Furthermore, I wanted
to share with you my personal reflection on the film through some questions
that I had after seeing the movie as well as the answers I was able to provide.
Why? Well, it is the purpose of both the movie and the existentialist current:
to make people think and ask questions. Existentialism stands between
philosophy, and psychoanalyse. It is to give humans some keys to understand and
experience their own existence. Kierkegaard wrote under pseudonyms and produced
opinions that were not his. He wanted people to come up with their own ideas,
doubts and certainties. I would like to give it a try myself. I figured this
part should be interactive. Don’t hesitate to comment your own questions and
answers. I will be glad to discuss them with you.
Reason n°1 – The character
are solely responsible for their actions.
> One may pity the characters, whereas the existentialist person will
not. Sartre once said, “We are condemned to be free”. It means that people make
their own choices freely, but they must endure the responsibility of their
actions. The last time Harry shot himself, Tyrone warned him: “you shouldn’t do
it.” He decided not to listen to his advice, and he pays the price of his mistakes.
Actually, each character behaves in such an ab-surd manner that the
film could not end otherwise. One example is Sara. After losing her husband,
Sara uses all of her energy to live as if she were not. The purpose of her
existence is to exist as if she did not exist. This “self-denying” is the exact
reason why she loves TV that much. When watching TV, you are passive, you are
nobody. You just watch the others from the outside. By that way, she limits the
contact with other human beings. The self to be self needs to confront to
another self, namely to another soul and body. Yes, it is hard and yes you need
it in order to exist, and you are forced to exist because you have been given
life. That is why Sartre said, “Hell is the others”: you never asked to live,
but you still has to build your existence by your choices and the way the
others perceive your actions. Sara fears the others’ judgement: her
hallucination makes her believe that the TV can spy on her and see how poor (or
how ab-surd more precisely) her existence is. She is kind of a “philosophy
zombie”, she can behave like any other person but they don’t have any
consciousness, as they don’t experience anything. This concept is still
debated, but if someone had to be a philosophical zombie, I think I would
definitely be Sara Goldfarb. Here is a comic to know more about it:
Reason n°2 – The movie
teaches you that existence exists.
> That sounds tautological. In fact, the only one truth about
existence is that it exists. Concretely, the movie is action-centred. The movie
emphasizes the actions of the main characters, and nothing else. We don’t know
much either about their past or their future. No one can tell their secrets,
their emotions, or their thoughts. All that matters are their own actions.
Actions define their very being. Sarah is addict to TV. The others are junkie
because they get heroine in almost every single scene. The spectator need not
know more about them. A thought without an action is just a useless idea.
Actually, existentialism has greatly influenced the world’s modern
thinking. Everyone has ever been advised to go at it, not to hesitate too much,
to just dare doing things. Psychologists even write books about letting our
personality express and to accept our failures. Someone should definitely talk
to them about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre or Camus. If you want to handle
your life problems, Kierkegaard is your man. Or Shia Lebeouf who has recently
inspired millions of people. You have a link on the left hand side. I really think
this extract is the perfect embodiment of modern-day existentialism. Except when he
says that nothing is impossible. An existentialist will say it is impossible
not to die.
The young junkies had dreams but they preferred drugs instead. By
that, they were being ab-surd, they were not following their true desires and
thus they were not following their nature.
Reason n°3 - How failures
construct an existence
> Sara ends up in a mental institution. Harry lost his arm, Marion is
a kind of a sex slave, and Tyrone serves a sentence in prison. Those situations
will likely change the characters’ view on life. The basis of existentialism is
that we should not fear failures because those failures help you progress in
your self. On the contrary, Kierkegaard suggested that a life-threatening
experience might enable you to understand your self better and to alter your
opinion about life.
…
…
What are you waiting for? Quit reading and jump over your window!
Actually the whole point makes think of what Samuel Beckett once
said: “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
It sums up the concrete applications of existentialism.
The concept of failure is related to the concept of actions. You
see, without actions there cannot be any failures. Actions are concrete, and
failures are the consequences that remain from those actions. Experts all
agreed on one point: as a child, one of the first steps of consciousness is to
realise that our actions have consequences; that we can change the world.
Of course, it is scary. That’s why Kierkegaard said that we should
not be afraid of our freedom. he talks about the despair one may experience when he made a choice, but doesn't know if it was for the best. He actually means that one should not fear to be
wrong, to commit failures, because they make you human.
