Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010)

[Jeff]

I enjoyed the hell out of this, even if I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it. The comparisons to Polanski's Apartment Trilogy are certainly apt, with some Cronenbergian body horror thrown in for good measure. Natalie Portman easily gives the performance of the year, and Kunis is pretty great too. Barabara Hershey and Winona Ryder have fun chewing the scenery in their over-the-top roles, which like most of the movie teeter on the verge of camp. Those focusing on the ballet aspect, or looking for something in the vein of the The Red Shoes are going to be sorely disappointed. Although Aronofsky is certainly interested in exploring the way artists use and abuse their bodies in the interest of attaining perfection, he's not really focusing on the creative process like in Altman's vastly underrated The Company. This has more affinity in that regard with Aronofsky's The Wrestler than it does with any ballet picture. I don't expect any awards attention for anyone other than Portman. This is a Grand Guignol entertainment that's sure to alienate as many people as it impresses.

[colinr0380]

Since we don't have a general Aronofsky thread on the forum I thought I would just post a link to an excellent, in depth discussion of Aronofsky's films by Ed Howard and Jason Bellamy here instead. There is a promise of further discussion to come on Black Swan itself so it does perhaps have a small relevance to the specific topic!

I thought I would link to the piece because it also inspired a response in me whilst reading. I basically agree with a lot of the ideas expressed in the discussion, especially with regard to the idea of a linking theme between all the films seeming to be relating to an obsessed character. However I was thinking that another huge linking theme could be exploitation as much as obsession, more particularly about the way the these two ideas interact.

The way that some of the most obsessive tendencies are indulged at first (while they produce desirable, productive results such as those characters obliquely tussling over Max's intellect in Pi, or Tom's surgeon in The Fountain, or the 'name value' of Randy the Ram in The Wrestler. I suppose the mother/son relationship in Requiem For A Dream could fall into this idea too, with the idea of each 'condoning' each other, or at least all the characters exacerbating each other's issues), and then, when the characters are 'used up' they are then allowed to continue down a path of inevitable destruction, fulfilling a kind of biological self destruct routine protecting the employer/dealer/queen/cardinal/promoter etc from implication in their exploitation.

(After all if anyone is left to describe, or possibly be in a state to object to, the way that have have been mistreated; or had their intellectual property stolen; or their bodies abused; or that TV gameshows or pill popping might be more of a hindrance than a help, then that might be bad for business)

There is some discussion in the Pi section that:

The whole world of Pi seems skewed by Max's obsessions, and as a result we're always left wondering if what we're seeing is filtered through his perceptions: this is especially true of the film's kind-of-sort-of villain, Marcy Dawson (Pamela Hart), a businesswoman who's trying to use Max for her own shadowy purposes, and who comes across as a sinister, grinning caricature.

We are obviously tied to the main character's point of view in all of the films, which allows for a certain skewed paranoid perspective of the other characters to be portrayed, yet I still think that there is an element there of the world beyond having to bear some responsibility for, if not exactly causing the character's problems, then at least for exacerbating them for their own ends.

The Fountain is perhaps where this theme is more muted, since the hospital supervisor played by Burstyn is sympathetic to the reasons behind Tom's obsession, yet it still seems to be there working beneath the surface in the way that work life in the hospital feels based more on palliative care is set against an obsessive need to find a 'cure for death' - yet theidea of a cure is indulged while the hero can be of service to the hospital. And The Wrestler I think is the most interesting development, perhaps reversal, of this idea, with the possibility of something better in terms of a relationship and a life beyond the ring seem genuinely to be on offer, and it is the internal life of the character that prevents them from being able to take that opportunity.

Of course, I'm waiting expectantly to see how Black Swan could fall into this idea - I'm assuming the way that the dancers are mentored and guided could be a fruitful avenue for these ideas about exploitative tendencies encouraging obsessive ones.

[tavernier]

David Edelstein's review

[Tom Hagen]

Black Swan dramatizes that surrender and its overpowering side effects, and it plays like a Roman Polanski remake of Showgirls—with dollops of other Gothic/Grand Guignol filmmakers: David Lynch (life’s a dream), David Cronenberg (life’s a dream that makes icky things sprout from your flesh), Brian De Palma (life’s a voyeuristic tracking shot), and even that Italian giallo maestro Dario Argento (life’s a dark mirror that will shatter and slash you). The camera follows about a foot behind Nina’s slender neck as the settings change and doppelgängers pop up left and right. The movie’s epitaph could be “Double, double toil and trouble.”

