PDA

View Full Version : Black Swan (2010, Aronofsky)



Derrick King
07-22-2010, 07:39 PM
USA Today has the first images from Aronofsky's BLACK SWAN (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-07-22-blackswan22_ST_N.htm)
http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2010/07/22/portmanx-large.jpg

Jeremy Slate
07-22-2010, 08:16 PM
Tits rad, I didn't realize this was coming out this year.

Derrick King
08-17-2010, 07:15 PM
Trailer (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/blackswan/)

Alex K.
08-17-2010, 07:27 PM
I'm going to wait for the Youtube trailer. I hate how Apple makes it a pain in the ass to see trailers on that site.

John G.
08-17-2010, 07:43 PM
Nice to see Aronofsky return to more surreal filmmaking.

Kamyar
08-19-2010, 08:53 AM
IMDb has the Trailer up in another format:

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4024108569/

It looks really fantastic. Bummed that Winona Ryder's not even mentioned and only used in a single frame, I'm most excited for her turn as the bitter, ageing Ballerina.

Rakesh R.
08-20-2010, 12:40 PM
The trailer makes the movie seem like a cross between David Lynch and David Cronenberg.

Alex K.
08-20-2010, 02:41 PM
I saw the trailer, and it reminded more of Perfect Blue. Arronofsky admitted the film as an influence.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V0Rj7nn0ZVs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V0Rj7nn0ZVs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Terry Carpenter
08-20-2010, 06:20 PM
Looks pretty good and I'm glad he's not butchering the world with a remake of Robocop.

Adam L
10-15-2010, 03:11 AM
IMDb has the Trailer up in another format:

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4024108569/

It looks really fantastic. Bummed that Winona Ryder's not even mentioned and only used in a single frame, I'm most excited for her turn as the bitter, ageing Ballerina.

Ryder is only in about 5 minutes of the film.

Steven Millan
10-15-2010, 07:27 AM
The trailer makes the movie seem like a cross between David Lynch and David Cronenberg.


The same thing I thought when I caught this trailer,for I'm eagerly looking forward to this film(and all of its bizarre imagery).

Derrick King
10-15-2010, 06:19 PM
Empire has some great International teaser posters (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29205)

Jonathan D. Cox
10-16-2010, 06:15 PM
I was excited about this release until some twit on the Criterionforum.org website dropped a massive movie destroying spoiler without warning.

Robert Hubbard
10-17-2010, 11:39 PM
Saw this at a recent film festival... not that impressed. It's basically THE RED SHOES crossed with REPULSION and it ends up being less than either - although there is some great lesbian oral sex to spice things up.

FredC
10-18-2010, 02:56 PM
I saw the trailer, and it reminded more of Perfect Blue. Arronofsky admitted the film as an influence.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V0Rj7nn0ZVs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V0Rj7nn0ZVs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


No surprise that Perfect Blue was / is a big influence on him and the film; he went out and purchased the rights to it while he was shooting Requiem for a Dream - just so he could replicate the overhead shot of the main character in a bathtub with Jennifer Connelly.

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anlHmGA-Bvs

Wostry Ferenc
10-18-2010, 03:19 PM
TWITCH has a new review up that says that the film is ridiculous bullshit.

Aaron G
12-02-2010, 05:52 PM
The more I read about this the more it sounds like Aronofsky has ripped of Haneke's THE PIANO TEACHER and jizzed it up for fucken SAW fans.

Pete Bogh
12-03-2010, 04:12 PM
So if I haven't seen SAW, does that mean I can still like this movie, or not? And if one guy at TWITCH says it's ridiculous bullshit, it must be true!

If buzz matters so much, you must admit that there is A LOT of good buzz about this film, not just in general, but from critics I honestly respect, so I'll add a counter to TWITCH directly with this (http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/black-swan.2/#Review_0):

"The mere prospect of a film that in many senses crosses Powell and Pressburger's "The Red Shoes" with Roman Polanski's "The Tenant" is certainly enough to raise an eyebrow, as the very notion screams potential camp classic in this day and age. Add to that the fact that a new generation of strainingly know-somethingish would-be film buffs seems to believe that the theme of the double in literature and cinema only dates back as far as "Fight Club," and you've got a movie that, whether it likes it or not, is practically begging to be misunderstood and/or laughed at. Good for some of us, then, that Aronofsky's got enough faith in his instincts, and enough filmmaking talent, to risk ridiculousness, and achieve a not ingenuous sublimity as a result. Because as serious as "Black Swan" is, it is hardly unaware of the borders of absurdity that it dances around, and over; in fact, its very reason for being seems to be to do precisely that. It may well be that some of the film's more derisive detractors are not really entirely certain of what they're laughing at, and whether or not the director isn't laughing as well, for some reason."

A lot of negativity around here about this director and film, apparently, and I don't get it - he's done some excellent and unique work, and though there's a long tradition of films in the vein of Black Swan, I tend to like them as long as they aren't poorly made and show me something interesting. But I suppose if one is set on taking shots at movies about characters in emotional, anxiety-ridden distress, you've got a pretty long fucking list to go through.

RichardDoyle
12-03-2010, 06:33 PM
I'm not seeing a lot of negativity about this. There's really only one comment that could be construed as negative.

Edit: Your avatar is quite appropriate though.

Pete Bogh
12-03-2010, 08:16 PM
Another look proves you right, Richard. Two negatives in a row had my fists up prematurely :)

Derek Steckler
12-06-2010, 10:57 AM
I loved it. Pure visceral filmmaking. Rather bloody with set pieces recalling vintage Argento. Not for intellectuals but for those who love film as sound and image working together to produce an emotional reaction. I've always been fascinated by the themes of duality and obsession so it was right up my alley.

Troy Howarth
12-06-2010, 11:24 AM
I'm not a big Aronofsky fan, but this looks good. Kind of like a sexed up Red Shoes.

RichardDoyle
12-06-2010, 05:58 PM
The one review I heard compared it to "Perfect Blue". That peaked my interest.

Derek Steckler
12-06-2010, 06:14 PM
New York magazine said it was as if Lynch, Cronenberg, Polanski, Argento, and DePalma got together to make a film. Does that pique your interest?

Troy Howarth
12-06-2010, 07:58 PM
Well... I don't care for Lynch and I'm so-so on DePalma, but if it in any way, shape or form evokes Polanski, Argento and Cronenberg... consider me piqued!

Aaron G
12-06-2010, 08:22 PM
I thought Aronofsky was some sort of genius after I saw REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, but his two films since have been a bit 'meh'.

And besides 'the Fountain' they all seem to work off a similar formula, with the protagonist just going nuts at the end in some impenetrable psychic/physical impasse that ends in self-destruction, essentially he remakes the same film over and over, and 'Black Swan' seems no different.

The problem I have with Aronofsky films is when you watch them they are engaging on a 'visceral' level, but you forget them as soon as you walk out.

I'll still check this out, regardless of my reservations.

Troy Howarth
12-07-2010, 09:30 AM
I'd agree with that assessment. Requiem was a draining experience - so much so that I could never see myself watching it again. Impressive, sure, but where's the entertainment value? The Wrestler was much more engaging, from my point of view, but much of that is down to the central performance more than anything else.

cworkman
12-07-2010, 10:13 AM
I liked THE WRESTLER's central performance - which was excellent - but the direction failed to impress me; I found the same to be true of REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, where the performances were excellent, but the script only so-so and the direction pretty dull. I'll see BLACK SWAN because I think Natalie Portman is a terrific actress, and I expect a good performance from her, but I'm less than enthused about Aronofsky's direction, I have to admit.

Troy Howarth
12-07-2010, 10:38 AM
I don't entirely follow that, to be honest. Directing is also about dealing with actors, so surely he deserves SOME credit for that, as well? I find his style to be rather off putting, I admit, but "dull" isn't a word that springs to my mind. Sometimes films are just too self-serious and too unpleasant to want to revisit, and I find that to be the case with his work. That's just me, of course.

cworkman
12-07-2010, 04:10 PM
Some actors are going to give excellent performances, no matter who the directors are, and that's how I see most of the people in this director's movies, which are "dull" to me, unfortunately. I found THE WRESTLER to be particularly dull. It often feels like the director wants to be shocking, as if that's enough to hold one's interest (which it might be for some), but I tend to find it tedious if there doesn't seem to be much point in it.

Troy Howarth
12-07-2010, 04:16 PM
I definitely think that's true of Requiem... but I do think The Wrestler was stronger on an emotional level. I really felt for Rourke, though that may all be down to his acting more than anything else.

But I have to disagree on acting and directing... yes, some actors will always do good work - but many require assistance along the way. For example, Hopkins in Dracula. Had Coppola bothered to reign him in, he could have been terrific. Even Hopkins has said this. Natalie Portman, whom you mentioned, floundered in those Star Wars films because the direction wasn't there. And so on. So I do think the director should be given some consideration in that part of the process.

Ryan Emberg
12-07-2010, 05:18 PM
I found the Wrestler underwhelming. Anyone who has seen the doc Beyond the Mat would probably know where I'm coming from. It s not a bad film at all, but it is way overrated in the mainstream.

And on the other hand, I felt the Fountain was extremely underrated. I think its his best film, impressively technically and emotionally resonant.

Requiem is good, but its a punishing near nihilistic watch, very much capturing Hubert Shelby at his darkest.

Black Swan looks very intriging, and I plan to be there opening day, which, up here, is Dec 22. I didn t really expect to care about the new Aronofsky flick, after the Wrestler, but the comparisons to Polanski and Argento and the promise of the trailer are more than enough to interest me, I hope it doesn t dissappoint. I ll check this and True Grit out that day.

RichardDoyle
12-07-2010, 05:27 PM
I found the Wrestler underwhelming. Anyone who has seen the doc Beyond the Mat would probably know where I'm coming from. It s not a bad film at all, but it is way overrated in the mainstream.

