Requiem Reply Mockery, although I would normally agree with you that not enough thought is put into movie analysis, I think you put too much thought into your review on 'Requiem For a Dream' in your 'Duality' paper. Perhaps you were so enamored with the anguishing, existential, tragic ending that you failed to see 'Requiem' as the mere typical horrors-of-drugs movie it is. A typical drug movie shows a group of young adults, full of potential and dreams, who just for kicks begin experimenting with drugs. Before long, despite their greatest efforts, even these innocent recreactional users fall under the spell of addiction. Consequently, a variety of unseemly, even beastly behaviors begin to emerge with in the once-so-pure addicts: robbery, physical neglect, promiscuous sex, and other generally degrading acts. So far, this is a picture perfect description of 'Requiem For a Dream.' Yet, you would like to believe that Aronofsky is attempting to make a more profound statement about dreams than the typical drug movie. Not only are dreams ruined by drugs, you say, the dreams themselves are not to be sought for. Sarah's dreams consist of hopelessly reliving her previous life with her now deceased husband and once respectable son. Also, she dreams of gaining popularity and admiration through television. Harry and Marianne dream of both each other, and of making it financially with their own business.  From the little evidence given towards Tyrone's dreams, it seems he hopes to make his mother proud and "make it" in the world. Besides Harry and Marrianne's longing to be with each other, the rest of these dreams seem rather trivial and superficial. Happiness cannot really be attained through popularity and financial success, though that's what Uncle Sam would have you believe. These dreams don't catch the substance of life. They are undignified and unbecoming of a human being. So, I agree with you Mockery, that Aronofsky should have shown the unsuitableness of these particular dreams themselves, but his movie did not accomplish this feat. To do this, he would have had to show the self-destructiveness and the requiem-worthiness of the dreams themselves. The drugs entirely get in the way of this goal. Sarah, Harry, Marrianne, and Tyrone each lost hold of their supposedly prized dreams only because of drug use. Sarah was put into a mental hospital; Harry and Tyrone were arrested; Marrianne became a crack whore. It was the drugs and only the drugs that caused these outcomes and the inability for the characters to reach their dreams. Aronofsky said himself that he never used the word "heroin" in his film because it wasn't so much a movie about drugs, but addiction in general. He does in fact represent many types of addictions, but he stops short of the logical result: addiction to drugs is bad, but so are all types of addiction. I believe this was what he was hinting at in showing dreams that appear to be the most important thing to the subject, in a trivializing light. Perhaps Aronofsky never attempted to make this originary leap. Could be, but I think he was hinting at it and should have gone all out. If not, so be it, his film becomes just another horrors-of-drugs movie - though it was done more artfully and emotionally than previous attempts. It is still a good movie, just not as good as you would like to believe, Mockery.