As intense as films get ...

Rating: 10/10 (2 March 2003)

Now this is film making.
Like others who have posted comments, I find that only a tiny minority of films have the power to affect me on an emotional level. Films like Schindler's List, Man Bites Dog, Shawshank Redemption, A Clockwork Orange, Hana-bi and even Cannibal Holocaust are some notable movies that have pressed my emotional buttons in the past and have left me thinking long after the end credits have finished. Requiem for a Dream is another to add to the list and is honestly one of the most powerful movies that I've ever seen.
Does the fact that a film tugs at your emotions automatically make it good? For me personally the answer is yes, especially as I'd estimate that way less than 1% of all the movies I've ever seen were able to reach me on any sort of real emotional level (be it good or bad). However, this is far from being the only reason I rate this film so highly.
Many people find Requiem's ostensibly anti-drug message rather patronising. Some posts here even associate Requiem, unfairly, with crude propaganda films like Reefer Madness. I think this demonstrates an overly simplistic view of a film that is about much more than illegal drugs and I feel it is representative, understandably, of the attitudes of people who are so sick of society's hypocritical moralising about drugs that they have just stopped listening and hence dismiss the movie too lightly. To associate RFAD with Reefer Madness seems to demonstrate precisely the same sort of unthinking intransigence that we routinely associate with anti-drug zealots. However, whilst I sympathise with those who believe Requiem is just more patronising anti-drug propaganda, they are overlooking the incredible damage that the irrational, compulsive and addictive behaviour shown in the film can cause - be it in respect of heroin, caffeine, television, chocolate, shopping, anti-depressants, use of their mobile etc. etc. Self deception is at the heart of this issue and I think these polarised comments arise from an unwillingness on the part of the viewer to allow the necessary introspection required to get the most from this film.
On the other side of the coin, I have also heard comments from people suggesting that this film has added weight to their commitment to never use drugs and that anyone who does must be a fool. This is a somewhat naÃ¯ve perspective and the same people who condemn drug use are almost certainly reliant on some `drug' of choice, be it coffee, sugar, pain-killers, anti-depressants, Jesus or whatever. I agree with these commentators that RFAD would be far more effective used in schools as a warning against the dangers of drugs than the patronising rubbish that currently passes as `drug education'. However to consider this film useful only as an anti-drug movie to scare kids into compliance is to greatly underestimate the reasons people start using these substances in the first place. After all, some people will always be attracted to drugs precisely BECAUSE of the dangers (and cachet) associated with their use.
I also wish that the people who spend their time pointing out, for example, that ECT is normally used only on anaesthetised patients would save their nit-picking for the crass historical revisionism of films like Black Hawk Down or U-571 rather than pointing out inconsistencies irrelevant to the message of a film. Is Ben Hur rendered garbage because of an overlooked wristwatch? I think not.
This is a movie that has something to say to EVERYBODY even if it is not on a topic explicitly covered by the on-screen mayhem. This is the sort of wake-up call we all need occasionally and watching with a smug `well, I've never used drugs' attitude is to miss the real point this film is trying to convey - that the obsessive reliance on any crutch, chemical, physical or emotional, in order to achieve the happiness we all crave is destined to end in disaster. This affects everybody on some level.
RFAD is ample demonstration of Aronofsky's undoubted talent as a film maker. I greatly enjoyed the director's debut Pi and Aronofsky has taken many of the techniques that he employed in that movie to the next level here. I can understand why some may feel that the film is style over substance. Personally though, I think this is one of the most technically impressive examples of film making and editing that I have seen in a long time.
The performances of the four main characters are all magnificent and Burstyn in particular is incredible. I also enjoyed seeing the underrated Keith David provides a wonderfully sleazy performance even if he is limited to only a very minor role.
Special mention should also go to Clint Mansell's amazing soundtrack which adds immeasurably to the power of the film. From the sad, haunting main theme to the frenetic techno rumblings and staccato strings, the soundtrack is always a perfect accompaniment to the on screen drama. It is hardly original to ironically juxtapose a haunting and beautiful soundtrack with disturbing imagery in order to heighten the emotions of the viewer (the afore-mentioned Cannibal Holocaust being a perfect, if extreme, example of this) but here the soundtrack is employed to perfection.
This is an amazing movie - intense, gripping, disturbing, provocative and gruelling to endure. Despite being so emotionally draining, this is one of the best films I have seen in the past few years and is more than deserving of it's high IMDB ranking. However, this is not for the faint hearted or those who can only enjoy a film if it makes them feel good. For anyone else this is essential viewing.
I can't wait to see what Aronofsky comes up with next - let's just hope he doesn't get sucked into the system and turn into the latest Hollywood hack directing the sort of uninspiring, focus-group scripted tripe that the big studios are lamentably so good at churning out these days.