Not at all actually. Except for that fact that "The Wrestler" is superficially "about wrestling", they don't really cover the same ground.

cworkman
12-07-2010, 06:14 PM
I definitely think that's true of Requiem... but I do think The Wrestler was stronger on an emotional level. I really felt for Rourke, though that may all be down to his acting more than anything else.

But I have to disagree on acting and directing... yes, some actors will always do good work - but many require assistance along the way. For example, Hopkins in Dracula. Had Coppola bothered to reign him in, he could have been terrific. Even Hopkins has said this. Natalie Portman, whom you mentioned, floundered in those Star Wars films because the direction wasn't there. And so on. So I do think the director should be given some consideration in that part of the process.

I wrote THE WRESTLER in the last sentence of my last post when I was thinking of REQUIEM... :(

Also, I'm not sure what in my post you're disagreeing with. I never said ALL actors were great all of the time; or that NO directors could coax good performances out of people. Only that there are actors who are so great that they can give great performances no matter who the director is. In my opinion, Hopkins can give great performances but must have a good director to coax them out of him. Natalie Portman floundered in those Star Wars films for the same reason that Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee, Ewan MacGregor, and Samual Jackson flounder; because, I imagine, they were being told to UNDER-emote! (Thank you, George Lucas; no doubt you cast great actors because they were great and then grew afraid that they'd upstage some truly unremarkable special effects.)

cworkman
12-07-2010, 06:20 PM
I was in NYC over the weekend, staying at the Chelsea Hotel (yes, where Sid killed Nancy and Patti Smith actually had sex with Robert Maplethorpe), where I had a chance to see BLACK SWAN but chose instead to see I LOVE YOU, PHILLIP MORRIS. I'm glad I did, as I LOVE YOU was a terrific film, surprisingly moving and very well acted.

Troy Howarth
12-07-2010, 09:24 PM
I wrote THE WRESTLER in the last sentence of my last post when I was thinking of REQUIEM... :(

Also, I'm not sure what in my post you're disagreeing with. I never said ALL actors were great all of the time; or that NO directors could coax good performances out of people. Only that there are actors who are so great that they can give great performances no matter who the director is. In my opinions, Hopkins can give great performances but must have a good director to coax them out of him. Natalie Portman flundered in those Star Wars films for the same reason that Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee, Ewan MacGregor, and Samual Jackson flounder; because, I imagine, they were being told to UNDER-emote! (Thank you, George Lucas; no doubt you cast great actors because they were great and then grew afraid that they'd upstage some truly unremarkable special effects.)

Perhaps I misread you (it's been known to happen), but you essentially said that you thought that Aronofsky isn't much of a director, that he merely hires good actors who can sustain themselves (I'm paraphrasing, but that's how what you wrote came across to me). I'm merely saying that, while I'm not a fan of his, either, I think it a little unfair to suggest that he doesn't deserve some accolades for at least getting such fine performances from his actors. As to Lucas and the Star Wars films, I don't think Lee does badly at all - it's a cliche villain role that he can do effortlessly, and he brings a lot to the table in that regard. It's not one of his great performances, no, but I don't think it true to say that he under-emotes. I can't comment on Neeson, since I never saw the one he did.

cworkman
12-07-2010, 09:40 PM
I don't think there's anything unfair about it. Aronofsky is not a great director, and I don't have any reason to believe that his films have good performances because of anything he's done. Now, if he took some actor known for being terrible and coaxed a good performance out of him or her, then I might change my mind about that. Until that time...

I'm not saying that Lee is terrible; only that, had those Star Wars films been overseen by someone else, he probably would have been allowed to give a more interesting and nuanced performance than he gives. But no one gives great performances in those films, despite being great actors. THAT was my point.

And no, I don't believe that directors should always get the credit for great performances. More often than not the actors deserve it, though there are a few actors out there who can only give great performances under great direction. Portman, Burstyn, O'Rourke, Connelly are all the kinds of actors who generally give good perfromances, regardless of the directors (except for Portman in the case of a film where she was obviously being told to tone it down).

Horace Cordier
12-07-2010, 09:46 PM
Perhaps I misread you (it's been known to happen), but you essentially said that you thought that Aronofsky isn't much of a director, that he merely hires good actors who can sustain themselves (I'm paraphrasing, but that's how what you wrote came across to me). I'm merely saying that, while I'm not a fan of his, either, I think it a little unfair to suggest that he doesn't deserve some accolades for at least getting such fine performances from his actors. As to Lucas and the Star Wars films, I don't think Lee does badly at all - it's a cliche villain role that he can do effortlessly, and he brings a lot to the table in that regard. It's not one of his great performances, no, but I don't think it true to say that he under-emotes. I can't comment on Neeson, since I never saw the one he did.

I saw one scene with Neeson from that film (I wandered into a screening at a multiplex by accident and was subjected to a few minutes) and he was AWFUL.

And he is a TERRIFIC actor. Look at what a good job he does in a straight genre piece like TAKEN (albeit with a solid script).

Point? Lucas is the Antichrist.

Troy Howarth
12-07-2010, 09:58 PM
I don't think there's anything unfair about it. Aronofsky is not a great director, and I don't have any reason to believe that his films have good performances because of anything he's done. Now, if he took some actor known for being terrible and coaxed a good performance out of him or her, then I might change my mind about that. Until that time...

I'm not saying that Lee is terrible; only that, had those Star Wars films been overseen by someone else, he probably would have been allowed to give a more interesting and nuanced performance than he gives. But no one gives great performances in those films, despite being great actors. THAT was my point.

And no, I don't believe that directors should always get the credit for great performances. More often than not the actors deserve it, though there are a few actors out there who can only give great performances under great direction. Portman, Burstyn, O'Rourke, Connelly are all the kinds of actors who generally give good perfromances, regardless of the directors (except for Portman in the case of a film where she was obviously being told to tone it down).

Well, I tried to get my point of view across; we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

Troy Howarth
12-07-2010, 09:59 PM
I saw one scene with Neeson from that film (I wandered into a screening at a multiplex by accident and was subjected to a few minutes) and he was AWFUL.

And he is a TERRIFIC actor. Look at what a good job he does in a straight genre piece like TAKEN (albeit with a solid script).

Point? Lucas is the Antichrist.

A great actor will definitely suffer at the hands of a terrible director; but a great actor can also be challenged and have nuances brought out in them by a great one. To me, that's as clear as the proverbial unmuddied lake.

Horace Cordier
12-07-2010, 10:06 PM
A great actor will definitely suffer at the hands of a terrible director; but a great actor can also be challenged and have nuances brought out in them by a great one. To me, that's as clear as the proverbial unmuddied lake.

True.

The impression I got from what I saw of Neeson in that scene was that he just didn't give a shit. In all fairness, that may not have been entirely the fault of Lucas. Some great actors just "shut down" when they are in garbage (like DeNiro in much of his recent work) while others strive to do their best regardless of the material (Cushing).

Derrick King
12-08-2010, 04:07 AM
I don't think there's anything unfair about it. Aronofsky is not a great director, and I don't have any reason to believe that his films have good performances because of anything he's done. Now, if he took some actor known for being terrible and coaxed a good performance out of him or her, then I might change my mind about that. Until that time...


Marlon Wayans gives a really good performance in REQUIEM and I don't think he's ever been good in any other movie.

Aaron G
12-08-2010, 04:54 AM
The thing with Aronofsky is that his films become so hysterical and self-righteous and moral, they become exercises in high-camp. Which isn't a bad thing, but you sometimes wonder if Aronfsky percieves his work as 'camp'.

I really got into the Wrestler until that last 20 minutes, when it had the emotional gravitas and campness of a fucking Korn or Linkin Park music video.

Alex K.
12-08-2010, 05:51 AM
(Throws a can of foster's at Aaron's head) Sorry, knee jerk reaction.

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 09:17 AM
True.

The impression I got from what I saw of Neeson in that scene was that he just didn't give a shit. In all fairness, that may not have been entirely the fault of Lucas. Some great actors just "shut down" when they are in garbage (like DeNiro in much of his recent work) while others strive to do their best regardless of the material (Cushing).

That is also true, but here again: an actor's director will sense this and find ways to cut through that indifference... directors who don't care about acting won't even pick up on it. Some directors are great with visuals but aren't exactly attentive to their actors, others are great with actors but aren't very visual. It's great when the two come together (I'd say Polanski is a good example of this), but it's not always the case.

Wostry Ferenc
12-08-2010, 11:24 AM
I have never seen a Fincher film I liked. I have never seen an Aronofsky film I liked.

I fucking love every Verhoeven film.

cworkman
12-08-2010, 01:12 PM
Marlon Wayans gives a really good performance in REQUIEM and I don't think he's ever been good in any other movie.

I've never seen him give a dramatic performance in any other film, so it's hard to judge.

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 01:46 PM
I have never seen a Fincher film I liked. I have never seen an Aronofsky film I liked.

I fucking love every Verhoeven film.

For me Fincher > Verhoeven > Aronofsky.

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 01:48 PM
I've never seen him give a dramatic performance in any other film, so it's hard to judge.

Comedy acting takes every bit as much skill and ability as dramatic acting... hell, most people will agree that it's even harder. Wayons is very much in the "big" school when it comes to comedic performances, meaning that he tends to overact in search of laughs. Just as it's possible to compare War and Peace with Inglourious Basterds (says you!) it's possible to compare comedic acting with dramatic acting. :D

cworkman
12-08-2010, 01:48 PM
I'm not sure who I think is better: Fincher or Verhoeven. Both men are great when they're really into something, and when they aren't, their product fails epically. I prefer both to Aronofsky.

cworkman
12-08-2010, 01:49 PM
Comedy acting takes every bit as much skill and ability as dramatic acting... hell, most people will agree that it's even harder. Wayons is very much in the "big" school when it comes to comedic performances, meaning that he tends to overact in search of laughs. Just as it's possible to compare War and Peace with Inglourious Basterds (says you!) it's possible to compare comedic acting with dramatic acting. :D

In that case, I thing Wayons is VERY funny, so... I'd have to say then that his terrific dramatic performance had NOTHING to do with Aronofsky. :D

cworkman
12-08-2010, 01:51 PM
And yes, I've always thought that comedic acting takes skill; but it takes a different kind of skill than dramatic acting. There are some people who can pull off both, but a lot of people can only pull off one or the other. So, that said, it's not always possible to judge how good a dramatic actor a comedian is or how could a comedian a dramatic actor is. Take Peter Cushing, for instance. He was an amazingly versatile dramatic actor, but his comedic roles tended to be played all the same and were rarely funny.

