Technically good but... is it really needed?

Rating: 3/10 (27 July 2013)

Drugs are terrible, that much is common sense. The terrible reality of drug use is something that is commonly shown and talked about everywhere nowadays, being necessary in order to stop the newer generations from giving in to them like the idiots from the past decades.
Among the many documentaries, special programs and propaganda (not in a bad use of the word) done to spread the knowledge of this drug disease, Darren Aronofsky came out with 'Requiem for a Dream'. A powerful film that showcases the suffering of drug addicts, not leaving out how dirty and almost inhuman such a reality is. Maybe the saddest is that shown by an old woman, who abuses diet pills (abuse of legal drugs are often forgotten or not mentioned, sadly).
There is quite good to say of the film in a technical aspect. The interesting visuals add to the gloomy atmosphere, and one can see Aronofsky was not afraid to experiment with his camera work. At times he makes us see things in a blurry way, almost as if hallucinating like his characters. The soundtrack is also excellent.
But, WAS ALL OF THIS NEEDED?
While Aronofsky DID a powerful film, I have to question why was this needed; or even if it succeeds. There is nothing here that hasn't been covered and shown thousands of times in documentaries or advertising, both before and after this film was released.
I can understand the argument that 'many people don't see documentaries, so showing this on a film will reach many more!', but even then this film fails. A person who is not interested in documentaries or more artistically focused films, will it have the patience or taste for a film like this?
Most people see films for entertainment, no matter what 'artists' think. The people who look for art in films are the same who would enjoy a documentary on the subject matter; someone who only wants entertainment will promptly dismiss something as this, especially since it looks to repulse rather than attract. I had a lot of friends actually say they didn't watch 'Requiem for a Dream', or say it was rubbish, exactly because of that.
'Requiem for a Dream' isn't even a groundbreaking in-depth analysis of the drug subject, making it inferior in that aspect to most of the abundant anti-drug propaganda; at the same time, it holds no entertainment value in order to reach the 'common' people. To actually reach a bigger audience with such a repulsively strong subject, a better approach would be to include something to attract. Something to balance things. Like Danny Boyle did in his not-as-serious drug film, 'Trainspotting'. But Aronofsky does nothing of that.
I must say I wasn't very thrilled with the acting. They did their part visually, looking ghastly as the addiction grew; however, they indulged themselves too much on the usual junkie clichés. There are more reactions and expressions junkies can do besides those usually attributed to them and shown in here. Still, both Ellen Burstyn and Jennifer Connelly were great. Jared Leto didn't peak my interest, maybe because he played the kind of junkie that not only I can't bring myself to sympathize with, but that makes me feel he deserves what is happening to them. Marlon Wayans is out-of-place in such a serious movie.
Despite being a visually powerful and well-made film on a strong subject, I must say 'Requiem for a Dream' ultimately fails for lacking any entertainment value. It seeks to repulse far too much, and for the audience it might appeal to it will inevitably be less worthwhile than one of the hundreds of documentaries out there.