Viewing Thread:
"Requiem for a Dream - or why the ratings system is a farce"

From time to time there comes a film that shows what a shallow mockery the ratings system has become. Given the recent interest in Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream" I thought I would address the issues raised by the rating of this film.

Our story begins at MPAA headquarters in America. Sitting at his nice leather-upholstered desk Bob McCrevice* is shown clips from "Requiem for a Dream" by one of his lackeys. He averts his eyes from the screen and calls for it to be turned off before saying,
"ooh err.. Drugs.. Sex.. no, no, no. We cannot let the general public see this film. NO. No rating for this film."
And so the team behind "Requiem" were forced to make substantial cuts to the film so it could achieve an MPAA rating, which was set at R-18, for the kiddies' sakes you understand.

In the back streets of London, our own BBFC saw this decision and slapped the 18 certificate on the film. This was copied pretty much universally apart from in Mexico, where it got a C, but that's because 50% of the population can't count up to 18.

Now, excuse me a minute, but haven't we lost sight of why we rate movies in the first place? Have the boundaries become so inflexible that a film containing sex and dugs always gets an 18? You see, we rate films because there are certain things we don't want people of certain ages to see. Fair enough, why don't we want them to see these things? Simple, because you don't want children to copy them because they are bad. That is why we give movies a rating.

However, over the course of time this original intention has become a little circumvented. Now if you show a man shooting people with a gun, à la A-team, where people fall to the ground and collapse in a heap that is fine, in fact that is great because there's no blood, which means you can scrape a PG certificate if you're lucky. If you show the real impact of a gun then you will be lucky to get below an 18. Now which of these scenarios is more dangerous?

Scenario A:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people just fall over when shot. Daddy walks into the room...

Scenario B:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people spew blood everywhere and die in tremendous pain when shot. Daddy walks into the room...

Now, in my opinion, Child A is far more dangerous because he has not seen the consequences of the action in question. How do we stop a child from copying a bad action, do we turn the bad action into an entirely ficticious "good" action, or do we show the consequences? I would go with consequences every single time.

"Requiem for a Dream" is one of the most viscerally realistic films I have seen. It is a tremendously powerful "essay" on addiction. If I was to rate this I would give it a low certificate, maybe a 12 because it is the only film that shows the consequences of drugs. It is ludicrous that films that revel in drug culture get the same certificate as films that show the real effects of drugs, on the one hand, and addiction in general. "Requiem for a Dream" is not a "family-picnic" film but it is, in my opinion, one of the most powerful ways of showing children the effects of addiction. It showed consequences. To return to my original point, we rate films because we don't want children to see and thus copy actions portrayed in the film. Any child who saw this film would be strongly persuaded not to copy. However, Drugs and sex fall into the "no-no" category. So no matter what you do with them you will always get an 18 certificate. Or in "Requiem for a Dream's" case, no certificate at all.

Someone needs to look at the ratings system so that films like "Requiem for a Dream" can be seen by as many people possible. However, it seems as though, for now, the ratings system will remain the same lumbering dinosaur that always has been.

Hang on, somethings just occured to me.

What's the most dangerous thing you can show in film, towards the minds of people?

Violence? Not really... but kind of.

Sex? Not at all.

Swearing? Nope.

Then what?

Power. You show that someone has power, and that's the worst thing you can show to someone.

Hang on, stick with me. After thinking, I now believe the Godfather was right to be given an 18...

15 year old kid watches Godfather. Killing won't really effect him, nor the sex or swearing. Seen it all before.

But you show that kid that someone can have absolute power, that someone can click their fingers and have someone killed, then it might get to them.

An idolistic finger click later, and they'll be trying to form their own gang. Seems a little bizarre, yeah... but I really do believe that it's the only thing that can truly have an effect on people.

Apart from stuff like Indiana Jones and Cannonball Run. Wouldn't it be cool to be like Indy, or race across America... :0)

Your Honour wrote:

"The original Godfather film is an 18, yet there is little or no swearing, and a lot less violence than some big blockbusters."

