| RavenBlog |
|
| Comments on Wednesday 9 January 2002: |
| I watched Requiem For A Dream at last. I wasn't particularly impressed. It wasn't bad, I didn't wish to switch it off half way through, but it wasn't particularly interesting either. Mm, nice artistic camera-play. But it's drugs, much like Trainspotting. Yes yes, I know drugs have the potential to fuck you up, I don't need a movie to bludgeon it into my head. On the other hand, the people who make The Anti-drug commercials should take a lesson or several from Mr Aronofsky, because if I didn't already have no inclination to take drugs, Requiem would do a much better job of disinclining me than the commercials would.
[18:07] |
| antihero |
| I have to admit I loved Requiem... I'm interested in your claim that you didn't like it because it told you something you already knew. Most films don't teach me anything new as such, so it's not a disaster if I come away from the cinema without. Having said that, I do think that the most interesting bit of Requiem is not the "attractive kids ruin their lives with drugs" element, but the whole Ellen Burstyn character. Just like Trainspotting (where Sick Boy's drug was sex and Begbie's was violence), Requiem suggests that it's more than just the obvious drugs that fuck you up, and more than the obvious people who get fucked. |
| Stavrogin |
| Guy, you gotta see `Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'. Duke & Gonzo RULE!!!!!!! |
| antiehro |
| ...though, of course, if you're fortunate enough to be Terry Gilliam, hallucinogenic drugs are pretty superfluous. |
| Nameless |
| Indeed, well said antihero. It's about addictions in general..and what people use and need to get through life, whether they should or not. If you dislike a film that tells you something you already know, then why watch a film where people fire guns at other people, and drive cars, and fight? are you hoping for the laws of physics to suddenly start working differently, when they fire the gun or something? If you can't watch a film, because you think it is trying to teach you about drugs, why watch any film featuring any character who smokes or drinks or fucks or eats or... |
| Eperdu |
| Bah. I said that. |
| RavenBlack |
| Tsk. Antihero said my claim was that I didn't like it because it tells me something I already knew. I said only "Yes yes, I already know...". My objection was that it did nothing *but* tell me something I already know. Whereas a thing with fights and explosions also entertains me with violent death. Besides, in The Matrix the laws of physics do suddenly start working differently when they fire the gun. |
| RavenBlack |
| Also, people I know in Mr Real World don't usually explode or shoot guns at people, whereas many of them are fucked up and weird and addicted to things. Which makes Requiem fall to the same flaw as a soap opera - it's less interesting when it's exactly the same stuff but happening with people I don't know or care about. |
| antihero |
| Hmm, I see what you're getting at, but... the Mona Lisa doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. It's still quite beautiful. |
| RavenBlack |
| Nor does it make a point of telling you something you do already know. Things that aren't trying to beat you with a message don't have to have an interesting message. Things that are, do, or I don't like them. Also, Requiem was probably ruined for me by having had all its cleverness and prettiness, and more, compressed into about two minutes of browsing its web-site. The movie added nothing to that but a lot of whiny non-characters. |
| antihero |
| Is the objection to all gritty social realism/kitchen sink-type stuff, in favour of escapism? I'm quite in favour of people like Aronofsky taking a gritty realistic subject and showing it through the eyes of an mad visionary artist rather than the earnest lens of documentary for a change... |
| RavenBlack |
| Yes, that is my objection. If I want to see gritty kitchen sinks, I can go into the kitchen. I'm not objecting to it being made at all - I don't think it's a bad thing. I did say "nice artistic camera play" - that's high praise. My brief reviews always tend to focus on the negative, however, which is, in this case, that I don't like the genre. Perfectly good for people who like the sort of thing, I would recommend it to them (and, indeed, did recommend it to some people). But that still doesn't make me like it. |
| antihero |
| Damn you! You will like it, if I have to kill you to bring this about! *grabs you by the lapels and shakes you violently* |
| Eperdu |
| Yeah! Break his lapels! Teach him proper! Learn him good! |
| Weena |
| I would just like to thank Stavrogin (Rogaine for Stavs? Stalin with Rogues? Is that a new kind of Chedder? U B Roguin?) for reminding me of which movie it was that I went into a Blockbuster store to rent (recently), spent a good half hour trying to remember the name of by searching the entire Action section video by video for (because I'm stubborn), but instead wound up leaving without, in a hairy huff, because I couldn't find...On the other hand, I know understand why some small children had to be dragged kicking and screaming to see Jim Carey all dolled up in green fuzzy fur in the theatres :> (Not for the weak-hearted children. those silly bitches). |