Requiem for a Dream, 2000

Darren Aronofsky is 32 years old. He is, at the present time, directing what should be the definitive Batman film, Batman: Year One... based on the Frank Miller/David Mazzucchelli comic series of the same name. Unfortunately, I don't think Miller is going to have anything to do with the script... but Aronofsky knows his way around a story. And, I think, Hollywood had little (or no) choice but to give this project to the most vibrant director of the past ten years. Notice, though, that I did not call him 'the most original' director.

If you haven't seen Aronofsky's first feature, Pi, you're missing out on a beautiful film. A tragic story, well crafted, well shot and well acted. But not original.

I found the same thing with Requiem, based on the novel by Hubert Selby (who also helped write the script). There are original elements in this film, to be certain... and beautiful camera work (thanks to Matthew Libatique, who also shot Pi). But, I distinctly found that I'd seen the film before, in a number of guises.

Harry Knowles lends his (eyeroll) view points of the film in the DVD's booklet. I glanced at it... I personally do not appreciate his opinions (I find them jaded and... guided). But, he did hit the nail on the head, making certain comparisions that I found were very strong, throughout.

One thing this film does is use camera work that has been sifted down, throughout the ages, starting with Mean Streets and working its way up to the incredible work of Jeff Cronenweth, who shot Fight Club. This is why I can't call the work original. He's taking this camera work out of context, this is true. But it's still familiar, to the point where once it's used twice, three, four times... you get bored with it.

Don't get me wrong, this is a neat film. The actors were great. The story was heart wrenching. The characters were poor, dilluted people who knew better, and lost, anyway. But it was far from the best film of last year.

Directors like Aronofsky are borrowers. Knowles points this out... and doesn't seem to mind. I personally would prefer steady camera work, straight forward shooting, blocking, lighting... to borrowed techniques. It makes for a neat movie, for certain, and to people who don't really pay attention to film, it might come off as original, bright, brilliantly displayed work. But it's not. What propelled this film was the story and the acting, not the direction or the camera work.

A case in point... to not being inventive on your own... Libatique did not go on to make another film that was so stand-out-ish... he went on to shoot Josie and the Pussycats, for god sake. And Tigerland (Joel Schumacher's war flick, which I didn't see...). And Phone Booth, to come out this year, also by Schumacher. I mean, the guy is working for one of the industries biggest hack directors... not a new, flashy original director, or an established director who has an eye for originality. But, until Phone Booth comes out... I should reserve judgement on Liatique's abilities... but it's hard.

Now, I might sound a bit... bitter? I don't know. I bought this film, I bought into the hype surrounding it... I bought it because I dug Aronofsky's first film. But I was let down, in the end.

Since 1961, Burnstyn has been acting, starting in televion and working her way to film. She played one of her best roles in the William Friedkin film The Exorcist, in 1973, and went on to win a Best Actress Oscar in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, in 1974. From there, she worked Hollywood, here, there... very really falling into the big roles. In 1986 (I can't believe this), she had her own television show, The Ellen Burstyn Show. She was in a number of other films... and finally came into mainstream film with The Spitfire Grill and How to Make an American Quilt. Her career has been spotty, to say the least... until Requiem, and being nominated. She's to star in the adaption of the best-selling novel Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood in 2002. That should be interesting.

Jared Leto. He's got an interesting resume of bit parts in some great films. The Thin Red Line, Fight Club, American Psycho. He'll also be in David Fincher's newest film, The Panic Room, coming out later this year. He played his part really well... though, again, there are only so many different young, white, strung out junkies we can see... before the role becomes recycled. This is nothing against the actor. This is the melting pot of stories that have come out of Hollywood over the past fifteen years, inundating us with drug stories and withdrawl and loss.

Jennifer Connelly's first role in a film was with Sergio Leone, in 1984 (she was 14), in Once Upon a Time in America. 2 years later she starred in Jim Henson's Labyrinth. 5 years after that, she starred in the fantastic Disney film The Rocketeer. From there, her career had tapered off. She was in Higher Learning, Mulholland Falls and Inventing the Abbotts... before she became a true lead again in Alex Proyas follow up to The Crow, Dark City. A fantastic film that showed the darker side of Connelly's acting ability and look... which must have been one of the deciding factors behind her getting this role. Her look in both films is so similar, it's almost distracting.

A serious role for a comedian out of a family of comedians. Marlon Wayans came into his own with this film, did a fantastic job. His acting showed us that his range is far beyond site gags. From I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, the wildly successful In Living Color television series, The Wayans Bros. television show (which is, I must say, awful), Scary Movie, Dungeons and Dragons and the sequel to Scary Movie... aptly titled Scary Movie 2 (aka Scarier Movie)... this is the only serious role the man has been in... and I don't think there was another actor out there who could have pulled off a better job.

I'll always be amazed at the prospect of producers. To be honest, their jobs are so complex, there is so much grey area to the responsibilities of these men and women... the lines are blurred to the point of non-recognition. And, this is certainly the case with this film, which had (count them) 11 PRODUCERS. What in gods name could each and every one of these poor souls have contributed to the making of this film? Seems to me that it would be strictly confusion. But, I'm certain, that after these individuals saw Aronofsky's first film... this was a bandwagon to jump on.

Is it a good film? Yes. It's frightening, disturbing, it's a look into the drug culture (another look)... up the alley of Trainspotting, Traffic, Drugstore Cowboy, Pulp Fiction (yes, even that), Sid and Nancy... and (again, very heavily) Midnight Cowboy. But it is not original. It will knock your socks off, because the story is brutal... but I'm certain, if you've seen half the films I've seen, you'll think "I've seen this before."

I'm curious as to when Hollywood will stop this recycling of images, of drug use, of loss, of withdrawl... these images that have come to us in countless films, through countless actors and actresses.

I'd rent it first... if you dig it... you'll do what you have to do. This was not (in hind-sight) a must purchase, for me.

J.P.

go to top of page