Tag Archives: black swan

Playing Catch-Up: Black Swan

 

“It’s okay, Jack. You made a bad decision and bought something you didn’t understand. Like when I bought tickets to Black Swan. Remember when a movie was just a fella in a hat running away from a fella with no hair?” – Hank Hooper, last night’s 30 Rock.

I finally saw Black Swan!  I know, I know, what took me so long?  Hey, movies are expensive, and it takes a long time for something to go second-run.  I know this won’t really be a timely post, but I feel like I can’t not comment on this film, since it’s been such a huge topic in pop culture for the past few months.  There were a lot of things I liked about this film, as well as a lot of other things I didn’t like so much.  Let me just say I get why people are so obsessed with this film.  I just don’t think it was necessarily for me.  I’m glad I saw it, though.

For those who don’t know, the film (directed by Darren Aronofsky) is about Nina (Natalie Portman), a ballet dancer who is cast in the lead role in her company’s production of Swan Lake.  She is perfect for the role of the White Swan, but she has difficulty portraying the Black Swan.  Her director (Vincent Cassel) uses unorthodox methods to bring Nina out of her shell.  When Lily (Mila Kunis), a new dancer whose free spirit is more suited to the Black Swan role, threatens Nina’s struggle for perfection, Nina begins to lose her mind.  The audience is dragged along in her spiral into insanity, and it becomes less and less clear (to us and to Nina) what’s real and what’s imagined.

One of the things that really interested me about the film is its refusal to be placed in any one category or genre.  Is it just a drama about a ballet dancer and her struggles to succeed?  Is it a psychological thriller, a la Memento?  Is it a horror film?  Is it a fantasy?  I don’t think any of these genres fit Black Swan.  It’s some amalgamation of all these things.  When I first saw the trailer months ago, I didn’t know what to think.  Part of me wanted to assume it was just another formulaic horror film.  Then another part of me looked at the cast and director and knew that wouldn’t turn out to be true.  It’s not formulaic.  Sure, there are aspects of the film that are derivative of other narratives and styles, but the way the film borrows from these traditions and turns it into something new and indefinable is what makes it so original.

I also really admired the visual style of the film.  The cinematography of the dance sequences rivals the editing and camerawork of stylish boxing movies.  The camera is continuously mobile, moving cloer to Nina and circling around her in sweeping motions.  It’s like the camera is dancing with her, while also emphasizing, through constant, uneasy movement, her paranoid mental state.  There are numerous unconventional shots of the back of Nina’s head as she walks, perhaps further signifying her paranoia, as if she is running from us.  These shots reminded me of the countless tracking shots following the characters in Gus Van Sant’s Elephant, another haunting film.  These shots detach us from Nina’s character and enhance the sense of voyeurism.  The camerawork is consistently shakey.  It’s as violent as Nina’s descent into insanity.  The tight close-ups of Portman’s face stress the intensity of her emotions.  Everything’s very unnerving.

Natalie Portman took home the Best Actress Oscar last month for this performance.  Was it deserved?  Well, I haven’t seen all the nominated performances, but I thought Portman’s performance was spot-on.  She makes Nina constantly on-edge, which undoubtedly took consistent effort and emotional stamina.  The character’s meekest, most vulnerable points are as well-executed as her most crazed scenes.  Mila Kunis’s performance was pleasantly surprising.  She made Lily alternately funny, threatening, and sweet, so that my ambiguous reaction to her reflected Nina’s conflicted feelings.  While I love Kunis in comedies and in voiceover work, I hope this is a preview of future dramatic roles.

And I was sufficiently freaked out by the plot.  A lot of crazy stuff happens in this film.  It’s dark and disturbing, and there are several violent or grotesque images.  There was plenty of suspense and horror-movie jolts.  I certainly found them effective.  Just the sound of Nina cracking her ballerina’s toes upon waking up at the beginning of the film was enough to freak me out.  This film really exposes the pain and toil associated with ballet dancing.

