REVIEW: Black Swan Takes Its Own Hifalutin' Hokum Way Too Seriously
Wide-eyed Nina navigates the terrible-wonderful world of ballet, undermined at every turn by her fellow dancers (they whisper savagely behind her back -- or do they?), her passive-aggressive former-dancer mom (played by Barbara Hershey, who's all teeth and collarbones) and of course by Thomas, who's always lurking in the shadows with his pointy devil face, at one point exhorting Nina to -- I kid you not -- "Go home and touch yourself." (She obliges, finishing the job by humping her bunched-up comforter.) Tortured by all manner of evil forces, Nina the naif suffers, oh! how she suffers, and not just the usual bloody-toe ballerina stuff. She also indulges in all sorts of self-inflicted degradation, because, as John Lennon said, Genius is pain. Or at least a really bad hangnail.
Black Swan ought to be satisfying pulp in the way Aronofky's last picture, The Wrestler, was. But The Wrestler had Mickey Rourke, who, with his battered face and lamb-soft heart, put some emotional muscle behind the story's rags-to-riches-to-rags conventionality. Black Swan has only Natalie Portman, who gives the best female lead performance of 1955. She's both the suffering, doe-eyed good girl and the all-too-easily corruptible minx. With her sturdy but delicate bones and demi-regal carriage, Portman is a believable ballerina. But she plays the material straight instead of pushing it straight over the top. Kunis, on the other hand, knows how to vamp it up without amping it up. She plays her character like a dark version of Mary Tyler Moore's Mary Richards, a girl who greets the world with her vagina dentata wide-open. She's gonna make it after all.
Black Swan is quite often fun to watch, especially the hallucinatory wig-wag that comes at the end. But Aronofsky can't see that this material -- written by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John J. McLaughlin, from a story by Heinz -- is really just a high-toned version of Showgirls, a movie that's frequently derided as being simply "bad," although Paul Verhoeven knew exactly what he was doing, and he was honest about his goals: He wanted to give us a glitzy, over-the-top show-biz fable, and boy, did he ever.
Plenty of critics have already made comparisons between Black Swan and Michael Powell's The Red Shoes, but the only things the two movies have in common is that they're about ballet and obsession. Powell, aside from being the ultimate craftsman, infused his movie with passion from the inside out. Aronofsky goes at the notion of suffering for one's art as if it were a science experiment, a principle you can prove with a formula. He also isn't as in tune with the female psyche as, say, a director like Douglas Sirk was. I'm all for the sympathetic imagination: We wouldn't have Madame Bovary if Flaubert hadn't had the audacity to tell a story from a woman's point of view. But Aronofsky stares down Nina's girlish obsessions, and her determination to be perfect, as if he were writing a psych textbook. Mummy is controlling and demanding; therefore, notions of food, home and comfort are conflicted for Nina. Aronofsky proves this by showing, in an early scene, Mama Bear serving her cub a breakfast consisting of half a pink grapefruit and a tiny poached egg, and the two exclaim over how "pretty" the grapefruit is, a ritual they've obviously been through many times before.
But Aronofsky doesn't cut much deeper than that into the allegedly female trait of yearning for perfection, of always wanting to be the good girl, of fearing that you might displease mother. Nor does he loop into the pure, melodramatic craziness of what it means to live for your art: Everything in the movie is as meticulously controlled as Nina's meager breakfast allotment. Cassel's Thomas, in between making slimy advances on Nina, admonishes her over and over again that to be a great dancer, she must let herself go. "Lose yourself," he tells her. But it's Aronofsky who can't let himself go. Though he seems willing to go over the top with this outsized, old-fashioned story of repression and mad ambition, the unfortunate truth is that he's not Douglas Sirk or Michael Powell -- he's not even Paul Verhoeven. Thomas also tells Nina, "Surprise yourself so you can surprise the audience." It's great advice -- too bad Aronofsky didn't add it to his checklist.
