All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
W...T...F? Seriously, Sandra...what are you trying to say here? I for one, am completely clueless...
The movie (not so much the script) is littered with references to sexuality-- perhaps even transcendence through its unabashed experience, in its purest form. Yevna is all about passion and yes too, restraint, but only to the degree it serves one well. Otherwise, it's a hindrance.
My words in the prior post reference people's perception. How they view things and determine what's acceptable. In our world today still there are areas where it's common for fourteen year old girls to marry much older men. People might make a case against Yevna because:
A. He was using his carnal passion with bad intentions and he's seducing a young lady far too young for him
B. Carnal passion is evil to begin with and must be repressed
I know that view point. I understand it. I even agree with it to some extent, when it's appropriate, but I also believe that some apparent laws need to be broken sometimes. Yevna breaks the laws, crosses boundaries, but he does so with good intentions. He knows that life does go on. He understands this deep within his bones. Forget the theatre entirely. He knows that there's a time for everything in its season. In his speech at the gala fundraiser, you can read him one of two ways:
1. See him as being highly insincere, playing his part well.
2. Playing his part well, no nonsense, but with a repressed sense of the old love for Beth, and a sadness where, if he lets that out of the locker inside of his heart, he will be ruined. He will be a ruined and broken man, unable to perform his duties.
These two perceptions exist. The beautiful thing about the characters in this movie are their real life texture. The movie is really about the white and black of the nature in man, but we see in the characters that they're all grey. Or gray.
**Anyways, one thing I wanted to say:
Nina kills the evil twin. The evil twin is inside of herself and thus she kills herself.
Can anyone remember if Lilly is shown after Nina has died?
I think that what this script has to offer us most as developing writers is its focus.
What I mean by that is that every possible moment and every single detail are focused on the main theme: that spiritual transcendence in art has been bastardized by the imposition of a rigid, hierarchical, corrupt structure and that in order to achieve physical transcendence to fame and recognition in today's society, artists must abandon any hope of spiritual transcendence.
Every character contributes to this. Every member of the company is a victim of structure, of being beholden to a dominant patriarch who uses and abuses them. Beth specifically suggests that the destruction of artists is cyclical, ongoing. Veronika shows the way in which artists are pitted against each other.
Nina and Lily represent the duality of the universe which our protagonist hopes to encompass.
Erica (and Nina's lack of a father) suggests that artists are not fostered and have no role models.
Minor characters are just as important. The Jittery Fan and others show the way that the public responds to celebrity rather than art, and the way in which this affects the artist.
Every plot point, every action of every character, is directly aimed at (whatever version you want of) the script's theme. No witty dialogue, no stylistic moments, no laughs. Every line is advancing the theme. Every moment feeds into the theme. This writer has something that he wants to say about the world, and it's the only thing he's looking to say, and he's not going to say anything else about anything else.
Focus. Everything for a reason. I think the script is very, very, very tight. This is what we should be working towards. No matter the size, scope, genre (and f*** "genre", anyway!) of your script, it should be THIS tight. This is how you get at meaning...by removing anything which does not directly fit that meaning.
I think it's a brilliant script. Could get better, sure, and did get better. Some funky dialogue here and there in my opinion, leading to a few inconsistencies in my view of Nina in particular. Some things a bit too on on the nose. But my hat is off to Heyman. Great work.
Those are my initial thoughts. Once I've had a chance to browse the thread a bit more I'll start arguing with Jeff or something.
Characters aren't "real". They're not real people. Every character is a representation of an idea, just as the plot is a representation of ideas. Black Swan is a script which approaches very metaphysical ideas. It's really irrelevant to the story -- maybe not to the plot, but to the story -- whether Lily is "real", because that word doesn't particularly have any meaning in this context. Lily represents the Black Swan -- whatever that means to you -- so what is important about this for the story is that at the end, Yevna, the patriarch, is having sex with the Black Swan, not the White Swan.
Perhaps the question is this: if Nina is an unreliable perspective, and we are to assume Yevna's perspective is relatively in keeping with an "objective" perspective to the extent that the perspective generally shared by the people who populate the story (aside from Nina) is "objective"...was he tearing Nina's clothes off, or Lily's, while Nina thought she was watching from the other room? I would vote Lily's, personally -- I do think that at that level they are meant to be two separate distinct people in the film -- but I really don't see the point. There is no objective reality in film, so determining whether someone is "real" or not seems kinda ridiculous.
As to unfilmables --
I think they're well used in the script. The script is complex. People are stupid. Readers who are in a position to impact the script at a production stage might not understand certain things if they weren't pointed out explicitly. It would be nice if one could always assume an ideal reader, but it's not the case (Pauline Kael argues that we must if we are to keep our art intact, in her article "The Future of Movies" which I typed up but which no-one read...). They got in my way from time to time, yes, but it's a script, not a movie. The point is to be clear, and it was clear.
