Black Swan

[modage]

GT, you spelled "Aronofsky" wrong.  I think the main difference between his earlier films and his last 2 films is the earlier ones he was more concerned with finding a visual way to tell the story.  And in the newer ones he's centering them around a performer.  Aronofsky said the reason was he didn't know how to direct actors before and now it's his favorite part of the process.

11 Things Learned About Darren Aronofsky's 'Black Swan' From Last Night's NYC Q&A
Source: The Playlist

With all this "guaranteed" Oscar talk for the haunting "Black Swan," it's easy to forget that Darren Aronofsky's exceptional 2008 Golden Lion holder "The Wrestler" not only lost the two nominations it had garnered (which includes the deeply moving game-changing performance by Mickey Rourke), but was completely snubbed for a Best Picture nomination, with the Academy amassing a pretty weak final five ("Frost/Nixon"? Really?). It's something to keep in mind as the date for the award ceremony's next iteration draws closer and closer, even if the Academy has been known to give "apology" awards, generally reserved for any time they have fucked up decisions in the past (which, taking a look back, is quite often). Really, though, anything could happen; those fogies are a queer bunch.

We're sure Aronofsky would love an Oscar connected to his latest project, but he seems to be in high, productive spirits regardless. Attached to numerous projects, including the now much-anticipated "The Wolverine" (who would've thought?) and "Machine Man," the man has a lot on his plate and we have plenty to look forward to. The Film Society of Lincoln Center recently just wrapped a retrospective of his oeuvre, with the man himself present at "The Wrestler" to chat about various subjects with the audience, which ranged from his views on "The Passion of the Christ" to why his movies are so grotesque. He does not, however, talk about his seemingly obsessive examination of the body—playfully laughing the subject away. Ah well. Here are 11 things we learned from the director's various musings:

1. Mickey Rourke's Oscar may have come at the cost of Aronofsky's affinity for the intense; he enjoys any reaction.
There's always that one person in the audience, and some are more vocal than others, but the conversation after January 5th's screening of "The Wrestler" was fairly lucky. A woman managed to ask, rather bluntly, why "Black Swan" was so grotesque. The filmmaker responded kindly and in a sort of self-deprecating way. "It's a very hard line to know when it's too much, and I'm generally on the wrong side of it. (laughs) I think the fork scene in Mickey's forehead cost him the Oscar. (laughs)" He elaborated further, "I've always had an attraction to the extreme. There's so many distractions out there, you have to be memorable if you want people to think about it 40 seconds afterwards. It's all incredibly serious, though it's great that people are reacting to it with horror, or laughter, or crying or whatever... I don't think the reaction matters, so long as they are reacting."

2. Aronofsky sees "Black Swan" as a werewolf movie.
While responding to the physicality of a ballet movie being important, he also mentions his angle to his newest offering. "It's about transformation, it's ultimately a werewolf movie. Swan Lake is about a girl trapped as a swan, at night she's half swan half human, so I saw it as a werewolf movie."

3. Many sound effects in the picture were a manipulation of a swan's cry.
We all knew that Darren often employed sound in a much more effective way than most modern American directors do, an example being Rourke's character walking from the grocery store back to the deli counter to the rousing, cheering crowd of a wrestling match. Call this something we didn't catch the first (or third) time around, but it turns out certain ordinary sound effects have an interesting creation point, giving them an eerie aura. "Most of the sounds in this film are manipulated swan sound. Everything from a flushing a toilet, subway... a swan noise... Sound is what takes it to the next level, I always make it part of that collaboration in filmmaking."

4. An early version of "The Wrestler" dates back to 1996.
It appears his comeback picture needed some time to marinate—more than a decade. "I was looking through my old e-mail, and I found an old e-mail from '96, basically the whole outline for "The Wrestler."

5. The pervert in the subway of "Black Swan" is a recurring character.
"That is the same pervert. He's also the ass-to-ass guy in "Requiem For a Dream." I felt bad for the guy, making him work for a day and calling crediting him 'the Pervert' so I called him Uncle Hank." Don't take the 1 train alone, New Yorkers.

