Requiem for a Dream or Trainspotting? (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

Isn't one of them "No Sugar"
sadly I can't remember. Need to fire it up. sigh, too many films, not enough time.

 

[Howard Williams]

Yeah, "No Sugar" sounds correct for #1.

Ha !!! So #3 wasn't stated in the movie!!! Geuss I was paying attention. Mike, I hope you come up with #3. I anxiously await your response.

 

[Joseph Young]

Requiem is a much better movie than Trainspotting. Trainspotting tried to glamorize the drugs. Trainspotting is a good movie but nowhere on par with Requiem.

In what way? If you are talking about a film's ability to hammer the viewer into shocked submission, then you are probably right. However, as films attempting to approach the same taboo subject, I feel that Trainspotting is more generous to the viewer. I don't know about the rest of you here, but not for a moment did I feel that Trainspotting was attempting to glamourize anything.

But that creates an important point: I think that some people -- and this was in part because the soundtrack was really brilliant -- did glamourize the film, turned it into the next 'Pulp Fiction,' choc full 'o catch phrases. I don't think Irvine Welsh and Danny Boyle are simpletons propagating a pro-drug message; I think that the irony is the film is so thick that some will not penetrate it. Requiem, on the other hand, leaves no room for much analysis. I felt Trainspotting was more open to interpretation, and in that, a better movie.

I prefer Trainspotting because for me, it's a film that hits me on multiple levels while Requiem, though cinematically ambitious, brave, and hauntingly tragic, hits you once in the gut, then continues punching the same spot for two hours. There are no uppercuts, jabs, holds, or any other sort of boxing metaphor (and let's face it, Requiem and Trainspotting are both assaults on the senses).

While watching Requiem (which I own, btw), I never feel the revelation that comes from having a filmmaker carefully peel the layers of a character's psyche that makes dramas like this so profound. The fates of Leto and Connelly are etched irreparably from the first reel, and their performances, while great (and Burstyn was just fantastic, just utterly incredible) are lost in the trappings of a novel and experimental filmmaking style that overwhelm and dehumanize the movie. And yes, I do admire Hubert Selby, Jr. and in no way mean to trivialize such works as Last Exit to Brooklyn which is rightly considered a modern classic.

Requiem is a well crafted downward slide that dips under the radar at just the right moments, and it's doom-laden crescendo finale is perfectly pitched to prompt a strong response from the viewer. While Trainspotting follows a similar structure, I felt that the interactions in Trainspotting (between the leads) were less deliberate, and that the humor was more poignant. I don't believe that the inclusion of humor trivialized the drug use, but rather cast a light on it that was refreshingly honest.

The depravity in Trainspotting is just as hard brutal IMO, and is less affected. It's really difficult to angle any criticism towards Requiem because the subject matter is so brutally tackled that dicussing merits or drawbacks almost becomes taboo. When you criticise Requiem you in effect somehow 'disenfranchise' the struggle and heartbreak of all addicts. It is not my intention to do this. I am simply suggesting that Trainspotting's wit and humor, and somewhat controversial take on drug use, does not in any way connote a pro-drug message, nor does it make for a less powerful film. Simply a more popular one, and therefore much easier to slam and interpret as having 'glamourized' a subject due to its haven broken into the mainstream.

I don't mean to step on anyone's toes here, I'm just really opinionated sometimes.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

[Nate Anderson]

Requiem is so bleak, but it needed to be to show the effects drugs have on a person.

I do however, find it a lot easier to watch Trainspotting though.