And Metacritic translated this into a 100?

[tavernier]

Or this:

Black Swan is crushingly obvious from its first frame to its exultant final whiteout, with poor Cassel having to utter variations of the same exhortation in every scene. (When he directs Nina to go home and touch herself, Aronofsky makes sure we see the giant stuffed bunny near her bed.)

[Finch]

Ed Gonzalez didn't like it either, comparing it unfavourably to Mulholland Drive.

Ryder and Hershey, like Mila Kunis, as Nina's foxy frenemy Lilly, seem to have been cast more for their black hair and cat-like eyes—for seeming as if they could be confused for Portman, even if only from a distance. This choice becomes just another facet of the film's punishingly literal and reductive obsession with motifs of doublings: Every mirror, every painting (don't miss that ink blot on Thomas's wall!), even the surface of bathtub water in one scene, is meant to be read as a window into Nina's soul, the split between her "white" and "black" selves—but these stylistic gesticulations achieve visual symmetry at the same time as they shun insight. The screenplay by Mark Heyman, Andrew Heinz, and John J. McLaughlin, which is rife with bad psychologizing and even worse dialogue ("The real work will be your metamorphosis into her evil twin!" barks Thomas as if he were instructing the Bride of Frankenstein), but Aronofsky could have fixed that: Rather than downplay the script's inherent dumbness or make a balls-out psychedelic spectacle of the thing, he settles for embellishment of a particularly indifferent, transparent sort, more Orphan than Requiem for a Dream.

[mfunk9786]

I can already tell that I'm not going to be able to bear this thread for the next several weeks. I am already having almost unreasonable pangs of defensiveness towards this film, but everyone has their own opinion, especially about a piece of work like this, so it will be like ](*,) if I feed into it by offering line-by-line defenses of the film that counter mixed to negative reviews. Especially the reviews that miss the point so laughably that they're best left ignored.

[Finch]

For what it's worth, the mixed reviews don't deter me from wanting to see it when it opens over here in January. The Fountain was the only Aronofsky film I've genuinely liked to date (found The Wrestler a bit too ordinary) but his films have always had something of interest.

[knives]

If anything these negative reviews are making me interested in a film that looked horrendous at first glance. The Edelstein quote Tom used made it sound like the funnest movie of the year. I'm not going into the Natalie Portman turns into a lesbian swan movie expecting an once of subtlety. In fact if it doesn't reach Shivers or Videodrome levels of exaggeration I'd be disappointed after all of this.

[Mr Sausage]

I'm not going into the Natalie Portman turns into a lesbian swan movie expecting an once of subtlety. In fact if it doesn't reach Shivers or Videodrome levels of exaggeration I'd be disappointed after all of this.

Indeed. Some movies just should not be subtle. The grand guignol style is one of cinema's best pleasures; and while subtlety is appropriate in any number of contexts, the grand guignol is not one of them.

[domino harvey]

I can already tell that I'm not going to be able to bear this thread for the next several weeks. I am already having almost unreasonable pangs of defensiveness towards this film, but everyone has their own opinion, especially about a piece of work like this, so it will be like ](*,) if I feed into it by offering line-by-line defenses of the film that counter mixed to negative reviews. Especially the reviews that miss the point so laughably that they're best left ignored.

This is your Scott Pilgrim!

[mfunk9786]

Yeah, except everyone wasn't out to get Scott Pilgrim!

[Jeff]

I'm a big fan too. Can't wait to see it again and try to get a better grip on it. It's going to be super divisive though. Old people hate it. A blue-haired old lady who'd seen it at Telluride was trying to convince me not to see it at the Denver Film Festival. "Oh, it's awwwwwful!" Apparently monocles have been popping left and right at the Academy screenings.

[domino harvey]

Goddammit, I just spent upwards of fifteen seconds Google Image Searching that

[Finch]

Glenn Kenny likes it, as do Richard Brody and J Hoberman.
Currently at 76% on RT which is not bad at all.