6. Hand-held Dardenne-O-Vision for "The Wrestler" was bore mostly due to the casting of Mickey Rourke.
"I was trained in documentary, cinema-verité, so it was always in me. When I got to "The Wrestler," I was like... there's no way Mickey Rourke's gonna hit a mark, let alone remember his lines. So we had to come up with something else and we tried that, and I loved the way the shots handed off to one another."

7. Filmmaking is mostly a craft, acting is art.
While this writer disagrees and thinks the director should not be so modest, he claims "Filmmaking is barely an art, it's mostly a craft. I think in acting there's an art. 95% of my job is bureaucracy. Originally I had no idea what to do with actors... I took acting classes, I set up a test, all I wanna do is cry in front of a class and then I quit. I took Eisner until I cried, left the next day. Now I love directing actors, it became the most pleasurable part of the job as opposed to setting up shots for stunts, things like that."

8. He is writing a new project by himself, but it is in its infancy.
"The worst part of writing is going off alone to write it. 98% of it sucks, I like it but I love the collaboration. I do want to write again, I'm just very lucky to be at a place where I'm working with great writers. I have a brief outline of something but it's very early." Exciting, but there are numerous other long-gestating projects that seem to be much further along, such as his take on Noah's Ark, "The Tiger," or "Jackie." (All detailed in our Open Letter to the director, trying to dissuade him from "The Wolverine.")

9. He has reservations on "The Passion of the Christ."
No surprise here, but Mel Gibson's controversial picture that details the ass-kicking of our lord and savior is questionable in Aronofsky's eyes. "I definitely had problems with it. Now it's obvious, but I was like... man this guy hate's Jews. (laughs) I think the 'Passion' is a legitimate story to tell, but with the casting there were many Jewish stereotype roles, so I had a problem with that. There's no doubt he's an exceptional filmmaker, they're all very powerful, but I did have problems with it as a Jew."

10. Editor Andrew Weisblum, along with the director himself, make fun of actors in post-production.
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt take note. "I have a really brutal editor... and you wouldn't want to be the actors as we sit there and make fun of all the performances. I'd lose all trust of actors if they knew what I said. We have to distance ourselves from the emotions and get the best for the film."

11. The only reason to do the next 'Wolverine' movie is to get into the New York Film Festival.
On why he is doing the sequel to one of Marvel's biggest disasters committed to celluloid, he sarcastically responded with a big wink, "I'm doing it because it's probably the only way to get into the New York Film Festival." Of course, the same movie he was presenting had closed the festival back in 2008. What a kidder. After this playful jest, he admitted something which we all knew but probably needed to hear again, as much as we don't like to. "We'd all love to do "Chariots of Fire" for $200 million, but all Hollywood is making are comic-book and video game movies right now. For me, it's a different type of challenge, for these other pictures, the challenge in getting the money for them has been greater than actually making them in a lot of ways. I've been the only person in the room that wanted to make them. I have to keep trying new things, and I do think there are interesting stories and characters in those world."

"Black Swan" is still playing in a theater near you and you should see it if you haven't already.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, you spelled "Aronofsky" wrong.

Thanks!

[Pozer]

GT, you spelled "Aronofsky" wrong.

um, both wrong. it's spelled

Aronscarfsky

I wish I could pinpoint what went wrong.

Acting, Camera-work, sound-design, editing, set-design... all were fantastic.
It just didn't make me feel anything.  The only feelings I got from this were awe at the above elements and disgust at the physical pain she goes though.

need to see this again asap to hopefully discover why this is for this is the way it is. it almost feels unfinished. it feels like it needed a few more passes in the editing cave or something. the final sequence was brilliant yet it didnt serve as any sort of payoff. cant say what needed more refining, script or the cut. i dunno. i MOSTLY love it. mostly love it but slightly dont.

[modage]

Aronscarfsky

That reminds me, last week when I saw the Q&A with Mr. Aronscarfsky I was thinking "he's not wearing a scarf!"  



But as soon as he got up, he put one on.  Score for Pozer.

