quote:

Originally posted by Bloodflower this is really impressive... it should be more popular n well known as it is now... dito american history x

i read that its not so popular due to the fact that Darren Aronofsky did not want to give it an R rating (18 + only) and so it was just labelled an 'Arts movie' and hence did not get a big release. I dont bout anywhere else round the world but i dont remeber it being advertised anywhere. hmm trying to remember where i found the text that explained why Aronofsky didnt want to give it a rating: argh yes here it is:

quote:

Originally posted by someone on yahoo This summer looks like its going to have its share of grim tales, with this film and Jesus' Son both tackling heroin addicts, and Luminous Motion telling the tale of a prostitute and her son. Yep, fun for the whole family. Of course, in this case, this is Darren Aronofsky we're talking about. Aronofsky made his mark in 1998 with the stark and bizarre film, Pi, and this is his sophomore effort. One difference this time around is that this is an adaptation of a novel rather than an original script, so it may not have quite the disparate combination of elements than we saw in Pi... but then again, this is a Hubert Selby book, and anyone who's seen the grim Last Exit to Brooklyn knows the nihilistic view of New York that his stories can present. Besides, a screenwriter can do a lot with artistic license to bring their own vision to a film (consider what Terry Gilliam brought to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). Anyway, the buzz on this film is fairly quiet right now, but it could just be because people haven't yet connected the dots about this project... I wouldn't be surprised to see things heat up considerably in the months to come. 8/22/00 - Variety reports that Artisan is appealing the NC-17 rating the MPAA gave the film, but they aren't going to cut the scene in question. If the MPAA doesn't budge, that would mean the film would be released "unrated" (most common for foreign films; it greatly limits where the movie can be shown, but this is true of NC-17 as well). The scene involves Jennifer Connelly's character having lesbian sex while dressed men watch. (8/26/00) Well, the MPAA rejected the appeal, so Artisan will be releasing the film as "unrated" rather than going with an NC-17. That allows them to keep the film uncut, but limits the release greatly. Without an MPAA rating, many theater chains won't screen the film; but avoiding the NC-17 prevents possible problems later on with the video release, etc. Input about Upcomingmovies.com, or any movie covered here, is encouraged. Just e-mail Greg Dean Schmitz at the site's contact page. Please note that all release dates are subject to change. Review (****) This film is in a league that few others can be said to belong to. Darren Aronofsky has with only his second film crafted a stunning masterpiece that leaves the audience in such a state of shock and despair that each and every person feels better about their lives in reflection. A single word, "bleak" best suits Requiem for a Dream, and well it should, because this is an iron-clad anti-drug, anti-addiction tale. As I left the screening, late in the evening, I felt a wave of nausea pass over me. Walking to the subway, I noticed someone walking in the same direction who I could tell had also just seen the film; he shared that sense of nausea. Indeed, it was something that Darren Aronofsky apologized for before hand, closing with "Let me say ahead of time, I'm sorry" (paraphrased). How can induced nausea be a good thing? Psychomatically, our bodies respond to things that press and challenge our emotional capacity, and somehow, this roller-coaster of a visually trance-like tragedy does just that. Let me explain that when I say "nausea" I don't mean "vomiting"; just a sense of physical unease... more like how Sartre meant it. Folks, if you're sitting there, somewhere, looking at a computer screen, reading this review, there's a good chance you have it good. There is a lot of misfortune in the world, but even many people who think they have it bad, have it relatively good to others. I'm thinking about the crack whores, raped prison lifers, braindead vegetables, and third-degree burn victims of the world. Those people have it bad, bad, bad; worse than we can possibly imagine. Many of the tragedies in the world are accidents; sad blunders of luck, but some, like the four stories in this film are the results of a chain of events that started off with "normal, everyday folks" and ended in the worst kind of way, and in a way, aren't accidental, which is maybe the saddest thing of all. These stories are parables to us of the roads best untaken. The film starts with Harry (Jared Leto) stealing his mother Sara's (Burstyn) TV so he can hock it and get some extra cash for drugs. He