Let's debate now.
> Here are three questions (with personal answers) in order to organize a “mini-debate”. You
can add other ones, I will be pleased to exchange with you!
How an existentialist person
would react to the film?
Basically like this I guess.
Just deal with it.
What if I want to watch
the film backwards?
It would be a beautiful story, wouldn’t it? A lady would manage to
come out of a mental house, medical progress would be able to make an arm grow
back, a young black man would get out of jail after enduring racist attacks
from his guards. However, to me there would be a slight problem. Where are the
failures? I honestly think there are necessary to one being. Actually, even if
I pity them, I can feel that emotion because of their failures. I see them as
humans. I don’t think I would feel the same way if I watched it backwards.
Another thing: where are the actions? Nowadays, we tend to find solutions to
our problems from the outside. But an existentialist will entice you to make
your choice to solve the problem. Basically, it is better to fail trying to do
so rather than winning without using your own strength.
What if one could reverse
time? Would they still be human?
Okay, maybe that question seems to come out of nowhere. But in the
film people do regret what they did, and we regret they misbehaved too. They might
want to go back in time and change things. But failures, and the despair of not
knowing what to do in order to avoid them – comes from the unpredictable
future. This situation makes you human. So, if you can alter reality, what are
you? Nietzsche’s “overman”? Absolutely not
as the overman has his independent values and cherishes the present. If you
have any idea, just comment it.
I hope that my (quite long I must admit it) post helped you to
understand why we were proposed to watch Requiem
for a dream for this course. I am now waiting for your comments!
Hi Lucas :)
ReplyDeleteYour emphasis on failure is very interesting and gave a new meaning to the whole storyline to me. When you say, in the end, that if we watch the film backward it will be less powerful because of the lack of failure, you’re making a very clever remark that I agree with. Though, I think that you gave too little importance to addiction in your analysis.
You wrote : “The young junkies had dreams but they preferred drugs instead. By that, they were being ab-surd, they were not following their true desires and thus they were not following their nature.” It is true, for me, that in the beginning Harry and his friends, and even his mother, choose to be on drugs because it is easier and seemingly pleasant. But as the film progress, I think the characters are becoming more and more moving because they lost their connection to their true self, their grip on their own lives and they’re enslaved by their “happy pills”. Drugs make them lie in a distorted version of their life and make them crave for more of it. . The scene when Sarah spends the whole day franticly cleaning her apartment was almost painful to watch; she seemed deposed of her free will like a puppet.
Thus, I believe that one reason why the characters act so ‘ab-surdly’ is also that they aren’t fully responsible for themselves anymore. They aren’t free to choose because, in a way, drugs choose for them. Of course, if you’re a true Sartrian, you will answer me that human beings are always free and pretending otherwise is like lying to ourselves and finding excuses for our failures ;)
Congratulation for ending this ever-lasting post Cécile :) !
DeleteI'm glad that I could give you a new meaning to the storyline through the failures. After all, the storyline is just a succession of failures. Even when the young people get manage to deal drugs (but that is another debate huh).
I knew that the phrase about the junkies would disturb some people, and it seems that I am right as two people have already commented about it. I didn't really develop it because my post was already way too long ...
I think you should get a look at the latest post about the film. Basically, it says that drugs, TV and money are ways of existence because they are addictions and addictions are powerful. So powerful that they're becoming ab-surd. So I agree with you on that.
However, as they chose to consume drugs we can't say they are irresponsible of what the heroine make them do. But it is possible that the characters feel irresponsible whereas they are not. Kirkegaard said that "they are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true." They are responsible of taking drugs AND denying the truth behind their behavior. And yes, you're right, I'm true Sartrian.
I'm glad that we agree on almost everything ;)
DeleteI just read the post you talked about but I mostly disagree with it about drugs as a way of existing. I think that drug turn our life in a un-authentic one, because by changing our perception of our surrondings and numbing our senses it destroys our relationship with ourselves. As time flies, drug will take the place of our desires and ambitions. We will only care about our next dose, our only goal of the day : not because the high it causes is pleasant but because it became something we need to keep on existing.
Anyway, it is true that they chose to take drugs and they took this decision as free human beings. For that, we can't excuse them because they are responsible for it; But then, in the end, they don't chose anymore, drugs control them and take the decision for them. True, the first time they took drugs, they knew it will eventually happened (even for Sarah : she didn't understand she was taking drugs at first, but then she didn't do much to quit it, right ?). They're responsible of this, and the only ones .
