Black Swan

[singtopher]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 1:12am

I just saw this movie tonight with some friends. If you are still determining if you should go, I say go. Well worth the money. Natalie Portman is fantastic, and Mila Kunis really impressed me. It's intense to the point that almost no one in the theatre moved a muscle when it was finished; we all just sat there in silence for a second. Just FYI, it does get graphic at times.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 8:12am

The trailer sort of grossed me out. What was up with her back? I do want to see it though.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 10:44am

A few people have said it's a very weak script. What's your take?

[singtopher]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 10:59am

Not sure if i'd call it weak. Not always the best. Some of the dialogue does feel a little forced, but at the same time everything so heightened that some dialogue that felt unnatural doesn't feel so out of place.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 11:04am

I loved it. It's a film that really stayed with me and I actually want to see it again in the theatre. I wouldn't consider it a weak script at all unless you're expecting the film to be something other than the director's intent, which was a very specific and sharply focused point of view. It's not the traditional omnipresent narrative. If it were, it would lose a great deal of tension and suspense.

Stockard - The back thing is very important to the plot and it's really not that gross. There are a couple of icky scenes, but they are quite brief and less gory than any slasher film of the 70s or 80s. I was worried about the same thing, but I found Requiem for a Dream far more disturbing and I could handle that.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 12:23pm

I thought the finger scene was much grosser than the back scene. Excellent film. Go.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 12:41pm

A few people have said it's a very weak script. What's your take?

Put me in this category. Almost no character development, plot lines left dangling or simply never explored, dialogue and situations often laughable in that particularly overwrought art-house way. Honestly, it's one of the worst, most overpraised films I've seen in recent memory.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 12:56pm

I pretty much disagree with everything AC said in the post above. One of my favorite movies of the decade with a riveting performance by Portman and an even MORE riveting performance by Barbara Hershey.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 1:00pm

The following perfectly captures everything I felt about the movie:
(Also, I did quite like Barbara Hershey, although her casting is a problem. The kind of woman she plays would never have had thousands of dollars worth of plastic surgery, which is all that you see when you glance upon Ms Hershey's once-stunning, now completely immobile face).
What happened to my sweet girl?

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 1:04pm

I LOVE that mash up!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 1:20pm

I did find Hershey's face to be VERY distracting, but at the same time, a lasting impression of the sort of vanity-obsessed nostalgia one might find in that sort of character. Part of their somewhat meager lifestyle could be attributed to the amount of money she wasted on clutching to her own youth. It's not that much of a stretch.

Almost no character development, plot lines left dangling or simply never explored, dialogue and situations often laughable in that particularly overwrought art-house way.

Again, I think that has to do with the expectations of a more conventional narrative. The film presents only the events from point A to point B and only from Nina's point of view. It took me a little while to catch on to this, but once I did, I just took everything in and it's one of the reasons I enjoyed the film as much as I did. By the end, I didn't need more information or character development (with the exception of possibly a little more obsessed determination from Nina, but that could be debated) because it really wasn't essential to the plot. I think if he film had a conventional narrative with detailed character arcs, back story, omnipresent scenes and multiple points of view, it would have lost so much of the unique flavor of its stylization. It would have been another Requiem for a Dream, which isn't a BAD thing, but I like that he went in another direction with this film.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 1:33pm

My post contains spoilers, for those who haven't seen the film. You've been warned.


I understand where you're coming from, but I think there's a difference between willfully presenting a narrative in a certain way (what you are trying to say that the film does) and introducing plot points that are supposedly vital and then not capitalizing on them. Why do the other dancers in the company dislike Nina? Why is Lily drawn to her? How does her history of self-mutilation relate to what she is going through and what is happening to her? Does she actually have sexual feelings towards Lily (and women in general)?

