Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010)

[tavernier]

Two black swans (sic)

[Professor Wagstaff]

I'm completely won over by this film. I feel like most of the Polanski comparisons are well deserved. Parts of this film reminded me of Repulsion, not just in the way Portman plays Nina but also certain scenes as well. I am reminded of Deneuve's bizarre behavior on the city street, or the apartment becoming a manifestation of her growing insanity.

[YnEoS]

I enjoyed this movie a ton, though I have a few relatively minor gripes with it.

A lot of the criticism I've been hearing about it (not here, but everywhere in general) is that Aronofsky keeps "bashing you over the head with his themes". I feel like I see the word "subtle" thrown around way too often to compliment films these days. As if the goal of a director was to hide his themes somewhere where they won't be too obvious, but not invisible to the viewer either. In my mind good films that people praise as "subtle" often just means they are richly layered films with a lot to explore, and films that "hit you over the head with your theme" are often films that don't have much substance behind them to begin with so all you're left with is the theme. But now it seems like some people just look for subtlety or obviousness and use that as a criteria for rating films. Though Black Swan may seem "themey" I don't think it ever interferes with the story, and it is a richly layered film.

I also think there's plenty of Ambiguity in theme with Aronofsky's later films (maybe his earlier ones, haven't seen most of um), where the strong story simply facilitates multiple interpretations. I've heard tons of different interpretations of Black Swan already, like "being a whore is a good thing" and "that you have to sacrifice everything for art".

I had similar experiences with the Wrestler, where I thought it was quite a depressing film, my roommates thought the ending was badass.

[mfunk9786]

Arguing whether a film is 'enigmatic enough' or whether or not there is enough 'ambiguity [or in this poster's case, Ambiguity]' is a completely bizarre waste of time bordering on being completely off topic within a discussion of the film itself.

This is obviously not a subtle film, but subtlety is never ever ever ever a gauge of whether or not a film is successful.

[Mr Sausage]

Isn't it odd how often people criticize movies for not following rules that no one had agreed to follow in the first place?

[knives]

Aronofsky has finally made good on the promise of Pi. I've loved all of his films, but this is the first since the first that really felt like someone who is a master of his craft rather than just a potential. Everyone's whining about not enough subtly, not enough enigma and I have to wonder if they're blind. Of course the film shouts it's themes, it's style, it's performances. That's what this story needs. Despite taking place in ballet this is an opera, not needing a delicate touch, but the shouting of a tenor. In spite of all of that Black Swan does manage to come up with a few graceful enigmatic subtleties. Just look at Cassel's already under appreciated character and performance. His motivation, intents, and purpose are totally covered in shadow. I think it will take several viewings to just get a handle on those elements, let alone his thoughts in any one scene or how he is complicit in the end.
An other really delicate touch that is present is the overall direction. Yes, the boisterous opera does have quiet elements to it's direction. These whispers are simply covered up by the shouting. I'm not sure if subtlety is the right word, but it's sort of like a Price performance as film. There's grace in being a ham. To that end I don't think Aronofsky could have made this film even five years ago. The one mistake that really unifies his first three films is that he makes the film comply to his style rather than the other way around. While I think it is his weakest film The Wrestler really humbled him in that direction where it seems like he is examining what the film ultimately needs rather than what he wants out of it. The film is just as chic and stylish as Requiem for a Dream, but slipping on this glove doesn't look like the OJ trial. The man's finally grown up.
Bouncing back to the performances Aronofsky's greatest skill has always been casting, especially women, and he really does outdo himself here. While I still think Gerwig is the person to beat Portman really does earn a brand new respect if just for the not crying scene near the end. That the rest of her performance works practically on the same level is something I don't think anybody could have expected from her. Though the real MVP of the movie for me is Barbara Hershey. Everything I said about Cassel applies here times ten. That she's living through her daughter is obvious, but to what degree she actually gives a damn is toyed around with so hard that within the same second I would bounce dozens of different interpretations. She also seems to fit the motif of casting people as horrifying versions of themselves. The film really gives weight to her vicious, sad, and pathetic never was. I really don't think I've ever seen a version of this character played with so much complexity. Again this isn't really subtly in the way critics seem to be looking for, but this is no two dimensional tissue paper.