But all the decision they take from the moment they're addicted, when drugs is their only drive, I don't think they're responsible then. Drugs take away their free will and their ability to chose for themselves. That is, for me, the sadest thing : in the conclusion of the movie, they're not fully human beings anymore, because they aren't free. They're nothing but empty shells (god, does any of what I just wrote makes sense to you ?)
Anyway, I absolutely love Sarte's ideas as well :D Have you read L'Existentialisme est un humanisme ?
You know it could be fun if we didn't agree on almost everything too!
DeleteWell, basically I think that depency has turned the means (drugs, TV) into goals and that's where the problem lies. I think this what you mean when you say "We will only care about our next dose, our only goal of the day".
I get your point but they knew the risks at stake. So they are indirectly responsible for what they do when drugged, but still reponsible. There are some moments in the film when Harry says it is wrong to get heroine that much; that it could eventually doom them. But he still did it. What did they lack of? Is it will or obedience? I found this on an existentialist website: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/13. Tell me what you think :)
You are right. That is why they in a foetus position in the end. They want to become nothing, they are nothing anymore. But the film ends hère. I am sure they will eventually find another thing to continue. After all, Harry "only" lost an arm, it doesn't prevent you from changing your life!
P.S: I've only read extracts actually. I am not very keen on theoritcal works. It is even truer with existentialist which wants to provide keys for everyday life. "Huis clos" sums up Sartre's existentialism in a way that a philosophical essay will never do. That's why it is my favourite theatre piece of art! Still, if you want to talk about it, I can try to answer if it coincides with what I've read :D
DeleteYep, surely !
DeleteWow, the comic is super rich ! It says too much for me to comment on everything but here are my thoughts on two ideas that particulary striked me :
- I adore the idea of the black-haired character about the conflict beween your past self, your present self and your future self. As he said, "to be in conflict with yourself is not to be yourself anymore" ; your past self decide to smoke but then your present self have this thought that it is bad for your health and want to quit smoking. But you doesn't want to take actions actually, you just wait for your future self to have the profund desire to quit smoking. I think this reflection can be applied to Harry and Sarah, isn't ?
- What Sanus says about the conflict between ideas and desire and how willpower help you choose between them can give another view on the subject : "My desire is strong and my will is weak."
Yes, yes, he's still cycling through the phases of despair we saw yesterday ! Eventually, he can become someone and give a purpose to his life.
Ps : AHA we disagree then, because I don't like "Huis Clos" that much. I liked "Les mains sales" better and I found Sartres to be a better philosopher than writer, like Voltaire was. Camus had a nicer style ;)
Anyway, L'Existentialisme [...] is the transcription of a lecture he gave to respond to criticisms about his philosophy so it pretty clear and educational :)
Yes it's rich, that's precisely why I gave you the link!
Delete- We agree then. It's exactly what they did: postponing. They always expect their future selves to start from scratch without drugs. However, they need their present selves to do so.
- So what is your opinion ? Do they lack obedience or willpower ?
- I get your point. I guess it's just a question of preferences. What I really don't like at all about educational books is that they want to impose an idea to you. Even though I don't appreciate Sartre's style that much (I mean he's clearly not Victor Hugo), Huis Clos enables me to develop my personal reflection. I find it harder (but not impossible, only harder) to do so with theoretical readings. I know it's bad to think that way but I can't help it haha
(PART 1/2) I also first watched Requiem for a Dream when I was younger (I was 16, but still traumatized — I can't imagine how you watched this at 11). I was similarly disoriented, though most likely due to the cinematographic style: montages of short shots, long tracking shots reminiscent of a GoPro, and a few time-lapses and split screens. I don't think I could quite grasp the thematic significance of the film at the time, except that drugs are bad! Drugs are not the solution!
