Directors Guild of America

[MovieWes]

I wasn't responding to MovieWes's admiration of the film as stupid, I meant that his assertion that I didn't like "outstanding films" was stupid.

Again, I was just joking around. Perhaps I didn't make this clear. I have no doubts that you appreciate great filmmaking and I greatly admire your knowledge of film. I apologize if there was any confusion or if I insulted you in anyway.

[Sabin]

(Damien @ Jan. 16 2011,1:48

(Sabin @ Jan. 16 2011,1:19)

No, I get it. There has been a strange dearth of back and forth wrt Black Swan, which is a polarizing film but those who don't like it don't seem to be challenged along the same lines of perhaps any other film this year. I'm closer in line with MovieWes than Damien, I'll say that. The cumulative effect of Black Swan is rather powerful because only in the final third does it have the courage to be just dumb enough. But for over the first hour of the film, while the filmmaking might be pretty exceptional, the film itself is rather dumb. The moment-to-moment had me rolling my eyes while I was still entranced by Aronofsky's style.

Anyone who says that Black Swan is derivative or dumb, I can get that. I can even understand someone saying it's annoying. But I don't understand a failure to appreciate the filmmaking.

But the "filmmaking" includes the derivative and dumb elements, including making Barbara Hershey's character a ridiculous one-dimensional villain, stuffing Portman's bedroom so obviously with items that spell out her "innocence," the lack of gradation in Winona Ryder's character and so on. It's more than Aronofsky's graceful camera movements.

I agree.

I am largely responding only to the technical virtuoso of Aronofsky's filmmaking, and that's fine because, as I state earlier, I found the cumulative effect of the entirety of the production very entrancing. The problem with Black Swan is that it attempts a very poorly thought out psychological examination of Natalie Portman's character that is both too dumb and not quite dumb enough. Various ancillary motifs and characters either needed to be fleshed out or stripped down. Because of this, the film is neither fish nor fowl.

But let's talk about Aronofsky's graceful camera movements for a moment! Let's talk about how liberated and exciting the film feels on a moment-for-moment basis. I think that's what everyone who likes the film (as I do) responds to. Outside of pi which thrives on a surface paranoia and of course a specific context, Darren Aronofsky is not a thinker. He has good instincts, but Black Swan seems like a side project where he is only interested in tertiary elements, like Martin Scorsese with Shutter Island. Which is fine as long as it's not taken too seriously. I think Black Swan has developed an irrational cult that I have more an aversion to than those who tear it completely because it does not stand up to the living history of films of its nature and, of course, very basic storytelling flaws. That's always the case when a pretty cool film is blown out of proportion.

[Bog]

By the end of the movie, I assumed every thing we saw of other people was not real. Kunis, Hershey, Ryder, and Cassel were all being represented through Portman's demented mind.

Exactly.

I even see it almost as the artistic process, even if it is clearly more looney toons than what is likely usual. Ballet dancers are artists, right? It's the process through which Portman's Nina must succumb to to reach the final white light. To an extent, even her own "demented mind" knows this to be true, but necessary for success. That there is no definitive way for the audience to know for sure when the characters are "real" and when they are within the "process" is a good choice I think, but adds to the "dumb" factor for those not invested.

[rolotomasi99]

But the "filmmaking" includes the derivative and dumb elements, including making Barbara Hershey's character a ridiculous one-dimensional villain, stuffing Portman's bedroom so obviously with items that spell out her "innocence," the lack of gradation in Winona Ryder's character and so on.

I have not read all the posts in the BLACK SWAN thread so I apologize if this was already mentioned there. By the end of the movie, I just assumed every thing we saw of other people was not real. Kunis, Hershey, Ryder, and Cassel were all being represented through Portman's demented mind, right? Ryder did not really stab herself in the face, Kunis did not try to sabotage Portman, Hershey was not abusive towards Portman, and Cassel...well, he actually might have been an asshole.

I mean if Portman really broke Hershey's hand right before she left for her performance, would Hershey really have just shown up and sat in the audience like we see her next? If Ryder had really stabbed herself in the face, the whole company would have been talking about it. I thought the whole point of the very ending was to show that Portman was the only person trying to do her harm. Everyone else was supportive, but oblivious to the self-damage Portman was doing.

