Talk:Requiem for a Dream/Archive 1

The Novel
Would anyone object if I created a page on the novel, they are very different and Selby uses an interesting style. Yanksox (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We actually need that page. There's a difference between the novel and the film and this article isn't very good as it is, because the top paragraph begins by informing us that Requiem is a novel before going into a detailed summary of the film's plot. So yes, please do make one. Nqnpipnr 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I need to check out the book again, the style Selby uses is very fascinating. There are also alot of scenes that are not in the movie. The end also does leave a little hope for one character in the end. I just can't remember it all. :P Yank  sox  02:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be moved to Requiem for a Dream (film). The book is different than the film and has its own idiosyncrasies (slang/acciented narration), as well as including a whole nother season to the plot. JoeSmack Talk 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Themes
So, I have a little question.

I was planning on adding into the themes section that on a more symbolic note of all the seasons categorized in the film (Summer, Fall, Winter) that there is no Spring, which is commonly associated with redemption or rebirth. I mean its obvious that the main characters are not going to be "redeemed" in any sense to what they previously had or wanted, but I'd like to tie that notion in with the absence of a Spring section in the film.

Questions, Comments, Concerns, Expressions of Angst?

I don't know if that sort of thing has been printed anywhere else, but I just wanted to check.

10/10/06


 * Hi, two things: (1) sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~) even if you're editing anonymously.  (2) Make sure to read WP:NOR if you are introducing something that hasn't been printed anywhere else.  Oh, one more thing: (3) have fun!  Kaisershatner 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah!! Sorry!!! I'm gonna go read now... and double check... Blindednobodies 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tracklistings
Can these be placed into a seperate article, maybe something like "The Music of Requiem For A Dream"? There's a lot of scrolling for a simple list. D43M0N 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's get rid of those soundtrack track listings
I'd like to get rid of the soundtrack info on this page. It's cumbersome and unsightly, especially the "remixed soundtrack" portion. If anything, it should be made into a separate article. Evan Reyes 09:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A separate article would work. Just be sure to follow the guidelines for albums, you can probably find info at WP:ALBUM.  Also, be sure to leave the section and add a main template to  first line to redirect to the article. John Reaves 09:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that a separate article would be nice. However, I think a small sub-section (paragraph long would do) on the soundtrack should stay in the current article, with the a separate article pointed to by the main template. -- Gimlei 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Rule
The third rule is DEFINITELY No Orgasm. Watch the movie wait till about 36 minutes in and just after Mrs. Goldfarb finishes her cleaning in fast motion she sits down and starts to watch the program, when the program resumes in normal speed it cuts back to her, wait till it cuts back to the program and pause it... you'll see it clearly. Iansmcl 23:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or just watch the extras on the DVD Djr36 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Where in Saw?
I checked all the soundtracks for the Saw movie. There is no reference to any music from Requiem for a Dream or any Clint Mansell music. If anybody knows please tell me, or if it is wrong it should be removed. A J Damen 08:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's used int he trailer for Saw 3.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.188.27 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