Also was the creep on the subway the same guy from the dildo scene in Requiem?

[mfunk9786]

Best end to a review ever.

[Cosmic Bus]

Also was the creep on the subway the same guy from the dildo scene in Requiem?

Indeed.

[Finch]

Ed Howard and Jason Bellamy continue their conversation on Darren Aronofsky with an in-depth look at Black Swan. If like me, you haven't seen the pic yet, save reading this until after (heavy spoilers).

[Murdoch]

Saw this in a packed theater tonight and it was astounding. The film is so intensely internal throughout, few character studies I've seen have embraced such a claustrophobic aesthetic as this with its relentless close-ups, only letting the camera pull back to showcase segments of dance. Every shock and sudden appearance is experienced simultaneously through Nina and the audience. The close-ups have a distinct immediacy with every turn of Portman's head, and there are several expertly composed shots - there's one where Nina is on the right of the frame and her mother on the left (or vice versa, I forget) and in the center a trifold mirror reflecting them both. While Aronofsky's previous films, with perhaps the exception of Pi, I've found interesting failures, this channels his focus on internal conflict into an aesthetic that directly mirrors the psychosis on display.

And Natalie Portman, wow, I've always seen her as a sort of pop culture figure rather than an actress since her roles seem so slight and I can't think of a performance by her that was much of a stand-out. But here her physical and emotional transformation, and the fragility of her character, feel completely genuine - she's like the porcelain ballerina on her nightstand as every criticism and dirty look cut her deeply. And surprisingly Mila Kunis gives a good performance as well, although she's basically a variant on the stereotypical wild girl minus a few scenes of sinister glaring so it's not a huge stretch for her.

In terms of the Red Shoes, Cronenberg, Repulsion comparisons, I agree with RS and Cronenberg since it is basically a body horror version of the former, but as far as Repulsion goes that film was of a woman's increasing isolation and mental degradation, whereas this is more about a woman breaking out of her sexually isolationist shell, although the lapses into psychosis are present.

[colinr0380]

From the discussions here (and without having seen the Aronofsky film yet) I've been wondering whether Haneke's Piano Teacher might also be an interesting film to compare it with - another film about performance anxieties, sexuality, mother/daughter relationships and professional fears/jealousies, albeit remaining more grounded in 'reality'?

[mfunk9786]

It's not quite at that level of pathetic, if that makes any sense.

[knives]

Portman's a much stronger character with an entirely different journey even if they do start off at pretty much the same point.

[Kellen]

I just got a chance to catch this. I thought it was great. I was pretty shocked at the amount of blood/body horror type stuff, I was with a friend and during the scene where Nina begins picking her hang nail she almost got up and left. While we were leaving she was telling me that she isn't a huge fan of seeing bloody, gore, mutilation type stuff, she was caught off gaurd by the amount of bodily harm in the film(one elderly woman walked out during the part where Nina's legs bend backwards.) The Cronenberg references that some of you mentioned are spot on. I was really digging the score by Mansell I thought it fit perfectly. Natalie did an awesome job, but I must say I surprised at how well Mila Kunis did. Having been a big fan of That 70s Show when I was younger and seeing her in films like: Max Payne and Forgetting Sarah Marshall I wasn't quite sure how she would hold up in a film like this. I loved the use of the mirror when Nina and Lily come home from the club, and Lily gradually splits away from Nina as she begins to argue with her mother. Aronofsky has done a nice job again of showing us characters that are obsessed with their dreams/aspirations to the point where its harmful. It was also a bonus that before I got to watch the movie I got to watch the Tree of Life trailer on the big screen for the first time. I enjoyed the film very much, I think it's my favorite of the year too. I still have to catch True Grit but it's going to be hard for it to top this.

[domino harvey]

So I went in with an open mind and, brace yourself mfunk, I loved it. Contrary to my earlier fears, Aronofsky has made one of the best films about dancers (but not of dance, though) and the stresses of perfection. I think I've said before that I have a dance background and have spent many of my days with dancers (and for those curious, personality-wise they're definitely more like the Mila Kunis character than the Portman one-- that's probably how you stop yourself as a serious craftsman of dance from becoming humorless) and Aronofsky gets the little details so right. And by focusing on the rehearsals rather than on the on-stage performance (for the most part), he avoids the pratfalls of using non-professionals in a dance role (and some very clever editing doesn't hurt).