[squints]

So here's how i'm nominating. Five movies.
Black Swan
127 Hours
Social Network
True Grit
Inception

Social Network was great. It was definitely the funniest of the five . Inception was the most fun and the most intriguing. True Grit felt the best, i love the western, i love the coens, this was perfect combination of the two. The coen's making a film in the tradition of film. I've been studying the "western" for the past 3 years in college and they hit every note with that one. 127 hours i like because of the very idea of filming an entire movie in one location with one actor (franco gets my best act nod). But....


Black Swan is the best film of the year.
The reason i visit this site, i think, is because i'm in love with the craft itself of filmmaking. No other director even came close to what Aronofsky achieved. I'm not really understanding where all this guff about "not being invested in the characters" or the story or whatever. I thought this was magnificent. The acting, sound, cinematography, MISE EN FUCKING SCENE!, everything about this movie was great and no other (american) movie even comes close.

[Reel]

I agree with you, man. I usually rate how good a film is by its re-watchability and this is one of those I'm gonna need to see a few more times and probably own. Here I was thinking 2010 had been slacking on horror movies, and this comes out of the woodwork to bite me in the ass just when I was starting to feel safe. It happens every year, but what a treat and surprise.

NatPo, best actress fa sho'.

[Gold Trumpet]

Good special effects reel for film, SPOILERS THOUGH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n71sjmd-bM&feature=player_embedded#



admin edit: spoilers alert

[squints]

Good special effects reel for film,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n71sjmd-bM&feature=player_embedded#

Seriously don't watch this if you haven't seen the movie. But that shit was fucking dope

[Pubrick]

man, getting rid of the crew was so natural i didn't even think about it until just now even though the film is like 99% mirrors.

amazing work.

legs still look dumb tho.

[Stefen]

"Easiest visual effects ever. All you did was fuck with skin and shoes. Hey, try making fire, brimstone, explosions, Armageddon. Yeah, any bozo with an idea and a hot girlfriend could make dancing look badass, but try making Apocalypse look cool. I might make that too. Who knows? Only thing for sure is I won't make a dancing movie. I blow shit up and make it look awesome. Wolverine II? LOL. I might make that too."

[Alexandro]

wow, some of you guys (picolas particularly) are being pretty tough on this awesome movie. I'm basically reading your complaints and not understanding a word. When this ended I wanted to stand up and clap. Portman is spectacular. All this talk about never caring what will happen to her is really weird. I thought she was the real thing, she sold this character from the get go and you just wanted her to overcome whatever obstacles were coming for her.

This is the story of an artist unable to break free of her search to perfection. The conflict is will she be able to do that or not. What illuminating truth were you guys expecting from this old age story?

[picolas]

spoils

it's not just about trying to be perfect and whether or not she'll succeed.. it's about her struggle to repress anything she sees as ugly and the eventual acceptance of her ugly side as part of that 'perfection.'

i was expecting something unexpected. it's pointless to tell an age old story if nothing is different about it this time. they keep referencing the whole arc of the movie within the movie. and then it just kinda unfolds exactly how you think it will. sure it feels crazy and it looks great and it makes you all shocked and stuff, but a strictly visceral experience of a limited story is shallow cinema. as i said, the only thing that could have surprised me in the final few minutes was if it had ended happily. she deserved to feel great and not die after coming to accept and harness all the fucked up things about herself. but of course it has to be some kind of tragedy where perfection costs you your life.. of course. that's how art works. it can never be a healthy release of creative, or even bordeline-violent energy. nope. it's a THEATRE OF DEATH. NO OTHER WAY. i know aronofsky is better than this. unfortunately he was tempted and ensnared by the simple, good-looking apple this time around, similar to the fountain.

natpo was great. she deserves to win. but i'm stunned by how overrated this insanely predictable movie has become. where was this adoring general public when the wrestler happened?

i'll watch it again eventually because i want to be wrong so it stops bugging me that finally aronofsky has been embraced by the mainstream for one of his weakest films.

