criterionforum.org

I think it's possible that the mother doesn't exist. Lilly possibly does, but most of her scenes are Nina's hallucinations. In another thread someone wonder about Nina's mom's painting job.The answer can be find in a nonsense scene: who is that girl/woman with a blood nightdress that Nina "sees" (1:23:22) and that it seems to be the same girl in a picture that her mother is drawing (24:13)?

Babsi wrote:who is that girl/woman with a blood nightdress that Nina "sees"(1:23:22) and that it seems to be the same girl in a picture that her mother is drawing (24:13)?

Spoiler

The woman at 1:23 is Winona Ryder's character. She is wearing a medical gown. It looks to me that all of the paintings are of Nina. The work-in-progress has one of her pictures clipped to the top left-hand corner of the canvas.

Babsi wrote:I think it's possible that the mother doesn't exist. Lilly possibly does, but most of her scenes are Nina's hallucinations. In another thread someone wonder about Nina's mom's painting job.The answer can be find in a nonsense scene: who is that girl/woman with a blood nightdress that Nina "sees" (1:23:22) and that it seems to be the same girl in a picture that her mother is drawing (24:13)?

I think it's possible that you're reading way too much into this film.

James Mills wrote:

Babsi wrote:I think it's possible that the mother doesn't exist. Lilly possibly does, but most of her scenes are Nina's hallucinations. In another thread someone wonder about Nina's mom's painting job.The answer can be find in a nonsense scene: who is that girl/woman with a blood nightdress that Nina "sees" (1:23:22) and that it seems to be the same girl in a picture that her mother is drawing (24:13)?

I think it's possible that you're reading way too much into this film.

That girl she sees is not Winona Ryder; pretty sure. But yeah, probably I've been reading too much into this film.

If the mother is maybe another side of her personality, it could be good. Otherwise, it's just an irrelevant movie.

Christ. How can a film be deemed irrelevant based on whether an interpretation is "corrrect"? isn't the fact that it alludes to it as a possibility enough? I mean, what do you want, Aronofsky to register an account here, tell you your right, thats what he meant the audience to think, and THEN the film will be relevant?

Also, are you guys bringing stopwatch to the theatres, or are you on the studios screener lists?

NilbogSavant wrote:

Babsi wrote:who is that girl/woman with a blood nightdress that Nina "sees" (1:23:22) and that it seems to be the same girl in a picture that her mother is drawing (24:13)?

Spoiler

The woman at 1:23 is Winona Ryder's character. She is wearing a medical gown. It looks to me that all of the paintings are of Nina. The work-in-progress has one of her pictures clipped to the top left-hand corner of the canvas.

You're right. That's Beth. Gosh, read too much about it. hehe

Count me among the pleasantly surprised. I hadn't thought much of Aronofsky's first three films, and was only mildly impressed with The Wrestler, but this one won me over. I think the Edlestein review that was discussed a while back in this thread approaches my reaction pretty closely: the film is a wonderful mix of performance, big ideas, heavy symbolism, and showy direction, perhaps limited somewhat by the fact that it probably ends up going over the top in each of those areas. The Lynch/Cronenberg spectrum of cinema has never been my cup of tea, but there were enough nods to the psychological spectrum inhabited by Polanski and others (which I do adore) to keep me invested. And of course, the film was beautifully shot and was a hell of a lot of fun!

Aronofsky's ballsiest move?:

Spoiler

Quoting Sunset Boulevard and the last scene of his previous movie in the finale, all while making the end of the ballet literal!

See, I fail to see how that is at all ballsy. If I am to embark on a challenging 100 minute journey through mystery and illusion (albeit, a very engaging and gripping one), I expect a film to say more than simply what previous films and a particular ballet have already (more vigorously and innovatively, I would argue) stated. At least give me something new to think about.

It's ballsy because it opens the film up to a rather obvious criticism that you just articulated. But it worked because it did say something new, this time in the context of the film:

Spoiler

because, as I noted above, it resolves the dualism issue and literalzes the plot of the ballet.

Like I said, my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there was probably too much going on for my taste. But unlike previous efforts, I think Aronofsky's showier impulses work to the material's benefit here.

Tom Hagen wrote:It's ballsy because it opens the film up to a rather obvious criticism that you just articulated. But it worked because it did say something new, this time in the context of the film:

Spoiler

because, as I noted above, it resolves the dualism issue and literalzes the plot of the ballet.

Like I said, my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there was probably too much going on for my taste. But unlike previous efforts, I think Aronofsky's showier impulses work to the material's benefit here.

I'm still unsure how that really says anything, but I agree with everything in bold (though I personally didn't find his ostensible direction distracting in previous films).

Perhaps its just me

Spoiler

But I'm really tired of people talking about Aronofsky copying his own "The Wrestler" when the end of "Black Swan", in terms of decisiveness, ambiguity, pacing, fadeouts and everything else is far closer to "The Red Shoes", a film it so clearly draws influence from. Films did exist with this ending prior to two years ago.