Away from the dance focus, I share Aronofsky's fascination with minor hand injuries and there's some doozies here. For those unaware, in psychoanalysis, hand injuries are manifestations of a desire to escape from one's current place in life. Portman lives for dance but doesn't enjoy it. The lead role is a circular goal that once fulfilled only confronts her with her own dormant problems, leading to the tragic ending. I'll wave the white flag: give Portman and Aronofsky the Oscar.

[knives]

I'd rather Wright have the oscar than Aronofsky even if I know neither will get it.

[mfunk9786]

Knives has to go and ruin everything by bringing up Scott Pilgrim...

Well it's official, this film is a phenomenon. The box office is astounding, and I haven't heard from anyone whose opinion I respect who has disliked this (sorry, Ed Gonzalez, now you know how I really feel). This is a film that exceeds being one that people merely respect from afar and has established itself as a crowd pleaser. I know that during the two festival screenings I attended (I was lucky enough to see the film with members of the Pennsylvania Ballet each time, they are featured in the film) there were gasps and laughs and tense breaths drawn throughout. The film captures something that even the people with the least motivation and drive in their lives can relate to: a need to be loved and accepted, so much that one's motivations far overshadow their ability to appreciate the eventual benefits of those motivations. I am nearly moved to tears by Portman calling her mother in that bathroom stall because it has a finality to it: Nina has the part that she always wanted, and despite there having been no rehearsals or matinees yet, the goal of having been chosen for something has essentially left Nina hollow. She is not only crying because of having gotten the role: she is crying because she realizes how much emptiness is at the other end (evidenced wonderfully by her stress and fear during the cake scene with her mother). Aronofsky managed to capture the little moments that draw viewers in, the moments that no Best Picture winner in a very long time has been able to capture.

And it's neat that Domino mentioned the hand/foot injuries - my question to Aronofsky after my first screening was what inspired that, and he told a story about one of the dancers who worked on the film giving him one of her toenails as a gift when the film wrapped - it is a stunning study in human psychology to see how something that's a reality of life for dancers can dig so deeply into the psyche of someone like myself who has no connection to that world. Aronofsky wisely focused sharply on something that has a profound effect on audiences but doesn't betray his source material. Scenes like the nail clipping with Nina's mother are just the bonus finger in the arse of this cinematic orgasm. (Sorry guys, I had to)

[Murdoch]

That last line was a shocker *scurries away to 4chan*

[Duncan Hopper]

What's the Black Swan equivalent of a Twihard?

[willoneill]

What's the Black Swan equivalent of a Twihard?

Swannie? I don't think t-shirts that say Team White and Team Black would go over well though.

I saw this last night (No Tree of Life trailer, what the hell Cineplex?), and I thought it was great. I was definitely a lot more jumpy during this than I thought I would. It is one of those movies that requires a particular mood. I think that the supporting characters are supposed to be eccentrically hammy, because the movie is told through Portman's eyes, and that's how she see everything. Since every little event is amped up in her mind, driving her to madness, it would make sense that she views all of the people around her in that way as well.

[colinr0380]

A piece from the Guardian about the posters.

[mario gauci]

12/20/10: BLACK SWAN (Darren Aronofosky, 2010) ***1/2

I had first read about this at the time of its Venice Film Festival presentation, where the picture was (unsurprisingly but rather misleadingly) compared by many to Dario Argento’s supernatural shocker SUSPIRIA (1977). Consequently, I went into BLACK SWAN (nothing to do, of course, with the classic Tyrone Power swashbuckler from 1942) expecting more horror elements than were actually on offer, but I was still very much impressed with the end result. Back then, the movie was not really talked of as the Oscar contender it is clearly shaping up to be; still, two-thirds of the way in I was perhaps ready to consider it overrated myself…that is, until the last act kicked in and took the film to a whole new level! Needless to say, given the ballet milieu, parallels to The Archers’ THE RED SHOES (1948) could not be avoided (it even contrives a similarly tragic denouement!). However, many another individualistic film-makers’ styles have also been applied to Aronofsky’s effort: from Roman Polanski (with shades of REPULSION [1965] being especially felt throughout) to David Cronenberg (due to its adopting his trademark ‘body-horror’ device) and Lynch (the whole plays out like one of the director’s surreal trips into the human psyche, and MULHOLLAND DRIVE [2001] in particular).