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 01:52 PM
In that case, I thing Wayons is VERY funny, so... I'd have to say then that his terrific dramatic performance had NOTHING to do with Aronofsky. :D

Just can't get the man to give an inch...

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 01:53 PM
And yes, I've always thought that comedic acting takes skill; but it takes a different kind of skill than dramatic acting. There are some people who can pull off both, but a lot of people can only pull off one or the other. So, that said, it's not always possible to judge how good a dramatic actor a comedian is or how could a comedian a dramatic actor is. Take Peter Cushing, for instance. He was an amazingly versatile dramatic actor, but his comedic roles tended to be played all the same and were rarely funny.

Just as it's impossible to seriously compare War and Peace with Inglourious Basterds? Hmmm? :D

cworkman
12-08-2010, 04:26 PM
Now, to clarify, I said if the conversation and circumstances were right, you could compare them. :)

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 04:28 PM
Well, let us make the conversation and circumstances right for both points, ie. comedy versus dramatic acting and the merits of War and Peace versus Inglourious Basterds. Go! :D

cworkman
12-08-2010, 04:36 PM
You go first! :)

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 04:41 PM
Well, I can certainly think of a good, logical way of comparing comedic and dramatic acting. Yes, they are different superficially, but both require ACTING. There's a common ground there. You have to create a character and make it work in context. If it works, it matters not if it's zany or serious - you've succeeded in creating a believable characterization. Bad comedic acting is as bad as bad dramatic acting, and the reverse is also true.

On the other hand, I really can't think of a way of comparing War and Peace and Inglourious Basterds beyond the obvious fact that both are fictional narratives that use a real historical event as a backdrop. :)

RichardDoyle
12-08-2010, 05:35 PM
I'm not sure who I think is better: Fincher or Verhoeven. Both men are great when they're really into something, and when they aren't, their product fails epically. I prefer both to Aronofsky.

The thing is ... Aronofsky has never made a film as bad as Fincher's or Verhoeven's worst work. Not even close.

cworkman
12-08-2010, 05:40 PM
Give him time. The big difference is that Aronofsky's films are just about unwatchable, unlike the worst work of Verhoeven and Fincher.

Films like SHOWGIRLS are vastly entertaining.

cworkman
12-08-2010, 05:43 PM
Well, I can certainly think of a good, logical way of comparing comedic and dramatic acting. Yes, they are different superficially, but both require ACTING. There's a common ground there. You have to create a character and make it work in context. If it works, it matters not if it's zany or serious - you've succeeded in creating a believable characterization. Bad comedic acting is as bad as bad dramatic acting, and the reverse is also true.

On the other hand, I really can't think of a way of comparing War and Peace and Inglourious Basterds beyond the obvious fact that both are fictional narratives that use a real historical event as a backdrop. :)

Well, I can certainly think of a good, logical way of comparing WAR AND PEACE (I'm talking film version here) and INGLORIOUS BASTERDs. Yes, they are different superficially, but both deal with war. There's a common ground there. You have to create a realistic milieu and make it work in context. And so on... So what if one is 'zany' and the other 'realistic'? You've succeeded in creating a believable (within its own milieu) film about war. :)

Troy Howarth
12-08-2010, 09:44 PM
Ah, but you've played right into my hands... I'd say you can say EXACTLY the same thing about comedic verus dramatic acting. No doubt you will disagree - I anticipate this! - but I think it's something to think about. And for my part, I'm man enough to say that a good comparison COULD be made between those two disparate stories/films... it'd have to be compellingly phrased, but it could be done.

Justin Farley
12-08-2010, 09:48 PM
Can't wait to see this one, though it won't be here until the 17th. Aronofsky is a fantastic filmmaker, probably my favorite to come along in the last 20 years or so. I bought the soundtrack, though I'm saving it until after I've seen the film. I was disappointed that Mansell didn't have more of a presence in The Wrestler, so I'm happy that he's back in full force with Black Swan.

cworkman
12-08-2010, 10:29 PM
Ah, but you've played right into my hands... I'd say you can say EXACTLY the same thing about comedic verus dramatic acting. No doubt you will disagree - I anticipate this! - but I think it's something to think about. And for my part, I'm man enough to say that a good comparison COULD be made between those two disparate stories/films... it'd have to be compellingly phrased, but it could be done.

Ah, but Troy, you played right into mine. I even lifted your wording, moo-ha-ha! :cool:

Troy Howarth
12-09-2010, 09:15 AM
I know; that was too obvious to even warrant commenting on!

Adam L
12-10-2010, 09:52 PM
I had two wildly different reactions to the film, seeing it in the theater and then at home. Here's what I wrote about it (http://www.regrettablesincerity.com/?p=6077). And Jackass 3-D.

Rakesh R.
12-11-2010, 11:53 PM
My two cents. Well, I just got back from seeing "Black Swan". I absolutely loved it. Yes, it's operatic, derivative, excessive, and indulgent( and campy at times), but it's all so entertaining. I think a couple of years ago, this might have gotten an NC-17 rating. In terms of ballet/horror films, I still prefer "Suspiria" and even "Etoile", but "Black Swan" is still solid IMHO.

Guillaume P
12-12-2010, 04:59 AM
I still prefer "Suspiria" and even "Etoile"


"Etoile" is a nice little film...still not available on dvd/BR,aside from the italian dvd?

jefff
12-12-2010, 02:12 PM
Going to see this today. Between this and "Rare Exports", it's the first time there's actually been two movies playing simultaniously in cinemas (although in limited release) that I actually want to see. Looking forward to it.

Jeremy Slate
12-12-2010, 10:07 PM
I saw this yesterday and I think it might be the best thing Aronofsky has done and I like all of his films!

It just effortlessly slides between reality and fantasy, the performances are excellent, imho (particularly Portman). I was riveted. The film truly felt like The Red Shoes hijacked by Polanski's The Tenant. Additionally, while I was watching the film, I felt that the film was in itself a ballet, something I think the credits would seem to prove.

Rakesh R.
12-12-2010, 11:19 PM
I saw this yesterday and I think it might be the best thing Aronofsky has done and I like all of his films!

It just effortlessly slides between reality and fantasy, the performances are excellent, imho (particularly Portman). I was riveted. The film truly felt like The Red Shoes hijacked by Polanski's The Tenant. Additionally, while I was watching the film, I felt that the film was in itself a ballet, something I think the credits would seem to prove.

The movie reminded me of Satoshi Kon's "Perfect Blue". I think this is Aronofsky's best film as well and I agree that Portman was quite wonderful in the central role. Although the movie had flaws in it, I was completely entertained during the entire film.

R. Olson
12-12-2010, 11:42 PM
Being an Aronofsky aficionado, I'm very excited for the release of Black Swan locally this weekend. However, I must admit that I'm rather surprised to see the lack of support for Darren's work on this forum. IMHO Aronofsky, is easily among the elite directors currently working in American Cinema. I would've never expected to be in the minority, but oh well different strokes for different folks....

Frankie T.
12-13-2010, 02:18 AM
Saw this last night.

Loved it

jefff
12-13-2010, 03:05 AM
Great film. "Repulsion" meets "The Red Shoes" is a good way to describe it.

Derek Steckler
12-13-2010, 01:03 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who liked it! Saw it a 2nd time and noticed a lot of little details I missed the first time. Great crowd too, some real screams and gasps. The film is like a drug for me - I felt physical rushes from the emotion and great filmmaking on display. May see it a 3rd time (have to admit though I get in for free since my friend is the manager)

RichardDoyle
12-13-2010, 05:57 PM
Give him time. The big difference is that Aronofsky's films are just about unwatchable, unlike the worst work of Verhoeven and Fincher.

Films like SHOWGIRLS are vastly entertaining.

I like Aronofsky quite a bit and have been able to watch all of his films with no difficulty.

"Showgirls", on the other hand, is a piece of shit. So is "Basic Instinct" and "Hollow Man". I wouldn't go so far as to call them "unwatchable", since I've obviously watched them. I just wish I hadn't.

Jeff Gr
12-13-2010, 10:26 PM
Saw it. Loved it. Aronofsky's best film to date. It put me in mind of Cronenberg, Lynch, Polanski's Repulsion, Bergman's Persona and Argento - all strung up on an All About Eve template. Great thing is, it didn't seem derivative or uneven - it's all melded together pretty tightly giving it a style and identity of its own.

It'll be interesting to see what's essentially a horror film cop some Oscar nominations, but fail to win any.

Wasn't wild about the film stock, some of the shaky cam and Vincent Cassel's character (a necessary but not especially inspired cliche).

On the plus side, Winona Ryder is terrific playing against type (and using her age to her full advantage). Yes she's only onscreen for about five minutes, but it's a very pivotal, significant and effective five minutes.

Shane K
12-18-2010, 02:28 AM
Absolute adoration. Goddamn... I want to get messy with Mila Kunis.

Eric B
12-18-2010, 02:54 AM
The last commercial I saw for BLACK SWAN has Natalie Portman plucking feathers with bird eyes. I'm guessing she transforms physically along the way. Is she a were-swan, or did she change only in her mind?

cworkman
12-18-2010, 05:45 PM
Saw it yesterday, hated it. The acting is, for the most part, superb, but the film itself is a very bad mix of Polanski's far superior REPULSION (even cribbing a few shots from it) and Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS (which at least has nekkid boobies and is a hoot), with a little bit of MOMMIE DEAREST thrown in for good measure.

cworkman
12-18-2010, 11:22 PM
I should state, however, that I loved the film's score.