I would agree with your assessment of the other characters, Damien, if I thought they were supposed to be realistic, but that movie was clearly an art house horror film. I did not think any actor did a bad job portraying the character they were asked to play, but they were asked to aim high. Was Hershey any worse than other horror film villains like Piper Luaurie in CARRIE or Ruth Gordon in ROSEMARY'S BABY?

Maybe this interpretation changes nothing for you Damien, but it certainly helped me enjoy the movie more. I just accepted it as a wild and over-the-top ride like THE EXORCIST or THE SHINING, and was able to love every last minute of it. If I had gone in expecting ALL ABOUT EVE, I probably would have hated it; but since I went in expecting SUSPIRIA, I was both impressed and entertained.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1295210482

[Damien]

No, I get it. There has been a strange dearth of back and forth wrt Black Swan, which is a polarizing film but those who don't like it don't seem to be challenged along the same lines of perhaps any other film this year. I'm closer in line with MovieWes than Damien, I'll say that. The cumulative effect of Black Swan is rather powerful because only in the final third does it have the courage to be just dumb enough. But for over the first hour of the film, while the filmmaking might be pretty exceptional, the film itself is rather dumb. The moment-to-moment had me rolling my eyes while I was still entranced by Aronofsky's style.

Anyone who says that Black Swan is derivative or dumb, I can get that. I can even understand someone saying it's annoying. But I don't understand a failure to appreciate the filmmaking.

But the "filmmaking" includes the derivative and dumb elements, including making Barbara Hershey's character a ridiculous one-dimensional villain, stuffing Portman's bedroom so obviously with items that spell out her "innocence," the lack of gradation in Winona Ryder's character and so on. It's more than Aronofsky's graceful camera movements.

I wasn't responding to MovieWes's admiration of the film as stupid, I meant that his assertion that I didn't like "outstanding films" was stupid.

[Sabin]

No, I get it. There has been a strange dearth of back and forth wrt Black Swan, which is a polarizing film but those who don't like it don't seem to be challenged along the same lines of perhaps any other film this year. I'm closer in line with MovieWes than Damien, I'll say that. The cumulative effect of Black Swan is rather powerful because only in the final third does it have the courage to be just dumb enough. But for over the first hour of the film, while the filmmaking might be pretty exceptional, the film itself is rather dumb. The moment-to-moment had me rolling my eyes while I was still entranced by Aronofsky's style.

Anyone who says that Black Swan is derivative or dumb, I can get that. I can even understand someone saying it's annoying. But I don't understand a failure to appreciate the filmmaking.

[Bog]

But there does seem to be quite a bit of subjective remarks around here

Yes and stated objectively: those not in agreeance are complete idiots

especially from some of the more respected members who, for some reason, nobody ever really seems to call out.

Correct



Edited By Bog on 1295193017

[MovieWes]

Well, Black Swan IS one of the best films of the year whether you want to admit it or not. :p

I won't go so far as to use the term "stupider" at all, but I will say that this specific statement screams subjectivity, no?

I actually would agree with you on a list I would make personally for this year that the "clown's" film is one of the best, but the only absolute objective statement you could make is that Black Swan is one of the most highly praised and/or polarizing films of the year.

Maybe I'm only thinking in terms of this board, which is basically my only insight into the Oscars whatsoever...where we are very respectably tough on fanboy popular films...I understand how highly praised films like Social Network, Shutter Island, Kids are All Right, and Inception were this year...as I think we all do...we're not stupid(er).

However, for me, none of those would ever be anywhere near a list that had the word "best" in it

I was actually just joking around. I realize that Black Swan is a polarizing film and I understand that some people might not like it as much as I did. But there does seem to be quite a bit of subjective remarks around here, especially from some of the more respected members who, for some reason, nobody ever really seems to call out.

[Bog]

Well, Black Swan IS one of the best films of the year whether you want to admit it or not. :p

I won't go so far as to use the term "stupider" at all, but I will say that this specific statement screams subjectivity, no?

I actually would agree with you on a list I would make personally for this year that the "clown's" film is one of the best, but the only absolute objective statement you could make is that Black Swan is one of the most highly praised and/or polarizing films of the year.

