Even though it's not a drug movie, I have to say that the use of drugs makes it probably the most harrowing, nasty, difficult to watch of them all. Did you set out to make something that's absolutely flattening?

That's the point of the movie and the book: the lengths people go to escape their reality. This film is a nose dive into the ground and, beyond the ground, into the sub-basement of hell. When I pitched the movie, I told people that I wanted it to be like you jumped out of an airplane and about midway coming down you remember that you forgot your parachute. That's where the movie begins -- the second you realize you forgot your parachute. And the film ends five minutes after you hit the ground, and you're alive during that last five minutes, catching your last few breaths. For me, that's what the film was, a roller coaster that smashes into a brick wall. I wanted no catharsis at the end; [I wanted it to be] just as harsh and intense as possible. It's a punk movie where the audience is a mosh pit of emotion.

Did you just come up with all that on the fly?

I did actually. I've been saying it's a punk movie, but I never said the mosh pit of emotion.

You know, growing up in Manhattan, we used to go see "A Clockwork Orange" at the 8th Street Playhouse, or to Waverly Street Theater to see "Stop Making Sense" or "Eraserhead." All those films were these exciting, forbidden films, and I think that's where "Pi" and "Requiem" come out of -- trying to make those types of films.

What about the 1966 John Frankenheimer film "Seconds"?

I didn't get to see "Seconds" until after I did "Pi." It got rereleased on video in '98 or '99. I was blown away by that movie; I was really impressed. Frankenheimer was doing shots that I did in "Pi," and he did it years before, and I was impressed by it. It comes out of a similar school, out of "The Twilight Zone," which is where "Pi" came out of.

Back to smashing into brick walls -- do you think there's a danger in going at such full speed, a danger that the view might be overpowered or so beat down that people don't realize what's going on in the film?

I think that's definitely happening in the film. I think the film is pummeling. People are like, "You punched me for 90 minutes."

Personally, I was very fed up. You walk out of most movies and you go, "Oh, that was good." But basically, that's the only impact. This film is about tremendous impact. We wanted it to be crashing through the screen as long as possible. And I think that people are definitely not going to hang with this movie. People who are looking for really light entertainment, I beg of you, don't come see this movie, because you'll be very upset. If you want to go and just rock out for 100 minutes, then this is a good film.

You alluded to this earlier, and you said in the preface to the new edition of Selby's novel that the movie opened up to you when you tried to sketch the character arcs, but then realized ...

... That it was a monster movie.

How do you personify ...

That's the interesting thing: How do you personify addiction? You basically realize that the subtext to all of the characters' conversations is all about that struggle, that battle. It's about addiction taking little steps in each scene to further devour our heroes' lives.

With Sara, there were actual visual ways to personify it. The fridge coming alive is a complete visualization of her addiction, as is the television characters coming alive -- all of those characters represent her addiction having body and form and devouring her.

Every scene, my D.P. [director of photography] and I would say, "OK, where is Addiction in this scene? What is Addiction thinking? What is Addiction doing to basically make these characters suffer more?" That's what Addiction does: It's a terrible monster that eats the human spirit.

I wanted to talk to you about working with Selby and translating the book into the movie. A lot of the scenes ...

Have you read the book?

Yeah.

How do you think I did?

I was actually amazed at how faithful it was to the plot, but I thought that it must have been difficult for you to cut, because so many of the scenes you use from the book are so visual that you just move them to the screen. But so many that you didn't use are just as good. For example, I can't believe that you didn't want to film a scene at the morgue where, in the book, they all meet to shoot up.

I did. It was about money. I had to film that scene at a little party at their apartment -- real cheap. The scene where the TV came alive -- Tony Balls shot it -- that lifestyle scene was one of my favorite scenes. It just wasn't crucial to the narrative.

Selby had started writing a version of the screenplay about 15 years ago, but he had lost it. I started writing it, and got about three-quarters of the way done when I got a call from Selby -- he had found the draft in his basement. He sent it over, and I would say about 80 percent [of the two versions] was the same. Basically, we were telling the same story. It's about getting the essence and then adding ornamentation.

Recent Stories