Now on to some things I didn’t like so much, or just wasn’t sure what to make of.  First, I was frustrated that there was no concrete explanation for Nina’s mental disintegration.  I certainly don’t expect that everything be spelled out for me without any room for interpretation, but I felt that her character would have been stronger if we had clearer knowledge of her motivation.  She was supposedly a perfectionist who strove for precision, but she seemed too tentative to be so type A.  She was uptight, sure, but she seemed more nervous than controlled.  I think part of this ambiguity was due to the fact that the film did not focus much on Nina’s dance talent.  Most of Portman’s dance sequences are shot as close-ups or medium shots.  These shot scales emphasize her emotions, but we don’t see the precision she has supposedly mastered.  A clearer picture of her family life would be helpful as well.  We know that her relationship with her mother is complicated, but we do not know many details.  Where is her father?  Why is her mother so controlling?  What is the extent of her mother’s treatment of her?  Is there physical abuse?  Is her mother living vicariously through her?  The answers to these questions were alluded to, but I felt that they weren’t close enough to being definite revelations.  Nina’s background and psychology were too amorphous.  At the start of the film, she has already begun to unravel.  Was she always like this?  I’m not expecting answers to all of the film’s intentions, but I felt that many of the film’s themes and facets of Nina’s character would have been easier for me to latch onto and consider if Nina’s personality were clearer.

I’m also simply having a hard time figuring out what this film is trying to say.  Is it a message about the debilitating effects of ballet on women, as displayed through an extreme example?  Maybe.  But something about that seems too preachy.  Is the film criticizing Nina for her “frigid” demeanor, or sympathizing with her struggle to let go?  Is this a sexist film for its portrayal of women as one of two extremes: meek and fragile, or sexual and uninhibited?  For its sexual content (including a much talked-about and arguably gratuitous lesbian sex scene)?  Or is it a criticism of these depictions of women?  Is it commenting on the pressure women feel to please both themselves and men?  The fact that the film was directed by a man complicates these questions for me.  While I certainly don’t believe that male filmmakers are incapable of sympathizing with women’s struggles, it’s an issue that sometimes frustrates me, especially when the subject matter is so sexualized.  I really don’t know what to think about the film, but the fact that it’s being contemplated at all is probably a sign of a film original enough that it even begs these questions. 

In short, I liked the film’s style and its refusal to fit into a formulaic genre.  I also admired Natalie Portman’s strong, emotional performance.  But I struggle with what to take away from this film.  I wish I could have known more about Portman’s character, in order to sympathize with her and better understand the film’s intentions.  Nevertheless, I’m glad I saw it.  It was an interesting two hours.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

83rd Academy Award Predictions: Part 3

Now for the technical awards!

Now, I don’t want to hear anyone complain about watching these awards being presented.  Seriously.  A few years ago, when they tried to speed up the ceremony by handing out so-called “minor” awards in the aisles or putting all the nominees on the stage before the announcement, I was so angry I wanted to throw something at the television.  There are so many people who contribute to a film’s significance, and they all deserve to be recognized for their hard work and artistry.

Let’s take a look at some of the possible nominees in the technical categories.

Best Cinematography:

  1. 127 Hours, Antony Dod Mantle and Enrique Chediak
  2. Black Swan, Matthew Libatique
  3. The King’s Speech, Danny Cohen
  4. Inception, Wally Pfister
  5. True Grit, Roger Deakins

[Okay, I’ll be honest.  This is exactly the same list as the Critics Choice Movie Awards.  I used their list as a reference because cinematography is not exactly a buzzed about category, so my only strategy for predicting this category is my knowledge of the films and their previous nominations.  I’ve seen The King’s Speech, and would definitely agree that it deserves a nomination for its inventive visuals.  I know this probably makes no sense, but there was something so British about the camerawork.  Don’t ask me what I mean by that.  It was just my weird gut reaction mixed with my weird brain.  Anyway, I think Inception‘s wild visuals also warrant recognition.   Antony Dod Mantle won the Academy Award for Slumdog Millionaire‘s cinematography, so he’s a sure bet, and based on word of mouth and the trailers for Black Swan (I haven’t seen it — I’m kind of scared), it’s likely to get a nomination.  And Roger Deakins has worked with the Coens multiple times, plus on a slew of other brilliant productions, so he’ll likely get a nod.  The winner?  I honestly don’t know, because I haven’t seen all the films, and, again, there isn’t a lot of buzz surrounding the category.  So I guess we’ll just have to see what happens.]

Best Art Direction:

  1. True Grit, Jess Gonchor and Nancy Haigh
  2. Inception, Guy Hendrix Dyas
  3. Alice in Wonderland, Stefan Dechant and Robert Stromberg
  4. The King’s Speech, Eve Stewart
  5. Black Swan,  Therese DePrez and Tora Peterson

[Okay, this time I didn’t even look at the Critics Choice list before making my picks, and they matched up perfectly.  Of course, just because the critics and I think these are the most deserving doesn’t mean they’ll be the nominees.  I’m just saying…  Anyway, this category usually belongs to period pieces and fantasies.  That applies to, well, four of them, but Black Swan certainly seems to set a tone with its surroundings.  Something tells me Inception‘s elaborate dreamscapes might take the prize, but I could be wrong.]