Horace Cordier
12-18-2010, 11:35 PM
Saw it yesterday, hated it. The acting is, for the most part, superb, but the film itself is a very bad mix of Polanski's far superior REPULSION (even cribbing a few shots from it) and Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS (which at least has nekkid boobies and is a hoot), with a little bit of MOMMIE DEAREST thrown in for good measure.

But was it as good as OMEN III?




:D

R. Olson
12-19-2010, 03:12 AM
Finally got to see Black Swan tonight and it was everything that I expected it to be!!! Aronofsky delivers the goods once again as BS is easily one of the best films of 2010! All of the acting is top notch and Portman is definitely deserving of all the accolades that she may receive for her performance. I'm a big fan of all of Darren's work and he has yet to disappoint me. Bravo Mr. Aronofsky and keep up the brilliant work......

cworkman
12-19-2010, 03:38 PM
But was it as good as OMEN III?




:D

No, sadly enough! :(

cworkman
12-19-2010, 03:39 PM
Finally got to see Black Swan tonight and it was everything that I expected it to be!!! Aronofsky delivers the goods once again as BS is easily one of the best films of 2010! All of the acting is top notch and Portman is definitely deserving of all the accolades that she may receive for her performance. I'm a big fan of all of Darren's work and he has yet to disappoint me. Bravo Mr. Aronofsky and keep up the brilliant work......

BS. What a perfect way to describe Aronofsky's latest film!!!! :)

R. Olson
12-19-2010, 07:22 PM
BS. What a perfect way to describe Aronofsky's latest film!!!! :)

Brilliant Supremacy!!! Hell yeah! I couldn't have said it better myself if I'd tried! Good call Mr. Workman!! :D

John G.
12-20-2010, 11:00 PM
I loved this movie.

Werner Von Wallenrod
12-20-2010, 11:19 PM
I thought this was pretty good, too. Definitely Aronofsky's best film in a long time.

Wostry Ferenc
12-20-2010, 11:23 PM
I thought this was pretty good, too. Definitely Aronofsky's best film in a long time.

Aren't you the director of the TOURIST? :)

RichardDoyle
12-21-2010, 06:09 PM
Saw this on the weekend ... easily the best film of the year.

Jonathan Douglas
12-22-2010, 10:19 AM
Haven't seen it and feel no real rushing desire to at present (have a hard time with hand held camera shot films, which truth be told I recognize no particular artistic reason for here despite the dance setting) but I do like Cassel a lot who's always an amusingly watchable actor. Sounds a bit like SUSPIRIA too with more clear lesbianism, Hershey always reminded me of Jessica Harper anyway so I wonder if this physical resemblance (to me obvious anyhow) played a part in the overall casting, there's even an outdoors pictured scene in Adam's review with Cassel and Portman somewhat reminiscing of the one with Udo Kier and Harper. Perhaps the film, besides wanting to attract a general audience, is thought as the director's personal homage to the likes of Argento and Polanski.

Troy Howarth
12-22-2010, 10:39 AM
It's the parallels to Polanski and Argento that I keep hearing that really make me want to see it. I'm not an Aronofsky buff, and I can't say I'm a huge fan of any of the actors (though Portman and Kunis are certainly very cute), but it sounds like its evocative enough of films I really do love to make it worth my while....

cworkman
12-22-2010, 10:45 AM
I see them not so much as parallels as much as they're rip-offs.

Troy Howarth
12-22-2010, 10:47 AM
Until I see it, I can't comment on that one way or the other... as usual, however, if one likes something it's seen in a more positive light than if one dislikes it.

cworkman
12-22-2010, 10:50 AM
Of course, there are also parallels to SHOWGIRLS and MOMMIE DEAREST. (I kept expecting Barbara Hershey to rant about the coathangers, but, alas, it didn't happen.)

Mike S.
12-22-2010, 11:38 AM
Not sharing the BS love...

Portman was fine, but she wasn't given that much to work with. Going from pretty mental to totally mental isn't much of a stretch.

I enjoyed it enough, and was never bored -- but as others have pointed out, it just seemed to be one reference after another to other, better movies.

Alex K.
12-24-2010, 03:40 PM
It was all right, I'd give it a 7 out of 10. Nitpicking/Issues I had with it:

The ending was too similar to The Wrestler.

Arronofsky uses that over the shoulder 3rd person shot too much. He first used it in Requiem, then again in Wrestler, but it's a little too much here.

I saw the ending coming a little, I was getting some Fight Club vibes from it.

Good film though. It felt a little underwhelming by the end of it. Arronofsky was definitely chanelling Argento and maybe Satoshi Kon. I wouldn't say it's best of the year though.

Randy Thomas G
12-24-2010, 03:46 PM
Not a big Arronofsky fan but this sounds promising, the subject matter seems to click with his OTT style.

Werner Von Wallenrod
12-24-2010, 09:00 PM
I thought his style was really effective here... and I wasn't bothered by the similarities to other films (except maybe Repulsion, since it really is like Repulsion retreaded). The big problem I had with the movie - which didn't totally ruin it for me, but kept it from being a great film in my book - was the shallow characterization. The whole white swan/black swan thing was really simple and trite, with Portman just battling between repressed virginal butterfly and murderous psychopath. With some subtlety and depth of character (not just in Portman, but all the secondary characters who essentially have one motive and distinguishable personality trait each), I think this would've been really an effective film. But instead I just got the impression that the writer(s?) didn't really know anything about young ballerinas, and so just riffed on staple characters from a stock book. The things they then did with those stock characters were interesting and often compelling, but if they had a richer foundation I think it could've been a lot more than the entertaining diversion that it is.

Matt Priser
12-25-2010, 04:28 PM
I'm going to be alone in saying this but my mind was blown after seeing this film. Then again, I've liked everything that Aronofsky has directed. I thought this was a great mix between mainstream, art house and genre cinema.

BrianS
12-30-2010, 12:27 PM
Wasn't wild about the film stock, some of the shaky cam and Vincent Cassel's character (a necessary but not especially inspired cliche).


Was this shot on digital with a grain filter? I'm not familiar with film stocks, but that's the impression I got from this--just looked fake. I generally hate shaky cam, but it didn't stand out to me in this film so I had absolutely no issues with that.

I enjoyed the film even though some of the characters and situations were contrived and annoying to say the least. And I pretty much figured out what was going to happen almost immediately. I know that doesn't sound good, but really, the film was quite enjoyable on an emotional level and I'm not sure what to say, maybe a pseudo-intellectual (?) level. I'd really like to see it again and I'll probably buy it when it comes out. So, in a strange way, one of the more enjoyable films of the year.

Derek Steckler
12-30-2010, 04:13 PM
I believe it was shot on super 16mm except for some stolen shots on the street & subway which were shot on HD.

Terry Carpenter
01-10-2011, 06:10 AM
Saw this tonight and I think I like it but I'm still not sot sure(not it mistaken it's not a crazed absurd film, to me anyway...). It's definitely a film that needs to be watched more than once watch more that once.

Terry Carpenter
01-10-2011, 06:22 AM
I believe it was shot on super 16mm except for some stolen shots on the street & subway which were shot on HD.

Apparently it was done in Arriflex 16 SR3, Zeiss Ultra 16 Lenses and Arriflex 416, Zeiss Ultra 16 Lenses. The HD with Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon L-Series Lenses and Canon EOS 7D, Canon L-Series Lenses. How this was shot in 16 mm boggels me maybe someone else can explain(like Vincent) how it was shot that wide.

RichardDoyle
01-10-2011, 04:15 PM
I'm going to be alone in saying this but my mind was blown after seeing this film. Then again, I've liked everything that Aronofsky has directed. I thought this was a great mix between mainstream, art house and genre cinema.

You're not alone. I thought it was the best film of the year.

Jonny Redman
02-06-2011, 01:49 PM
Check this out...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twvA_8dRjYo

Troy Howarth
02-06-2011, 01:56 PM
Cool!

mark t
02-06-2011, 09:50 PM
Bored. That's the way I felt through this entire filim. I liked REQUIEM, I'm not anti-Aronofsky, and I thought that Mila Kunis was great....which was surprising, because I normally don't like her at all. Some fantastic performances. I left wondering what the point was. Maybe there wasn't one, who knows. It didn't do anything for me. I didn't hate it, because it was so lacking in substance, it was basically like listening to somebody that you don't really care for tell you about their interesting day. Cool stuff might have happened, but you haven't really invested any emotion into it. It was just meh. All of these terrifying moments for Portman, and I just.....didn't care in the least.

I'm glad that some people got some enjoyment out of it. Oddly enough, the last film that i watched before this was 127 hours, about a "canyoner" who gets his arm caught when he falls down a crevasse of rock. Didn't care about him either.

maybe I'm just jaded.

Michael CS
02-08-2011, 02:36 AM
Just finished watching a screener copy of BLACK SAWN I bought from an old Chinese lady who sells dvds for $5.
Once in a while you buy the $5 dvds and you get lucky - this was one of those times!

Anyway this is DEAD ON for a description of the film -
"New York magazine said it was as if Lynch, Cronenberg, Polanski, Argento, and DePalma got together to make a film."

I loved it!
I will even buy the REAL dvd when it comes out.
And yes, it IS a horror film for the most part.

Werner Von Wallenrod
02-09-2011, 08:48 PM
The Suspiria theme is now also appearing in the trailer for the upcoming version of Jane Eyre.

R. Olson
02-28-2011, 01:00 AM
Glad to see that Portman was recognized for her performance tonight at the Oscars. One of the rare occasions that the Academy actually got it right....

danielb
03-19-2011, 07:18 PM
It looks like shit. It smells like shit. It certainly tastes like shit. Must be shit. If there's one thing I know, it's shit.