To give a further example: the scene where Erica almost throws away the congratulatory cake that she buys Nina is basically the only moment in which we get a concrete look at how unhinged she might be, and yet we're supposed to believe throughout the film that she is a potentially dangerous character. Why did Aronofsky never do anything with the myriad paintings that she has done of Nina? It's a potentially very important angle left unexplored.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 2:29pm

***more spoilers***
But the whole movie is a study of Nina's madness. We don't know if Lily has sexual feeling towards her or not...it might have all been in Nina's head.
And I think there are several other instances where we see her mother may be unstable...like the nail clipping scene...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 2:37pm

**Continuation of ACs spoilers***





I understand your questioning some of the plot elements and while I can see how some could be explored, I think others are an extension of Nina's own lack of perception and self-awareness. Honestly, I prefer the demands the film makes on analysis rather than simply handing the audience the answers. Here are my thoughts to your questions:

Why do the other dancers in the company dislike Nina?

Two reasons I felt were quite obvious:

Jealousy - They are all fighting for the same spot and based on the audition we saw (and the dancers saw), there was no evidence Nina was the clear choice for the role.

Nina's personality - There was no hint of kinship between Nina and the rest of the company. If anything, there were hints of animosity (like the girl who didn't get the role).

Why is Lily drawn to her?

It seemed to be her personality. She was new and trying to warm up to the new star and break her out of her shell. Her visit to their home was enlightening because Lily could see some of the circumstances in Nina's home life, which made Nina a very sympathetic character to Lily. I've known LOTS of Lilys in my life. Hell, I've BEEN a Lily a few times. But more often, I'm a Nina.

How does her history of self-mutilation relate to what she is going through and what is happening to her?

I thought that was ultimately clear by the end of the film. Aronofsky drops subtle hints here and there, especially through the scenes with Nina and her mother. The final scene with the two of them reveals the most. I kept looking for the "trigger" that would set off one of her fugues, but I couldn't quite get it. And maybe it's not supposed to be obvious to us. But it does make me want to see the film again.

Does she actually have sexual feelings towards Lily (and women in general)?

I believe it wasn't clear to the audience because it isn't clear to Nina. We were simply voyeurs in her sexual exploration.

To give a further example: the scene where Erica almost throws away the congratulatory cake that she buys Nina is basically the only moment in which we get a concrete look at how unhinged she might be, and yet we're supposed to believe throughout the film that she is a potentially dangerous character.

I love that you brought this up because I thought it was brilliant atmospheric expression and it clued me in to the film's point of view. We are sort of led to believe Erica is more dangerous than she is because we are seeing her through Nina's eyes. The paintings and the cake give us a hint at the level of instability and obsession that has passed from mother to daughter, but they manifest themselves in different ways in both characters. Erica may push her daughter to become what she never was, but at the same time, she knows what triggers her daughter's self destructive behavior and tries to protect her from it. Nina often confuses her mother's protective nature with stifling and overbearing parenting, but we really don't understand this until the last act of the film.

Why did Aronofsky never do anything with the myriad paintings that she has done of Nina?

That's a good question as it could go either way. It was interesting to see how the paintings changed during Nina's fugue state. I think they were a symbol of the destructive codependency in the household. The stress and obsession that exists within both of them that continually fuel each other until they surface in self-destruction.

This discussion just reinforces my support for this film. It's not by the numbers and it requires a bit of effort from its audience. Some people may not like that, and that is okay, but I really love this about the film.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 2:40pm

And I think there are several other instances where we see her mother may be unstable...like the nail clipping scene...

Another clever ruse. At first, it makes her mother look bizarrely unstable. But given Nina's condition, it totally makes sense for her mother to do what she did.

How Aronofsky presented Nina's mother to the audience was great direction.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 2:51pm

Matt...
It wasn't so much what she did, but how she did it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 3:24pm

Right. It can come across as batsh*t crazy or protective desperation. Given we're seeing what Nina sees, it's probably both.

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/18/10 at 9:39pm

Saw it yesterday. Frenzied, seductive, skin-crawling, over-the-top... It's wonderful.

Physically and dramatically, Portman is stunning. This is her best work to date. WOW.