Best Costume Design:

  1. Alice in Wonderland, Colleen Atwood
  2. Black Swan, Amy Westcott
  3. True Grit, Mary Zophres
  4. Burlesque, Michael Kaplan
  5. The King’s Speech, Jenny Beavan

[So, four out of these five coincide with the Critics Choice Awards (I didn’t peek first this time either).  There are only four nominees at the Critics Choice Awards, but the Oscars will probably have five nominees.  My prediction for the fifth nominee is Burlesque.  I mean, there are a lot of flashy outfits in that.  As for the others, if Colleen Atwood designed for a film she’s almost certain to be nominated.  Period pieces True Grit and The King’s Speech call for great design, and Black Swan has those elaborate ballet outfits.  As for the winner?  I’ll narrow it down to Wonderland and True Grit.]

Best Editing:

  1. 127 Hours, Jon Harris
  2. Black Swan, Andrew Weisblum
  3. Inception, Lee Smith
  4. The Social Network, Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter
  5. True Grit, Roderick Jaynes

[The first four match up with the Critics Choice category, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and choose True Grit as my final nominee.  127 Hours and Black Swan make sense because they’re built on suspense and shock value.  Inception is such a complex film that its success depends on deft editing.  The Social Network had to piece together different time periods, flashbacks, and retellings.  And True Grit, based on all its other buzz, seems like the right fit for the category.  It’s all about the justification, see.  Who’ll win?  I can’t really say, because I haven’t seen all the films.  We shall see.]

Best Makeup:

  1. Alice in Wonderland
  2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One
  3. Black Swan

[I’m only putting down three nominees here, because the category is usually limited to just three.  These choices are self-explanatory.  One only has to look at Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, or Natalie Portman — well, whatever’s going on with her in Black Swan — to understand why these films deserve recognition.  Should there be four nominees, True Grit is a likely candidate.]

Best Visual Effects:

  1. Inception
  2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
  3. Alice in Wonderland

[This category usually only has three nominees as well.  Let’s face it.  Inception is pretty much sure to win, right?  If there happen to be more nominees, Tron: Legacy and Ironman 2 are possible candidates.]

Best Sound Editing/Sound Mixing:

  1. Inception
  2. True Grit
  3. 127 Hours
  4. Black Swan

[Okay, I don’t really understand the difference between sound editing and sound mixing.  Okay, I kind of get it.   Either way, I’m not enough of an expert on sound — well, I’m not any kind of expert on it — to predict these categories separately, so let’s put down a few likely nominees.  I know I sure liked that “BWARRR” sound in Inception.  But I guess that was part of the score…]

Best Score:

  1. Inception, Hans Zimmer
  2. The King’s Speech, Alexandre Desplat
  3. The Social Network, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
  4. Alice in Wonderland, Danny Elfman
  5. 127 Hours, A.R. Rahman

[So, this year I predict that this category will be teeming with big name composers.  And who’ll win?  I don’t know how anyone can beat Hans Zimmer for Inception.  Once again, that “BWARR” gets me every time.]

I’m excluding my predictions for a few categories, namely Best Foreign Language Film, Best Documentary, the Best Short categories, and Best original song, because I don’t feel I know enough about this year’s available nominees to predict them.  But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pay attention when they’re announced.

Remember to look for the Oscar nominations early in the morning on January 25, and watch the Oscars on February 27 on ABC with hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco.  And before that, watch the Critics Choice Movie Awards January 14 on VH1, and the Golden Globes January 16 on NBC.  That was all from memory.  I’m a little obsessed with these things, in case you haven’t noticed.  Oh yeah, and see some of these movies!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

83rd Academy Award Predictions: Part 1

Wow, it’s been a while since my last post.  Blame it on college.  But I’m back now.

Well, what better way to start the new year than talking about the past year’s movies?  And what better way to talk about the past year’s movies than predicting this year’s Oscar nominations?

I am admittedly obsessed with the Academy Awards.  For the few months leading up to the ceremony I’m constantly thinking about who’ll be nominated, who’ll win, what they’ll be wearing when they win.  Then I usually camp out in front of the television all day watching E!’s coverage of the red carpet.  Then the ceremony usually lasts about four wonderful hours (although many people would disagree about the “wonderful” part).  And then it’s over and I’m sad.  Then the next day I start to get excited about what the next year has in store for film, and the cycle begins again.  I’m already ridiculously excited about the nomination announcement on January 25.  Before then, I like to predict which films will be nominated in most of the categories.  The nominations (and winners) are rarely a surprise, since buzz and other awards shows pretty much give it all away.  But I still like to pretend that I’m really great at predicting.  So here are my predicted nominations for the first few categories of the 83rd Academy Awards.  I’ll try to get my predictions for the other categories in soon; I don’t want to bore you or bombard you all at once.  Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a lot of these films, because many of them aren’t widely available.  Plus, ticket prices are ridiculously high.  So these predictions aren’t necessarily based on my individual taste, although I usually agree with the Academy’s choices.  The winners, however, don’t always please me.  We’ll see what happens this year.