use of soundtrack on Sky Sports news
Sky Sports News have recently had a refurb of the one screen graphics and soundtrack and are using the Requiem for a Dream one....is it worth noting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharptommy (talk • contribs) 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Moving
Okay, Yanksox and myself are interested in the idea of creating a page for the film and using this page for the novel. Any objections? Nqnpipnr 02:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you leave this page for the film (since it already contains a lot ofinformation about it) and create a new one for the novel? Or will you change all the links from this and other wikipedias too, since most of them expect the movie? CecilK 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really am not interested in completly altering this page, I think it might be a better idea to do what is done at the Battle Royale page and just have a hybrid of the two. Yank  sox  02:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever sounds best to you guys. Yeah, a novel page would be fine, too, but we usually have the novel as its own and then make the film page. Just a suggestion. Nqnpipnr 14:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to contribute to an article about the novel, I have a copy of it, and I could probably be pretty comprehensive with the plot and all. I'm not sure if this is the place to put this, but I'd still really like to help with that. Thebanjohype 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the film and novel need different articles -Captain Crawdad 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the opening paragraph, the previous wording did not make is immediately clear whether Selby made the novel or the book (i.e., "Requiem for a Dream is a 2000 film adaptation of a 1978 novel of the same name, by Hubert Selby, Jr."). I have broken this into separate sentences to make this clearer (at least while the novel and film are covered on the same article), and hope I'm not firing up any wars in the process. As for splitting the article for the novel, it's probably a good idea and in-line with existing practice for adaptations according to Nqnpipnr. I would suggest that the novel is more notable as it came first, although the film is probably more well-known, so it's possibly a toss-up which to make the default. I have a copy of the novel (although it's a couple of years since I read it), so I might be able to contribute there; see also the article on Selby and on Last Exit to Brooklyn regarding the writing style, etc. Note: the article on Last Exit covers the novel (a related court case) and the film, although the film is less well known in current memory but arguably no less important, so another point consider whether to keep the film and novel in one article for Requiem as well. Sroc 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the article should be split into two new ones: Requiem for a Dream and Requiem for a Dream (film). I wouldn't include the (novel) in the title because the novel came first, and the movie from it; this seems to be the norm for movies based off of books. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of poster & DVD cover
Wikipedia has two images for this movie:
 * A poster: 100px|Poster
 * A DVD cover: [[Image:Requiem for a Dream DVD cover.jpg]]

Which should be in the article? I see no reason to favor one over the other which is why I think both should be on there.

Example with both: Cburnett 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Although it's clear Brownies insists the poster be on the page because he/she uploaded it today. I'm curious as to why it's necessary to favor the poster over the DVD cover. Cburnett 20:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The native format for a film is still the cinematic release, not the DVD. So material pertaining the cinematic release should be favored over other material.
 * Both should not be shown. First, this looks like one big poster at first sight, second, a large part is repetition anyway, third, this implies that more is better, and there might be several dozen posters for certain films. A representative sample is much better. --Yooden 21:40, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * I disagree that native format is relevant. It's a bad excuse to upload another picture to obsolete another... Cburnett 22:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, a film being a film, it's all about native format. Also, I wouldn't call it obsoleteness but improvement. --Yooden 22:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd think a film would be about the content not the medium. There's nothing gained by having the poster over the DVD cover.  It's WP:POV. Cburnett 22:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You think a film poster in an article about the film is POV? What is gained is relevance, as the material is more relevant to the medium the film is made for. The medium is important, else we would have seen more films done with video cameras. Have you ever seen Lawrence of Arabia on a big screen? --Yooden 22:48, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * No. I am saying your insistence on choice A over choice B is POV.  You've said it yourself that they're similar ("a large part is repetition anyway").  The medium is irrelevant when choosing poster over DVD cover.  Your choice is entirely POV and POV isn't a good reason.  Cburnett 22:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * About POV: I think I stated the reasons for my choice, and I don't think any of the reasons can be described as POV. Avoiding POV does not mean that you can arbitrarily include anything you like to include into a given article. --Yooden 23:12, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * About the medium: The medium is relevant because, as I stated above, it is the medium the film was originally made for. Thus, the cinematic poster is more relevant to a film than the DVD cover. If, on the other hand, we would talk about a made-for-TV movie which would someway find its way into the cinemas, a program announcement might be the pictoral representation for it. --Yooden 23:12, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

You claim that we should favor one over another despite them being nearly the same by your own admittance. I claim you can't choose either because it's just your point of view. I can't think of any objective means to make a decision (ergo my inclusion of both). Both contain the same information. If the poster had legible text at the bottom then that wouldn't be true, but it's not. So where does this leave us?
 * About similarity: You can't have it both ways; either the pictures are similar enough that any preference would be impossible; in which case, what are you talking about? Or they are similar, in which case we should find reasons to use one or the other. More important, this is not about the looks of either picture (nor any information contained in them), it's about where they come from and what they mean. Another Point (and please address this): If you don't see a difference between the two, why don't you step back and let my reason to include the poster stand?
 * About POV: "I can't think of any objective means to make a decision" Well, I can, and I explained my reasoning on this very page. Please make your point by addressing the reasons I gave or by providing your own. So, once again: Film is an art form where the product is meant for cinematic release, so the picture pertaining to said cinematic release is more relevant than one pertaining to some secondary use. --Yooden
 * Another thought: Assuming we would add an article about Requiem's DVD - would it be better to use the cinematic poster or the DVD cover to illustrate it? --Yooden