Kunis is delicious, alluring, and committed, but I'm confused about the award buzz. Can someone on here who supports her impending Oscar nomination explain it to me? Hershey is a wonderful antagonist, and her motivations become more twisted the longer one thinks about it. Cassel is unbelievably sexy, as usual. :)

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/18/10 at 10:50pm

Add me to those who found this film incredibly fascinating, haunting, captivating...are there enough words to describe such a weird, wonderful movie? Wow, I liked THE WRESTLER a lot (and actually found many similarities between the two films) but BLACK SWAN is in a league of its own.
****LOTS OF RANDOM SPOILERS THROUGHOUT****
First things first, to say that Natalie Portman gives a career best performance is not enough praise (even though I'm a huge fan of her previous work, I'm especially of the mind she was robbed for CLOSER, can't believe she lost to Cate Blanchett's impression of Katharine Hepburn). She's simply amazing, it's the performance of the year. What an astonishing performance, she and Nina are one (much in the way Nina and the Black Swan become one in what has to be one of the most thrilling dancing sequences caught on film) and what results from that is something very special, but also scary, thrilling and fascinating. I loved her take on the role, the camera is constantly on her and she is flawless throughout. It's one of those performances that doesn't rely on any gimmicks (like say Jamie Foxx's performance in RAY) or make up to get you to see the actress' transformation.
I think some of the questions asked on this board are valid, but I think they are questions that the film wants you to ask yourself. This is clearly not a movie interested in feeding you answers, it's more interested in getting behind the complexities that are created when you are so far removed from anything that resembles a clear answer.
The ensemble is amazing (yay for their SAG nod), Vincent Cassell is indeed insanely sexy and commanding, Mila Kunis is also very sexy and yet there's something really interested going on behind her, she's the perfect anti-thesis to Portman's reserved Nina. Barbara Hershey looks terrible and that's part of why she was cast, she's completely grotesque and makes it work; I can't believe in a movie where the main character sprouts wings people think it's unbelievable that Nina's mom would have so much plastic surgery. Winona Ryder almost steals the show (if only Portman would let her) as Beth, talk about a self-reflexive role and she just goes for it.
I can't say how excited and fascinated I was about this movie. I really want Natalie Portman to win the Oscar for Lead Actress, and Aronofsky needs to get nominated for what is his best film to date. I don't think Mila Kunis will get nominated for an Oscar (even though she has landed Globe and SAG nods), I had a similar reaction to broadway86 at first but the more I think about her performance, the more I realize that the brilliance of it is how effortless it looks. It is a small role though and I think the likes of Amy Adams, Jackie Weaver, Melissa Leo, Helena Bonham Carter and Heilee (sp) Steinfeld will get in before her, but we'll see.

[wexy]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 8:09pm

I saw it yesterday. Certainly interesting and Portman was great.
Agreed Barbara Hershey is scary looking.

[florida theatre kid]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 11:09pm

Add me to the list of those fascinated by Black Swan. Really blew me away. I already knew there was such praise for the film itself and Portman (who was out of this world), but Mila Kunis was the one who really blew me away. She was incredibly haunting. I would love for her to get an Oscar nod. The audience sat in silence for a good ten seconds after the film ended.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:00am

Florida Theatre Kid, I definitely agree about Kunis, I can't get her out of my mind. Though I do think it's Portman's movie from the first frame through the end credits.

The audience sat in silence for a good ten seconds after the film ended

Same thing happened when I saw it. That's because the film has a great ending. Anyone else gonna go back to see it? I think it's the kind of movie that merits watching over and over and over again.

[singtopher]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:34am

I'd love to see it again, but I'm pressed for time and money, so I'd rather see the stuff I haven't seen.

[Overkill]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 3:14am

I saw it and thought it was just f'in BRILLIANT. I loved every last second, and it was so captivating and beautiful and terrifying.

"The audience sat in silence for a good ten seconds after the film ended"

The same thing happened with my crowd, too. It's just such a stunning ending. If Portman doesn't win the Oscar, I will be shocked.

[JP2]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:36pm

Saw it last week. Thought it was an impressive visual feast as well as being captivating, riveting, and completely brilliant.

The dance of the black swan at the end was just gorgeous.