Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010)

[James Mills]

I'm slightly disappointed, personally. Here's a review I wrote on my Flixter:

Ambiguity, lesbianism, hallucinations, jealousy, schizophrenia, masturbation, more ambiguity; sound familiar to you? Black Swan may advertise itself as a melodrama of Powell proportions, but the film is as Lynchian as it gets. There's positives and negatives to this route, of course. The good news is Aronofsky is an even better stage director than David Lynch, and I'm sure Natalie Portman (in the performance of her career) can vouch for this. The bad news: while there is some substantive material lurking in Aronfsky's ambiguity, it isn't half as collectively realized as Lynch's best work. Black Swan's substance feels as if though it was discovered during its making, like a connection to an essay thesis conveniently surfaced while touching up the summary, whereas Lynch's connections inspired the thesis in the first place. I also believe Lynch to be the slightly better craftsman of overall composition and camera movement, but who's pulling straws? Being compared to David Lynch is certainly an accomplishment in itself.

First and foremost, Black Swan is thoroughly entertaining and mysteriously gripping. Perhaps its the incredible acting, or the equally luring dialogue, but somehow the film manages to not lose steam even after the apparent dramatic problem (Nina trying to get the Swan Princess role) is put to rest within the first twenty minutes. The honesty and depth to the lead triad makes up for the occasional grainy footage and the surprisingly timid ballet choreography. The reserved dance sequences aren't helped by the lack of dollying and long shots, though this is due to Aronofsky's (questionable) decision to film entirely handheld as a feminine companion piece to The Wrestler's masculinity. This lack of dynamism makes the film feel more rushed, unfortunately, and I don't know if the grainy stock worked as well as it did in The Wrestler.

Time will tell how I really feel about this film, much like The Wrestler. The Wrestler grew exponentially on me before finally becoming one of my favorite films of the decade, and maybe the same will happen here with some research, retrospection, and repeated viewings. My reservations about this happening stem from the fact that Black Swan tries to comment on too many subjects, each feeling too ephemeral to have the same form of profundity that The Wrestler had on me from the very first viewing. Nevertheless, a recommendable film by all standards to all different moviegoers, and I will be seeing it again shortly.

[Kellen]

Darren and Natalie talking Black Swan with Charlie Rose

[Markson]

Darren and Natalie talking Black Swan with Charlie Rose

Worth watching, if only to learn about Mike Nichols imploring Natalie to beat out her "child" voice with voice coaches. And, maybe it's just the 'stache, but, I'm getting a Weird Uncle vibe from Darren.

[James Mills]

Meh, it's disappointing to hear Natalie basically confirm that the main theme of the film is simply her becoming a woman. I didn't want to believe it after my first viewing of the movie, as I feel that it trivializes the suspense. The entire metaphor of her "transformation" feels pretty strained to me, personally.

[Markson]

I noticed that Aronofsky admitted to casting Ryder based, essentially, on the fact that she "is" the part, but avoided the more obvious instance of similarly-motivated casting: Natalie––a well-known and reasonably well-liked performer who has been around for ages without making much of mark through challenging roles. She struggles to seem natural, struggles to pull off "edgier" parts, and struggles to earn a spotlighted respect for her abilities. I know I'm hardly the first to find such reason for her casting here, but I thought it odd that this was sidestepped and reduced to simply representing a passage into artistic adulthood or somesuch.

[mfunk9786]

Meh, it's disappointing to hear Natalie basically confirm that the main theme of the film is simply her becoming a woman. I didn't want to believe it after my first viewing of the movie, as I feel that it trivializes the suspense. The entire metaphor of her "transformation" feels pretty strained to me, personally.

Huh? You're disappointed that the main theme of the film is well-integrated and doesn't make its presence known every chance the writer and director get? Not sure how that could possibly be a bad thing.

[James Mills]

Huh? You're disappointed that the main theme of the film is well-integrated and doesn't make its presence known every chance the writer and director get? Not sure how that could possibly be a bad thing.

