likely the exact opposite in real life as I was here. Very correct. I'm nothing more than goofball prodigy of Loyd Dobbler. I don't take myself serious at all. I talk sports with wannabee jocks and bullshit with everyone else. I even had a girlfriend who was earmarked to go to a major university and her family was very dissapointed when meeting me. They assumed I represented everything that would hold her back. So I introduced her to Say Anything. Hell, even past co workers assumed the only movies I like were pornos. Took me years to convince them I liked art films. They assumed it was just another weird side note in everything I did.

And yea, I forgot you were on the old board. Sue me. The way Godardian and Modage are transfixed on this board I sometimes think they were also there. I have to remember they werent. It was a long time ago. You were lost in the process during that last post.

[polkablues]

Requiem for a Dream is a story and a film that would be powerful even if every scene was told in one static shot. 

Thanks for beyond-argument fanboy identification. Next!

Just for that, I'm putting together of string of quotes of yours that make no sense whatsoever.  Strap in...

each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect.

There was no breath for presenting the scene typically or even with other effects.

It needed a composition to the filmmaking that wouldn't overdue the story. That composition would lead to the use of effects.

It has all the daring of film trickery to sustain the length of five versions of Reqiuem for a Dream.

And from now on, since engaging you with words and opinions has no obvious effect, I will only respond to your posts with this: 

Here's an example...

Intelligence often takes prescendence.

[Gold Trumpet]

Pathetic.

Look at your original reply. You used your first 3 sentences to just detail how wrong I was. It wasn't geniune, it was patronizing. You just got a similar reply back. I wasn't being serious. So go on, carry a grudge. I'll forget about this anyways.

[polkablues]

You used your first 3 sentences to just detail how wrong I was.

And then I used the rest of the post to explain why I thought that... so what's the problem?

It wasn't geniune, it was patronizing.

I assure you, it was both.

I wasn't being serious.

And I assumed it was clear that neither was I.  If not, here's a little after-the-fact disclaimer: I wasn't being serious either.

I'll forget about this anyways.

Please don't forget the part about things you say not making sense.  If there are coherent thoughts behind such sentences as "each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect," I would like to know what they are.

Please don't get me wrong, I greatly respect the fact that you're one of the only people around here who tries to apply an academic filter to his writing about film, but this pattern of "controversial viewpoint expressed in frequently malapropic writing" followed by "righteous indignation at imagined personal attacks in rebuttal" and finished off with "snippet of personal biography to help us understand that you're different, really, from the persona we perceive you as being" is getting tired.  Somewhere, hidden deep down in your writing, are interesting ideas.  But when I disagree with them, I'll let you know, and I'll let you know why.  I expect the same from you and everyone else on this board.  No grudges, no martyr bullshit, and some skin thick enough to recognize snark and not take it personally.

[Pubrick]

you and RK are not entirely wrong in your assessment of GT but on the subject of his writing i don't think it's that hard to get, not as much as it used to be anyway, so i'll see if i can explain the stuff u highlighed. for fun i guess..

each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect.

he's saying that every scene took place from the perspective of a fancy camera move or heavy-handed cinematic bravado. aronofsky's overwhelming desire to communicate a subjective point of drama in the story, be it a person's craziness or the distance between marion and harry, actually becomes a hollow exercise in a LACK of dimension.

There was no breath for presenting the scene typically or even with other effects.

GT is rephrasing his point that aronofsky decided from the very beginning to marry the attempt at ultra-subjectivity, a decision which came to the detriment of scenes that could hav benefited from a bit of restraint. in aronofsky's case restraint here means loosening up the reins.

It needed a composition to the filmmaking that wouldn't overdue the story. That composition would lead to the use of effects.

he continues the point: that with restraint would come a new perspective not predetermined and actually free to new possibilities that would go beyond the reduction of the story to a single train of thought. he is saying it would have been more organic.

It has all the daring of film trickery to sustain the length of five versions of Reqiuem for a Dream.

he's saying that richard lester out-performed aronofsky with The Knack... And How to Get It. not because the film used more camera trickery but because it was more organic and regenerated naturally as the film progressed so that by the end of it, according to GT, lester has amassed the equivalent value of five worthwhile feature films. where requiem has barely sustained the length of one.

