I had mixed feelings about Darren Aronofsky’s
second feature, Requiem for a Dream, when it was initially released in
theaters. It came out during my filmmaking drought, and anything with any
ambition was met with a great deal of skepticism. While I applauded its
technical achievements and performances, I felt that it was narratively anemic
and, like the work of Aronofsky’s hero Oliver Stone, it bluntly smashed the
audience over the head with its themes. He also repeated many of his repeating
editing patterns from his first film, Pi, and I wanted to see a more
original approach.
Watching Requiem again on DVD, my objections still hold, however,
they’re not as glaring as they used to be. I’m now more impressed with the
technique, which, in 2000 was at odds with my preference for longer takes and
less manipulation. Aronofsky compared it to A Clockwork Orange, though
it’s much more in the vein of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, in terms of
creating audience unease through the juxtaposition of helter skelter images.
What’s great about the film is its gone for broke attitude and the fearless
commitment of all involved; it’s so obvious that this low budget picture was
loved. Ellen Burstyn, in a role that should have won her an Oscar, if that
really does mean anything, puts most established mainstream actors to shame for
the risks she took. I seriously doubt Jennifer Connelly, now an Oscar winner
herself, will ever approach a more daring and revealing role than she has here.
Also of note are Jay Rabinowitz, the editor, James Chilund, the production
designer, and Matthew Libatique, the cinematographer and Aronofsky’s colleague
from The American Film Institute. They created a cinematic aesthetic that,
Oliver Stone aside, owes a great deal to the hallucinogenic works of Ken
Russell, Nicholas Roeg and Bob Fosse.
The DVD is well-produced, with a great menu design and pretty good features
including behind the scenes footage and an interview with author Hubert Selby,
Jr., conducted by Ms. Burstyn. I just wish they hadn’t included Harry Knowles
epic felatio of the film in its booklet -- just as with the Royal Tenenbaums
DVD, which included Kent Jones’ overly-enthusiatic praise. Let the movie speak
for itself. Don’t encourage quote whores.
What Requiem leaves me with is a curiosity as to what direction
Aronofsky’s work will follow. His dream project, The Fountain, fell
apart after Brad Pitt bailed because he couldn’t understand the script (I can
just imagine Aronofsky jerking himself off at getting to make an $80-million art
film and overdoing things), and it now seems likely that he’ll helm the next
installment in the Batman series. I wonder whether he’ll have to alter
his established preference for quick cuts and split screens, so the project will
be more homogenous with previous episodes and therefore more palatable to mass
audiences?
Aronofsky is at an integral point in his career. He’s an independent voice
that’s produced two small, well-received films and is now in a position to
make his break-out feature. PT Anderson was there after Boogie Nights (he
followed with Magnolia), and Wes Anderson was there after Rushmore
(he then made The Royal Tenenbaums). I don’t think he was ready to helm
The Fountain yet. For a director to create a large-scale art FX epic, he
needs to have had some box office success first (Stanley Kubrick was 36 when he
began work on 2001: A Space Odyssey). Bryan Singer, another AFI alumni,
chose to make X-Men to get himself into big-time moviemaking. With both X-2
and Battlestar Galactica on the horizon, he seems to have gotten
comfortable making Hollywood fare, even though he initially resisted it. Will
Aronofsky do likewise?
If nothing else, his experience on The Fountain will certainly be a
learning experience. At 31, he was the youngest recipient of AFI’s career
achievement award. That bodes well, I assume. We shall see.
-Copyright
2003 by Jamie Stuart