Sorry I didn't have time to contribute. I had 2 features and a half a feature to read for members, and I just couldn't squeeze this in. I did download the script and start it though.

I did look at the discussion here about the unfilmables. They are interesting examples, and the points are well made in the discussion. Let me touch on the shoes on the wall. If that description is left as a barebones description, a lot of people will still get the point that this is the room she grew up in, the relevant thing being she has never really grown up. But people reading quick, and trying to acclimate themselves to the set up of the story can miss that. I think it was worth sparing the few extra words to make sure we see this critical element right at the beginning. Those few words as much as anything else set the tone.

If you do something like this just once every 5 pages, what are we talking, 20 extra lines for the script? And maybe not even, depending on how things end on the page.

So in my inexperienced opinion, I think it's ok to do this on a limited basis, picking your moments. Of course, there's none in my work, Jeff cleans them out!

Quoted from Dreamscale It's hard to say what they were after with Lily, as the script and the film ar5e very different in that regard. I feel Lily was a "real" person for sure, but in the script, it's hard to tell.  If she wasn't, I'm upset as I hate that "it was all a dream or in that person's head" shit!!

Yup. Script Lilly and Film Lilly were very different I thought. I imagined in the script that the "unrealness" and the "doppleganger effect" were much more pronounced.

If they really intended Lilly to look more ghost like, they could have done it obviously, but they chose not to.

Really though, I would love to hear from the writers and the director on this. Ohmmmmm! Calling you.... Ohmmmmm.... Tell us your thoughts so we can be all like, well, Ohmmmm.....  

Sandra

1 every 5 pages is fine. but we've got more like 10+ pages of wasted asides and unfilmables, and that's too much.

Quoted from dmc2011 Sandra a polll would be fun!

Maybe even to ask the question:

Would you make Lilly into more of an apparition?

If you did, how would that affect those scenes at the bar?
Would they be more complicated to film?

Sandra

Sandra, based on the script,...and I think the ending of the film, Lily was definitely "real".
Let's do a fucking poll.  OK?  Why not...great question.

Let's do it!

Who's in?

I am in.  I think she was real.  btw
Nina "ehanced" things in her own mind.  But not everything, so that is why some of the things Lily does is hard to know if it was real or memorex!

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Do you think that Lilly was a complete manifestation existing only in Nina's mind? Or: Do you think that Lilly was real?

I really don't feel like digging through the entire script or rewatching the DVD, but LILY was most certainly real as other characters interacted with her in both screenplay and film.
None of that A BEAUTIFUL MIND hogwash where multiple figments were conversing with each other.

In the screenplay the DOORMAN at NINA's condo/apartment states something akin to "I didn't see you leave", indicating he saw LILY, who looks just like her, enter already. NINA enters her home to find ERICA and LILY having a conversation. At the theater LILY is introduced by YEVNA to the company. DAVID doesn't give NINA any "WTF are you talking about?" when NINA states "she looks just like me". The COSTUMER seems to be aware of LILY's fitting as the black and white swan alternate. When NINA goes flippy-dippy full throttle paranoia to YEVNA about LILY trying to take her part he doesn't say "WTF are you talking about?". YEVNA knows there was a LILY.

In the film everyone stops and listens in the soloists room to listen to LILY explain her tardiness due to getting off at the wrong stop. THOMAS busts NINA's balls over complaining to LILY about how hard he's pushing her. Again, when NINA goes flippy-dippy full throttle paranoia to THOMAS about LILY trying to take her part he doesn't say "WTF are you talking about?". If LILY's imaginary why is DAVID giggling all warm and fuzzy when she's rubbing his cod-piece behind curtains across the stage?

Now, does NINA have some... questionable recollections of events? As the story is told from her POV?
Um, yeah.
Lezzy wet dream?
Quite possible entirely fictional.
I believe LILY did go home with TOM rather than NINA.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I also think that Beth did not really stab herself with that nail file repeatedly in her face.

BETH did not stab herself in the face with the nail file.
Slo-mo & pause that scene again.
It's NINA stabbing herself, and it's all imaginary.
Had that really happened surely the police woulda been in contact with Miss Sayers & Mr Thomas within 24hrs for an assault at a hospital.