[Alexandro]

I don't know GT. Sometimes I don't know what to think of what you say here. I mean is cool, cause I like reading full lenght opinions like yours instead of the usual two liners that poblate xixax, but sometimes you say things that seem to be, like Pete says, way off base.

Now Requiem is a movie I haven't watched in ages. I own it but back when I bought it a few years ago, everytime some friend came to my house to watch a movie, they wanted to see Requiem. Is an impressionable film for impessionable people. For all I know, a lot of my friends like it for the wrong reasons, or at least for incomplete ones. I saw it so many times back then that I grew tired of it and haven't watched it for years. The same happened with the Kubrick movies. Visually trippy movies are an easy sell to hipster post teenagers who believe they like "good cinema"...even though and taking all that in account, I would never say that Requiem is "not any good at all"...I mean dude, sometimes your words are so dramatic, they are distracting from what you're really trying to say...

I get your point about the blocking of the scenes, what I don't get is why is it such a problem?? Why should it be that at least some scenes were blocked on a different or more "standard" way...what's with all this strange rules about dramatization, blocking, genres and things you have?? And why do you think the film wants to be avant garde?? Who said that? Certainly to me, Requiem for a Dream is not even trying to be avant garde..who would try that nowadays for real anyway?? You seem to give movies intentions and aspirations they don't have, and then condemn them cause they don't achieve those inexistent intentions and aspirations...

In any case, they way scenes are structured in requiem is one of the films's strenghts, not viceversa. The subjectivity is what makes it so emotionally engaging.

[SiliasRuby]

The Style of this film is hyper kinetic. It's one of those experience films that you just need to watch. For me it was a complete punch the stomach and when I saw it when it first came out I was amazed. I bought it on DVD and watched it a couple times and each time I got more and more exasperated and depressed. If I ever want to be blown away and become sad at the same time, I'll watch this one.

[Gold Trumpet]

I don't know GT. Sometimes I don't know what to think of what you say here.

Join RK and a few others. Your disbelief is going to continue. I'm not going to change. I'm going to learn from my mistakes, but I'm not ever going to be a nice reviewer. Also, I'm not going to reply to your arguments. All answers I could give would tread on what has already been said. Pubes elaborated on my mini review quite well. Most of your reply is just continuing disbelief that I can hold so many positions that go against popular belief.

I do want to make one thing known. Its that I don't go against popular belief to just do it. People before have implied thats all I do. I really do believe in what I say and try to challenge myself to not settle for the easy disagreeances. I'm still not very good at critical thought. I'm just glad some people have come around to my personality to see some enough validity in my arguments to be able to just disagree. It makes me want to stay on the board instead of leave.

Hell, I'll likely never leave. I'll likely never lessen the intensity of my viewpoints either. I'll always enjoy the fact I see my opinions are disagreed upon all the time but yet my opinions will be referenced in favor of positions elsewhere. Its a decent edge of the board to carry.

[Alexandro]

I don't know GT. Sometimes I don't know what to think of what you say here.

Join RK and a few others. Your disbelief is going to continue. I'm not going to change. I'm going to learn from my mistakes, but I'm not ever going to be a nice reviewer. Also, I'm not going to reply to your arguments. All answers I could give would tread on what has already been said. Pubes elaborated on my mini review quite well. Most of your reply is just continuing disbelief that I can hold so many positions that go against popular belief.

No my friend, you're wrong. I don't have a continuos disbelief that you can hold so many positions that go against popular belief. I never thought you disagree just for disagreeing. I think you sincerely say the things you say. But I think you're confused. You're trying waaay too hard to be "critical" and "though" and end up "finding" errors and bad things in movies where they are inexistent. As I said, you accuse movies of having intentions and aspirations only clear to you (never mentioned by anyone else and certainly not by the filmmakers of the movies in question) and then proceed of condemning the films for not achievign what they never ttried to achieve anyway. Requiem never tried to be avant garde, Caché never tried to be genre and only genre, and so on...