The exact opposite, rather. I think the theme is overstated throughout the film's entirety, yet a multitude of other ideas and references are touched upon without much form of critique, provocation, or purpose other than to appear "suspenseful" or "sexy".

[Brian C]

...a multitude of other ideas and references are touched upon without much form of critique, provocation, or purpose other than to appear "suspenseful" or "sexy".

Such as...?

A couple days after seeing this, I feel I'm with mfunk on this one, that this is the best movie of the year so far. I seem to have taken it more seriously than a lot of other viewers, however, from what I gather from the comments here and reviews in general. As a story about a young woman in the advanced stages of mental illness, it struck me as deeply moving and terribly sad. But it's a mad, open-hearted gesture of a movie, and it features a performance by Natalie Portman that I honestly don't believe I thought her capable of. And I've always liked Natalie Portman!

Furthermore, for all the comparisons to The Red Shoes that it's garnered, I think it serves as something of an answer to that film. Victoria Page was ultimately unable to reconcile her dilemma between art and love, but Nina's all-in on her art, to the detriment of that art, it would seem. Where the earlier film seemed to argue that Victoria had to make a choice, the latter seems to argue that her art can't be whole without something else in her life to keep her grounded, to give her art meaning beyond the simple technical perfection of it.

And of course, for her troubles, Nina is destroyed by the machine, so to speak. Whether that machine is of her own making or imposed on her externally (or both) is perhaps the film's central mystery, and I'm not certain that there's an answer.

(Incidentally, I think this is one of the central themes of Aronofsky's work to date, the notion of being consumed by the machine. My first notion was to think that Tom and Izzi of The Fountain were the only central characters of his to escape the cycles that they're ensnared in, but thinking about it, I don't think that's quite right. The novelty of that film is that it finally reveals that cycle - nothing less than life and death as a continous feedback loop - as beautiful and transcendant. In his other films, though, the cycles are destructive traps.)

[James Mills]

And of course, for her troubles, Nina is destroyed by the machine, so to speak. Whether that machine is of her own making or imposed on her externally (or both) is perhaps the film's central mystery, and I'm not certain that there's an answer.

This is one of the prime example of what I was talking about. The notion that her passion sees her demise is abrupt, as is the whole Gloria Swanson mumbo with Ryder. Aside from the scenes that seemingly spell this out, neither seem to be supported throughout the film. While the power of the mother and the instructor seem to support the film's overall Freudian theme of womanhood, the party and lesbian scenes are more fluff than relative issues amongst her development.

In general, the notion that she's just disillusioned and mentally insane is very convenient and serves as a glib answer for many of the other notions that are touched upon throughout the film. To be frank, it seems that Darren's own admission of "taking Swan Lake and turning it into a film" is really all this film is about, and all these suspense ploys and psychoanalysis' seem to be fun little thoughts and connections that ever so slightly coincide with the original ballet. I think the result is a very strained metaphor of transformation and a film that had no original intentions of saying anything substantive at all, but stumbled upon some interesting thoughts through its making.

It's a courageous effort and it's thoroughly entertaining, just a tad too indulgent to me at this point. I'll see it again though, so perhaps I'll become more enlightened to your guys' observations or something. It would be cool to hear what you guys think are the keys that tie the film together for you.

[Markson]

Another new poster.

[Brian C]

In general, the notion that she's just disillusioned and mentally insane is very convenient and serves as a glib answer for many of the other notions that are touched upon throughout the film.

I'm having a hard time zeroing in on what your actual objections are. To say that it's "very convenient" that she's insane is like saying that it's "very convenient" for the plot of Goodfellas that mobsters often get away with breaking laws. It's sort of the premise of the movie, right?