Since we're at an impass then it's unfair for you to say I have to accept your decision and it's unfair for you to go with my decision of putting both in. Until something's decided I'm going to remove the picture all together. I ask you to not revert it until we can come to a compromise. Cburnett 00:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the poster is the best choice and generally agree with Yooden's arguments. But (as also stated above) the images are quite similar and I personally don't think it's very important which is in the article. I am however very much against including both pictures on the page because of the similarity. Aenar 01:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course the article will be useful with either one. That's no reason though to accept the second best choice. --Yooden
 * Sorry, I don't see the point of this at all. The article is more useful with a picture, and removing it to get some 'compromise' makes no sense. --Yooden


 * sigh, it's like arguing with a wall. You clearly have no intention to compromise since the picture always must be your way.  By replacing it you completely neglect my opinion and force me to accept your solution.  Way to act like a community.  What's your mailing address?  I'll send you a gold star to make your mom proud. Cburnett 04:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * WTF? I am not ignoring your opinion, I just happen to have another one, and frankly I haven't seen much in terms of reasoning backing up yours. Yet again, please address the following points:
 * The native form of release for a film is the cinematic release. So a pictoral representation belonging to this cinematic release is more relevant than one belonging to a secondary form of use.
 * If you "can't think of any objective means to make a decision", on what basis are you arguing?
 * Assuming we would add an article about Requiem's DVD - would it be better to use the cinematic poster or the DVD cover to illustrate it?
 * Do you think the article would be better with a) the cinematic release poster or b) no picture at all? --Yooden
 * If you weren't ignoring my opinion you wouldn't insistently change the picture to your opinion.
 * If I would ignore your opinion, I would have this discussion.
 * Yeah, and I've said it's irrelevant. Again you disagree, again you keep your opinion by keeping the poster up.
 * Yes, because I don't take your word for it. State some reasons.
 * The basis I'm arguing on is the exact opposite as you: finding something objective instead of subjective. You're using some irrelevant means to support your opinion and it's all POV.  You will never convince me that the medium is *SO* important that it decides this issue.  it's a lame duck for an excuse.
 * Ok, so your are not convinced. Let's try something new then: State your reasons to prefer the DVD cover over the cinematic release poster.
 * THERE WON'T BE AN ARTICLE ON JUST THE DVD!!!!!!!! It's absurd, it's the same movie.  If anything, this point is just a straw-man.  This article is about the movie not the movie on film and not the movie on DVD.  The movie, the content; the medium is irrelevant to the article.  How many times can I repeat this.
 * So stop just saying it and start finding reasons why I should agree with you. Why is the medium of a film not relevant?
 * Do you think the article would be better with the DVD cover or nothing? See, I can force my opinion on you too!
 * This was only about removing any picture altogether. Yes, the DVD cover would be better than no cover.
 * Like I've said, you're ignoring my opinion by reverting *ANY* change I've made to your opinion. A double picture is a compromise: you remove it.  No picture is a compromise: you remove it.  Whatever, you win.  Still, what's your address?  I'll bump it to two gold stars for making me repeat myself. Cburnett 18:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Cburnett--I don't mean to be flamey--but you seem to be almost dead-set on trolling regarding this complete non-issue. Yooden's argument is sound and NOT a POV issue in the slightest.  The alternatives you offer--both pictures, or no picture--are not even remotely attractive, and your argument for DVD-only is vague.  Let us stop being hysterical and consider the matter closed already, please.  Ford MF 21:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to add my two cents to what seems to be a dead topic: it makes more sense to have the DVD cover as the picture, simply because that would be the format now most recognized. If you want people to know which film is being referenced, visually, it is better to go with what people would easily recognize, native format and all that other bulldink aside.Chewbacca1010 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for preferring the cinematic release poster over the DVD cover
The native form of release for a film is the cinematic release. So a pictoral representation belonging to this cinematic release is more relevant than one belonging to a secondary form of use.
 * Yeah, you still don't GET IT Yooden. You win, whatever.  You're not worth my time any more.  Congrats, you're up to three gold stars. Cburnett 20:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, your argument is compete bull crap. When a film is created today, the ultimate end product is the DVD. Any studio creating films knows that and the entire lifespan of a film (theatrical/box office profit, movie networks profit, rental profit, DVD sales profit and finally cable TV profit) is examined, not just it's initial "native form" at the theaters.