Maybe I'm only thinking in terms of this board, which is basically my only insight into the Oscars whatsoever...where we are very respectably tough on fanboy popular films...I understand how highly praised films like Social Network, Shutter Island, Kids are All Right, and Inception were this year...as I think we all do...we're not stupid(er).

However, for me, none of those would ever be anywhere near a list that had the word "best" in it

[MovieWes]

Not that I expected it, but I was hoping that Roman Polanski would be nominated for a real Polanski film rather thn Aronofsky for a pathetic imitation of a Polanski film.

Do you have something against outstanding films Damien?

One of the stupider remarks I've read around here in a while.

Well, Black Swan IS one of the best films of the year whether you want to admit it or not. :p

[rolotomasi99]

I haven't seen The Fighter (although based on Russell's previous work, I'm not anticipating much) but I think Hooper's directorial work is much more accomplished than that of Nolan, Fincher and that clown, Aronofsky.

You know perfectly well I was unimpressed with Fincher's work on THE SOCIAL NETWORK and I equally disliked Russell's work on THE FIGHTER (despite enjoying both of those films for their writing and acting respectively)...but even I find your praise of Hooper as a director a bit much. Perhaps he will mature into a better director, but there is no way he was superior to any of the other four nominees.

[Big Magilla]

I wouldn't call Hooper a "bad" director, but he's a TV director who IMO doesn't quite know how to direct for the big screen.

Do you think Hooper's background in TV is why he shot so many damn close ups? Did he not get that we would be able to see their faces just fine on the big screen?

The number of close-ups didn't bother me. I thought the medium shots, with horrid backgrounds, as Sabin alluded to, were what made it look like it was shot for TV rather than the big screen. Everything looked like it was done on the cheap.

[Sabin]

Tom Hoo/pper has (perhaps unknowingly) made a stylistic film wherein as the conversations between his two actors progress, his character center the frame more and more from whence they began on the margins. It's more than shot-reverse shot. I think the problem with this style of shooting is that there is really no alternative but to cut with the lines. There's no cause for lingering on images really, because to do so is to linger on an intentionally unattractive (or rather strictly functional) image for far too long. That's why he's doing this, we can agree, yes? As each conversation between Firth and Rush continues, they go from one margin of the screen closer to the center. They line up! Huzzah! Yet, to me this creates a forced tempo to their conversations that I found somewhat displeasing. I know when I watch these scenes that when a line ends, there will be a cut. This follows damn near throughout the film, or at the very least through the centerpiece scenes between Firth and Rush. It's not just a filmed script, but such that doesn't really enable it to have the opportunity to breathe like a film. I think, Damien, I had literally the opposite reaction that you did. I found The King's Speech to be one of the worst examples of shot reverse shot of the year.

When his actors are outside the frame, he uses a handheld camera to track them walking forward. There are a few lovely images, especially that of Colin Firth being dwarfed by the microphone, but ye gods! Those converging interior conversational shots! Often times there is literally nothing to look at behind his actors. One shot in particular of Geoffrey Rush at his typewriter in Medium Profile before painfully dull green wallpaper is especially distracting. If it is Tom Hoo/pper's point to emphasize the disparity of wealth, there are more subliminal fashions to sledgehammer.

[Damien]

(Greg @ Jan. 10 2011,1:19)

I take it that Russell is the one outside of the four?

Absolutely not! The fact that I'm still unclear as to whether or not his name is Tom Hooper or Hopper says something to the relative anonymity and horrific visual style he presents in The King's Speech, a film that can have all the nominations it wants but I pray directing, cinematography, and editing fall by the wayside.

The King's Speech does not possess a horrible visual style -- sometimes a simpler, understated use of the camera is what the material calls for, which is the case with this film. And Hooper has an unerring instinct of when to use a one-shot or a two-shot and how to position his characters with the frame.

I haven't seen The Fighter (although based on Russell's previous work, I'm not anticipating much) but I think Hooper's directorial work is much more accomplished than that of Nolan, Fincher and that clown, Aronofsky.

[rolotomasi99]

Debra Granik walks all over these boys. What she was able to do on such a small budget and with both professional and non-professional actors was amazing. I hope Focus Features or the Weinsteins snap her up and nurture her career.

...or she can do shit like PIPPI LONGSTOCKING. It sounds like an Altman-does-POPEYE disaster.

http://nymag.com/daily....pi.html