Being one of the major contributing factors to the film’s success, a word is obviously in order now about the cast. Naturally, we begin with Natalie Portman: hers has aptly been described a courageous performance – in the Isabelle Adjani POSSESSION (1981) mould – not least because of scenes involving masturbation and lesbianism; having just recently watched Chloe Grace Moretz in LET ME IN (2010), I could not help recalling Portman’s own prodigious start as a teen in Luc Besson’s LEON (1994). I do not think I have ever watched Mila Kunis in anything prior to BLACK SWAN, but the favorable notices she has been getting for this role are well-deserved – managing to leave a mark even when the show clearly belongs to Portman. While Vincent Cassel is better than usual here, he is hardly in the same class as Anton Walbrook from THE RED SHOES…and since his character promises us a visceral re-imagining of the Tchaikovsky opus, I was ultimately disappointed that the unfolding horror proved to be of the ‘all-in-the-mind’ variety! Barbara Hershey’s possessive mother, then, lends the film a distinct CARRIE (1976) vibe. As for Winona Ryder, I guess one needs to commend her for being such a sport in accepting the role of a has-been; incidentally, the scene where Portman returns to the now-crippled Ryder the ‘mementos’ she had pilfered when star-struck of her emerges as its most poignant moment.

Performers driven to the edge for the sake of art (and fame) has long been a cinematic staple, but it has rarely been done so vividly and with such tremendous punch; truth be told, I have always wondered in films like these just how talented actors could be made to play down their gift in scenes where they are not supposed to meet their on-screen taskmaster’s standards, or whether the artist behind the camera at times needed to exert himself as much as the one in front of it in order to coax what he was striving for out of his cast! Reflection, too, plays a pivotal part in the narrative: mirrors are omnipresent, while several characters deliberately look alike (so that Portman often sees herself in others!) – preparing one for the bravura sequence where the heroine undergoes a ‘literal’ metamorphosis from her guise of White Swan (i.e. gauche, virginal) into the Black one (embodying malevolence and seductiveness). No less important, however, is the disquieting score – which, apparently, consists of a variation on “Swan Lake” itself played in reverse!

Having watched all of Aronofsky’s feature films, I would probably rank this as his finest yet – with THE WRESTLER (2008), his acclaimed previous release, placing close behind it. On the other hand, I am not over-the-moon as many others are about the rest of the director’s work – finding PI (1998) too muddled, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (2000) too depressing, and THE FOUNTAIN (2006) too ambitious for their own good!

[jbeall]

I was pretty thrilled by this. I didn't care for Aronofsky's career up to and including The Fountain, but thought The Wrestler was quite good, and I think Aronofsky's established himself as an excellent director of actors.

Watching Black Swan, even knowing that

Spoiler

the film details Nina's schizophrenic break

, I was still kept guessing as to what was real, and several moments were simply shocking (in a good way).

And to echo an earlier post, this film represents a great synthesis of earlier techniques Aronofsky's used. Most obviously, the handheld following shots, but I really liked this film's kinetic camerawork, and (to my mind) judicious use of special effects. This is one of my top three films of the year (still haven't seen True Grit yet).

[Grand Illusion]

I think that the supporting characters are supposed to be eccentrically hammy

I know a producer in real life that is a mirror of Cassel's character. Everything from calling people "my little princess" to the shameless, borderline sexual harassment in his treatment of women. When I first met him, I thought he was putting me on. Sometimes, I have to remind myself that these people actually exist.

[domino harvey]

I think that the supporting characters are supposed to be eccentrically hammy

I know a producer in real life that is a mirror of Cassel's character. Everything from calling people "my little princess" to the shameless, borderline sexual harassment in his treatment of women. When I first met him, I thought he was putting me on. Sometimes, I have to remind myself that these people actually exist.

Yeah, he's two-dimensional, but hang around backstage and you'll discover a lot of people are