Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010)

[James Mills]

There seems to be a pattern to those who have panned this film: Some people are taking it way too seriously, rather than willingly giving in to its pulpier tendencies. Dismissing it as another Showgirls and stating that it displays mental illness too absurdly or unpleasantly are two separate but equal misreadings of Aronofsky's intentions.

Yes, because you're so much more enlightened as to what Aronofsky's intentions are than the rest of us. Do you mind sharing a link or two where Aronofsky explicitly spells out his intentions to us? Oh, he must have told you this personally then? Or are you just coming up with your own ideas like the rest of us?

[mfunk9786]

Omg could someone loosen this chastity belt that's making it impossible to post on this forum please

[tartarlamb]

I agree with your first paragraph, but how do you figure that specific theme to be "done to death"? I can't think of many films with the same premise. I'm not familiar with theatre, if that's what you're referring to given the art of ballet and stage performance, but I'd say there are far more recycled cliches in postmodern cinema than this (Art Cinema included). This concept isn't what hurt the film's thematics for me so much as the fact that it convolutes a whole mess of other undeveloped ideas that seem mostly irrelevant and gimmicky.

You know, you're right. I can't think of a single example off-hand. It just felt cliché to me, I suppose. And you're right, clichés abound in almost any film. I guess I'm willing to overlook a lot of things in a film that I'm sympathetic too. But in Black Swan, there wasn't much for me to do but dwell on whatever irritated me.

As for your spoiler, if that was the intention of the ending, why do you think it was over the top if most of us didn't get it?

Haha. Well, that's why I said "I hope I'm not the only one..." It seemed fairly obvious to me. But it could just be that my reading of the film led me there.

mfunk, I think you're right about taking the film too seriously. Like I said, I know a lot of people pushed past everything and had a lot of fun with this film. I'm an uptight dude, I guess. It just didn't work for me.

[mfunk9786]

tartarlamb: I had nearly the exact problem the first time I saw Videodrome, but that became one of my favorite films upon repeat viewings. Speaking as a fan of Black Swan, I hope something similar for you over time!

[James Mills]

mfunk, I think you're right about taking the film too seriously. Like I said, I know a lot of people pushed past everything and had a lot of fun with this film. I'm an uptight dude, I guess. It just didn't work for me.

When I do eventually get to see it again, I'll definitely be going in a little looser. I'm the same way, too uptight and with expectations far too lofty. I enjoyed Black Swan, and that should be enough, yet I feel like I want some form of totality or resonance from it when, as an exercise in craft, it may simply be more of a ride than a message.

[tartarlamb]

Yeah, it could be that I'll like this one more if I ever revisit it. My dislike was not as severe as it was for, say, Requiem For a Dream. I had also watched it right after seeing Shutter Island, another of last year's films that had a flare for campy Grand Guignol and a similar thread of mental illness exploitation. Maybe I was burnt out on it.

[CircusVocabulary]

I saw this weeks ago during its limited release, not because of hype, not because of critical acclaim, not because of anything besides Aronofsky and seeing the trailer. Not a day has gone by that I haven't thought about it. As soon as it was over I felt this exhilaration and wanted to immediately watch it again. It moved me very deeply. I think when people write "over the top" or "self indulgent" or whatever other dismissive term it might be, this is really a placeholder for not knowing how to feel about it. What's the standard for when something goes "over the top?" What's the line? It's just an artist doing his/her thing. It's okay if you didn't like it, but seeing it as "camp" seems so dismissive, like YOU aren't willing to engage with it. To even compare this to something like Showgirls is a joke. At no time did I feel this was "campy" (which I kind of don't even understand what that means. Not serious? Silly? Consciously artificial? Tasteless?). I was amazed at people laughing in the theater. I found the film to be extremely serious and terrifying. I think there is some very deep psychology going on in this movie. I don't know, maybe it's because I've read some Carl Jung books, but this is very much about the union of the self with the shadow and I find that a very interesting concept. This isn't an actual quote someone said, but more of a summary: to just say "she's crazy because her mom is crazy and messed her up" is way to easy. I almost can't really even explain why this film grabbed me so much. It just hit me. I know there's a lot of hate for The Fountain going on, but I felt the same way after seeing that film. In the theater, as soon as the credits came on, I was so moved I wanted to stay again for the next showing. I've seen Black Swan three times now and still think it's great. So, yeah. Bring on The Wolverine!

[starmanof51]

I think when people write "over the top" or "self indulgent" or whatever other dismissive term it might be, this is really a placeholder for not knowing how to feel about it.

I've not seen this particular film and have no skin in the game, but I know if I were to label something "over the top", it would not mean the same as "self indulgent", and certainly not the same as "whatever other dismissive term." In fact, "over the top" for one does not have to be dismissive or negative at all. I'm concerned that you may be perilously close to saying that if someone said something that sounded dismissive of this film that they must not have known how to feel about it (i.e., they didn't get it). Surely it's possible to find something self indulgent without being mystified by it? Or does opining something is self indulgent always indicate confusion?

All of which is my passive/aggressive way of saying that it's ok that some people rather dislike a movie you passionately love, it doesn't make them bad or stupid (although other things might). The more risks a film takes (and it sounds like this one takes plenty), then the more likely it will be to invoke strong emotions of all sorts. It also risks losing suspension of disbelief for some viewers - and that moment where you cease to see a drama but instead start to see actors reading lines that they had to discuss with an agent who cautioned them about taking the part because it's weird but they like the director who just talked with the art director about what the color red on that wall signifies oh look that was slo-mo for a moment there, I'll bet that chucklehead thought that would get me and...well, pretty soon those people who got taken out of it see only the comedy of people trying to put on a show to provoke other people, and now words like "camp" come flying out. And some people, whose head never got out (or taken out) of the drama but instead got positive value out all the risk taking, think the other people sound like assholes. They might have just seen the same movie you did, understood it the same way you did, but processed it differently under different conditions and arrived at completely different but just as valid "feelings" about it as you did.