I also don't know what this means:

I think the result is ... a film that had no original intentions of saying anything substantive at all, but stumbled upon some interesting thoughts through its making.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the filmmakers' intentions here (with this and with your comment about Natalie's interpretation above), which in the end are basically irrelevant. The movie is the movie, regardless of what the "original intentions" are, and if the "interesting thoughts" are there, well, there they are, and there they'll stay. We can focus on those interesting aspects, or we can debate whether they happened on purpose or not ... but the latter is a truly boring debate, and requires mindreading skills that I obviously do not share with you.

At any rate, I think you're only 50% or so incorrect, because you're willing to acknowledge some of the good things about the movie. So I guess I have to break with mfunk on that score. Sorry, mfunk.

[James Mills]

In general, the notion that she's just disillusioned and mentally insane is very convenient and serves as a glib answer for many of the other notions that are touched upon throughout the film.

I'm having a hard time zeroing in on what your actual objections are. To say that it's "very convenient" that she's insane is like saying that it's "very convenient" for the plot of Goodfellas that mobsters often get away with breaking laws. It's sort of the premise of the movie, right?

I also don't know what this means:

I think the result is ... a film that had no original intentions of saying anything substantive at all, but stumbled upon some interesting thoughts through its making.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the filmmakers' intentions here (with this and with your comment about Natalie's interpretation above), which in the end are basically irrelevant. The movie is the movie, regardless of what the "original intentions" are, and if the "interesting thoughts" are there, well, there they are, and there they'll stay. We can focus on those interesting aspects, or we can debate whether they happened on purpose or not ... but the latter is a truly boring debate, and requires mindreading skills that I obviously do not share with you.

At any rate, I think you're only 50% or so incorrect, because you're willing to acknowledge some of the good things about the movie. So I guess I have to break with mfunk on that score. Sorry, mfunk.

The Goodfellas being mobsters and getting away with breaking the law isn't convenient; they pay the price for it and the film goes on to say something about their career decisions as such. Black Swan sees disastrous monstrosities and transformations take place, accentuated with suspense and horror to further enchant the mystery, only for it to be answered with "she's insane". Like I said, I think it trivializes the process and buildup, but that's just me. Obviously this isn't a unique issue for suspense and mystery films, but that only contributes to my disliking.

Of course it's "just a movie," but why should we accept such an apathetic stance on cinema when there are so many films that not only invoke a series of such thoughts, but go on to develop them and also offer solutions (or at least stances) on the subject matter? At the very least, I'd like such ideas to be developed enough that the viewer can take a stance on them. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm more interested in a film that was made with a purpose or intent rather than as a practice simply because the director always wanted to make a ballet movie or whatever. Obviously it's deeper than that, and I don't mean to downsize Aronofsky's role to such extremes, but I feel like I have to aggrandize the matter in order for you to understand where I'm coming from.

I recently listed Aronofsky as one of the top 15 directors that have influenced my own work, so I'm obviously a huge fan. Both Requiem and The Wrestler made my top ten for the decade (the only director to have two in my top ten), so obviously I'm not deliberately trying to be disputatious or repugnant. Hell, I even rated Black swan 3.5 out of 5, so it's not as if I disliked it at all. Something just doesn't sit well for me with this film, and I'm trying my best to describe it.

[JMULL222]

Your looking for this whole movie to fit together like a puzzle and teach you a tidy little lesson like some sociology class. I'm no big Aronofsky fan (I find "Requiem" to be shallow propaganda) but you have to realize that film is not an essay, its not presenting a societal problem and coming up with a thesis to attack it. This is a film that is enigmatic enough to be about whatever you want: her transformation into a woman represented through a reality bending dream, a mentally insane woman's final hallucinations, a stylized modern remake of swan lake, a horror film highly indebted to the work of cronenberg and polanski, some combination thereof, or something else entirely. Aronofsky's aim as a director (if that's indeed what you want to focus on) is to create emotion, a film is built and thrives on mood, not on its "completeness" or how well it "offers solutions on its subject matter". A quote comes to mind, "Cinema is the station, it is not the train". Or is it the other way around?