_Editor's note: Portions of this review appeared earlier, in a different form, in Stephanie Zacharek's coverage of the Venice Film Festival
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Can't believe you rated "Burlesque" 7 1/2 and "Black Swan" an 8. Really? I have a hard time believing that ANYTHING directed by Aronofsky is only 1/2 a point better than anything with Christina Aguilera starring.
Stephanie - I think you missed the point on a lot of what the film is actually exploring, particularly its exploration of the female psyche as dictated in a male dominated world.
"But I find it impossible to take Black Swan as seriously as Aronofsky does."
For something to be truly hokey or campy, it has to take itself seriously, doesn't it?
Did you really give it an 8? The review reads much harsher than that.
And not that this is entirely relevant, but I will never buy into that whole "Showgirls was an intentional satire" thing or whatever line the filmmakers tried to sell after the fact. It's just a bad, bad movie (that I love).
How was Ryder's performance in this film?
Black Swan was a "wow'. Natalie Portman's performance was nothing less than incredible. She actually drives herself crazy before your eyes, with her obsession for dance perfection. The mother I recognized from knowing other dancers. Barbara Hershy did a masterful, believable job in her role. And, Mila Kunis was the perfect foil. There are always the standbys, that will do anything to get the lead role. Mila was wonderful. I think Aronofsky recognized all the different forces that come to play ina professional dance life. He brought out the best in each actress and pulled the audience into the drama. To not take Black Swan seriously as Aronofsky did, means you are just not familiar with what transpires backstage!
"Natalie Portman gives the best female lead performance of 1955."
YES. This is spot-fucking-on. This movie once again shows the limitations of Aronofsky's chronic inability to, as you say, "let go". It's unfortunate, because 'The Wrestler' showed such promise.
That said, this grade confuses me. An 8 seems wildly high for the review that accompanies it. Stephanie, this is the first time I agree with one of your reviews. I still think you gave 'Inception' the shaft, and I enjoy teasing you a bit about it, but I really couldn't agree more with this review. Well done!
I can't believe I'm actually defending Zacharek here - as she's easily one of my most loathed critics of all time - but [b]Showgirls[/b] almost certainly IS intentional satire. Verhoeven has always been a sly, campy, parodistic filmmaker and his movie [b]Starship Troopers[/b], made right around the same time as [b]Showgirls[/b], very obviously spoofs its own material, so there's no reason [b]Showgirls[/b] couldn't be the same type of movie. No serious doubt is possible that [b]Starship Troopers[/b] was intentional satire/spoof/parody; so why such widespread resistance to the notion that [b]Showgirls[/b] might be too?
For a clear parallel with what Verhoeven did with [b]Showgirls[/b], read Nathanael West's [b]A Cool Million[/b], which ruthlessly parodies the Horatio Alger rags-t0-riches novel. Verhoeven does the exact same thing, only with sexy girls instead of plucky boys. I've read comparisons with Douglas Sirk, but Nathanael West is the truest analogue.
It will be irony indeed if [b]Black Swan[/b] dominates the Oscar nominations, given that it appears to borrow quite heavily from [b]Showgirls[/b], and [b]Showgirls[/b] was greeted with Razzies and catcalls, not Oscars and hosannahs.
Um, I love rigorous debate about "Showgirls" as much as the next gay, but "Paul Verhoeven knew exactly what he was doing" is one of the most hilariously untrue comments I've ever read in a proper review. If you read Verhoeven's lengthy, impassioned, scholarly essays in the original "Showgirls" companion coffee table book - because it was meant to be a prestige film deserving of such a thing - you'll learn just how seriously Verhoeven approached this material.
In addition to thinking of "Showgirls" as his modern update on a glitzy MGM musical, he also read Greek mythology and even Christian metaphor into the story. While I appreciate the "Starship Troopers" analogy to help explain his subversive directorial leanings, it simply doesn't apply here. There was only one person in that entire production who knew "exactly" what film they were making, and that person was Gina Gershon, which you can read loud and clear in her performance.