J Hurtado
03-20-2011, 02:03 PM
I liked it.

Troy Howarth
04-10-2011, 12:24 PM
Watched it last night, and in a nutshell: I loved it. You can definitely see the Polanski/Argento/Powell vibe... I'm not sure I see any DePalma, but that's just me. Performances are perfect across the board, from Portman's career-best central performance to the small role by Winona Ryder, of whom I'm not normally a huge fan. Barbara Hershey's stage mom is truly frightening. It's a gripping film, sexy, stylish, disturbing, at times deeply uncomfortable. It may not reinvent the wheel, story-wise, but I thought it was beautifully executed. Definitely in my top three of the year.

Mike S.
04-10-2011, 02:07 PM
"New York magazine said it was as if Lynch, Cronenberg, Polanski, Argento, and DePalma got together to make a film.

I agree. It's just too bad Aronofsky didn't bring anything remotely original to the party.

BS seemed like "edgy" fare for the multiplex crowd.

Andrew Ellis
04-10-2011, 02:43 PM
This is a rare contemporary Hollywood movie that I actually watched. I really like Aronofksky based on "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream". I thought this was a more watered-down, mainstream version of those, which still makes it better than 99 percent of what Hollywood usually craps out (but perhaps that's not fair since I rarely watch any of it). I'd put this on the level of "Inception" which I liked but not nearly as much Christopher Nolan's early films "Memento" and "Following".

I was also a little annoyed by all the gratuitous non-nudity. I don't mean the lack of nudity (that's fine), but the fact that it had lesbian scenes, masturbation scenes, shower scenes, etc. where it would have JUST MADE SENSE to have shown some actual skin. Still, I'm not demanding they take away Portman's Oscar or anything,and Mila Kunis is still the most talented former castmember of "That 70's Show". . .

Troy Howarth
04-10-2011, 04:28 PM
Oh Andrew, you and your nudity... :) Speaking bluntly: I felt the film was plenty erotic in parts, and while I wouldn't have minded some nudity, the film hardly suffers because of it.

Andrew Ellis
04-10-2011, 05:48 PM
I do like the occasional naked girl, I admit, but it's the non-nudity I object to, Troy, the NON-nudity. I don't know about you, but in MY fantasies the lesbians ALWAYS take off their bras during sex. I agree it was pretty erotic anyway, but that kind of thing will always annoy me.

I also don't want to take away from Natalie Portman (despite her chastity bra). She is really good in this. I've always been conflicted about her because she is one of the most achingly beautiful women I've ever seen, but I've never been able to stand her as an actress or a person. The last movie I truly HATED was "Closer" (where, btw, she played a gratuitously non-nude stripper, but that had little to do with why I hated it). Well, I do like her now as an actress a lot more. I didn't think was Aronofsky's best, but it was definitely Portman's.

John G.
04-10-2011, 06:09 PM
Does Leon: The Professional count? That might be Portman's best film.

Daniel M
04-10-2011, 06:10 PM
As Amy Adams proved in SUNSHINE CLEANING, bras are sexy. I really don't get some of the hate being hurled at Portman here. Ever since Besson (whom she thanked in her Oscar acceptance speech), and LEON THE PROFESSIONAL, I've seen her as an extremely talented actress.

Troy Howarth
04-10-2011, 06:15 PM
I do like the occasional naked girl, I admit, but it's the non-nudity I object to, Troy, the NON-nudity. I don't know about you, but in MY fantasies the lesbians ALWAYS take off their bras during sex. I agree it was pretty erotic anyway, but that kind of thing will always annoy me.

I also don't want to take away from Natalie Portman (despite her chastity bra). She is really good in this. I've always been conflicted about her because she is one of the most achingly beautiful women I've ever seen, but I've never been able to stand her as an actress or a person. The last movie I truly HATED was "Closer" (where, btw, she played a gratuitously non-nude stripper, but that had little to do with why I hated it). Well, I do like her now as an actress a lot more. I didn't think was Aronofsky's best, but it was definitely Portman's.

I thought she was excellent in Closer; for the record, her godfather is Mike Nichols, which explains the lack of nudity in that picture... she did film nude scenes, but he didn't feel right including them, apparently. I can't comment on her as a person, since I don't know her personally, but she seems bright and personable.

Anyway, yes, nudity is a big part of the fantasy process - but when I want hot lesbian action, I'll watch a porn. I don't expect that from Black Swan.

cworkman
04-10-2011, 11:47 PM
Does Leon: The Professional count? That might be Portman's best film.

I definitely agree. Not only is it her best film, but it's also her best performance, amazingly nuanced and perfectly controlled despite the actress being only 12 years old. Nothing in SWAN LAKE REPULSION compares.

I see the comparisons between BLACK SWAN and REPULSION, but I fail to see any resemblance between BLACK SWAN and anything Argento has done. (Argento is far superior to Aronofsky.) Just because both films have ballerinas??? That's hardly enough to warrant comparisons between the directors...

cworkman
04-10-2011, 11:50 PM
There are a lot of films containing girl-on-girl action that I find hot, but this isn't one of them. It simply felt fake, and I didn't see any chemistry between Portman and the chick from THAT 70's SHOW; that television actress seemed to be giving the same performance...

This was a supposed adult film, so I can see Andrew's point about the NON-nudity. While I don't require all my films to contain nudity, the fact that this one didn't seems somewhat out of place for the feeling the movie is trying to achieve (which it fails at in droves).

Troy Howarth
04-11-2011, 07:26 AM
There is absolutely ZERO similarity between Kunis' performance/character in Black Swan compared to That 70s Show; that's just a silly assertion. I hate That 70s Show with a passion and prior to this I thought she was a lousy actress; she really impressed me here.

We disagree on the nudity angle, as well - lots of great 'adult' films don't contain nudity, and a bad film is never really, truly improved by nudity.

Troy Howarth
04-11-2011, 07:27 AM
I definitely agree. Not only is it her best film, but it's also her best performance, amazingly nuanced and perfectly controlled despite the actress being only 12 years old. Nothing in SWAN LAKE REPULSION compares.

I see the comparisons between BLACK SWAN and REPULSION, but I fail to see any resemblance between BLACK SWAN and anything Argento has done. (Argento is far superior to Aronofsky.) Just because both films have ballerinas??? That's hardly enough to warrant comparisons between the directors...

As you would normally argue, the ballet setting is more than ample reason to compare Black Swan to something like Suspiria. It's a detail the two films share in common, and on that level it makes perfect sense to compare the two pictures.

Alex K.
04-11-2011, 07:33 AM
Here's one thing I never connected with Suspira: ballet. It's not a major theme of the movie. We see maybe two scenes of ballet. I mean, the setting could've been anything; a boarding school for example and I don't think it would've made much of a difference. It's not like the witchcraft and etcetera revolves around ballet. About the only argument you could make is that the killings are very operatic, such as in a ballet, but this applies to any good Argento film so I feel that point is moot.

Troy Howarth
04-11-2011, 07:36 AM
Interesting. Me, I always think of Suspiria whenever ballet comes up - with The Red Shoes (and now Black Swan) it's my only connection to a world that otherwise has no interest to me.

RichardDoyle
04-11-2011, 01:23 PM
But Alex is correct ... ballet is merely a setting in "Suspiria". It has no impact at all on the plot. It could have been any kind of girl's school.

J Hurtado
04-11-2011, 02:15 PM
Isn't the remake said to be set in a boarding school rather than a ballet school? The ballet is inconsequential as far as the plot goes.

Pete Bogh
04-11-2011, 04:38 PM
I think one could easily argue that ballet's rigidity of form, expectation of almost masochistic body control, and its adherence to a task-masterish training mentality, is a direct tie-in with the slavish coven atmosphere at the academy in Suspiria, and therefore is important to the plot. If that example works, why not also in BLACK SWAN? (I'm thinking of: the young man Suzy is flirting with for example, who like everyone else seems powerless to disobey even the most basic rules of the house, and the whole atmosphere of a place where you are expected to perform physically demanding tasks even when you are dizzy with illness, Miss Tanner's sadistic glares and remarks about Suzy's willful nature, etc.)

The students seem to be pitted against each other in a Darwinian sense, grinding through a grueling cycle of training where conformity is the highest measure of success. It's not unique to ballet or dance, of course, but we all know them ballerinas beat the hell out of themselves to make it to the big leagues. Of course I could just be reading too much into it!

Fred Adelman
04-11-2011, 06:10 PM
I find the term "graphic non-nudity" to be just as ridiculous as "torture porn". It's like someone is trying way too hard to coin a new catch-phrase. I thought BLACK SWAN was damn good film. IMO, it wouldn't have been improved if nudity was present. Very few non-XXX film are, at least story-wise, unless nudity is integral to the plot. It wasn't in BLACK SWAN.

cworkman
04-11-2011, 09:11 PM
As you would normally argue, the ballet setting is more than ample reason to compare Black Swan to something like Suspiria. It's a detail the two films share in common, and on that level it makes perfect sense to compare the two pictures.

You got one thing, it's a detail and nothing more. By that standard, one could legitimately compare LET THE RIGHT ONE IN to TWILIGHT and make the valid argument that they belong in the same genre or something. So, no, I wouldn't normally argue in favor of BLACK SWAN and SUSPIRIA being comparable, and certainly not their directors (which is the comparison that was actually made here - and not by me).

About Mila Kunas, I don't find there to be anything silly comparing her performance in THAT 70S SHOW (which I likewise hate) to her performance in BLACK SWAN. The only difference is that she eats a girl out in one but doesn't in the other. Otherwise, their both equally humorous, in my opinion.