 * It's "native form" (whatever that even means) is irrelevant since the whole picture is what matters, and that included DVDs (which is especially important considering that the amount made on DVD sales and rentals often surpass the amount made at the box office). Overall, DVD sales are higher then that seen at the box office. Thus, DVD covers are just as important (arguably more so) then the film posters, of which there are usually many different kinds anyway.207.61.168.220 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Films/Style guidelines states that posters are preferred over DVD covers. Guidelines > personal preference.--SeizureDog (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Go with what is universally used. Just saying that his reasoning is flawed and uninformed.Chewbacca1010 (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She didn't borrow money
One of the captions reads, "Harry and Marion after borrowing money from Arnold, her former therapist." That's not accurate. She didn't borrow it. She had sex with him for money. That's why Harry can't even look at her, because he, in essence, made his girlfriend have sex with Arnold so they could buy more drugs. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'm going to change the caption. Comments???--Lindsay (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Little John/Big Tim?
The name Little John and Big Tim are both used at different points in the article without specifying that it is in reference to the same person.. this could be very confusing to someone who has not seen/read it. The first time it is used it says Big Tim and is followed by the name of the actor from the move, however in the movie the name is Little John. This is an error as it is a reference to the movie but has the incorrect movie character name. I suggest doing one of three things, either: 1. Use Little John throughout, and list somewhere early in the article that his name in the book is Big Tim. 2. Use Big Time throughout, and list somewhere early in the article that his name in the movie is Little John. or 3. Use both names whenever refering to the character. 71.184.164.161 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And since when is he a pimp? I watched the film the other day and it never said he was. He has sex parties, obviously, but all I gathered was that he is a powerful and relatively rich drug dealer who likes sex.Chewbacca1010 (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is confusing, but the names Little John and Big Tim are both used in the movie AND in the book. I think Big Tim is his real name and Little John is just a nickname he gives himself.Lemonlimeguy (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the film, at least, I got the sense that Big Tim was his actual name and Little John was a pun he used with Marian, even calling her Maid Marian several times. Stile4aly (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot section improvement
I have added the template for overlong plot summaries to this article; the summary is extremely extensive (almost 4 screens of text on my monitor, as opposed to 2 paragraphs for Erin Brockovich (film) and fewer than 2 screens for Shakespeare in Love, both critically acclaimed movies from the same period as Requiem for a Dream.

The plot summary could also use some editing for tone. I changed one of the particularly jarring notes ("drug whore" is not encyclopedic) but it's something to consider in general.

LaPrecieuse (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Themes
I understand why this movie is considered a drug movie and addition movie. That said, and I have no traditional film/theatre training, this movie scared me to death. I was terrified. The last 30 minutes or so of the movie I was crying. I guess it's not appropriate to say it's "horror." Or "scary," which sounds childish. But maybe it could be developed as to how shocking the movie is. Or maybe I'm just a scaredy-cat!--Lindsay 04:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like to refer to the film as "an assult on the senses" (in a good way). The way the film is shot it just beats on your mind until it breaks it. --SeizureDog 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, consider me assaulted. I agree, it was sensory overload and brilliant--Lindsay 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither would really be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Besides that, Requim is pretty tame when you're not only comparing it to other mainstream titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.5.197 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

'Themes' section
Shouldn't this crap be removed? Totally not wiki quality. 24.14.156.34 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It seems more like the page author's interpretations of the material. There's only one citation followed with three paragraphs of obscure explanations of metaphors not supported by the book's author or the filmmakers. The whole section is opinion and reads like a film student's homework assignment.