Sorry, but I simply couldn't sit by and allow this revisionist history of "Showgirls" to be presented unquestioned, especially when used to shame an obviously superior film like "Black Swan."
It may be "obviously superior" in your mind, but it won't necessarily continue to resonate with audiences 15 or 20 years down the road, while the enduring popularity of Verhoeven's ostensible disaster has no end in sight. Even if Portman wins the Oscar next year - Oscars have never been any guarantee of cultural longevity.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that a director's claims for their work is meaningless. Read Hitchcock's own analysis of PSYCHO - it's infantile, jejune gibberish. His wasn't a verbal intelligence, so it should come as no surprise that he was never able to articulate what any of his movies, the good ones or the bad ones, were about. Welles, Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg: there's remarkably little to be gleaned from their awkward, inarticulate elucidations of their own films. Their after-the-fact interpretations mean nothing: only the work has meaning. Why should Verhoeven be any different?
This is, BTW, precisely why we have and need critics: if artists were always their own best interpreters, critics would be redundant and irrelevant.
"Um, I love rigorous debate about "Showgirls" as much as the next gay"
This is the thing.... you just gave the game away with this sentence.... you (like John Waters) appreciate it as great trash, as a delicious failure..... so for you to admit now that Verhoeven knew exactly what he was doing doesn't square with how you've been enjoying it up till now. But he did know.... what is the likelihood of the same filmmaker mocking his own screenplay in one movie but not the other, given the close proximity of their release dates? Even BASIC INSTINCT was partly tongue-in-cheek.
Verhoven was no more oblivious to the effect he was creating than John Waters has ever been oblivious. The movie is no more "accidentally" funny than PINK FLAMINGOS or SERIAL MOM are.
"There was only one person in that entire production who knew "exactly" what film they were making, and that person was Gina Gershon, which you can read loud and clear in her performance."
She may be the only CAST MEMBER who knew exactly what the score was - just as Neil Patrick Harris was the only cast member of STARSHIP TROOPERS who did - but that doesn't mean Verhoeven was oblivious. That may also partly explain his hesitancy to defend his movie more vigorously as a satire: for if he admits it was always intended to be funny, he would also have to admit he LIED to his own cast, that he DELIBERATELY ALLOWED Berkley, Robert Davi, McLachlan, Glenn Plummer, et al. to look ridiculous and make fools of themselves onscreen. He might come off looking far cleverer, but also far more of an asshole. That would mean admitting publicly that he violated the sacred trust actors are supposed to be able to place in their directors.
I didn't write this but I agree with this fellow Douglas Reese. There are simply too many giveaway signs that the humor was intentional:
[url]http://mubi.com/topics/9399[/url]
Next time just use quotes dude.
You don't seem to be making a cohesive point on directorial intent. First you argue that the director's view means nothing ("It doesn't seem to occur to you that a director's claims for their work is meaningless"), and then you have it both ways and argue once again that Verhoeven knew exactly what he was doing, which is the only point in Zacharek's review I'm taking issue with.
All I'm saying is that unless you've read Verhoeven's "Showgirls" companion book and are willing to argue that he wrote that entire straight-faced collection of essays as part of some big-picture satirical scam, then I just don't think this argument holds water. I do agree, however, that "Black Swan" is unlikely to share the long-term audience resonance that "Showgirls" enjoys.
"You don't seem to be making a cohesive point on directorial intent."
No - you're just not getting my point. What I'm saying is that directorial intent can only be inferred from evidence on the screen. What they say in a coffee table book, in an essay, in production notes, in an interview with a journalist, signifies little or nothing. Read interviews with Hitchcock about the "meaning" of PSYCHO: it's gibberish. If we took Hitchcock at his word, PSYCHO would have to be considered one of the stupidest and emptiest statements on the human condition ever committed to celluloid. This is because directors are mostly people who do their thinking in and through images, not through writing essays. They aren't professional essayists or magazine columnists, they're filmmakers. And filmmaking doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with the ability to write effective thinkpieces of any sort.