NINA is flippin' like a gymnast.

Quoted from Dreamscale Sandra, based on the script,...and I think the ending of the film, Lily was definitely "real". Let's do a fucking poll.  OK?  Why not...great question. Let's do it! Who's in?

I know. She sure did look real in the film! But still, I wonder. In the script, I'm not so sure. And I'd love to hear more responses on this.

Yes. Poll! Poll! Poll! Poll!

I feel like I'm at a hockey game or something.  

Sandra

Quoted from RayW When NINA goes flippy-dippy full throttle paranoia to YEVNA about LILY trying to take her part he doesn't say "WTF are you talking about?". YEVNA knows there was a LILY.

Thank you, Ray. I know that I might be pushing the limits of what is reality and what is not, but I really do find it questionable.

You have written:

YEVNA knows there was a Lilly.

***and that's exactly what I think too...

Only, I think that with a shift in perception:

One can imagine that Yevna knows of "the doppleganger effect".

Seriously, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I had believed that this discomforting
circumstance had existed and will exist forever in this theatre. It's as natrural
as spring, summer, fall and winter and Yevna knows this.

I did not think he would say, "What the fuck you think you seeing?!" because I think he knows already the whole story.

His job is to bring the girls along. I didn't feel any malfeasance on his part.

Please note: Anyone wanting to judge me on this. My scrutiny comes from a lot of years experiencing people. For an example:

Your father might have laid down the law and made you do your homework when you were a child. You might have said at one time, "I hate you! I absolutely hate you!" and...

At that time, you really did feel your father was like an evil villain. ...

Only later did you learn how much he loved and cared for you.

Well...

That's how I feel about Yevna. His prototype is very appealing to me.

In my world, I was the little girl who purposely got detentions so that she could get a ride home with her teacher.

Yes, I did that. At ten years old!!! I meant no harm, but I really did enjoy
being with men a lot older. Still, I think that our culture is messed up because
I think that most women want mature men to father their children and people
are sexually repressed to such a point that they can't even touch their own children lovingly (not in a sexual manner but naturally) and this is a terrible shame.

My daddy used to give me foot massages. He used to hold me and feed me the dill pickles he grew and preserved on his own.

Nobody can take that away from me. He was the most excellent man in the universe!

When I look at Black Swan, with all of the sexual innuendo, I'm seeing things from a bit of an angle that a lot of people might be uncomfortable with, but truthfully, I think:

We are all so starved for affection. And I think (sorry if I'm being long)

That long ago (in my time) we girls could do each others' hair and give each other hand massages etc. and no one would label us as lezzies. We were just doing what was right and felt good. How could that be wrong?

So back to The Movie:

Yevna was a passionate soul. He wanted to enjoy life. So what? He has intercourse with Nina. Since when has that become a crime?

Well.... it has, but that's WRONG!!!

Feeling good should not be a crime.

Yevna's passion is not a crime.

Sandra

W...T...F?  Seriously, Sandra...what are you trying to say here?  I for one, am completely clueless...

Yvena is meant to be deliberately uncaring.

He wants perfection in the performance at any cost to the performer.

His proteges mean nothing to him. He picks women who look the same ("he has his type") and uses them artistically and sexually till they are burnt out, then discards them (see Beth).

BTW all of these "unfilmmables" that people are mentioning are just there for the sake of clarity...explaining to readers what they signify.

If the writer did not explain WHY there were dancing shoes of various sizes on the wall the Production staff might not pick up on their importance.

By telling us what it means it eases the Director's job as well.

As long as you are providing images that make sense, then this type of clarification is fine....proper, even.

What you should be taking from it is this: How the screenwriter manages to suggest 12 years backstory in one simple image. That's the real crux of the matter, not the technicality.

