A Serious Discussion of Drugs and Film, or: Why I Don't Smoke Weed Anymore

Fear that which is not familiar or understood.

and i trust u never drive a car cuz those things are DANGEROUS

Honestly, weed effects everybody so much differently that there really cant be a level discussion. I know people who smoke weed and totally lose it. For me, I just feel pressure behind my eyes and a comfortable sense of well being. The drug certainly enhances my viewing pleasure, some people could say the same about buttered popcorn. Hugo was awesome because I had festively toked a roast. One of my best friends smoked weed for like hundreds of years and then had to quit because he was being thrown into horrific panic attacks. It happens. To each his own. My point is that everyone reacts to it differently.

I certainly think that mushrooms and acid do not go well with movies.

King Crimson and Acid are a killer combination though.

Its good to know that somebody besides me has some fun from this site.

but this is a serious discussion!

Personally, I don’t think you’ve seen Vera Drake until you watch it with a hookah filled with hash.

i think the more serious question is:

“have you ever seen Scent of a Woman ON WEED?!?”

LOL @ Ruby!!

Yeah, I guess the whole moral of the story is that weed is subjective, and films are subjective. I did like that CM Punk speech, though – it was sanctimonious and confrontational in all the ways that Wanderer loves. It also seems like something that would be in a Korine film – a man in a t-shirt and briefs holds an intervention for a booing crowd.

I don’t buy it. Plenty of things taste good. You say you use them on a social basis. Is this one of those things where you don’t know what to do with your hands or feel left out? If you weren’t a slave to them, you’d realise the dangers of both and arrive at the conclusion that the use isn’t worth any benefits you may receive from them.

Everyone else has done a pretty good job of responding to you. You’ve never tried either of those things, so you really have no idea what you’re talking about. At least most of the people in Straight Edge have had experience.

But I’ll respond in kind.

When I say I drink and smoke socially, I mean this: if I’m with a group of people and there’s some whiskey, I’ll have a bit. It does taste good (whether you buy it or not). And since I’m hot hellbent on drinking myself into oblivion, I don’t really see much harm coming my way from drinking every now and then (we’re talking about maybe a once a month frequency here). Same thing with cigarettes or cigars. The frequency that I’m indulging in is so low that I’m not particularly worried.

But even with that in mind, I believe that I will die one day, whether I smoke, drink, do drugs, or none of the above. So I might as well live my life enjoying the things that I like. If I enjoy gin or rum, what ultimate good does it do me to deny myself the occasional bit?

The idea here is very simple. One can even see it in that dumb Morgan Spurlock documentary Super Size Me. Everyone knows that if you do nothing but eat McDonalds (or other fast food), you will get fat and you will induce health problems. Everyone also knows that if you have McDonalds (or other fast food) on an occasional basis in an otherwise healthy diet, you are not really putting yourself at risk. It’s called moderation.

I certainly think that mushrooms and acid do not go well with movies.
I disagree. And why single those two psychotropics out? What of the others?

I’m kind of in two minds about this.

On the one hand I strongly disagree with watching films, or generally engaging with any art, whilst under the influence of drugs, alcohol etc. on the basis of it being profoundly disrespectful to the artist and it thouroughly skewing your perception of the artwork. How can you possibly look at a piece of art in anything even vaguely resembling a fair manner whilst you’re high?

On the other hand, I recognise that all our viewpoints are subjective, and that the manner in which we approach a bit of art is dictated by our own, unique, personal context (i.e. what memories we have, what experiences we’ve had, how our mind works, what mood we’re in). So, with that in mind, is approaching a film whilst high really any different from approaching a film with one set of memories whilst someone else approaches a film with a completely different set of memories? All we’re doing is changing the context in which we view the art, and since we can’t view art in any sort of “fair” context then there’s the question of whether intentionally changing the context in a noticeable manner (such as getting high) is really unfair to the art and artist in question.

It’s a complicated issue.