[rs98762001]

This is a film that is enigmatic enough to be about whatever you want

I don't agree. It was overly literal and heavy-handed - nowhere near enigmatic enough.

[mfunk9786]

Good lord. Arguing over whether a movie is enigmatic enough? Yikes.

[James Mills]

This is a film that is enigmatic enough to be about whatever you want

I don't agree. It was overly literal and heavy-handed - nowhere near enigmatic enough.

Though I agree with most of what JMULL wrote (and personally am not satisfied with that approach to film), it is the overstated emphasis of her transformation that I have problems with. It suggests that the film is trying to offer some form of totality and resolution to everything beforehand as opposed to it being a film that is made to "illicit emotions" like JMULL said it is. I agree with that statement and feel it should thus wear that stance more proudly than try to hide it behind an all encompassing answer like "she was just crazy the whole time." For instance, I would've appreciated everything more if we simply never found out whether or not the actual transformation was real, or whether or not she actually killed her adversary.

Anyways, it's been fun discussing the idea with you guys. We agree to disagree for now, but I'll be back after I watch it again.

[Grand Illusion]

Just saw this. Loved Portman's performance. An excellent portrayal, not merely of madness, but of obsession, dedication, suppressed sexuality, and artistry. She's thrust into trying to live up to her mother's ideal, while she can't even grow into a sexual human being living in such close quarters with her omnipresent mother. Then the character has to contend with the sexual advances of her older, sexually-explicit mentor. I really enjoyed watching the little nervous tics and twitches that Portman brings to the initial character fade away with the transformation.

Portman's performance is strengthened, too, by the sheer subjectivity of the camerawork. Aronofsky and Libatique find a happy medium between the expressionism of Pi and Requiem and the supposed realism of The Wrestler. Portman's head is almost always in frame, either the front of it or the back of it. When Aronofsky isn't on her face, he's showing an obscure high angle shot or using vertiginous, rather than operatic, motion. The wides are made especially beautiful by the carefully-crafted black, white, grey, and sometimes pink production design.

Despite my enthusiasm for much of the film, I do hope this shuts a door, for a while at least, on the excessive use of CGI and B-movie tropes for ostensibly dramatic scenarios. While Aronofsky fares better than Scorsese in Shutter Island in using these gimmicks as a signifier for psychological unrest, some of the visuals and shock-scares are simply unnecessary. Particularly the peeling off of the fingernails a la The Fly. I did like some of the visuals, such as her feathery transformation in the actual ballet portion, but the gradually building sexual tension between Portman and Cassel says more about "the transformation" than a million fast cuts of blood-letting and flesh-tearing.

Spoiler

Oh yeah, and the ending is the exact same thing as The Wrestler.

[tavernier]

Denby

[Mr Sausage]

Ugh, why is this playing nowhere in my city?

[JMULL222]

First, in response to Mills, I don't think the ending tells you whether or not this is really happening (Due to the open, I pretty much read the whole film as a dream anyway, but however). I don't think its "total", "complete", or fully explanatory, I think its simply totally confident in its approach, an entire different thing. And as for the ending,

Spoiler

I see what your saying, but if you want to criticize him for it, its much more a rip off of "The Red Shoes" than a rip off of his own previous work

[cdnchris]

Ugh, why is this playing nowhere in my city?

You still in London? I remember Westmount or that theater at the Galleria (Rainbow?) usually getting the "obscure" movies pretty quickly.

[swo17]

Isn't it still only in limited release? I can't see it yet either.

[tavernier]

Release schedule

[domino harvey]

Def seeing this in a double feature with Tron Legacy next week

[Mr Sausage]

Ugh, why is this playing nowhere in my city?

You still in London? I remember Westmount or that theater at the Galleria (Rainbow?) usually getting the "obscure" movies pretty quickly.

Rainbow stopped showing the art house circuit stuff. The Westmount became a VIP theater, so it's all routine movies now. My guess is that the art house theater, the Hyland, will get it at some point, but they never get anything until months after release and I'm an impatient kind of fellow.