What makes more sense: basing your opinion on a coffee-table book, or basing your opinion on the movie itself? The only evidence that should factor into any interpretation is the evidence up on the screen.
Just type "Douglas Reese" and "Showgirls" into Google. Reese is right: the evidence is all up there on the screen. There are lots (and lots and lots...) of things that were supposed to be funny and can't possibly be accidental, unintentional comedy.
Honestly don't know why there is so much buzz about this mediocre movie at best. I was actually bored and it was very very predictable. Maybe it stands out because of the vast sea of mediocre flicks that surrounds it. It was very very meh and the emotions were very contrived.
God this Stephanie woman is obnoxious. This entire review is a pan - or really a personal attack on Aronofsky - and yet she gives the movie an 8.
...an utter pile of wank. Like a bad Kubrick imitation.
hear, hear, NP. the ghost of america's dark lady of letters smiles upon thee.
I often agree with Stephanie Z, but not this time. I absolutely LOVED "Black Swan" and think it IS a camp masterpiece that had me grinning from ear to ear from beginning to end. What a trip! Aronofsky really pushed it further than I ever thought he would, and the result is a grand ghoulish over-the-top operatic delight. I was left gasping for air, adrenaline pumping, almost giddy, by the end, and the feeling stuck with me for hours. I haven't had this much fun in a theater since "Kill Bill." Personally, I think it's an instant classic. Not as intentionally campy as "Showgirls" but certainly a landmark for fans of artsy operatic horror movies, a la "Repulsion", "Bride of Frankenstein", "Suspiria" and "Jacob's Ladder."
As for Paul Vorhoven and "Showgirls"...OF COURSE he knew what he was doing! Look at his entire filmography. They're all tongue-in-cheek parodies of genre cliches, from "The Fourth Man" (a hilarious spoof of art film thrillers), through the ludicrous sci-fi excesses of "Robo Cop," "Total Recall" and "Starship Troopers" to the campy hilarity of "Black Book." The man is an instant camp classic movie machine... and always has been.
once again, you prove that you are a critic after my own soul. i am sooo happy you were not only spot on in your critique of aronofsky being hoisted up on his own petard, telling Natlie Portman's Nina to loosen up but also to use it as a analog to Showgirls. I have been waiting for years to someone to say what's right in front of their eyes, that there is no way Verhoven could ever had not made Showgirls as a satire and that his film will resonate long after Black Swan is the "toast" of the 2010 oscars.
WHAH, that is just the sign of her integrity as a critic. can't something be a very flawed but superior work? and when you are hoping for brilliance, aren't you all the more bitter when it doesn't quite reach the mark?
Has Stephanie Zacharek been prescribed new anti-depressants or something?
Since leaving Salon and joining Movieline, her critical acumen, style of writing and taste in films has changed considerably, and not for the better.
Black swan, for me was one of those movies you just had to watch more than once. I think more than anything to kind of understand what everything meant. Overall it was a good movie and I would recommend it. The first time I saw it, I picked it up from blockbuster. It’s been years since I’ve been to blockbuster, and almost forgot how much I enjoy renting movies there. Blockbuster includes videogames whereas other companies such as Netflix do not & the movies at Blockbuster come out 28 days before Netflix. Being a customer and employee of DISH Network, I can say that from a consumer stand point that DISH was the way to go for me even before working here. Since the acquisition of Blockbuster, the company has only gotten better! http://bit.ly/l77URa
Fastidious replies in return of this question
with genuine arguments and describing the whole thing on the topic of that.
Hello it's me, I am also visiting this website regularly, this web site is in fact good and the viewers are actually sharing fastidious thoughts.
This article is truly a good one it assists new the web
viewers, who are wishing in favor of blogging.