A further thought --
It's interesting that the film's exploration of art versus structure is portrayed as one of women versus men. I hope there's room in the world for us male artists, too. I think it's interesting to consider to what extent "creativity" is a feminine characteristic and to what extent "being a selfish controlling piece of s***" is a male characteristic, in the script, in art in general, and in life in general. I wonder how different our view of art and creativity as they relate to gender would be if we lived in a matriarchy? Do artists rail against men as a gender because they associate men with control? Might be interesting to compare and contrast the views of masculinity and femininity in Black Swan with those in The Tree of Life, which to my eye criticizes masculinity very heavily but also attempts to portray a harmonization in its conclusion, contrary to Black Swan's bleak closing.
"Erica (and Nina's lack of a father) suggests that artists are not fostered and have no role models."
I think everything you said made sense to me except the quoted above. Respectfully.
Erika foster Nina in everyway shape or form, good or bad! Mostly bad. But the lack of father is a stretch for me. Doesn't even come into play at all.
And if you say that her teacher is taking the place of the father, I will respond tha that is even a more of a stretch unless the script is a reversal of oedipus.
Just my thoughts. Glad to have more involvement here of seasoned writers!!!!
Although Erica does literally "foster" Nina in that she feeds her, clothes her, and helps to create her worldview, I was attempting to convey a broader point.
If Nina is representative of young artists (I am massively simplifying here in order to hopefully make my point), then her parents represent what young artists "come from". Erica is without compassion, without emotional connection, without anything that is needed to foster Nina's creative side, her emotional side, or her Black Swan side. She can provide nothing to help Nina grow into what she wants and needs to grow into; therefore, she cannot truly foster her.
As for the father, consider the following:
Joe has a mother named Sue and a father named Roy. John has a mother named Emily, but no father. One day, they both commit a crime together and both go to jail. Why did each man do it?
--------------------------
I don't know what the average person would say about Joe, but I'll sure as heck bet I know what they'd say about John.
Every little detail in a story comes with a complex set of connotations. And a person's parents are not just a little detail, they're a big one. This woman, Nina, we're trying to figure her out, and this is a huge clue in my opinion.
For me I’m not totally sure that Lily represents the Black Swan. I’d say she is a balanced person, confident and comfortable with herself, and as such she represents an opposite of Nina, everything that Nina is not.
The other key function of Lily in the story is as a youthful substitute performer to Nina. By having her in the story we understand that Nina is replaceable and under threat the whole time. One way in which this is great story-telling is to take this antagonist character and have her be friendly. This makes their relationship far more compelling than if she was a snide villain.
The script I read for this struck me as being very clear on what the emotional path through the story was. In almost every scene you are told (yes told, as well as shown) what the prevalent emotion of this scene is.
For me these emotional cues are effective and I agree with the comments above that actors can be expected to perform them without the need for teeth grinding details.
I think that what this script has to offer us most as developing writers is its focus.
What I mean by that is that every possible moment and every single detail are focused on the main theme: that spiritual transcendence in art has been bastardized by the imposition of a rigid, hierarchical, corrupt structure and that in order to achieve physical transcendence to fame and recognition in today's society, artists must abandon any hope of spiritual transcendence.
Every character contributes to this. Every member of the company is a victim of structure, of being beholden to a dominant patriarch who uses and abuses them. Beth specifically suggests that the destruction of artists is cyclical, ongoing. Veronika shows the way in which artists are pitted against each other.
Nina and Lily represent the duality of the universe which our protagonist hopes to encompass.
Erica (and Nina's lack of a father) suggests that artists are not fostered and have no role models.
Minor characters are just as important. The Jittery Fan and others show the way that the public responds to celebrity rather than art, and the way in which this affects the artist.
Every plot point, every action of every character, is directly aimed at (whatever version you want of) the script's theme. No witty dialogue, no stylistic moments, no laughs. Every line is advancing the theme. Every moment feeds into the theme. This writer has something that he wants to say about the world, and it's the only thing he's looking to say, and he's not going to say anything else about anything else.
Focus. Everything for a reason. I think the script is very, very, very tight. This is what we should be working towards. No matter the size, scope, genre (and f*** "genre", anyway!) of your script, it should be THIS tight. This is how you get at meaning...by removing anything which does not directly fit that meaning.
I think it's a brilliant script. Could get better, sure, and did get better. Some funky dialogue here and there in my opinion, leading to a few inconsistencies in my view of Nina in particular. Some things a bit too on on the nose. But my hat is off to Heyman. Great work.
Those are my initial thoughts. Once I've had a chance to browse the thread a bit more I'll start arguing with Jeff or something.
Wow. We've had some excellent posts in this thread and this is one of them!
If this keeps up, this freaking thread is going to start to rival the movie in its own fashion.
You guys are killing me here...seriously, killing me with all this analysis BS of stuff that is either 100% obvious and no reason to bring up or discuss, or so out there, off the wall, that no one cares...or at least I sure don't care.