I can't help but believe that BLACK SWAN is the con job of 2010.

cworkman
04-11-2011, 09:16 PM
I find the term "graphic non-nudity" to be just as ridiculous as "torture porn". It's like someone is trying way too hard to coin a new catch-phrase. I thought BLACK SWAN was damn good film. IMO, it wouldn't have been improved if nudity was present. Very few non-XXX film are, at least story-wise, unless nudity is integral to the plot. It wasn't in BLACK SWAN.

Who exactly decides whether nudity is integral to a film's plot??? The individual viewer does; that's who. Some would argue that it's blatant and gratuitous in Cronenberg's CRASH, but I'd argue that it's absolutely necessary; same with any other Cronenberg film. And if Andrew feels that for this film to absolutely work, it needs nudity, then that's what the film needs - for him, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Fred Adelman
04-11-2011, 10:40 PM
Who exactly decides whether nudity is integral to a film's plot??? The individual viewer does; that's who. Some would argue that it's blatant and gratuitous in Cronenberg's CRASH, but I'd argue that it's absolutely necessary; same with any other Cronenberg film. And if Andrew feels that for this film to absolutely work, it needs nudity, then that's what the film needs - for him, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

IMO = In My Opinion

Andrew Ellis
04-12-2011, 02:34 AM
As far as I know I coined the phrase "gratuitous non-nudity" myself and I doubt it'll catch on because I'm not a very good trend setter (I am thinking of trademarking it though, so please mail 10 cents to my Paypal account every time you use it from now on). And actually I DON'T think a film needs nudity to work at all. My favorite films have no nudity. But all I'm saying is if you're going to show someone sitting on the toilet they should have their pants down, or just don't show them sitting on the toilet which is fine too. But a GOOD movie needs no nudity and a lot of "gratuitous non-nudity" is only a minor irritation. It's only a bad movie where that is just some additional salt in the wound.

But enough of that. This was a GOOD movie and Portman did make some good movies early in her career (or at least she was good in them) now that I think about it. "Closer" was just kind of like a loose re-make of "Carnal Knowledge", which I hated as well. It's hard to watch a movie where I hate ALL the characters, yet there's no chance any of them will be sodomized by a hillbilly or decapitated by a serial killer.

Troy Howarth
04-12-2011, 07:56 AM
Who exactly decides whether nudity is integral to a film's plot??? The individual viewer does; that's who. Some would argue that it's blatant and gratuitous in Cronenberg's CRASH, but I'd argue that it's absolutely necessary; same with any other Cronenberg film. And if Andrew feels that for this film to absolutely work, it needs nudity, then that's what the film needs - for him, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Yes, and some folks feel nudity is 'necessary' in every single film, which is patently absurd. To each their own - I'm simply stating my own OPINION that Black Swan is not damaged by the lack of nudity. What works for Andrew is all well and good for Andrew; I'm merely stating my own perspective, which is the whole point of forums such as this. If we resist disagreeing with people simply because everybody's entitled to their own opinion (which I'm not denying), then what's the point of being here?

John G.
04-12-2011, 08:37 AM
This thread could use more nudity.

cworkman
04-12-2011, 10:48 AM
What it could really use is a good film worth talking about!!! :)

Martin R
04-12-2011, 11:07 AM
I saw this movie very early in its release, not knowing much about it beforehand (it's not the sort of movie I tend to read about online, and I don't own a TV), and thought it was hilariously bad, contrived, big budget melodrama that was actually derivative of Showgirls! I thought: "Great! Can't wait to get online and join the Black Swan criticism fest that is no doubt boiling over on the internet as we speak!"

Then I found out it had an 8.5 rating on IMDB. D:

Oh well, I guess I can add Black Swan to the films listed under "everyone loves it but me", a list that also contains Fight Club, Memento, The Dark Knight, Mulholland Drive, etc. I'm starting to think that, for a film buff, either my tastes are all messed up or I'm just a philistine.

RichardDoyle
04-12-2011, 11:11 AM
This thread could use more nudity.

Oh yeah? Who gets to decide which threads could use more nudity?

cworkman
04-12-2011, 11:12 AM
I don't know, Martin, that was exactly the reaction my partner and I had to it when we saw it at the theatre last year. The only difference is that we actually enjoy SHOWGIRLS!!!

Martin R
04-12-2011, 11:48 AM
I don't know, Martin, that was exactly the reaction my partner and I had to it when we saw it at the theatre last year. The only difference is that we actually enjoy SHOWGIRLS!!!

Showgirls is a far more entertaining film :D

cworkman
04-12-2011, 12:07 PM
With lots of great booby-revealing nudity!!! :)

John G.
04-12-2011, 12:11 PM
I love BLACK SWAN but oddly enough I'm fine with the SHOWGIRLS comparisons. :D

cworkman
04-12-2011, 12:21 PM
You should be; they're two peas in a pod! :)

Fred Adelman
04-12-2011, 03:50 PM
You should be; they're two peas in a pod! :)

I like both BLACK SWAN and SHOWGIRLS. I guess that makes me some type of enigma in your eyes? How in the HELL can I like a film with no nudity and have the audacity to also like a film that's chock-full of nudity? Oh, the conundrum! :rolleyes:

I get it, you don't like BLACK SWAN.

Daniel M
04-12-2011, 05:40 PM
What it could really use is a good film worth talking about!!! :)

You're devoting alot of posts to a film that's not "worth talking about." :D

I like SHOWGIRLS (but then, I'm a Verhoeven fan going all the way back to TURKISH DELIGHT), and I like BLACK SWAN, and I like the works of James M. Cain that similarly focus on explosive mother-daughter relationships. I don't think anyone here is claiming that BLACK SWAN is truly sui generis.

cworkman
04-12-2011, 06:36 PM
I like both BLACK SWAN and SHOWGIRLS. I guess that makes me some type of enigma in your eyes? How in the HELL can I like a film with no nudity and have the audacity to also like a film that's chock-full of nudity? Oh, the conundrum! :rolleyes:

I get it, you don't like BLACK SWAN.

For some reason, that seems to upset you. :(

cworkman
04-12-2011, 06:39 PM
I love SHOWGIRLS, which I thought I made clear. And I like the works of James M. Cain, or I wouldn't have continued reading after the first one. But the mother-daughter relationships in his books are a lot more thought out and carefully explored than the one found in BLACK SWAN, which just felt cliched. Barbara Hershey gives a good performance, don't get me wrong (and Portman is excellent, but I've said that quite a few times already), but the character of the mother doesn't appear to have been written to be anything other than a caricature. Others will disagree, I'm sure, and that's okay.

Daniel M
04-12-2011, 06:57 PM
For some reason, that seems to upset you. :(

I try not to get into the habit of speaking for other members, but I think he's making a general reference to your very intense dislike for the film.

For me, I wasn't sure where you stood after your first dozen posts about the movie, but after a dozen or so more I'm starting to get the picture - BLACK SWAN isn't to your liking. And that's fine, as long as you're going to respect the rights of others who enjoyed it - even WITHOUT nudity. :eek:

Fred Adelman
04-12-2011, 06:59 PM
For some reason, that seems to upset you. :(

No, I'm not upset. I'm just wondering why you continue to post about a film that was obviously not to your liking and replying to your head-scratching reply post that if someone feels that a film needs nudity (or more nudity), than that's exactly what it needs (for him). I wonder if you would still think that way if "him" said that TOY STORY would have worked better if Buzz Lightyear was naked?

cworkman
04-12-2011, 07:00 PM
That goes both ways. Discussions are meant for people who both like AND dislike films. I've kept my comments related solely to the films themselves, and if making statements about why one dislikes a film is disrespectful to everyone who does like it, well, then none of us should be posting here!!! :(

Troy Howarth
04-12-2011, 07:01 PM
I like both BLACK SWAN and SHOWGIRLS. I guess that makes me some type of enigma in your eyes? How in the HELL can I like a film with no nudity and have the audacity to also like a film that's chock-full of nudity? Oh, the conundrum! :rolleyes:

I get it, you don't like BLACK SWAN.

Hell, I'm a big Jess Franco fan. I obviously don't have an issue with nudity or sleaze in movies. I just simply didn't get worked up that Black Swan didn't go all-out in that department. Hell, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. SPOILERS!!! In reality, the lesbian tryst never happened. It was all in the mind of a sexually frustrated woman who has obvious issues with her own body. It makes sense that she would imagine something like that in a rather coy manner. Now, I'm not saying that this is an easy 'excuse' or anything - so far as I'm concerned, the point of the film isn't 'boobage' and nudity, so the absence of it is hardly a problem for me.

cworkman
04-12-2011, 07:02 PM
No, I'm not upset. I'm just wondering why you continue to post about a film that was obviously not to your liking and replying to your head-scratching reply post that if someone feels that a film needs nudity (or more nudity), than that's exactly what it needs (for him). I wonder if you would still think that way if "him" said that TOY STORY would have worked better if Buzz Lightyear was naked?

I wouldn't think anything about it if someone wanted to see a naked Buzz Lightyear (which is, last I saw, a toy of an adult), quite frankly, because I couldn't care less who does and doesn't watch TOY STORY (never seen it myself, and likely never will).

cworkman
04-12-2011, 07:03 PM
Hell, I'm a big Jess Franco fan. I obviously don't have an issue with nudity or sleaze in movies. I just simply didn't get worked up that Black Swan didn't go all-out in that department. Hell, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. SPOILERS!!! In reality, the lesbian tryst never happened. It was all in the mind of a sexually frustrated woman who has obvious issues with her own body. It makes sense that she would imagine something like that in a rather coy manner. Now, I'm not saying that this is an easy 'excuse' or anything - so far as I'm concerned, the point of the film isn't 'boobage' and nudity, so the absence of it is hardly a problem for me.

And I'd say that's a very good explanation as to why there is no nudity in the scene.

Fred Adelman
04-12-2011, 07:04 PM
I wouldn't think anything about it if someone wanted to see a naked Buzz Lightyear (which is, last I saw, a toy of an adult), quite frankly, because I couldn't care less who does and doesn't watch TOY STORY (never seen it myself, and likely never will).

