Holding it together. Just

Rating: Null/10 (6 August 2001)

Was requested to watch Requiem with a friend who had made the mistake of watching it on his own, in order to achieve some kind of desperate catharsis and reassurance that yes, it really is that harrowing, and no, he wasn't losing his mind.
We aren't friends anymore.
Requiem is without a doubt the most disturbing piece of work I've ever managed to sit through. Stunning performances from all (most notably Ellen Burstyn - words fail me) and Aronofsky's superb camera work (never intrusive, never lethargic, and not-quite-so-slick as to allow you to remember that this isn't real, it's a film) contribute to a sense of a complete loss of faith in the world in which we live. I sat down to watch it on a warm summers evening, fresh from a day of relaxing in the sunshine. I emerged at the end a twisted wreck of my former self, battered down, sleepless and horrified by the grotesque capabilities of mankind.

This film raises arguments about censorship - although we have a longsuffering counsel authorised to qualify the amount of physical violence, sex, or swearing we can see on the screen, there is as yet no authority to protect us from the amount of emotional trauma a director can impose on his viewers. How far is it possible to go without (not to put to fine a point on it) actively scarring your audience? I resent being forced to see the world like this - surely things can't be all that bad?
Requiem for a Dream, in my book, is blessed with the kind of crushing brilliance that consign it to the "mustseeonce" pile, along with Full Metal Jacket, The Deerhunter etc. I don't think I could stand another viewing. 9/10 - recommended with a HUGE health warning attached. Am now going to try to get back to my Aronofsky-free cloud where true love wins through in the end, and bad things just don't happen to good people. I like it there.