Best Picture:

  1. The Social Network
  2. Inception
  3. Toy Story 3
  4. The King’s Speech
  5. The Fighter
  6. Black Swan
  7. The Kids Are All Right
  8. True Grit
  9. Alice in Wonderland
  10. The Town

[Best Picture is back to ten nominees, which leaves a lot of room for the more viewer-backed films that normally wouldn’t have a chance in the five-nominee category.  The first eight on the list are pretty much sure bets, but the last two slots are up for grabs, in my opinion. Alice in Wonderland was hugely popular at the box office, and it hasn’t really lost steam like a lot of early-in-the-year releases do.  And The Town was popular among moviegoers and critics alike, so it’s likely to find a nod.  As far as the winner, I predict The Social Network to take the top spot.  It was hailed by critics and moviegoers, and it’s about an extremely relevant topic.]

Best Director:

  1. David Fincher, The Social Network
  2. Christopher Nolan, Inception
  3. Joel and Ethan Coen, True Grit
  4. Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
  5. Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

[Usually this category is extremely easy to predict, because it almost always corresponds to the Best Picture nominees.  But now that there are ten nominees in Best Picture, the category is more difficult to narrow down.  But usually the nominees are pretty well-known directors with a recognizable style.  That certainly applies to the first four nominees.  Tom Hooper is less recognized, but The King’s Speech is definitely one of the films with the biggest chance of taking the top prize, and it was a really special film (I just saw it a few days ago).  I expect the Oscar to go to David Fincher, because his film is my pick for Best Picture, and the two usually coincide.]

Best Actor:

  1. Colin Firth, The King’s Speech
  2. James Franco, 127 Hours
  3. Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network
  4. Robert Duvall, Get Low
  5. Ryan Gosling, Blue Valentine

[The first three nominees are definites.   Robert Duvall’s place isn’t as definite, but he’s likely to be recognized because of his veteran status and a critically lauded performance in Get Low, a film which I’ve been dying to see since I first heard about it months ago.  And the last place could go to Jeff Bridges for True Grit, but I predict that the Academy will recognize Ryan Gosling for Blue Valentine.  The Awards seem to be seeking a younger audience (as proven by their hiring of James Franco and Anne Hathaway as co-hosts — so excited!), and they’ve recently been very appreciative of smaller, more unorthodox productions.  As far as the winner goes, I don’t see how it could go to anyone but Colin Firth, who missed out on the prize last year for his incredible performance in A Single Man.  His performance as the stuttering King George VI in The King’s Speech is mesmerizing and heartwarming, like the film itself.  As far as I’m concerned, he’s a deserving shoe-in.]

Best Actress:

  1. Natalie Portman, Black Swan
  2. Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right
  3. Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone
  4. Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine
  5. Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole

[Sigh.  This category makes me sad year after year.  While Best Actor is swarming with snubs, Best Actress is usually searching wildly for five suitable nominees.  It isn’t because there aren’t a lot of great actresses to choose from.  It’s because there aren’t a lot of great roles for those great actresses.  Anyway, I could go on and on about this issue, but I’ll just say that I think there are only about six or seven performances that have a chance to be nominated.  A spot could go to Nicole Kidman (Rabbit Hole) or even cohost Anne Hathaway (Love and Other Drugs), but I think the Academy’s likely to nominate shoe-ins Portman and Bening, as well as breakout star Jennifer Lawrence, the refreshing Michelle Williams, and the always great Julianne Moore.   Who’ll the winner be?  I think Natalie Portman is likely to take home the top prize, though Bening also has a big chance.  UPDATE: I’ve changed my mind.  After realizing that Moore hasn’t been nominated in other major awards, I’m changing my prediction for the fifth actress to Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole.  Sorry, Julianne.]

If you’re looking for another opinion on the likely nominees, check out the everything Oscar issue of Entertainment Weekly.  And check out some of these films if you haven’t already.  I’ve seen six of my predicted Best Picture nominees, but I’d like to see as many as I can before the ceremony on February 27.  We’ll see how that works out…

And stay tuned for my other predictions.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,