[Markson]

A very positive take from the A.V. Club

[Jeff]

Manohla gets it.

[mfunk9786]

Manohla gets it.

BINGO.

[Mr. Ned]

Excellent write up, and beautifully written. Makes me want to catch a matinee tomorrow.

[mfunk9786]

I know this sounds preachy and ridiculous, and I know this is my favorite film of the year and my opinion therefore doesn't count: But have a naive, bright-eyed viewing of this movie while it's in theaters, at the most ornate and absorbing cinema possible. If it doesn't work out and you don't enjoy it: fine. But at least you'll have given it your best shot. Because if you do enjoy it, you might enjoy it as much as I did. Picture a home run hitter swinging as hard as he can at a fastball down the middle. If he misses it, he might look a little schmucky... but if he nails it - it's going 500 feet waaay past the fence. This is an extremely enjoyable film if you allow it to soak into your pores. If you don't, you're going to feel a little greasy, and a little bit like you might want to try another brand. But at least you gave the good stuff a try.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Manohla gets it.

Yeah, that review is tops. I've read reviews from Ebert, Hoberman, Denby, and Brody which didn't tell me much about the film except in the most superficial way possible. This one really answers more of my questions and addresses some doubts better than the other reviews. I really look forward to seeing this now.

[rs98762001]

I know this sounds preachy and ridiculous, and I know this is my favorite film of the year and my opinion therefore doesn't count: But have a naive, bright-eyed viewing of this movie while it's in theaters, at the most ornate and absorbing cinema possible. If it doesn't work out and you don't enjoy it: fine. But at least you'll have given it your best shot. Because if you do enjoy it, you might enjoy it as much as I did. Picture a home run hitter swinging as hard as he can at a fastball down the middle. If he misses it, he might look a little schmucky... but if he nails it - it's going 500 feet waaay past the fence. This is an extremely enjoyable film if you allow it to soak into your pores. If you don't, you're going to feel a little greasy, and a little bit like you might want to try another brand. But at least you gave the good stuff a try.

I completely understand loving something and wanting to defend it to the death, but I have a really hard time figuring out why you're responding so strongly to this film. Aside from a genuinely brilliant performance from Portman, the whole thing struck me as obvious, predictable and derivative. I'll admit up front I've never been a fan of Aronofsky's bludgeoning style, as so often he hides his predictable narratives with an overbearing assault of sound and fury, but it's even more so in this case and doubly troubling because of Portman's obvious dedication. It's been covered in other reviews, but almost every aspect has been co-opted from other, better movies, but the lack of originality is not ultimately the problem - it's that he does nothing new to transcend his cliches (I disagree with Dargis that he's embracing them; rather, I'm not sure he realizes that's what they are). Right from the outset, Cassel's character spells out where the film and Portman's character are heading, and there's nary a slight turn off this very straight and narrow path. Creepy doppelganger figures? Check. Crazy mom channeling both Piper Laurie and Faye Dunaway? Check. Indicating Portman's transformation via her burgeoning sexuality? Check (this last one is the most infantile of all...her inner black swan is apparently brought out by a combination of silly lesbian fantasy, a tab of Ecstasy, and a very 90s-looking techno club). It's all heavy-handed, broad stroke stuff. Contrast this with the subtle dread and menace, and hints of sexual terror in REPULSION, the quiet but mordantly funny tone of THE TENANT, and you can see just how short the film falls of its obvious influences. Aronofsky's idea of transcendence is to ramp everything up to 11, but unfortunately little of it rings true.

[matrixschmatrix]

A very positive take from the A.V. Club

Podcast discussion about it from them, too. They really like this movie.

[Tom Hagen]

Manohla gets it.

BINGO.

Okay, I am officially excited now. Manohla is the critic with whom I find myself in agreement with most often, followed closely by O'Hehir, and they've both raved it (twice in O'Hehir's case).

mfunk's enthusiasm helps of course, as does Jeff's endorsement (with whom I've been on a similar wavelength on these dynamic top ten lists for a few years now).

[Jack Phillips]

I guess this has already been stated, but there really is no better way to describe the film than this: The Red Shoes meets Repulsion. With a bit of Cronenberg body horror thrown in for good measure. Hella entertaining.