Really can't imagine a twelve year old enjoying it mind... and it IS quite bloody at times. The assasination of the brother, when the car is blocked, that's quite bad... and of course Michael's first kill.

Not a 12, perhaps 15.

Most harrowing death to me in the film? When the Godfather died.

Excellent film, however. Haven't watched the rest of them yet.

Must watch Requiem too... I've been wondering about a film, [Where things get worse and worse and end up even worse] for a long time, so this is of a rather large interest to me...

So you watched Requiem huh Meka?

What did you think of it?
Bleak, yep.
I watched it at the cinema because I had followed this being made and read some reviews and I just couldn't wait another 6 months for it to appear on video.

I found the first 40 mins slow, agonisingly so.
But when I read about Aronofosky wanting to create a dull, lifeless start that picks up when the addictions kick in, I got it.

Like I said, not a film I enjoy at all, but still one of the best I've seen in a long time.

After reading this thread, I now really want to watch Requiem. As soon as I have, I'll post my thoughts on here.

As for the ratings system, I feel it's out of date anyway.

Films shouldn't be rated by age, they should be rated by what the film contains. That way people can see what's in the film, see what issues it contains and then decide for themselves if they want to watch it.

Also, I would just like to say that ratings have become a lot more lax over the past few years.

The original Godfather film is an 18, yet there is little or no swearing, and a lot less violence than some big blockbusters.

If it was released today, it would probably only be a 12 or something.

I saw Requiem last night (because Blockbuster no longer carry Sexy Beast, even though it was on thier darned shelves) and man, is that ever a bleak movie.

I knew it would be, having read the posts on this forum about it, but the way it just keeps getting progressively worse? You don't want to think where those characters could be in 6 months time, do you?

When it comes to ratings I don't think the majority of under 15 year olds would understand it.

On the subject of watching films like this at the cinema, 'challenging' films, if you will, my preference is to watch them in the comfort of my own home. Blockbusters often work best on the big screen, and don't have much impact on the small screen, but a movie like this would have more of an impact, to me, if I was sitting in my cosy little house. Is that just me?

The truth is, the ratings system is completely flawed as it goes on the idea that everyone matures at the same rate. And so, by knowing how long someone has lived, the censors think they can decide how mature that person is. Which, quite frankly, is rubbish.

I have friends that are a couple of years older than me. Yet, they are not as mature as me (remember that I rule here). So, an immature 18 year old is allowed to watch American History X and think 'ah cool, that bit where he stamps on his head is well cool, and that Nazi guy sounded pretty convincing when he was arguing', whilst people like me and Ant are not actually allowed to watch it.

Whatever, basicly what I am attempting to say is that your age does not determine your matureity.

I WANT REQUIEM.

I would just like to add that I do think there is a need for ratings and I don't mind when the producers of "Tombraider" cut a scene tih knives in to get the film down to 12.

However, we really have to look at why we rate things. Lower down the scale at 12 and 15 level I'm not too bothered but once a film starts touching the 18 boundaries then things start to become a little messy. If I make the most compelling film in cinema history about why drugs are bad and in doing so show graphic scenes of drug abuse and what people will do for their fix then I will get an 18 certificate for my film, in Requiem's case it was refused certification in the US. However, If I choose to make a film about how wonderful drugs are and show people having fun while off their heads on Cocaine and don't show any side-effects at all, I will still get an 18 certificate, maybe less. That is where the hypocrisy lies. Look at "Any Given Sunday", there are scenes in that of NFL players snorting cocaine off the naked body's of women. Admittedly Stone is not trying to glorify drugs, just showing the scenes. But there are no side-effects there. That was rated 15 over here. Is it honestly the case that we would rather a 15 year old see scenes of drug abuse like that than scenes of drug addiction in "Requiem"?