 * Nice rewrite, but isn't "arguably" an example of a weasel word? Furthermore: "Selby explains the title of his book in this context..." Is this a citation? Is there a forward or something in a special edition? The section begins to unravel after the first quote from the filmmaker into what seems to be an analysis of the author's work, none of which has any business being on the film's page. I think the quote should be moved, if it needs to be kept at all, and I nominate this section for deletion. There's no place in an encyclopedia for perception of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.83.14 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Major edit"
I edited the plot way down without noticing the "major edit underway" tag. Sorry about that, I didn't intend to step on any toes. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, just attempting to keep well-meaning but effectively-trolling taggers at bay. Feel free to edit freely, as I have addressed the citations problems with the Style section. Skomorokh  19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
In the section titled "Plot" is the phrase:

"Harry's girlfriend has balls"

Is this vandalism??? --Skb8721 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No.

How is that vandalism... you're silly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredom Swells (talk • contribs) 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

tremello -> tremolo
I'm not well-versed in musical techniques, but I couldn't find any other references to "tremello" on WP and relatively few (~1980) for tremello. What I think is meant here is the term tremolo. I've changed the article to reflect this but if someone else here is more knowledgable about music, please, feel free to correct it. Pimlottc 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is methamphetamine.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.187.43 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

a source
Found this whilst searching for something else: (couldn't figure out hoe to set the wiki encoding for this due to the presence of brackets in the webaddress)- Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/;kw=[15332,104183]

Gigantic Spoiler
Im not sure what the usual guidelines are for wikipedia articles on movies but the final paragraph in the movie plot section basicly describes the entire ending of the movie. Is it really okay to spoil in such a way? Imho it should be deleted, boiled down to something simpler and less descriptive or clearly marked as a spoiler. --195.93.192.193 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The question of plot spoilers has been in the news recently, with criticism of The Mousetrap for revealing the ending. Requiem for a Dream is not a thriller or a detective story, and it is standard practice for Wikipedia articles about films to summarize the plot. The real question here is whether the plot summary is too long or detailed, and it does not seem to be. Other comments welcome.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing of poster
There appears to be some disagreement over which poster to use. The poster that is currently on the article has been there five and a half years and shows an eye above the title with a picture underneath of a woman looking out to sea. This is the image that has been used worldwide. The other poster has the same image of the eye at the top of the poster but also includes a quote from a critic. Underneath the title the image has changed to images of the four main characters. I personally have never seen this image used and it looks more like an international poster. As such I feel the original image should stay. Any thoughts? Quentin X (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

3 seasons, not 4
96.245.227.179 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Under the 'Plot' heading, the article says that there are 4 seasons (acts) in the movie. There are three seasons: summer, fall, and winter. there is no Spring Act.96.245.227.179 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

'Heroin' in the movie
Harry has to have his arm amputated in a hospital after the heroin injections caused an infection

I seem to remember seeing pupil dilation during the injection scenes. Heroin causes pupils to constrict. Some with whom I have discussed this say that it is a mistake, and the drug being taken is meant to be heroin. some claim the drug is more likely some kind of amphetamine (unlikely due to the characters reactions). In my opinion, it was likely done because the specific drug involved isn't relevant to the theme. anyhow, I don't think that the article should specify a drug when none is explicitly mentioned in the film. --Morbid-o 15:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The book says it's heroin. So it's reasonable to assume that it's heroin in the movie too (despite the pupil dilation, which is likely just for effect). R Calvete 02:37, 2005 August 20 (UTC)


 * In the small documentary 'Requiem for a dream: anatomy of a scene' (included on the dvd), it shows some drawings of what the scene is supposed to look like. One drawing actually shows the pupil constricting and has the note that it is going 'to a pinpoint'. I suspect it was changed because the dilation looked better, or that most people think drugs make your pupils dilate and to the majority it would seem more realistic. it is clearly heroin in the film, I think the fact that they originally wanted the pupil down constricting supports this. LouiseCooke


 * Also of note is that the methods used to prepare it are pretty much dead on to heroin.