does this so often that Sara has an account with the pawnbroker. We're introduced to Harry's girlfriend Marion (Connelly) and his best friend, Tyrone (Wayans). At first, things are pretty normal... sure the kids do drugs, but they seem to "know what they're doing." Yeah, right. Early on, we're introduced to what will become the film's unrelenting chorus, as Aronofsky and editor Jay Rabinowitz (who may have an Oscar coming) have a field day, throwing fast, stunning images of the paraphernalia and effects of heroin (eyes dilating, blood coursing, etc). These sequences also work hand-in-hand with composer Clint Mansell's unrelenting score, also acclaim-worthy. It's all quite dizzying. Darren Aronofsky's first film, Pi, showed what a talented visual artist in the late 1990's could do with black & white film and a limited budget. One of the traits of a great film director is something that harkens to stage where there are no camera movements, etc. to be planned: the ability to help the actors be great. Ellen Burstyn gives one of the most harrowing, startling, and heart-rending performances of her career. Leaving the theater, I tried to remember another film that seemed so bleak and hopeless, and somehow The Excorsist came to mind, which (and this may be how I thought of it) of course she also starred in. Instead of the devil as a supernatural entity, Requiem gives us four people who are indeed "possessed", but their demons are rooted in concepts that we all might find too close to home: trying to lose weight, trying to make more money, doing whatever it takes not to lose your love. Yes, three of the characters either do (or sell) drugs for nearly the entire film, and ultimately, they all do. And yes, the pious among us can say "Ah, but I'd never do drugs." Great, then never go to a doctor again in your life, because sometimes... drugs happen. I remember a report on the evening news a few years ago that there is actually a high rate of drug addiction among senior citizens because they are so over-prescribed. One car accident, one operation, and any of us could be prescribed heavy painkillers... and that's where it all can start. It's scary, and these are the sort of things that run through your mind after seeing this film. "It could happen to you!" The other three performers who make up the lion's share of the story, Leto, Connelly, and Wayans are all effective as well. It was especially refreshing to see Marlon Wayans tackle a character of the depth and arc that he does here, after seeing him in mostly comedies like Scary Movie. Leto and Connelly share an on-screen chemistry that cements their storylines; and Jennifer Connelly's beauty is framed perfectly by Aronofsky's camera. There's some very careful makeup work done on all of the characters, with Connelly and Burstyn going through the most dramatic changes, though Connelly's is subtle, and not obvious at first. Leto's character has makeup that is a good part of what makes this film so powerful... I actually felt the audience flinch collectively. Ew. Requiem for a Dream, by its very nature, is a hard pill to swallow (drug ref. intended). It's very likely that it will not be released wide, which might have been true even if the film hadn't gotten an NC-17 which is leading Artisan to release it as "unrated." As a short note about that, I will say that I think this is a case where the MPAA is clearly not considering the value of art. Yes, there's a scene of sex near the end that is graphic and harrowing (involving Jennifer Connolly, another woman, and... I won't say). Yes, it's shocking, and darn right. This whole film is shocking; you're meant to be. That's the point... so why try to censor and control the art? It's possible that anyone who would be offended by that scene will probably walk (or run) out of the theater far before the film gets that far. Requiem for a Dream is up there with films like A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting that will galvanize audiences. Some will detest it because the bleakness and horror of it all is just so, so much to take. Others, the majority, I think, are going to be enraptured by this very human, touching, and then devastating tale. Why is the film called Requiem for a Dream? Well, the title comes from the book, and it's probably even stranger that the book was called that because it doesn't have the music that propels this film. In the film, however, the four movements flow together back and forth like a symphony, until they all reach their climax at the same time in four different settings, four different tragedies, four different shocks and horrors. It's like seeing Beethoven's 5th reinterpreted through a 21st century, industrialized mindset, played over a film that reflects the power of the music... unforgettable.

___________________

Last edited by discitelli on Feb-18-2003 at 02:06