This film is preachy anti-drug garbage.
Were we supposed to be honestly scared of these little red pills?
It was reminded me of watching a *beep* "Uh Drugs are Bad M-kay" Captain Planet "Mind Pollution" episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0893716/
I can deal with an anti-drug message if it comes from somebody that actually knows what they're talking about. Phil Dick pretty much lived on a constant cocktail of drugs for a lot of his life, so he knows what he's talking about.
It's hardly Nancy Reagan going "just say no."
Agree with tinoynk re: Phil knowing what he's talking about.
People who say drugs like cannabis are completely safe with no long term side effects clearly don't know *beep* about drugs. A one time tug at a party does not make you a drug expert either.
It amazes me how many people think only in terms of black and white regarding drugs. It's not black and white, its grey,very grey, grey and murky.
But back to the original posts point. I personally didn't come away from this film feeling like it was some anti-drug message at all. To me it was very much just about experiencing the downside sensations, effects and messing with the way the brain works that can happen with drug abuse. I do get why a lot of people simply won't be able to relate to it in any way, having not had anything like such experiences. But then this isn't really a film aimed at the general masses imho.
Touched a raw nerve with me though...
I think the original post was a good trollism to spark some different opinions..
I agree with those that said its far more a movie about corporate conspiracy; its actually that aspect that really resonated with me in the end.
But I can see people coming to the predictable negative judgments of
"acting terrible, graphics hides bad acting"
"no action scenes"
"preachy"
etc etc
and I fully imagine that to be the reaction of many who were not bothered to give the film more attention than the average movie.
Above all else, you've got to concentrate on the film to get something out of it. Tried half-watching it about, hmm, maybe 3 times over a number of years since it came out, and didn't have a clue as to any of it. Not a clue. Was just a gloopy blur of graphics. Only when I decided to give the movie undivided attention, rewinding it constantly to grasp key references, could I then appreciate the substance of this piece. And even then had to read the plot and this board to put the whole picture together. And also having some respect for the PKD name I *wanted* to see what was good about this. Why's the average movie-watcher necessarly going to be bothered to invest that much..
Dick was bothered by the friends he lost to drugs but I actually never thought of it as anti drug. I thought of it as anti government and anti corporation.
shareThis movie is semi-autobiographical. From the credits section, this is the list of the people who were damaged or killed by the drugs they were taking. PKD gets it, even if you don't.
====
The "Phil" mentioned in the "in memoriam" list as having permanent pancreatic damage is Philip K. Dick himself.
At the start of the ending credits, the following text appears:
This has been a story about people who were punished entirely too much for what they did. I loved them all. Here is a list, to whom I dedicate my love:
To Gaylene, deceased
To Ray, deceased
To Francy, permanent psychosis
To Kathy, permanent brain damage
To Jim, deceased
To Val, massive permanent brain damage
To Nancy, permanent psychosis
To Joanne, permanent brain damage
To Maren, deceased
To Nick, deceased
To Terry, deceased
To Dennis, deceased
To Phil, permanent pancreatic damage
To Sue, permanent vascular damage
To Jerri, permanent psychosis and vascular damage
...and so forth
In memoriam. These were comrades whom I had; There are no better. They remain in my mind, and the enemy will never be forgiven. The "enemy" was their mistake in playing. Let them play again, in some other way, and let them be happy.
Philip K. Dick
The theme of this movie has nothing to do with anti-drug garbage (Dick was an early and favorable experimenter with psychedelic and stimulatory drugs). Surely the Phillipic (no pun intended) is against large drug corporations with government tie-ins.
shareThe point of Philip K Dick's A Scanner Darkly is not a simplistic "don't do drugs, kids" but an expose of how crime and authority have a symbiotic relationship with one another, how drug enforcement is actually *responsible* for the black market, the very thing it claims to be warring against. This film (and the book that it is based on) is more anti-drug war than it is anti-drug. It shows how opportunists on all sides profit off people's most helpless addictions, and it is very true to the society we live in. The film doesn't do as good a job at communicating this as the novel does, but i would definitely say you've misinterpreted the film if all you saw a simplistic anti-drug message.
Philip K. Dick's drug of choice was amphetamine, which I feel is what Substance D represents more than anything else. As far as meth-users/speed freaks go, A Scanner Darkly is rather accurate.
The film says nothing negative or preachy about cannabis or psychedelics or any psychoactive substances that could have a truly positive, beneficial, regenerative effect for people. The book brings up the phenomena of drug dealers spiking psychedelics, selling bad acid or selling poisonous mushrooms as psilocybin, which *does* happen and are not the fault of psychedelics or the people who truly love them. Its something that occurs because of the black market and the evil opportunists that take advantage of it. just like much of the black market cannabis you find has been sprayed with steroid sprays and pesticides and are grown on public lands which causes serious detriment to the environment. Again, not the fault of the cannabis plant or well-intended cannabis lovers and growers, but the fault of people who just want profit and don't have a conscience. I feel its important to spread the awareness of this reality and recognize that it is not about putting certain substances in a negative light but addressing the negative circumstances that potentially positive substances have become subjected to.
A Scanner Darkly is Philip K Dick's best novel in my opinion, and it is very empathetic, nonjudgmental, honest and without manipulative irony. It is one of my favorite novels about addiction (although at the moment i'm almost half way through Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace which may take its place as my favorite novel about addiction).