Huh? :confused:

Troy Howarth
04-12-2011, 07:07 PM
And I'd say that's a very good explanation as to why there is no nudity in the scene.

That may be me getting all artsy fartsy in my reasoning, but again - it makes sense to me. It's also entirely likely that Portman and Kunis simply won't do nudity. Whatever the case, I still found the scene legitimately sexy - and for me (and yes, I understand this varies from person to person) sometimes a little suggestion is far sexier than just letting it all hang out there, so to speak.

Daniel M
04-12-2011, 07:29 PM
That may be me getting all artsy fartsy in my reasoning, but again - it makes sense to me. It's also entirely likely that Portman and Kunis simply won't do nudity. Whatever the case, I still found the scene legitimately sexy - and for me (and yes, I understand this varies from person to person) sometimes a little suggestion is far sexier than just letting it all hang out there, so to speak.

I concur with your reasoning, and I would also question whether "turning on the audience" with the scene was ever seen as a priority with the director. As you pointed out, SPOILERS!!! the tryst didn't happen, it was the character's disconnection from reality kicking in, so I don't think it was intended to play like a RED SHOE DIARIES episode with smooth jazz wafting in the background. END SPOILERS!!!

cworkman
04-12-2011, 07:29 PM
Huh? :confused:

What it means is that, if someone wanted to see a naked Buzz Lightyear, I wouldn't automatically assume that person is a pedophile, which is exactly what you were suggesting (if you weren't, then what were you suggesting?).

But back to your original point, Andrew and others here have been talking about nudity in movies aimed at adults, so your comparison to nudity in children's film is entirely out of place.

Troy Howarth
04-12-2011, 07:36 PM
I concur with your reasoning, and I would also question whether "turning on the audience" with the scene was ever seen as a priority with the director. As you pointed out, SPOILERS!!! the tryst didn't happen, it was the character's disconnection from reality kicking in, so I don't think it was intended to play like a RED SHOE DIARIES episode with smooth jazz wafting in the background. END SPOILERS!!!

I'd agree with this. :)

John G.
04-12-2011, 07:44 PM
http://www.nfp2.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/buzz_lightyear.jpg

cworkman
04-12-2011, 07:49 PM
http://www.nfp2.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/buzz_lightyear.jpg

The audacity, John! Why is he wearing clothes???

Fred Adelman
04-12-2011, 11:44 PM
What it means is that, if someone wanted to see a naked Buzz Lightyear, I wouldn't automatically assume that person is a pedophile, which is exactly what you were suggesting (if you weren't, then what were you suggesting?).

But back to your original point, Andrew and others here have been talking about nudity in movies aimed at adults, so your comparison to nudity in children's film is entirely out of place.

That is not what I was suggesting. The point I was trying to make is, no matter how you try to explain it, not every film can be made better by nudity, no matter whether "him" thinks it would be. No pedophile tendencies were intended. The same train of thought would work with films like CITIZEN KANE, APOLLO 13 or any other "adult" film that does not contain nudity.

John K
04-13-2011, 01:56 AM
It's also entirely likely that Portman and Kunis simply won't do nudity.

This is exactly the issue, though. Forget the frigging lesbian scene for a minute (that comment's not directed at you, Troy, but society in general) - that was fine as it was. The scenes that really stuck out for me were 1) Portman in the bathtub and 2) Portman being stripped by her mother. (I think I got them out of order, as far as the story goes, but whatever.) In both of these, I felt rather keenly aware of the fact that Portman was being very purposefully covered - it struck me as a typical Hollywood "almost but not quite" moment, where an actress is willing to show pretty much everything *but*, for fear of somehow losing respect. (Miles of side-boob are ok, but you become an abject societal whore at the slightest peek of aureola, apparently.)

I've largely stayed out of this discussion because I'm not *crazily* invested in it, and I'm honestly surprised it's generating as much dialogue as it is. For me, these couple instances struck me as a tiny bit jarring, but it's not like they ruined the film for me (I liked though didn't love it) in any way, shape, or form. But I will certainly agree that I noted them, and that I don't consider it unreasonable that others spotted them as well. I don't think it's necessarily an argument born of prurient interest (though it can certainly head the way, and quickly!) - after all, I'm not interested in women, and I still found the moment jarring. However, I also know it's basically par for the course with Hollywood fare, so it didn't hugely (or really at all) detract from my enjoyment, either. It's par for the course.


Incidentally, cworkman, I think you and your partner are the first gay guys I've encountered who weren't absolutely enamored with this film. I'm really amazed by how universal the love for this movie seems to be among my compatriots in the gay community. Even guys who normally wouldn't watch anything dark or disturbing seem to love it. For my part, I thought it was technically well-executed, but, much like Natalie's performance before the finale, sort of trite in terms of content. I'd say I liked it over all, but I hope you'd be willing to let 10 to 20% of me join your naysayer's club?

Troy Howarth
04-13-2011, 07:41 AM
The thing that bothers me in this debate is the statement that the film is a con job of some kind, which of course implies that those of us who liked the film were stupid for doing so. I can't help that I found it gripping. I can't help that the lack of nudity (though I'd certainly LOVE to see both Portman and Kunis nude!) didn't trouble or irk me.

John G.
04-13-2011, 07:46 AM
That is not what I was suggesting. The point I was trying to make is, no matter how you try to explain it, not every film can be made better by nudity, no matter whether "him" thinks it would be. No pedophile tendencies were intended. The same train of thought would work with films like CITIZEN KANE, APOLLO 13 or any other "adult" film that does not contain nudity.
I agree with this statement, except that APOLLO 13 would have probably benefited from nudity... I mean, c'mon, three guys in a spaceship and not one of them gets naked? Please.

Terry Carpenter
04-13-2011, 07:54 AM
John I must say, sometimes your opinions perplex me. :D

Daniel Ekeroth
04-13-2011, 08:23 AM
Black Swan was basically boring, and is highly overrated.

Showgirls or Suspiria is the way to go with dance films!

Scott Mosley
04-13-2011, 01:51 PM
I liked Black Swan. Early Polanski with a heavy (maybe a little too) touch of Jung. But pretty interesting character study dealing with light and darkness, its purpose, at least reflected from Aronofsky.

RichardDoyle
04-13-2011, 02:05 PM
That goes both ways. Discussions are meant for people who both like AND dislike films. I've kept my comments related solely to the films themselves, and if making statements about why one dislikes a film is disrespectful to everyone who does like it, well, then none of us should be posting here!!! :(

I think it's a matter of degree. Just from darting in and out of this thread, it strikes me that you're hammering the same couple of points over and over. It kind of gives the impression that you want to antagonize the folks who do like the film.

Daniel M
04-13-2011, 02:42 PM
I think it's a matter of degree. Just from darting in and out of this thread, it strikes me that you're hammering the same couple of points over and over. It kind of gives the impression that you want to antagonize the folks who do like the film.

Truth be told, that's the issue I'm having.

Of course cworkman is allowed to like or dislike any films he chooses. And he's more than welcome to say why he dislikes them. But, yeah, just hammering away with posts like "what this thread needs is a good film to talk about!!!" while perhaps intended to be humorous, can be construed as antagonistic toward those who simply enjoyed the movie.

To invoke a comparison I'm being forced to use more and more since I've been moderating - Beyond a few cinematic exceptions (JUSTINE and JACK THE RIPPER come to mind), I just can't abide Jess Franco's films. It would very easy to troll the Franco thread and bash away, but I don't out of respect to buffs who enjoy his work. If a film is being discussed there that I didn't care for I'll be more than happy to let my feelings be known, but I certainly won't try to rob someone else of their enjoyment of it - or attempt to make them feel bad about enjoying it.

I'm not saying that's what's going on here, exactly, but as Troy, Richard, and others have pointed out, it can be ready that way.

cworkman
04-13-2011, 09:02 PM
Anything can be read in any way, no matter how a person intends it, of course. That is just as much a reflection of the reader as it is the writer. And I'm not saying that to "antagonize" anyone; it's just a statement of fact.

Werner Von Wallenrod
04-13-2011, 09:37 PM
To invoke a comparison I'm being forced to use more and more since I've been moderating - Beyond a few cinematic exceptions (JUSTINE and JACK THE RIPPER come to mind), I just can't abide Jess Franco's films. It would very easy to troll the Franco thread and bash away, but I don't out of respect to buffs who enjoy his work. If a film is being discussed there that I didn't care for I'll be more than happy to let my feelings be known, but I certainly won't try to rob someone else of their enjoyment of it - or attempt to make them feel bad about enjoying it.

To be fair (and speaking as someone who found Black Swan to be "just ok"), I think praise for a film like Black Swan - assuming you're a person who dislikes it - with it's infinite heaps of critical praise, piles of awards, fans etc, can be much more frustrating/ perplexing/ debate-compelling than jumping into something like a Franco thread, where you know you're just talking to a small group of enthusiasts who are probably well aware of the shortcomings of the films they enjoy anyway.
I mean, if A Virgin Among the Living Dead won multiple Academy Awards, Golden Globes etc... If everyone at the workplace, online, etc were talking about how wonderful it was, from film enthusiasts to people who hardly watch movies.. If film schools were holding up A Virgin Among the Living Dead to its students like, "this is how you should be making movies"... Well, then I doubt many of us would be able to suppress our contrary opinions in its forum threads. ;)

Daniel M
04-13-2011, 11:04 PM
To be fair (and speaking as someone who found Black Swan to be "just ok"), I think praise for a film like Black Swan - assuming you're a person who dislikes it - with it's infinite heaps of critical praise, piles of awards, fans etc, can be much more frustrating/ perplexing/ debate-compelling than jumping into something like a Franco thread, where you know you're just talking to a small group of enthusiasts who are probably well aware of the shortcomings of the films they enjoy anyway.
I mean, if A Virgin Among the Living Dead won multiple Academy Awards, Golden Globes etc... If everyone at the workplace, online, etc were talking about how wonderful it was, from film enthusiasts to people who hardly watch movies.. If film schools were holding up A Virgin Among the Living Dead to its students like, "this is how you should be making movies"... Well, then I doubt many of us would be able to suppress our contrary opinions in its forum threads. ;)

BLACK SWAN is a very polarizing film - even amongst its fans. Werner, No one's being asked to suppress contrary opinions; as long as civility is maintained, all should feel free to find their own level of frustration, perplexity, and lively debate. :D

R. Olson
04-13-2011, 11:58 PM
Personally, I'd rather not waste alot of time posting about films that I don't care for. Not that I'm one to shy away from a good debate, but, I'd rather discuss flix that I like, it's more fun IMHO....

