« Cruel movie », one might have said. « Existentialist one », a philosopher could have answered. Personally, I confess having wanted from the beginning Harry and Marion to wed and have lots of babies, as the « happy ending » cinema’s autocracy should have imposed it. And by the way, I had always wanted to meet with existentialist philosophy smoothly, as I perfectly knew it was related to hard-to-grasp concepts. However, because of Requiem for a dream, my encounter with existentialism did not go soft. On the contrary, it was on drugs , violent and full of despair, yet I want to write this post as a praise for that movie for it lending me its penetrating vision on this philosophy matter.
To try and analyze properly what makes this film an existentialist reference, let me just provide you with a quick synopsis of this 2000 American psychological drama film directed by Darren Aronofsky. But first of all, if you are a 5 year-old child, do not go further in your reading, and rather visit this colorful and peaceful website : (http://www.kidsites.com).
Requiem for a dream tells the dreadful addiction story of Harry, his mother Sara, Marion, and Tyrone. The three young people are all friends, and are all well-meaning people looking to become successes. They live very much in the moment and are into drugs. Harry and Marion are lovers looking into starting their own business while Tyrone is simply trying to live up to expectations. Their addiction gets to heroin and they soon become engulfed in drug trafficking. At the same time, Sara lives only through her TV. Her addiction comes in the form of weight loss pills she starts taking when she realizes she no longer fits into her favorite red dress whereas she’s asked to take part in the TV game show she watches every day.
(Spoiler alert) At the end of the movie, every character has been hit by the repercussions of his/her behavior, Sara having entirely lost her mind in a mental illness hospital, Harry being amputated due to an infection he got shooting himself with heroine, Tyrone being forced to work in prison and Marion being stuck into sex slavery to fulfill her drug needs.
Where does all this drama lead us ? Backed by Kierkegaard, Camus and the others, I was driven to two main thinkings I would like to share.
The Absurdity of our world
The opening scenes are striking : we understand that everyday, Harry brings his mother’s TV to a moneylender to buy himself drugs, and that everyday, Sara takes the same path to buy it back so that she can watch her favorite shows.
Crucial concept in existentialism, the absurdity of our world is summed up in philosophy by the fact that life is absurd in as much as it would be meaningless to try and find in it another meaning than the one we give it. Kierkegaard saw it first : humanity has lost meaning because the accepted criterion of reality and truth is ambiguous and subjective (it cannot be proven with scientific analysis, historical research, logic, etc…). To him this means the type of objectivity that a scientist uses is not relevant : we are not driven and do not find meaning in life through pure objectivity. On the contrary, we find it through religious commitment, desire, or passion. Those are not provable, nor do they appear through analysis of the external world : they come about through inward reflection.
The world is absurd because bad things can happen even to good people, because, as a Kierkegaard « funny » word proves it, you cannot be perfectly sure you are not going to be stricken by lighting within two days.
All characters in Requiem for a dream meet with the reality of this alienation. Ending their existence broken, nearly pathetic, it seems highly unlikely for them to have found a way to escape the « devastating awareness of meaninglessness » that Camus talks about. During the entire film, they kind of have tried to achieve their dreams (owning a business, making his mother proud, designing clothes) through drugs. The drugs then turned out later to be alienating their dreams, somehow becoming more important than them, or keeping them away from them. However, I like to see the end of the movie as a new beginning for the boys (Sara and Marion are sadly but clearly lost) : freed of the burden of their meaningless life, maybe freed for the death-denial state Kierkegaard thought society is in, they may begin a new life living passionately, as Kierkegaard thought people could after having fully realized the truth of their near death. For Camus, accepting the meaningless of life was the best way to live it freely and fully. Would this work with Harry and Tyrone, who realized what their errors cost them ? Can we see in this repentance an existentialist thought stating that failures helps building one’s life ? Do not hesitate to tell me what you think about it.
Defining humans through their actions
Surfing on the web and having a look at some of Requiem for a dream’s analysis, I could not help but learn that this is a particularly action-oriented movie. And effectively, even if I am not deeply interested in cinema and movie techniques, I noticed an interesting fact about it : we have absolutely no information about the past of the characters. How they got into drugs, what was their childhood like, what could have been the traumas explaining this or that behavior… We could genuinely wonder : what is the result of such a director’s choice ?