I don't mean at all to sound condescending here, I just suspect I relate to what you're expressing and have over the course of a couple three decades got myself to a very casual place with dealing with the reactions of others to things I like.

[tartarlamb]

Over-the-top, self-indulgent and campy are all labels I'd affix to a lot of movies that I love.

[CircusVocabulary]

I appreciate the response. It seems like when people use "self indulgent" it's almost always in a negative sense. Whereas I respond with, "Where's it playing?" I want to see the artist's pure vision (I'm sure everyone else does, too). But, there's this figurative "border" or something that seems to exist in audiences perception. "Self indulgent" to me just means that the artist is doing what he/she thinks is good/best and/or necessary to convey whatever idea they are aiming for (and, of course, does not necessarily make the film "good" based on that alone). I think most people use that phrase to describe something their palettes don't relate to, as if the artist has some obligation towards that person/palette. And that's fine. Then they just don't dig it. Whatever. My other post wasn't some kind of challenge, either, just sharing some of my thoughts about it. I realize "over the top" doesn't equate to something necessarily negative, but it seems to be the phrase-du-jour of people talking about this movie (other films as well). I feel like I have never thought of a film as "over the top," just whether I'm into it or not. Films have the potential to be like dreams. That's why I singled out it's usage as "dismissive." The reason I mentioned why someone might not know how to feel about it (I'm referring to specific themes, images and their context) is because, honestly, the film is confronting. It almost feels like an assault of the senses/emotions. It's a little difficult to talk about specific things in the film if someone hasn't seen it, but I found it refreshing, original, and bold.

[brendanjc]

I can't believe Showgirls was mentioned on almost every page in this thread but no one posted this yet (NSFW). Be sure to take a good look at the end credits for a laugh.

[mfunk9786]

That is really terrific, so well cut together. Hilarious.

[Murdoch]

Almost as good as the Last Year at Marienbad/I Know What You Did Last Summer mix.

[ambrose]

How best to win an Oscar – try female oral sex.

In at least three films bound for Oscar nominations, there are long scenes in which a woman is shown receiving oral sex, either from a man (Blue Valentine) or, more commonly, another woman (The Kids Are All Right, Black Swan), and as a fashion editor once explained to me, two's a coincidence, but three's a trend. I say "at least" because I spent most of Toy Story 3 in such a state of tear-soaked nostalgia that Woody could have been doing all manner of things to Jessie and I probably wouldn't have noticed.

[Mr Sausage]

That article tries unpleasantly hard to find something negative to say about every single aspect of its subject, to what end I don't know. The subject certainly deserves a more critical evaluation than what it got above (I cannot be sure, but since so much of it sounds like phrase-making, I suspect a lot of the author's opinions and approaches were generated by the phrases she thought would attract the most attention).

[mfunk9786]

Female oral sex in film is something that needs to be discussed more, but not in that childish way. It's the dirty little secret of the MPAA that it's a surefire way to get an NC-17, and it's an absolutely sexist secret at that.

[Jeff]

Besides Blue Valentine, The Kids are Alright, and Black Swan, Greenberg, Somewhere, The American, and Carlos also come to mind.

[Markson]

Besides Blue Valentine, The Kids are Alright, and Black Swan, Greenberg, Somewhere, The American, and Carlos also come to mind.

A banner year for filmed pseudo-cunnilingus. I'm actually surprised it appears in so many recent major films. I wonder how many received thuggish, puritanical threats from the MPAA, besides Blue Valentine?

[James Mills]

Female oral sex in film is something that needs to be discussed more, but not in that childish way. It's the dirty little secret of the MPAA that it's a surefire way to get an NC-17, and it's an absolutely sexist secret at that.

Seriously. Be it female fellatio or male nudity, anything that might be exotic to a woman is a no-no in American society according to the MPAA.

[mfunk9786]

I always enjoyed what Matt Stone and Trey Parker did, adding several extra minutes of kinky puppet sex to Team America so they could eventually cut it down to what they originally intended anyway to appease the MPAA.

Aside from this, that movie hasn't aged well.

[Markson]

Is cunnilingus actually more apt to "earn" an NC-17 than fellatio? I guess I assumed that the reverse is true, judging by my quickly-leafed through and jumbled memories of film sex in the past decade or so.

[domino harvey]

Are you kidding, the Social Network had implied male fellatio and it got PG-13! Now, anal sex between males, that will get you the NC-17 no prob

[knives]

Cunnilingus in general is more rare than fellatio so that's probably why you think that. It's been noted many times though that MPAA is much stricter on female sexuality than male though. The some what famous Maria Bello in The Cooler stuff is the perfect example of that. it's also been noted that close sex scenes are rated more harshly than the often times more graphic distant shots that compile most sex scenes. The combination of those two elements is probably what put Blue Valentine over the edge.

[Markson]

Are you kidding, the Social Network had implied male fellatio and it got PG-13!

Forgot about that scene, and also that it wasn't rated R. Kind of stunning, yeah.

[mfunk9786]

Shit, the poster for Good Luck Chuck featured implied male fellatio.