I never meant The Wrestler when I said "previous films and a particular ballet have already (more vigorously and innovatively, I would argue) stated the same thing. Red Shoes is obviously one of those films. I'm sure everyone else in this thread is aware of its blatant influence, so that's probably why you're not seeing it mentioned all of the time.

Still, as I explained in my review earlier in this thread, I really think Aronofsky takes more from Lynch than Powell in Black Swan, even thematically.

This movie is totally ripping off Swan Lake.

Oh man, they're definitely going to give Portman the Oscar now that she's pregnant/engaged. Gotta support that baby~

via (pre truffle oil fries) M.I.A. at the Grammys.

domino harvey wrote:Oh man, they're definitely going to give Portman the Oscar now that she's pregnant/engaged. Gotta support that baby~

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Oh well. I'm being puerile. But whatever, she deserves the Oscar for this performance. I haven't seen nearly as many films this year as I do most years, but she was fantastic in Black Swan.

she's pregnant with a millipede? wtf?

I can't decide which of you to quote here, as I agree with many aspects of different comments in the previous pages. In the end I just don't know what to make of this one. I will say I liked it better than anything else he's done, after finding The Wrestler to be little more than a typical oscar bait redemption song, The Fountain a grand incoherent mess, and Requiem just plain unpleasant. But this is none of those things, and features a performance by Portman that i certainly admired, if a bit grating in her constant on-the-verge-of-tears state. Of course that is all part of the story, but it was a bit much to me, as I couldn't swallow anyone giving her the lead when she was so clearly unstable and held together by scotch tape and parental vicarious demands. Nothing in her character struck me as remotely plausible for achieving that role as she was so clearly mentally ill.

but that's probably a 'me' problem, and I did have a little fun with the descent into madness, even if that too felt kind of half-assed or not fully formed. It felt like DA couldn't really decide how crazy she was, or what kind of crazy, so he just went with a little here and there without honing in on any particular aspect of it all. That it can be both a schizophrenic break and a stunted girl becoming a woman by casting off the yoke of her oppressive mother strikes me as rather milquetoast and really kind of deflated it all for me. I just wasn't feeling the "horror" here. It felt, in a word, silly.

So I guess I liked it, but it never once felt anything like the best film of the year, nor did Portman's portrayal of the fractured artist ever transcend the ambiguity of the script. I felt like it all would have been stronger had DA made a choice and hone in on it. Instead he left it more lackadaisical as a comment on how ballet companies infantalize the dancers. ho-hum. :shrug:

she's pregnant with a millipede? wtf?

She's preparing for her next role: a re-imagining of Cronenberg's The Fly.

HistoryProf wrote:but that's probably a 'me' problem, and I did have a little fun with the descent into madness, even if that too felt kind of half-assed or not fully formed. It felt like DA couldn't really decide how crazy she was, or what kind of crazy, so he just went with a little here and there without honing in on any particular aspect of it all. That it can be both a schizophrenic break and a stunted girl becoming a woman by casting off the yoke of her oppressive mother strikes me as rather milquetoast and really kind of deflated it all for me. I just wasn't feeling the "horror" here. It felt, in a word, silly.

These are basically my same problems. Her breakdown seems scattered and convenient, almost lazy for the most part, and the attempts to throw in all of these metaphors to accompany the sloppy collapse just don't work for me.

So in a story that's about a breakdown you found it convenient that she was having a breakdown?

karmajuice wrote:

she's pregnant with a millipede? wtf?

She's preparing for her next role: a re-imagining of Cronenberg's The Fly.

Then what was this role?

knives wrote:So in a story that's about a breakdown you found it convenient that she was having a breakdown?

No, the process of her breakdown seemed convenient for DA. As HistoryProf and I wrote, it is a scattered breakdown without structure or explanation yet seems to try to justify itself through the metaphors of her growth. As HistoryProf stated, "it felt, in a word, silly."

I still enjoyed the film and found it to be a solid exercise in suspense, engaging and intriguing from start to finish. I just wish I could say it meant more to me than simply an exercise in suspense.

I'm not sure what you mean by DA, but there is plenty of explanation and consistency about her breakdown. Madness most often comes from a change in the status quo or a massive increase in emotional and mental stress. At the start of the movie she gets all of that placed on her shoulders. Compounded with the constant reminder that she has had breakdown, if very minor ones, before and you have a perfectly understandable insanity sandwich. Even the presentation of her madness gets a consistent go through. She mostly sees damage in the form of her nails and her real physical damage gets covered up by 'rashes'. Things are almost too textbook. The author of the script sure had done his homework. As for structure I'm not sure what you could want from that. Madness is not like a story, it doesn't have acts and the closest it gets to something resembling a structure is with the levels of madness people go through. Even than the levels are often times skipped or bounced around with. Madness almost by definition is structureless.
Also as a bit of a side question what's wrong with silliness and an exercise for the exercise's sake?

knives wrote:perfectly understandable insanity sandwich

Nice shout out to my grade school rockapella group. I had no idea you were a fan!