Fred Adelman
04-14-2011, 04:26 AM
Anything can be read in any way, no matter how a person intends it, of course. That is just as much a reflection of the reader as it is the writer. And I'm not saying that to "antagonize" anyone; it's just a statement of fact.

You have a future in politics. :D

Troy Howarth
04-14-2011, 07:43 AM
Anything can be read in any way, no matter how a person intends it, of course. That is just as much a reflection of the reader as it is the writer. And I'm not saying that to "antagonize" anyone; it's just a statement of fact.

That's a nice generic generalization, but would you agree that coming in to a thread and restating the same points over and over to emphasize your dislike for a particular film DOES come off as redundant after a point? I mean, I guess the way I see it is: if a discussion is going on and people are talking about how much they like it, to come in once or twice and say you didn't like it is fine... but to keep coming back and reiterating the same point? I don't know, I'm not being critical, I'm just wondering why folks sometimes feel a need to do that....

John G.
04-14-2011, 08:41 AM
Let's be fair, though... those of us that have thousands of posts have to some extent been repeating ourselves, whether it's in one long thread or in several shorter ones.

Scott Mosley
04-14-2011, 10:30 AM
And if someone wants to hammer home their dislike for a film why should that bother anyone? We all have films that we like or love that we defend over and again. I don't see the other end just because it's percieved as 'negative' to be any less necessary to the purpose of articulating why than the other.

Robin Bougie
04-14-2011, 11:11 AM
Finally got around to seeing this. LOVED IT. Nice to see a deserving movie get some oscar awards. I love those types of movies where you totally KNOW how it is going to end, and yet the journey to get there is so rewarding that you don't even care that you have the thing all figured out.

That doesn't mean there wasn't gratuitous non-nudity though. I did indeed take note during the tub, lesbian, disrobing, and masturbation scene -- that there was a very overt (and distracting) effort to keep us from seeing nipple.

cworkman
04-14-2011, 12:09 PM
My thought is, all opinions are okay, as long as those opinions are aimed AT the movie and not AT the other posters. I mean, it's okay to say you despise James Whale (which I don't, I'm just making a point), but it would be wrong to say you despise a person (like Troy, for instance, whom I DON'T despise at all, I'm again just making a point) who likes Whale. As long as the post is about the film in question, I don't see the problem. There have been numerous times I've been placed in a position to defend Hammer films, and that's okay, because defending something I like just allows me the opportunity to vocalize why I like it, and that's not a bad thing. And if I can't defend something because it's indefensible, then I've been given an opportunity to see why my opinion was wrongheaded (as opinions can be, we all know - and I'm not referring to the opinion that people find BLACK SWAN terrific).

Jonathan Douglas
04-14-2011, 12:42 PM
Personally, I'd rather not waste alot of time posting about films that I don't care for. Not that I'm one to shy away from a good debate, but, I'd rather discuss flix that I like, it's more fun IMHO....
That's well said, I just let people enjoy whatever they like and feel no need to trash things for fun, that shit may have been fun years ago just let it slide now. Nobody wants to be attacked for what they like and the musical or cinematic arts they're into, I may not understand why people like certain things but I've learned to not care or drag personal likings down. It's just movies and disagreeing's fine, I'm rarely in threads of stuff I have no interest in as there's no real point then.

Fred Adelman
04-14-2011, 03:22 PM
Here's what I think you really meant to say:


My thought is, all opinions are okay, as long as those opinions are aimed AT other posters. I mean, it's okay to say you despise James Whale, but would it be wrong to say you despise a person (like Troy, for instance, whom I despise) who likes Whale? As long as the post isn't about the film in question, I don't see the problem. There have been numerous times I've been placed in a position to defend myself, and that's okay, because defending something I like just allows me the opportunity to vocalize why I like me, and that's not a bad thing. And if I can defend something because it's indefensible, then I've been given an opportunity to see why your opinion was wrongheaded (as opinions can be, we all know - and I'm referring to the opinion that people find BLACK SWAN terrific).

You can thank me later. :)

cworkman
04-14-2011, 04:57 PM
Except that, restating "my words" to say something I clearly never said or intended could easily - and rightfully - be construed as a personal attack, and all because I didn't like something you did. Yet I don't see anyone suggesting that you should be censored...

cworkman
04-14-2011, 04:57 PM
That's well said, I just let people enjoy whatever they like and feel no need to trash things for fun, that shit may have been fun years ago just let it slide now. Nobody wants to be attacked for what they like and the musical or cinematic arts they're into, I may not understand why people like certain things but I've learned to not care or drag personal likings down. It's just movies and disagreeing's fine, I'm rarely in threads of stuff I have no interest in as there's no real point then.

I would find a discussion boring if every single person involved in it liked exactly the same things.

Fred Adelman
04-14-2011, 05:01 PM
Hmm.....what's all this talk about censoring members lately? Have we grown so humorless that we can't take a good-natured ribbing anymore?

I was going to delete that post, but now all I can say is this: Grow a pair.

cworkman
04-14-2011, 05:05 PM
Yet another personal attack. This seems to be becoming a habit, Fred. And all because someone disagrees with an opinion you have about a film... Who's refusing to be civil???

Fred Adelman
04-14-2011, 05:13 PM
Yet another attack. This seems to be becoming a habit, Fred. And all because someone disagrees with an opinion you have about a film...

I not disagreeing with your opinion about BLACK SWAN, Chris. You have a right not to like it. What I am disagreeing with is your tone and intent, like your opinion is more important than ours. You posts are more of a defense on why you have a right to disagree with anyone you choose rather than reasons why you dislike the film. It's becoming monotonous. You have proven that you have no sense of humor by taking my stab at humor as a personal attack. Maybe you protest too much?

cworkman
04-14-2011, 05:25 PM
Actually, I only got "defensive" as of yesterday, which is what people tend to do when being personally attacked. Up until that time, my comments were relegated to the film and my reasons for disliking it (which you can call monotonous, but I make several different points throughout those posts, not just one point over and over). I have a sense of humor as much as the next guy, but your rewriting of my post to mean the exact opposite of what it really meant doesn't appear to be intended as humor, despite the smiley face at the end of it. You're making a point about me as a person, one that is entirely wrong. So you're correct that I didn't find it funny; nor would, I imagine, anyone else at the receiving end of it.

Now, don't get me wrong, Fred. I actually like the overwhelming majority of your posts; I think you're an intelligent guy, and you can be funny. And, quite honestly, I agree with your opinions most of the time. And I can take a ribbing. But sometimes rough-housing can go too far, even when that isn't the intention.

Fred Adelman
04-14-2011, 05:30 PM
Actually, I only got "defensive" as of yesterday, which is what people tend to do when being personally attacked. Up until that time, my comments were relegated to the film and my reasons for disliking it (which you can call monotonous, but I make several different points throughout those posts, not just one point over and over). I have a sense of humor as much as the next guy, but your rewriting of my post to mean the exact opposite of what it really meant doesn't appear to be intended as humor, despite the smiley face at the end of it. You're making a point about me as a person, one that is entirely wrong. So you're correct that I didn't find it funny; nor would, I imagine, anyone else at the receiving end of it.

Now, don't get me wrong, Fred. I actually like the overwhelming majority of your posts; I think you're an intelligent guy, and you can be funny. And, quite honestly, I agree with your opinions most of the time. And I can take a ribbing. But sometimes rough-housing can go too far, even when that isn't the intention.

Chris: I'll just reply to your last post using your own words (unaltered and verbatim):

"Anything can be read in any way, no matter how a person intends it, of course. That is just as much a reflection of the reader as it is the writer. And I'm not saying that to "antagonize" anyone; it's just a statement of fact."

Daniel M
04-14-2011, 05:37 PM
Guys feel free to take it to PM as this isn't much fun for the rest of us.

cworkman
04-14-2011, 05:50 PM
Back to the film: Natalie Portman deserved her Oscar. She certainly seems to have her career in order right now. It seems like there's never a moment in which she doesn't have something out in theatres. I have to admit that I'm really looking forward to THOR. (I think I'll pass on YOUR HIGHNESS or whatever it's called.)

R. Olson
04-14-2011, 05:56 PM
That's well said, I just let people enjoy whatever they like and feel no need to trash things for fun, that shit may have been fun years ago just let it slide now. Nobody wants to be attacked for what they like and the musical or cinematic arts they're into, I may not understand why people like certain things but I've learned to not care or drag personal likings down. It's just movies and disagreeing's fine, I'm rarely in threads of stuff I have no interest in as there's no real point then.

Thanx Jonathan, and I also appreciate the equally well said response! :)

RichardDoyle
04-14-2011, 06:18 PM
And if someone wants to hammer home their dislike for a film why should that bother anyone? We all have films that we like or love that we defend over and again. I don't see the other end just because it's percieved as 'negative' to be any less necessary to the purpose of articulating why than the other.

I didn't see anyone say you can't do it. For my own part, I was offering an explanation of why posting that you don't like a film can start to be perceived as antagonistic as opposed to just a statement about not liking the film. The question was asked.

Edit: I didn't see Daniel's post until just now. That's my last comment on the subject.