The Immortality of Garrick

The Immortality of Garrick
David Garrick, the eighteenth-century actor, playwright, and theater manager often credited with Shakespeare's 18th-century revival, is here lauded by a group of 17 actors in their favorite Shakespearean characters, as he is carried to his apotheosis

Thursday, January 26, 2012


I was thinking about the whole idea of certain art being too difficult to bear, and I thought of the movie Requiem for a Dream. It is the only movie I've seen to date that I absolutely loved, but will most likely not be able to watch again for several years.


Sorry this post is a bit off topic, I just wanted to share, and find out what things you all have found "too difficult to bear".

7 comments:

  1. this is a GREAT example. I've only seen the trailer, and based on the trailer I knew I'd never be able to see the movie. has anyone else in class seen it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. actually, I'd seen a different trailer than the one you posted here; this trailer doesn't bother me. but a related interesting point...I also remember, after I saw the trailer, reading about the movie, and being convinced from what I read that I could never watch it. but I could read it about it just fine. so why is watching something sometimes so much worse?

    and yet, I've had experiences too (though not with King Lear), when reading something is unbearable painful, too. I'm the kind of person who will cry at movies (no, not the Notebook, like Sarah's friends), but as a kid I would also cry over books. We had to read _Where the Red Fern Grows_ in my 6th grade class...if you haven't read it, it tells the story of a young boy and his two dogs. well, the dogs die. I don't do well with animal cruelty. I remember *sobbing* over that book, and to this day I would be very hesitant to re-read it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I completely agree with this example; I've seen the movie multiple times and actually wrote a paper about it in high school! The hospital scene with Sara Goldfarb (Ellen Burstyn) is one of those scenes that I find particularly difficult to watch over again. There are-in my view-several parallels between Requiem and Lear. In both cases, the culminating events towards the ends are difficult to watch and such extreme tragedies because throughout both, the play and film, the viewer knows it wont end well early on. I also believe Aronofky's technique of coupling characters parallel the pairing of characters in Lear. The approaches to fathering one can take, are explored through coupling Gloucester and Lear together; each man illuminating the deeper problems within the other as well the internal conflict-without any resolution-that comes with fatherhood. Similarly, in Requiem, Sara and Marion are paired in some ways to examine approaches to motherhood that shares a tragic outcome with Lear. The primary difference, I would argue, is that unlike Shakespeare, Aronofsky places the primary fault of the tragedy within society and external factors that corrupt the internal structure, whereas the beauty-and sadness-of Shakespeare's tragedy lies within the individual.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also cried hysterically when reading Where the Red Fern Grows!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The funny thing is the day we were discussing how many critics said watching the ending of King Lear was too unbearable and tragic for a repeat viewing, I immediately thought of Requiem for a Dream. This is one of the movies that I loved but have not watched since my first time viewing it three years ago. I believe we are so desensitized due to our overexposure to dramatic media that perhaps our inability to empathize with the subtler points of Shakespeare stems from our tendency to expect the worst of the worst with a "been there, done that" attitude. However when I attempt to think of a film or a literary work that could evoke a similar reaction to that of the audiences who viewed Shakespeare's King Lear, Requiem for a Dream comes to mind immediately. Sarah's comment that the fact that the viewer portends an unhappy ending for all characters adds to the impending sense of doom throughout the viewing. I also noticed another difference between the two works-while Aronofsky's film leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and illustrates a jaded perspective of society's tendency towards corruption and addiction, Shakespeare's ending forces the audience to reflect on the role of fate and the concept of poetic justice which seems more than lacking when even the "good guys" die needlessly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I apologize for the ridiculously late response- I somehow completely forgot I had posted this up here!

    Death in movies has never been of particular bother to me, it does not usually make me cry/feel anything in particular. HOWEVER, there are a few exceptions: animal cruelty and true HAPPINESS.

    **SPOILER ALERT**
    When animals die in movies/books, it is absolutely awful. I find myself almost hating the author/director/actor. Notable examples are in I Am Legend, when Will Smith has to kill his dog (with his own two hands, might I add) because its been infected by the weird zombie virus. Another good example is Tim O'Brien's book, The Things They Carried. Now, if you've read this book you know that it is definitely not a happy one. It follows a troupe of soldiers during the Vietnam war- needless to say there is a lot of death and destruction, explosions and ripped off limbs. But the only thing that really got to me was one of the soldier's abuse of a baby water buffalo. Maybe it was the description of its big, innocent eyes, but the mistreatment of innocent animals somehow really hurts. Maybe its because we know its a war tale and we assume there's going to be killing, but yet we don't think to anticipate the killing to involve animals. Or maybe its because animals tend to represent the highest level of innocence- they have absolutely no say in what happens to them and they have no protection and little awareness of what is going on.

    Maybe this is why I found Requiem for a Dream too much to bear- it was the storyline involving Ellen Burstyn's character that really hit me. She was so blissfully ignorant and so indescribably sad, that it was just pure torture watching her unravel and be torn apart by the drugs. She was like O'Brien's water buffalo- so innocent and not in control.

    As far as us being desensitized to death/destruction by the media (and even literature in some cases) I definitely agree. But more than being desensitized the the awful stuff, I feel that we are oversensitized (that's not a word...OVEREXPOSED**) to fake, cheesy, overly sugar coated happiness. I'm not sure how to explain this, but basically there are so many over-the-top, unbelievable "happy endings" in the media that we get accustomed to them. But when I actually see something that seems so truly, purely HAPPY, it makes it hard to watch for me, so hard that I often cry. The only good examples I can think of are animated movies (way to sound like an absolute dork...), but they are Monsters Inc. and How to Train Your Dragon. At the end of Monsters Inc. when Sully opens the door and all you hear is Boo's voice excitedly exclaiming "Kitty!" there is a look of absolute elation on Sully's face. It is so goddamn happy I just can't handle it. I'll look for some Youtube clips to post here, in case anyone wants to see the kind of "too happy to handle" thing I'm failing to describe here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Clips of things I find almost unbearably happy:

    Monsters Inc clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfW-g4pyrHU

    How to Train Your Dragon clip:
    This whole scene is almost too happy to handle, but the moment at 4:48-5:02 is the peak.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzxeKHA_jOw

    Free Hugs clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4

    Christian the Lion:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDZaWgf_bk0

    ReplyDelete