At some point, I tried to figure out what I thought of the characters, how I would define them if I had to. Were they good ? After all, they were only living up to their expectations, trying to improve their situation. Were they bad ? Because the way they did try was an illegal one, and they messed up many situations where everything could have gone for the better. Whatever the outcome of this thinking may be, all we have to decide are the actions of the characters. The film only provides us with what they do, forcing us to judge and define them focusing on how they act.
This may be related with an important existentialist perspective about individuals : their true essence is that they are individuals defined by their actions and responsible for them, whatever preconceived categories or labels they fit in. For example, a person acting cruelly may be considered a cruel person as he/she is responsible for it. Life lacks pity in this, because one has no way to escape his responsibilities. Sartre said : « Man is condemned to be free because once thrown into life, he is responsible for everything he does ». Requiem for a dream does add the idea that man is also defined by what he decides to make out of this freedom. Here is a link to an extract of another movie that helped a lot spreading the ideas of existentialism :
I tried and show you why I thought this movie and existentialism could be associated. Not only would I be pleased to hear your suggestions on others existentialist aspects of Requiem for a dream, but I am also willing to respond to any comment my post could create about philosophy and movie matters.
Hello Vincent,
ReplyDeleteI would like to talk about the last part of your post. I agree with your analyse of the identity of the characters. Their choices makes them who they are. In the movie they want to be happy and they make choices to reach this goal. But these choices destroy them and in the end of the movie they are nobody. We can see it in the final scene symbolized by their fœtal position : they are back to a primitive state because of their actions.
However I also read analysis on Internet and some people seem to think that the characters are not responsible for their final state, they are « victims » of their drug use (for example : http://www.normalesup.org/~glafon/cinema/requiem_for_a_dream.html ). Thus, I wondered, if you suffer from addiction, from which moment is it not you who make your own choices anymore ? They chose to take some drug the first time but he other time ? Drugs use changes people. In this case, do you always think that the decisions the characters make when they are under the influence of drugs define them ?
Hi Lorette, thank you for your comment, and I am afraid I am going to follow a very heartless and brutal point of view, but I think this is an existentialist one.
DeleteI do agree with you when you mention the fact that, to a certain point, the characters can no longer be held responsible for their actions, since drugs have taken the entire control of their mind and body. In that respect, there are actions I think we should excuse. Going further, the fact that they do try to resist there drug dependency should be taken into consideration as an action defining them too.
That being said, I keep thinking that there is no way to forget that they are the ones responsible for being on drugs in the place. They did take the first dose, they did welcome the dependency at a moment, and this is the fundamental action that led them to their desperate situation. No one is to blame but them. Even if we can discuss them being defined by their "on drugs" actions, I think there is no salvation for them being guilty from the very beginning.
PS : My name is Pierre, not Vincent (where did you get that ?)
Hello Vincent,
ReplyDeleteI would like to come back on one of your sentence :
"During the entire film, they kind of have tried to achieve their dreams (owning a business, making his mother proud, designing clothes) through drugs. "
They do try to reach their dreams trough drugs. But isn't this use of drugs a way to escape the cruel awareness of the meaninglessness of their lives ? A way to escape despair.
If we consider it this way, it would suggest that dreams aren't enough to give a meaning to our lives. It leaves no hope, for the characters but for us as well.
Thus can an existentialist give a meaning to his life ?
Hi Anna.
DeleteIn a way, we could effectively wonder whether there are using drugs in order to escape the dread created by those infinite possibilities. They drown themselves into drugs, committing themselves unconditionally in a finite world, but being always brought back to reality's despair.
I understand that existentialist philosophers theoretically give room for them finding a meaning to their life though. Absurdist theories talks about it as way to escape the meaninglessness of the world :
1. Suicide
2. Accept meaninglessness of the world and then live life with full knowledge of it, embracing the Absurd in what Kierkegaard calls a "demoniac madness"
3. Setting aside reason, rejecting the meaninglessness of our world by believing in an another one, transcendent and where life has a meaning. It is the exemple of the religious belief one has to leap into.
Following this path, existentialist would tell you anyone could theoretically escape this despair you talk about.
PS : My name is Pierre, not Vincent in any way :)