ReplyDeleteThe film is a graphic depiction of drugs and addiction, mainly manifested in Sara's developing psychotic breakdown from taking amphetamine and the three friends' dependency on heroin and the cocaine economy. I think "dependency" is the key word here, because all four characters come to depend on their respective drugs not only because they're addicted, but also because these drugs become the means for escaping their current lacking state and to reach their fantastical self-image. So rather than "the young junkies had dreams but they preferred drugs instead," I believe that the three friends were selling drugs in order to achieve those dreams. Harry goes home to his mother, proud of his future of owning a business (with his newfound capital) and being with Marion; Marion is busy with designing clothes for her own boutique; and Tyrone dreams that he made his late mother proud with his success. Drugs made money with some semblance of autonomy, and this money symbolized the dreams of the friends in some way or another; and so it can be argued that selling drugs was actually their means of "following their true desires." Of course, by the end, this became ab-surd, particularly for Marion and Harry, who both kept using in order to escape their depression and in effect brought upon their own "ruination," as Kierkegaard would say.
(PART 2/2) To expound more upon Kierkegaard's "despair" in Requiem for a Dream, throughout the film and especially when their business/weight loss is going well, the four characters are trying to deny their despair. Their "selves" lead a "fantasied existence in abstract infinitizing or in abstract isolation, continually lacking its self, from which it moves further and further away." This is perhaps when your point of the ab-surd comes in; when the characters lose themselves into their fantasies, imbued by their success and then later by their fall, they frantically seek more and more of the drugs, which was meant to be just a means, to maintain their sense of living with purpose. Marion makes the biggest transition of value: her goal is literally just more drugs, and she is the only character seen smiling at the end when they all curl up into the fetal position, because she actually has the ability to satisfy that goal. "The determinist, the fatalist, is in despair and as one in despair has lost his self, because for him everything has become necessary" ("The Forms of This Sickness (Despair)" Part A). This "everything that has become necessary" is self-determined, rather than God-mandated, as perhaps Anti-Climacus would say, and this veering from or denying a "self" aligned with God is the root of despair.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this is getting long, and I want to make sure to respond to your question of watching the film in reverse. At first, I thought that this would be a beautiful idea because try as I might, I can't resist a happy ending. You make an interesting point that you can only feel pity for these characters because of their failures. And when I review my own feelings while watching the film, I really did only feel pity (plus horror, disturbed, etc.), and it's probably because all of the characters descended to such low points. This complete failure excuses these characters from "learning a lesson" in my mind; but if the film were in reverse, and the characters essentially went back to a seemingly carefree life of dabbling in their life-ruining drugs (including TV), then I'm sure I wouldn't feel pity. They would still be in despair, but of a different form and a degree of consciousness, as detailed in Part C. I'm not sure which "level" of despair they would be in — would they be in a state of "infinite self" now that they've experienced and moved past their absolute worsts? But I digress.
...Sorry for such a long response.
I will try to answer both of your comments.
ReplyDelete1st part:
Actually I watched Requiem for a dream with my cousins who were 12. I still don't know where they found it. i had terrible nightmares for 2 weeks, dreaming that my fridge was eating me!
You're right. Dependency is the key but it is just in the film. The true thing is that they are havind an ab-surd aesthetic life. That's why I don't think you're right when you write they're following their true desires by taking drugs. In existentialism, desire is what soul yearns for. But drugs are what their bodies yearn for. Despair makes them do another thing. They know it is wrong (Harry hesitates when Tyrone proposes him to deal drugs; he usually says it's wrong to take that much héroïne).
I also didn't talk that much about drugs because they're just a way to make the film more powerful. I could have written the same post about a man so busy eating chocolate that he always misses his bus to go to work and then he gets fired. No one would pay to see such a lame movie. I am not of the plottist type but one may never forget that most of films are sold and that some people are doing it for a living.
Another thing: when you're talking about depency, you're wondering why they are doing it. I am trying to expose how they ended up like this. Maybe it doesn't make such difference to you. Ask me if there's anything you don't get.
2nd part: As I said earlier, to me it is the despair that drives them to do what they do. They are not trying to flee their despair, they are "desperate" when they do this. I mean by desperate that Despair has taken over their bodies and souls.
We could say that the means have become the goals because of the depency and that is where their mistake lies. Though it is not quite true in Sara's case: how could losing wight possibly prevent her from being in a TV show? But as I said, as interesting as it may be, I didn't write it because these are details and I wanted to make a général post. But it is still a pleasure to talk about that and I was prepared to that reaction actually!
Finally, the film in reverse. My opinion is different than yours because I am a Sartrian. When I talked about that, my starting point was the natural reaction after seeing the movie. To me, they got what they deserved. The failures could have been avoided but I prefer to focus on the actual facts. I don't really know if they would be in despair at all because everything would work as they planned it and so they would know this is for the best. Now you're not the only one to digress ;)