Kate: Well, kids, we were hoping to bring you our normal wholesome movie review. However, we were not willing to watch any of the movies showing at Movies 14.

Maria: At the risk of seeming pretentious because we like foreign movies, we decided to write an article on the wondrous evolution of illegal substances in movies in anticipation of "City of God." Although we have not seen the critically acclaimed film debut of Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles' movie that deals with poverty and the drug trade in Rio de Janeiro, we would still like to address its significance in the portrayal of drugs and drug culture in the history of motion pictures.

K: Plus nothing will get a college student to read an article faster than the word "drug" in the title. To understand just how much the portrayal of drug culture has changed since the advent of movies, we have to go back to the beginning — the original drug culture movie. Yes, I am talking about "Reefer Madness." This "documentary" from 1936 is perhaps the most inaccurate portrayal of marijuana use known to man. It labels marijuana as a "violent narcotic" which can cause "incurable insanity."

M: Anyone with stoner friends or cable knows that people under the influence of cannabis are less likely to go on a violent rampage than eat an entire box of Cheese Nips in five minutes. But in the early days of film, accuracy was less important than scare tactics in addressing any aspect of drug culture. Even accurate portrayals showing the negative sides of drug use seem to have been strictly taboo in favor of over-exaggerated anti-narcotic hype.

K: Modern directors have abandoned the idea of marijuana as a ghastly menace, and use it as a comic tool instead. Cheech and Chong's 1978 film "Up in Smoke," featuring a van made entirely of marijuana, is a far cry from the sensationalism of the 1930s. In the last decade, however, we've seen the rise of a new genre of drug culture movies that are much darker.

M: Where the directors of the 1930s used spurious tactics to instill their message in viewers, directors such as Danny Boyle and Darren Aronofsky go the opposite direction and use genuine life experiences for much the same purpose. "Trainspotting" and "Requiem for a Dream" show the disintegration of the lives of lives of people addicted to heroin and other narcotics. Unlike "Reefer Madness," "Trainspotting" and "Requiem for a Dream" both take us inside the heads of drug users. "Trainspotting" frankly addresses heroin use as the greatest pleasure addicts have known in showing exactly how hard it is to quit using the drug, while "Requiem for a Dream" uses graphic images to depict the addict's slide into harsh reality. The shocking frankness of both films is a huge departure from what was acceptable in early days of film, with the bizarre subject material emphasized through rapid camera shots and other surreal filming techniques.

K: While there has been a tendency to look at drug use as something casual or fun, the recent spate of film detailing the less chic side of addiction takes the focus from the perspective of drugs as recreation and focuses on the much nastier reality of life as an addict. The idea of "heroin chic" becomes a lot less appealing with images of the consequences of serious use staring you in the face. The dead baby crawling on the ceiling in "Trainspotting" removes any smidgen of coolness from heroin use. While Cheech and Chong look at drug use as a source of laughs, "Trainspotting" and "Requiem for a Dream" leave little opportunity for comedic enjoyment.

M: Drug culture movies also took a different turn in 2000 with a look at the supply side of the drug trade in Steven Soderburg's "Traffic." Although the film was arguably less successful portraying the lives of drug users, it was an interesting foray into the national and international issues involved in drug sales. The film was a step forward in examining all sides of an issue that has often been incoherently addressed by writers and directors.

Movies revolving around the issues of drugs and drug cultures have become increasingly insightful and accurate since the genre emerged, and especially in the last few years. None of the previous films have been able to offer what "City of God" accomplishes by examining the drug trade abroad without any American perspective on the issue. The film focuses on the violence and poverty that promote and surround narcotics before they ever reach the United States. If watching the lives of drug addicts is an exposure to harsh reality, being emerged for two hours into the worst districts of Rio de Janeiro is even more so.

K: Modern movies provide a much more realistic picture of addiction and they show that there is a much more honest discourse now about the issue of drug use. Directors are still using scare tactics, but they're using tactics based on what really happens. This is an example of how much more effective honesty can be in making any important point. However, it's still a Hollywood version of addiction. These actors go home and are no longer addicted. Volunteering at a homeless shelter will provide a far more realistic picture of the life of a drug addict than a movie will ever be able to do. Or, if you really don't care, go see "A View from the Top."

The opinions expressed in their column are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Observer.

Kate Williams likes pina coladas and getting caught in the rain. She can be reached at kwilliam@nd.edu.

Maria Smith has seen "Almost Famous" and "Say Anything" too many times and can be reached at msmith4@nd.edu.

• 'View from the Top' a new low
  
• Incurable insanity: Drug culture in Hollywood