Quoted from Dreamscale We do seem to have a different idea of what the word "small" means in terms of a script, concept, and film. And, once again, Sandra, you are SPOT ON with what you said.  "Small" is not necessarily a bad thing, but peeps seem to jump up and think I'm saying something I'm not. "Small" can be good...I absolutely love some small films. I'm just saying...Rick and other peeps are saying how "deep" and "big" this is, and I just can't see it.  I'm sorry for that.  Don't hold it against me. What do you guys and gals feel about the # of "oh so sad and lonely" orphans and  wrylies?  You think it doesn't matter or come into play at all?  Just wondering. And, BTW, you're not doing a bad job here, Pia.  I know you're busy and you jumped in and took control of this...that's cool and we love you for it... ... BUT... You need to watch the movie...ASAP!!!!

As you've pointed out elsewhere, the film has been a huge success. It opened small and spread with word of mouth and became an international hit. It also won some of the biggest awards and was incredibly well received by critics and audiences.

If we look objectively at the film, you can see why this is.

It's a drama with the HIGHEST stakes possible. It's a story of obsession. Of life-time sacrifice. Of manipulation. A story about the loss of innocence. Nina's whole life is built towards this one moment and on the line is her sanity, her LIFE and EVEN more than that...her spirituality, or soul, if you prefer. All this tied up in a very cohesive story set in the world of ballet. Fantastic juxtaposition of grace and delicacy with sheer strength of body and will, darkness and desire and reinventing one of, if not THE, most popular ballets of all time.

On top of that it investigates fame, the entertainment industry...one of the major zeitgeist's of the modern era where everybody wants to be famous.

Again, these are about the highest stakes possible for an individual in any story. It runs the entire gamut of human experience. (Greatest dreams, greatest fears, life in danger, soul in danger).

It is about as perfectly constructed as a drama can get. It speaks to people on multiple levels.

We are in danger of hitting the wall of absurdity when we dismiss theme as "unimportant" and then predictably spend more time on orphans, wrylies and the dreaded (and much misunderstood) unfilmmables.


I'm not having a go here Jeff, I'm really not. It's just we've hit a point where it has become unsustainable to keep going on about certain things when they are in every pro script and to tear these pro scripts apart for the most menial things whilst at the same time completely missing the qualities that put them in a different stratosphere altogether from the pre-pro script.

"What you should be taking from it is this: How the screenwriter manages to suggest 12 years backstory in one simple image. That's the real crux of the matter, not the technicality."
quoted from ScarTissueFilms

Hey, there, I thought this was a Screenwriting Class thread and we would be allowed to learn at our own speed.
When I, for example, ask about a wasted line of text it's because I really want to know and I appreciate getting a quick reply.  It's possible that many of us still have questions about what belongs in a script and what doesn't.
Here's a line of text that, as a writer, I wonder about:
on page 13 of 129, after Korolyevna tells Nina when she's dancing she looks like a scared little girl, etc. we read...
"Too thin skinned for the criticism, her focus falters."
that seems to me like the writer is dumbing down the text, the line needs to read what Nina's physical reaction is, describe the look on her face, which might have suggested pain, humiliation, fear, hatred, anger, confusion, disbelief, hopelessness... who knows what else.
All we get is "too thin skinned for the criticism" which only shows Nina to be evidently not right for the role.  

And then we read of Nina "Breathing hard, she's too ashamed to meet Yevna's eyes."
which seems like a shortcut to me, the writer bypasses the character Nina and directly tells the reader what emotion we need to see.
Now, if this is the way they do it in the industry, I'd like to know.  

"Too thin skinned for criticism" is fine.

It does all the things that you say, it's just left at the actors/actresses discretion as to how to portray it.

It doesn't suggest she's not right for the role, it suggests she's insecure..which of course is a large part of the film..how she has to unleash her inner "Black Swan" to compete. It contrasts with Lily who can make a mistake and laugh it off.

Your second example seems to contradict your earlier point. He tells you exactly what she's doing, exactly where she's looking and even her state of mind (as you requested in the first instance)...but you see it as bypassing Nina's character.

You're reading Industry material. That should answer your questions as to whether it's valid or not.

I'm only trying to help. These same questions come up all the time. It is explained time and time again that it's fine for you to do this. All the pros agree. The evidence is in every pro script. This is a script being developed under the tutelage of one of the best Directors.

I don't know what more I can say.

This, I suppose: Character/Actor's Directions are NOT unfilmmable.

Rick.