Chris you bring up some interesting things and some downright knee slappers. The Jittery Fan stuff is quite comical and you've kind of made my day, as I can't stop laughing about different scenarios I've been creating in my head, based on your comments.
If this doesn't make sense to you, just chalk it up to coming from me, who has no clue what he's talking about.
Rick, you continue to go into great detail about things that are so obvious and have already been agreed on, yet you gloss over or completely don't address other things that I bring up that you mot likely can't get yourself to agree to, but also know you can't argue.
The reason I am commenting on this early 129 page draft is because that's the draft that was posted here that we were supposedly going to discuss. It doesn't matter if it's a 1st or 32nd draft. If there are technical issues, they should be addressed.
I've brought up several times why this script runs 129 pages, yet no one seems to think that's an issue, nor can you agree with me on what I said.
Orphans, wrylies, asides and unfilmables have nothing to do with the theme or story. They do not add or detract from either. Are we in agreement on this, or are you going to somehow make an argument pout of this?
I hope you're going to agree with me, so, assuming that's true, why are you so against cleaning up the writing, whittling down the page count, getting close to a 1 to 1 page vs. runtime, without making a single change to the story, plot, and theme? How could this be a bad thing?
And, as I asked earlier, at what point is it no longer acceptable? Ho many page sdo you have to rack up before you say, "Hey, wait a minute here...this is too damn long, let's see why."?
Finally, 1 more time about this Pro vs Non Pro scripts/reads. You continually say that all Pro scripts read differently than Non Pro scripts, are better written, are deeper, and are basically free of all errors.
At what point is a Pro separated from a Non Pro? When they sell their first script? When they sell their first big script? If it sells or not, does that really make them a better writer at that exact instant? Does that give them carte blanche to write all the unfilmable asides they want to, and because they're Pro and therefor, their script is a Pro script, it's OK?
It's just unreal to me how many people glam onto something that is deemed as "worthy", or great, or whatever by the masses, and all of sudden, they can do no wrong and it's downright "perfect".
I obviously disagree whole heartedly. I'm a perfectionist and I know that nothing is prefect. There's always room for improvement and even the best are flawed in many ways. That doesn't make them bad or anything of the sort, but you need to open your mind and admit mistakes and flaws when they're brought out.
I didn't say it was perfect, I didn't even say I liked the movie, Oh.. maybe I did, cause I didn't hate it. But I did say I liked the script, a lot. It was an easy read for me, for some reason, it hooked me and I couldn't put it down.
But maybe cause I am not seasoned.
Anyway.. should this have won an academy award (it did right?), I don't know, is this ageless and classic? Not really.
But Hollywood seems to be fickle and maybe because she (Portman) seemed and I use the word SEEMED to stretch here as an actress. But did she really? Who really knows what she is like in person and maybe this was easy for her.
I guess what I am trying to say... is for me, the scripts rocked, the film was Interesting, and especially since we are comparing them here, gonna like some parts and not others... like the laughing wall of art.. and those crazy cartoony eyeballs. FAIL!
I've dealt with everything you've raised. I've done my best to point out that character directions are not unfilmmable and that it is accepted practice that you can describe their personality when you introduce characters.
Orphans may be technically wrong. I've never heard anyone mention them outside of this site tbh,not even in a book, but this is a draft script and it does make a difference that it is so...there's not much point in having drafts if each one has to be technically perfect.
I can't say I care very much about them. They seem to be mainly an American thing, from the Chicago Manual of Style (which sounds like a good film!). Probably more important in a novel, and more important for typesetters than anything else.
The only orphans you'll get in a film are the ones that are the main characters when the stories are based on the Hero's Journey structure.
I know it's important to you, but I think it's fair to say that your editing background predisposes you to putting undue importance on very minor details like that.
You are correct to point them out, your relentless pursuit of them in your work and others is admirable, and we should all do the same but we would also be advised to pursue other areas even more relentlessly.
The pro thing is a debate we've had before. All I can say is that there tends to be a difference between the pro scripts I've read and the pre-pro ones...generally speaking. Some people are closer, some are further away.
I actually enjoy reading pro scripts. A lot of the time I can't even decipher what's going on in a pre-pro one, I find them incredibly hard going, and I've had enough within 20 pages. Everything is explained in dialogue. Scenes don't seem to flow from one another. Transitions are weak. Characters aren't defined. Not much evidence of visual storytelling.
The biggest difference is what I and Heretic have said...attention to theme. You say it's obvious, and maybe it is..but it's the difference between someone who knows how to tell a story and someone who doesn't. They know what's important and what isn't, and have something to impart. There's no wasted time on pointless characters, no weird deviations on side issues that have no pay off...and probably a hundred things besides.
You become a pro writer when you make your living from selling scripts. You hit pro level with a singular script at the point you write a pro level script...proof of that is when you sell it for "major" money.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club XIV - Black Swan
Logged