What's sad is that you seem to reduce movies, films, ideas, pieces of a person's or a groups of person's humanity and artistical expression, things that can't be really measured in any exact way, precisely to formulas, rules, recipes, and theories that don't and really can't hold up against imagination and creative expression, I think by definition. I try tog o to every film with an open mind, and to be honest, perhaps I might be a bad critic, cause it's rare that I get out of the theatre or turn off the dvd player in huge dissapointment. Every time a movie does something unusual or that seems a little odd or out of place, more and more as years pass I find myself asking why not? instead of why?...

And look, I'm not saying that's the way it is for you, ok? I'm not saying you're a cold ass critic who tries too hard to find things to complain about in medium to great movies, or that you don't have the seinsibilities of other persons to just let yourself go and enjoy films for what hey are instead of what in your filled up mind films should be...All I'm saying is that's how it sounds...

[Gold Trumpet]

Requiem never tried to be avant garde, Caché never tried to be genre and only genre, and so on...

1.) Did I ever define avant garde? Do you know how many definitions of avant garde exist? My use of avant garde in describing Requim for a Dream was a footnote after my criticisms. Go back to my critical points. They are what counts. They are also very much in line with adaquate reasoning of looking at the film. Your stuck on avant garde. Get over it because I never defined what it meant.

2.) I don't even understand your Cache point. Many things were argued among many people. I think a few points have been forgotten. I argued about the uniqueness of Cache in the respect of genre in the European model. I said the film was fine, but I was arguing against it being the masterpiece that The Piano Teacher was. No one can deny that the shell of the film has a genre mentality. The larger questions about what genre represents to dig at larger drama and ideas is what is important.
 
If you disagree that this question shouldn't be asked and has no merits to the filmmakers intentions, then say why. Or you can just realize that the process of interpretation and critical thought always goes beyond the artists' original intentions. That's the beauty of crticism and what separates it from being just a tool depedent upon a work to interpret.

What's sad is that you seem to reduce movies, films, ideas, pieces of a person's or a groups of person's humanity and artistical expression, things that can't be really measured in any exact way, precisely to formulas, rules, recipes, and theories

Its called having a fucking perspective. Its called using your experience and education to look at films. I don't have greater theories. I don't have greater plans. I don't associate with film school ideas. Look at other people on this board. They all have tastes and are more likely to appreciate certain films while disliking others. Most of them hardly go any length to say "why" but I'm sure if they did it would also look like they had preconceived notions of what they like and don't like in films. They'd just have a fucking taste.

You know what? I'm sure if you looked at all my great "rules" you'd see I likely contradicted them every now and then, just like everyone else.

that don't and really can't hold up against imagination and creative expression, I think by definition.

The filmmaker's experience overrides logical thinking, huh?

I try tog o to every film with an open mind, and to be honest, perhaps I might be a bad critic, cause it's rare that I get out of the theatre or turn off the dvd player in huge dissapointment. Every time a movie does something unusual or that seems a little odd or out of place, more and more as years pass I find myself asking why not? instead of why?...

Look, I try to have an open mind too. Many times I ignore previous comments about a movie before I see it. Your attidude though of "Why not" sounds complacent. Its sounds like you could accept any movie if just hit you on a certain basic levels. The brain can rationalize anything. It can find an excuse for everything. Pyschriatry makes use of having people look at blots of ink on paper and asking them what they think it looks like. The images really just look like nothing but blots of ink on paper, but the intangible element that pyschriatists realize about people is that the human brain really can see forms out of any chaos. Its just how the brain works. 

And look, I'm not saying that's the way it is for you, ok? I'm not saying you're a cold ass critic who tries too hard to find things to complain about in medium to great movies, or that you don't have the seinsibilities of other persons to just let yourself go and enjoy films for what hey are instead of what in your filled up mind films should be...All I'm saying is that's how it sounds...

Here's the deal. Many times when I do argue a film I get these type of reactions. My responce: Fuck off. You say I hinder true analysis of a film by having preconceived notions. I say you guys hinder any actual decent argument by jumping on my general attitude instead of actually arguing my points about the film. Yes, I do have points. I do make arguments that lead to a larger interpretation. When people can look at this, good or bad, I am priveleged. When I am being jumped on like this, I wonder why I have to keep arguing about something that isn't important.