[Gold Trumpet]

i was expecting something unexpected. it's pointless to tell an age old story if nothing is different about it this time. they keep referencing the whole arc of the movie within the movie. and then it just kinda unfolds exactly how you think it will. sure it feels crazy and it looks great and it makes you all shocked and stuff, but a strictly visceral experience of a limited story is shallow cinema.

It wasn't unexpected? Aronofsky is taking elements of psychological horror and applying new methods of realism to it. It's funny because Roman Polanski invented the modern form of psychological horror and he borrowed American attributes to form his European background of storytelling while Aronofsky is borrowing European touches for his American sense. I saw a lot of the Dardenne brothers and other tougher filmmakers in this film.

This is a form of genre so the stories will never fully extend out or add obvious layers of depth. That takes it outside of its genre form, but I found the construction of the film to be pretty thrilling, intense, and also revelatory. The visual visceral aspect of the film helps to extend out to a possible incest theme within the story. It has to do with Portman and her mother.

Since Portman's character is delusional  and the camera feeds through her psyche, a moving storyline within the film is the possible incest with her mother. They interact in weird ways where Portman doesn't seem to have a comfortable sexual history with anyone and she will suck her mother's finger for a slab of icing from a cake. When Portman believes she had sex with Mila Kunis, she finds out she was mistaken, but who did she fantasize with? Was it a mere dream? Evidence suggests it could have been sex with her mother because the piece of wood she used to keep her door shut was removed when Portman woke up and rushed out. There had to have been someone there for it to have moved like it did. Her mother looked sullen when she was leaving, but she could have been looking that way for a host of reasons. Either way, the enclosed world between her and her mother is everywhere in the film. The possibilities of deeper issues and things are flavors for a visceral take on a general taboo story.

For me, the visual identity of the film allows the story to be told in this way. The story becomes a little more superficial when it fully nods to these incest factors. Polanski is a genius to me, but I don't think he had the full filmmaking resources and imagination to tunnel an incest horror element in this kind of realistic fashion. He always had his horror stories be about elements of human pain and taboo topics under the surface in some way, but he doesn't realize it like this. Black Swan displays the story in an experience-like manner. Polanski was a little more traditional in having formal nods to genre and what not. Aronofsky has a good development of the genre here. I think it's fully deserving of the consideration it is getting.

I also feel a little weird being boastful of the film since I have been one of his biggest critics, but here he merges a great filmmaking platform with a perfect level of simplicity.

[Alexandro]

spoils again

I don't see it like a theatre of death. It's a theatre of birth. I prefer the ending as it is to what you are suggesting. The closed conclusion you are envisioning here goes completely against the nightmarish "am I losing my mind?" aesthetic the film had, and I would even say that showing her being "normal" is irrelevant to the story. When I mention the word "birth" is because what we witness is the birth of Nina as a true artist, as a vessel for real art. An artistic masterpiece (as the film implies she is creating with her dancing at the end) doesn't die, on the contrary it's a constant flow of life. The film has the bittersweet ending of Nina "dying", giving herself to the artistic work. I know is nothing new, but damn it was moving and perfectly executed. What in the whole of all this crazy movie makes you so sure this is an actual, literal death? However, I don't know how could you foresee the sex scene, or the way the final sequence was going to unfold.

I also noticed what GT mentions, which was a weird topic the film kept coming back to.

About The Wrestler, I was always disappointed about how predictable it became after the first half, so I guess we are all crazy

[72teeth]

What fucks it up for me:

Spoils

Too many things are there to make the viewer feel crazy, but not nessesarily the character... if you take Mila Kunis out of the whole fight scene in the dressing room, its just stupid/ theres also the part where shes practising alone, and with her back turned to the mirror, then we see her reflection turn around to stare at her, but before she could react, lights go out. So that means that really happend, she didn't even react it, nor realize it, there was no one else there who halluciated it, it was just there for us, the viewer... it not like fight club, or usual suspects, where i could go back with a second viewing and see all the pieces fall into place, its just a series of really well put together creepy momments, but creepy for our sakes, not always the stories sake. sometimes yeah, but not always. its cheating. it the same as a jump scare. do i am making sense? besides the fact im drunk i dont think i have the biggest vocabulary to get my point across. respond