 * The drug depicted is heroin. Their behavior when on it is characteristic of a heroin rush, as is their compulsivity about using it so regularly.  Tweakers and cokeheads don't get that compulsively dependent (like clockwork) the way junkies do.  They could be speed-balling it (mixing it with speed or coke), which accounts for them not going on a nod after the rush.  Also, speed and coke are less often shot up.  Ditto, the way they cook it up.  The pupil thing is likely either done for dramatic effect, or is a mistake, or is supposed to be in reverse-time. tommythegun 10:42 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm no junkie, and I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that there were several types of drugs being depicted in the movie. There is also marijuana use in the film. Also, book to film adaptations, well, they aren't always exact or true to text. Just because the book specifies heroin does not mean that the makers of the film did not add in other stuff too.

Why was the heroin snorted in the movie white? Isn't heroin more commonly brown, as opposed to coke or ketamine being white..? 4.234.45.146 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they were depicting nodding in scenes like the one where he dreamt he took the cops gun towards the beginning, and he and Tyrone began throwing it back and forth. Then he woke up and they just left instead. 4.234.45.146 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Heroin can also be white when it is snorted. It ranges from white to dark brown. It could also be that when they show snorting scenes in the movie, it is powdered cocaine. The use of the rolled-up dollar bill is stereotypical of cocaine snorting. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The drug is heroin, and it is explicitly stated. Near the beginning of the movie, during Tyrone and Harry's party, Tyrone says "This is some boss scag." Scag is a street name for heroin.Lemonlimeguy (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the method they use for the "scag" is the flame, spoon, and cotton method (syringe) versus the snorting they show later in the movie. The fact that the also take amphetamines to "waste time" and marijuana under the boardwalk is indicative of the fact that they use multiple drugs throughout the movie. When dealing with heroin they limit it to injecting. Also, this book was written in the 1970s when snorting heroin was virtually unheard of. Therefore, it is almost 100% certain that they were insufflating cocaine and not heroin. Mbenzdabest (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember a reference to PCP.there's a scene where tyrone and harry sit outside, and one of them mentions "angel dust" (a common streetname for pcp). I don't know (and also don't think) it's the main drug that is used troughout the whole film though 109.131.202.224 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perfect Blue
The following was removed yesterday by an anonymous editor with an edit summary saying it was untrue. I am bringing it here for further discussion.


 * In addition to the film rights of the novel, Aronofsky purchased film rights for Perfect Blue for $59,000 so he could reference a scene from the film shot by shot, within a similar thematic context in Requiem for a Dream.

This was previously included in a trivia section (see trivia discussion above) and then was integrated into the article. Unfortunately, the only ref. was the IMDB trivia page, which is not close to adequate as a ref. Does anyone know anything about this? -

This article might clear things up. http://www.flixist.com/monday-movie-trivia-aronofsky-bought-perfect-blue-rights-205425.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.55.168 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Heroin?
It seemed pretty plain to me that Harry and Marion are heroin junkies, but the anon user suggests otherwise. Does anyone have any info on this? Neilc 07:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm decently sure marion likes coke, little john even called her a "powder chick" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.133.194.251 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Marion is on heroin, too. Big Tim calls her a "patty [white] chick," not a "powder chick."Lemonlimeguy (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Heroin isn't used in the film at all. Since when do Opiates enlarge the pupil? Everyone knows they constrict them. Someone change it please. 77.86.4.196 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Directors make factual mistakes in their films. Especially this film, which I would bet my bottom dollar got a little friendly funding from the grannys at the National Institute for Drug Abuse. The drug in the film is heroin, half the film revolves around the main characters going through withdrawals. Our own coverage of the book supports this. No they did not change the entire subject of the story from heroin addicts to cocaine addicts. Its a different culture, to put it mildly. The mistake pointed out has been widely publicized as a mistake. Ironically, the mother's pupil dilation is an accurate side effect of amphetamine psychosis. Im confused by the controversy on this. The entire film's treatment of drugs is completely fantastical, from the "Reefer Madness"-style hallucinations they get from smoking pot, to the classic black rapist who magically appears in movies whenever pretty, innocent white girls need a fix (see "Traffic" for the same racist trope from an equally exploitative film released within 5 years of "Requiem"), to the black death abscess pretty-boy-whats-his-name gets from a two year diet coke habit that culminates in the most laughable amputation scene in the history of american cinema. IV Abscess hasnt lead to amputation since the civil war. I could go on, but no one will listen. Whatever. They were shooting ecstasy. Requiem is the best movie of all time. Links:


 * http://www.moviemistakes.com/main1857
 * http://litmuszine.com/pupils-dilate-pinpoint-contradiction-requiem-dream/
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180093/goofs#factual_error      Jay Dubya (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Book / Film
Isn't it traditional on Wikipedia that if there's a book and movie based on the same creative work that it would be Requiem for a Dream (Film) and Requiem for a Dream (Book)? I'm pretty sure there was an article for the novel, but because of the redirect, you go straight to the movie which has differences from the novel as well as is a different entity. Makes no sense that the book the movie was based on has no article. --76.214.197.61 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It exists now Requiem_for_a_Dream_(novel) Jay Dubya (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Critical Reception
Shouldn't it be mentioned since the movie got extremely high reviews? SlimShady6135 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it was about drugs. Of course it got high reviews.

Seriously, though... can someone add a "Reception" section to this article, as is common with other movie articles? Dave (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's done. I edited up the critical reception section to include several reviews from notable publications and film critics. BenLinus  1214 talk 23:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Style" section
I understand this is a contentious film. But the "Style" section is broken. The first paragraph is sound, logical and contains sincere information on a number of techniques used in the film.

The next two paragraphs read like a verbatim copy-paste of someone's end-of-school exam essay on the film itself. It is pretentious nonsense which is difficult to understand, blatantly superficial, riddled with over-burdened grammar one would expect from a student trying to impress a teacher, and has very little actual substance. It is not encyclopedic. And it's even referenced appropriately!

"The camera serves as a vehicle for the character's state of mind" - christ there are many more. "The film's distancing itself from empathy is structurally advanced by the use of intertitles (Summer, Fall, Winter), marking the temporal progress of addiction.[10] The average scene length shortens as the film progress" blah blah blah. I dabbled in this in order to pass my final exams and it was lapped up like a hungry dog.

How many people are going to type this films' name into Google and come across this irrelevant, obscure horseshit and immediately sprint to something else? This is NOT the site that is the the dumptruck for your unsuccessful graduation essay. Please, for the benefit of both the high-flying English masters, and the pleb that just wants some information, keep your moment of glory to yourself.

I would wipe the two paragraphs in question but they provide a *bit* of substance to the article and the sub-heading seems a bit lonely without them. I also have no idea how to flag the heading, being a new editor. Just felt the need to bring attention to this kind of post on this site. It simply does not belong and it is frustrating to come across - not because it is poor information (just intended to impress an official seeking pretentious wank), but because it is the opposite of encyclopedic and C+P'ing your work into an article of a significant creative work is shitty, bad practice.

Also, I eat salt for breakfast lunch and tea.

Seneillion (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Genre
It's a drug film. It doesn't get much more "drug film" than a film about a drug addict, his drug addict girlfriend, his drug addict best friend, and his mother who unwittingly becomes a drug addict, and how drugs destroy their lives in a variety of ways. Does anyone disagree? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia needs to follow what reliable sources say in identifying the film's genre. In other words, per WP:FILMLEAD, it should be "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". I'm sure that there are some sources out there that have called it a "drug film", but is it the most common genre classification given to the film? I don't really think so. But it is still possible to discuss it as a drug film later in the lead section or the article body. The problem is that in the opening sentence, we need to root the genre in something verifiable because otherwise there is "genre bloat", where editors add another genre and yet another genre. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Iris/pupil mistake
In this paragraph in the article, I changed the word iris to pupil: "The montage shown when a character injects heroin contains a factual mistake: a closeup of the eye shows the iris dilating when it actually contracts." 63.215.27.149 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the iris that does the contraction, not the pupil, the pupil is just the space in between. cyclosarin 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone removed the entire graph. Which is unfortunate, because this was a widely publicized error that was made repeatedly throughout the film Jay Dubya (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The usage of opiates causes miosis rather than mydriasis. AnupamTalk 22:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Jail charge
Its possible to be arrested for posessing, selling or buying drugs but not just because you're an addict. 174.251.224.87 (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)