For what it’s worth this post comes from the perspective of someone who hasn’t tried drugs and rarely tries alcohol (and has nothing wrong with those who do use those things provided they remain civil, which unfortunately many drunken people don’t..), so I don’t have any first-hand experience of the effect drugs/alcohol have on viewing experiences.

On the one hand I strongly disagree with watching films, or generally engaging with any art, whilst under the influence of drugs, alcohol etc. on the basis of it being profoundly disrespectful to the artist and it thouroughly skewing your perception of the artwork. How can you possibly look at a piece of art in anything even vaguely resembling a fair manner whilst you’re high?

What of the work that was conceived under an altered state?

Some art was intended to be appreciated while altered.

.

someone likes Yes

I’ve gotten high from just watching some films. Cinema is a drug.

@nathan m re: supersize me

Why not use drugs? Movies are weird enough. At least the ones I like.

House of Leaves- i had that Yes album poster (the middle of the 3 pics) on my wall as a teen, but i wasn’t taking drugs at the time.

I certainly don’t regret having tried a few drugs in my early 20s. It was from interest in a new experience (i.e Wanderer’s option C) not rebellion or boredom. Well, actually, it followed on from being offered Speed to stay awake all night to catch up with uni work. Why shouldn’t people be open to new experiences? Some do skydiving, some travel etc, and there are risks with all sorts of things. Of course it’s regrettable if addiction or harm results (as it can to gambling, junk food and other things). My main memory of drugs and art is of Sibelius’ 2nd with cannabis, and spending ages when on mushrooms watching faces pop up everywhere in Brueghel’s painting Children’s Games. I find it absurd that people get sent to prison for possessing certain drugs a lot less dangerous than ones sold or exploited for profit by many respectable millionaires. Also absurd that many cig smokers complained over their rights being infringed with legislation, yet demanding strict punishment for cannabis use/sale.

I was watching El Topo for the first time when I realized that I had some good pot in my room. I was home alone, so I smoked up, got some food and watched it. I could not figure out what the hell was going on. Each image seemed like a new and totally unrelated film (although, there were some truly beautiful images). After that, I realized that I can not follow narratives when I’m stoned, so now I only smoke before I watch something shitty.

but el topo is also like that when sober LOL ^

Haha I don’t think you can follow El Topo’s “narrative” sober!!

EDIT: Dammit, Ruby, you beat me!!

heh sorry doofu :P

i think the idea that watching a film high is somehow disrespectful to the filmmaker or causes one to miss certain aspects of the film really misses the point. Any film worth watching is certainly worth watching at least twice and usually more times than that. Therefore if I watch a film stoned, it is a film I have already seen a number of times straight or will see again straight. I have found that watching films under the influence “shuts off” certain pre-judgments about the film, the actors, the mise-en-scene, etc. and allows me to view the film in new ways. I am particularly fond of watching old films (from the 1930’s and 1940’s) because the historicity of the time in which they were made really comes alive. It’s in essence a time machine. Likewise, if I am not working to deconstruct the plot or the themes or the director’s choices I am more alive to the flow of images. It’s certainly not the only way to watch a film, but it should not be dismissed out of hand.

Easy Rider is another film that is quite excellent on grass, especially for the soundtrack.

Okay, A) Controlled studies have shown that drugs tend to diminish creative ability. And yes, the art was judged blindly, by people who did not know which was the ‘drug’ art and which was the ‘non-drug’ art. I really think it’s just the endorphins that make you feel the art is better while you’re making it. Show the final product to impartial judges, they will usually consider the non-drug art better.

B) I totally get the love for the endorphin rush from a little bit of alcohol or other drugs. What I don’t understand at all is why somebody would intentionally impair their ability to control their own brain. When you do that you’re voluntarily surrendering the one thing about humans that separates them from all the other animals and sabotaging the unique property about you that you call your soul.

I’m no saint, I’ll partake in the occasional hedonistic thrill, but not in ways that significantly sabotage my health or my willpower.

C) I totally believe Judd Apatow intends his entire audience to be at least drunk, if not high.

Apollonian vs. Dionysian