The problem with ratings is that they are too inflexible. I respect what the BBFC do, but I think they need to look at the pigeon holes they want to fit films into. Ultimately you have to be concerned with the film as a whole not individual scenes. You cannot sit in a salon watching a film and ticking check boxes for drugs/sex/violence/blood/etc; you have to see whether the film as a whole is a positive thing to show a PG/12/15/18 audience. Sure, "Requiem" isn't positive but I would argue that it is a positive message against drugs and as such it should be shown to a slightly younger audience un-cut. As Goatboy said, the party scene is sickening but it only serves to emphasise the horror of the following scene where Jennifer Connoly smiles knowing that she can get another hit. The censors may not have liked it but if there's a more vehemently anti-addiction scene than that I would be very surprised.

misterhappy wrote:

Scenario A:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people just fall over when shot. Daddy walks into the room...

Scenario B:
A child finds daddy's gun under the bed, he has seen a film where people spew blood everywhere and die in tremendous pain when shot. Daddy walks into the room...

Well Done that post totally changed the way I think on ratings, especially that.

What I don't get is why do they deceide what you can watch? If you think your child will be effected don't let them go see it... etc.

I remember my gran took me to see Mrs Doubtfire when I was ten, it was a 12 and they wouldn't let me in... fine example.

And the Scenario's, I never thought about that but you are correct... of course that could be stopped by just banning handguns everywhere in the world.

Give that man a GAD or FAD, whatever the system is these days.

Aronofsky is at the top of his game with “Requiem”.
As well as the out and out nasty stuff, there’s subtlety I didn’t really get until a day or two afterwards when the initial shock had worn down a bit.
The montage of drugs, the same pattern over and over. An awesome way of depicting the ritual of making your fix, and the movie speeding up or going nice for a brief period after drug taking, before slamming back down and turning gritty.
I didn’t get that at 1st, the stately pacing and almost monotony of the film with no music etc at first, but as soon as character gets high?
The music kicks in, cuts are faster and there are effects to shift the perception of the world whilst the character is high.

It’s an ingenious method of showing the effects of drugs, whilst you’re high everything is fantastic and great. But you’ll come back down and things will suck again.
Same with Sarah Goldfarb and her pills. Looking at the breakfast, and it disappearing bit by bit with no suggestion she ate any of it. The speed feeling 100% (so people have told me or something).

I can’t recommend Requiem enough to people that want to appreciate a bold and honest depiction of addiction. Not necessarily a drug addiction, but the idea that you cannot function without that hit, be it love/drugs/companionship.

You need to watch this at least once, but don’t complain about it because me & mrhappy have told you it’s not a nice film.

The Vanishing taught me two things:
a. French
b. That I needed glasses

We watched the original our French lessons and I was sitting at the back. I could see what was going on on the screen but the subtitles.. not a hope. The week after we saw the vanishing I discovered that I had actually absorbed a lot of French and I went and got some glasses.

I also remember people wondering why it "just ended". There seems to be a need for the hero to suddenly be rescued and get revenge. Another good film in that respect is the first of Romero's "dead" trilogy, the camera marks out a man as the hero, and he dies in the first five minutes, which is a brilliant touch because it goes against a while convention of cinema.

On another point, I agree that "Requiem" is not a "feelgood film". I admire it though from a cinematic point of view, as it is oustandingly well made. Aronofsky is inventing new camera techniques and he's the first director for ages to do somehing exciting. Ellen Burstyn may be the star of "Requiem" bu it is a film where the director shines through as well. You have the "hip-hop montage" which is the series of "sampled" images of drug taking. Now Guy Ritchie did that in "Snatch" but he missed the point of the montage. It is there to be broken, so that when it is broken the audience notices. In "Requiem" it is broken when we see Harry's arm for the first time. Aronofsky also uses the Snori-cam, which is actually attached to the actor's body. Again, that's something new and it does add to the film. From that perspective Requiem is a brilliant film. But it isn't the type of film that gets you up in the morning all bright and cheerful.

In fact if you look at the credits you get the feeling that Aronofsky knew his film was going to be ultra-hard hitting. There's no sound-track just the sounds of coney island: sea lapping and segulls squawking. I think he knew that there would be a lot of people who just stayed seated after the film finished, in a state of shock.

I do think that some happy endings do work though, for instance "the King of Comedy" by Scorcese where the ending just goes to prove what a mucked-up country America is.