Image source: Wikimedia
+/-
Year of release: 2010
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Mark Heyman, Andrés Heinz, John McLaughlin
Starring: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, etc.For more information on “Black Swan”, visit Wikipedia and/or IMDb
General impression:
It seems as if the whole movie was made for the sole purpose of winning Natalie Portman the Oscar. She deserved it, but I wish she would have been awarded for a role in a less freaky movie, one that is not best suited for teenagers, snobs, and other people that mistake shock and madness for depth in a movie. It’s Aronofsky… I don’t stomach his work well – it always leaves me sad and on the verge of nausea. It makes me wonder: what’s with him? is anything torturing his soul? He’s an artist, he expresses himself, so something must be troubling his heart. He distorted all grace and beauty into a grotesque movie that does absolutely nothing for the viewer. It’s all his vision, and what he intended you to feel, when he wanted you to feel, and those feelings are negative! It might be a movie about overcoming yourself, but you’ll most likely remember it for rashes, peeling skin, blood, and Natalie Portman turned into a disturbed character you can’t even feel for 🙁
Highlights:
It is artistic.
Downside:
Gloomy, cold, Aronofsky. Overrated.
Would I see it again? – Absolutely not
My Rating (1 to 10): 7
Recommended:
I only say yes because many people liked this movie, and you might do too. But, based on how I feel, I’d say no.
Suggestion:
If you don’t want to get depressed, avoid “Black Swan”. An hour and a half is too much time to spend solely on admiring Aronofsky’s cold art and Portman’s (undeniable and already well-known) acting skills.
Oh boy, I cannot change a word of what you're saying here, and still you are too kind. When a film has no meaning, like this one, it has to be said. It was made for the people you mentioned, snobs and confused teenagers, he got his claims. Scott Pilgrim with it's lack of meaning isn't so nauseating, on the contrary, it is amusing. Amusing people is not one of this director's objectives, he seems to be a secret admirer of that guy with the last record in obnoxious shocking, the one with that Human Centipede nonsense, 🙂 , I don't even remember the name. A post touching this movie and with other facts on Aronofsky and Portman, is here
I disagree. Every modern movie has filler elements for the sake of… whatever, but this doesn't mean there wasn't any depth in this movie. I don't know if you noticed, but there was a lot of symbolism throughout that drew this fine line between sanity and madness. Furthermore, life is not life without beauty AND darkness twisted together, so I won't accept anything less than that to be called great.
Yes, I do remember those 'grotesque' scenes, but I also remember what the whole thing represented: being afraid of yourself and living a life of duality, striving for the impossible: perfection. To me, there was all the meaning in the world because it spoke to me on a personal level. I myself have been afraid of me and Aronofsky portrayed it perfectly.
So you guys have your opinion, I'll have my own. Everybody wins. 😉
@Lyn
We're all afraid of ourselves sometimes, so I know what you mean when you say this movie "spoke to you on a personal level". Great things in our lives are those that touch us – that's what makes them great. I respect your opinion, and won't comment on it.
However, I will remind you that Nina was the perfect White Swan from the very beginning. She was not "striving for the impossible" – she was already stiff in her "perfection". That was, in fact, her problem. Her big challenge is to set her "darkness" (the main condition for the White/Black Swan part) free, allowing herself to be less than perfect, abandoning to her impulses, sensuality and sexuality, precisely because, as you've said, life is both light and darkness, and she needs to counterbalance her perfectionism.
@Daniel
South Park galore, eh? 🙂