|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Siya Chhibber
Film has always been a way to express societal issues, and since the beginning, addiction has often been a big topic; from “The French Connection” (1971) to the popular television series Breaking Bad, film has dealt with addiction through either humor, thrill, or consequences. “Movies can make it personal”, explained Antonio Alfaro, a teacher of Film Studies at Las Positas College.
Following is a Q&A with Alfaro:
Chhibber: In what ways have films/shows have portrayed drug abuse?
Alfaro: Films portray drug abuse in a lot of different ways, depending on the tone and genre. On one end, you have raw, intense portrayals like “Requiem for a Dream”, where it’s completely destructive and hard to watch. Then you have shows like “Euphoria,” which balance the emotional side with the chaos and consequences.
But then there’s also a whole category of stoner comedies, like “Pineapple Express”, “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle”, or even older ones like “Cheech & Chong’s Up in Smoke”, where drug use, especially marijuana, is played for humor. In those films, it’s not really about addiction or consequences; it’s more about the experience, the absurd situations, and the comedy that comes from it.
And then you’ve got films like “The Wolf of Wall Street” or “Scarface”, where drug use is stylized and tied to power or excess, at least at first, before things fall apart. So overall, it really ranges from comedic and lighthearted, to stylized and glamorous, to very real and devastating, depending on the story being told.
Chhibber: Are there certain movies that have had huge influences?
Alfaro: Yeah, for sure. “Requiem for a Dream” is probably one of the most impactful because it’s so intense and really stays with you. “Trainspotting” had a huge cultural impact too, especially with how it mixed style, humor, and dark subject matter. “The Wolf of Wall Street” influenced how people see drug use tied to success and excess.
And something like “The Fighter” is a great example from a family perspective. It shows how addiction affects the entire family dynamic, not just the person using. The relationships feel messy and real, especially in how the main character tries to move forward while still tied to people who are struggling. It’s not just about addiction itself, but how it impacts everyone around it.
Chhibber: Should there be more movies about this topic?
Alfaro: I think so, yeah, as long as they’re meaningful. Films like “The Basketball Diaries” or “Candy” work well because they focus on character and show how addiction develops over time, not just the big dramatic moments. They feel personal and grounded.
If more films approach it like that, then absolutely. But if it’s just using drug use as a visual or stylistic thing, like background partying or something that doesn’t really explore the impact, then it doesn’t add much. It really comes down to whether the film is saying something or just using it as a surface-level element.
Chhibber: What impacts can movies have on highlighting the societal impacts of addiction?
Alfaro: Movies can make it personal. Like in “Beautiful Boy”, you see how addiction affects not just the person, but the entire family. Or “The Florida Project” touches on poverty and environment, which can connect to substance abuse in a broader way. Films like that help people understand the bigger picture instead of just judging individuals.
Chhibber: How do you think audience perceptions of addiction change based on whether the film is a Hollywood production versus an independent film?
Alfaro: Hollywood films like “The Wolf of Wall Street” or “Blow” tend to be flashier and higher-energy, so the drug use can feel exciting at times. Indie films like “Heaven Knows What” or “Half Nelson” are usually more grounded and uncomfortable in a good way. They sit with the reality of addiction longer. So, I think indie films often leave you with a deeper emotional understanding, while Hollywood films can sometimes lean more into entertainment.
Chhibber: How has the depiction of specific drugs (e.g., alcohol vs. illegal substances) changed in cinema over the last 30 years?
Alfaro: I think there’s been a shift toward more honesty, but it’s also interesting to look even further back. A film like “Reefer Madness”, which is way older than 30 years, is a great example of how exaggerated and fear-based early portrayals were. It basically turns marijuana into this extreme, almost cartoonish danger. That kind of messaging was very black-and-white.
Over the last 30 years, things have become a lot more nuanced. Alcohol used to be portrayed very casually, like in older films where characters are always drinking, and it’s just part of life. Now you get films like “Flight”, where alcoholism is the central conflict, and you really see the consequences.
With illegal substances, films like “Trainspotting” or “The Basketball Diaries” feel much more grounded and human. They focus on the psychology, long-term effects, and personal struggles rather than just trying to scare the audience. So overall, it’s moved from exaggeration and fear toward more realistic and character-driven storytelling.
Chhibber: What is the difference in narrative structure between films that glamorize substance use and those that depict it realistically?
Alfaro: If you look at something like “The Wolf of Wall Street”, the structure really emphasizes the rise, the fun, the excess. The consequences are there, but they come later. Compare that to “Requiem for a Dream” or “Beautiful Boy”, where the structure is built around the decline and the consequences. Those films spend more time showing the day-to-day struggle, not just the highs.
Chhibber: To what extent do you believe directors have a social responsibility to show the negative consequences of drug use, rather than just the ‘thrill’ or ‘escape’?
Alfaro: I think there’s some responsibility there, especially because film is such an influential medium. That doesn’t mean every film needs to be a lesson, but if you’re going to portray something like drug use, it’s important to be aware of how it might be received.
You can look at something like “Scarface”, where the lifestyle is exciting and larger-than-life, but it still ends in complete destruction. Or even “Boogie Nights”, where the early part of the film feels fun and energetic, but then it really shifts and shows how things fall apart over time. Those films don’t necessarily preach, but they do show the full arc.
I think the best approach is showing both sides, the appeal and the cost, and letting the audience sit with that. When a film trusts the audience to see the consequences without forcing it, that’s usually when it’s the most effective.
Film content has always helped us learn more, and maybe even reflect on ourselves. In an age of rising opioid abuse, filmmakers have the responsibility to inform viewers of the truth of the harm behind addiction. It is also important for viewers to not simply believe everything they watch, but to do their own research, think for themself, and be able to discern between information and entertainment.
This article was written as part of a program to educate youth and others about Alameda County’s opioid crisis, prevention and treatment options. The program is funded by the Alameda County Behavioral Health Department and the grant is administered by Three Valleys Community Foundation.
