Cool insight, Sandra!  Never thought about the padding/mattresses that way.

Here are some ideas for discussion questions.

1.  What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict?  How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told?  Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator (Nina is in every scene and we generally seem to share her point of view, seeing only what she sees) add to this, or detract?  Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract?

2.  Almost every character in the script serves as a supporting antagonist in some way.  Is Nina the main antagonist?  Or is Lily?  Yevna?  Are there any antagonistic characters that are unnecessary?  

3.  What one scene, character, or element would you take out of this script?  What one scene, character, or element would you put in?

4.  When writing a film set in a specific environment (in this case, a ballet company), to what extent is it important to "teach" the audience about that specific environment?

5.  Would this story work in any place, time, and environment?  Does it have to be about ballet, or in America, or about a woman?  Why or why not?  Should all scripts be universal in that changing place, time, or environment doesn't really affect the story?  Why or why not?  

Quoted from Heretic 1.  What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict?  How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told?  Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator (Nina is in every scene and we generally seem to share her point of view, seeing only what she sees) add to this, or detract?  Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract?

First of all, is Nina a Protag or an Antag?  Or both?

As the story plays out, I think Nina is definitely our Protag, but in reality, she's her own Antag, so IMO, she's both.

It affects the way the story is told in every way, as you correctly pointed out, she's in every scene, and is really, the only one we care for, root for, and fear for.  Th entire story is told through her perspective and even "eyes".  Others actions all directly impact her, and her alone.

For me, this gives this the very small feel I keep mentioning.

The small cast and minimal locations only add to this feel for me.

Quoted from Heretic Cool insight, Sandra!  Never thought about the padding/mattresses that way. Here are some ideas for discussion questions. 1.  What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict?  How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told?  Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator (Nina is in every scene and we generally seem to share her point of view, seeing only what she sees) add to this, or detract?  Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract? 2.  Almost every character in the script serves as a supporting antagonist in some way.  Is Nina the main antagonist?  Or is Lily?  Yevna?  Are there any antagonistic characters that are unnecessary?   3.  What one scene, character, or element would you take out of this script?  What one scene, character, or element would you put in? 4.  When writing a film set in a specific environment (in this case, a ballet company), to what extent is it important to "teach" the audience about that specific environment? 5.  Would this story work in any place, time, and environment?  Does it have to be about ballet, or in America, or about a woman?  Why or why not?  Should all scripts be universal in that changing place, time, or environment doesn't really affect the story?  Why or why not?

I'm going to tackle #1 first.

This is a story very much about obsession and single-mindedness as much as it is about anything else you might care to name and of course there's a lot.

Within this obsession, lying together with it is its companion: perfection. A very dangerous combination in their extreme forms even in a person who is apparently completely in the normal sphere. Nina of course is not even close. Her world has been completely framed by the narrow world of ballet. From her apartment to the subway, to the rehearsal space. That's it. ...

What can this script teach us about "protagonist versus self" type of conflict?

Well, what's happening on the outside mirrors what's happening on the inside for one. For example:

Nina's circumstances are a product of everything she was molded into. She's got the genetics and dreams of her mother. She's got the isolated way of living and thinking. She has no real friends. She has no friends that live a different life outside of the theatre. Because of the narrow scope of her existence, she simply doesn't have the mental ability to do or think anything different. From that respect she is truly very much a child. The exterior of her room is purely a mirror of her mental state, much like a messy room mirrors either a person who is too involved in other things to care, or perhaps they're highly unorganized, or they're severly depressed etc... all kinds of reasons there, but truly, the exterior does mirror the interior.

This is a known fact in reality not only movies. Our choices, all of our choices make up the characters we are. Everything from our attraction to certain types of environments, people-- or the opposite, desire for isolation, to the cover we desire to put on our bed. This movie shows the character versus themselves through the people and things that surround them (Nina).

And really, we can see that she has no choice in the matter. It's completely beyond her to think anything else. She really literally would need a kind of fairy godmother to come and say, "Hey, listen. You need to lighten up. Have a good time. Forget all this about transcendence. You're taking this all too seriously and its costing you."

I'm taking the perspective that one way to show self vs. self (because you can't literally break yourself into two people) is to show the obstacles to the person and that's what this movie did with the people surrounding Nina. They were all obstacles for her and the greatest of them all was her double, or dark side that she was afraid to unleash.

If we want to consider how the story's telling is affected by this kind of conflict, I think the first thing that we're going to have is a lot of reaction shots because it's a story about perception. Unlike some kind of hero movie, it's not about getting something that's tangible. It's more about "getting out" of something that's not even real in the first place. Does that really amount to a freakin' load of sense, Sandra?  

The unreliable POV is perfect for this.

And finally:

The small number of characters and locations are what this is about. This isn't a movie about Nina getting a call from her Grandpa, (if she has one) and having the opportunity to stay at his farm to get away from New York for the summer. It's not about anything but the small world she lives in; so what better way to show this than with few characters and locations.

Sandra

1
This is the toughest question.  I don’t know, but I would have to say that artists are self-absorbed even when they are  not mentally ill to Nina’s extent.  But to “get into her head” we needed to be there, along for the rid with her.

2.
Yes, Nina for sure is her own worst enemy IMHO, as is the case with most phychosis.  I think that every character was necessary.
Was Erika really necessary?  I mean really?  Nina could have been a socially inept, loaner without a soul in the world and still been as pathetic if not more so
3.
I would have taken out that crazy art room.  I would have left in the sex scene with the mirror!  LOL


4. Not important.. we cannot teach the audience all about horse racing (for instance) but a general over view is good.  I don’t want a lesson when I see a movie, I want to be entertained.

5. This movie had to be about ballet as it centered so much on the ballet of the swan.  There could be no other or it would be  completely different movie, with a different story, same plot maybe but different story.

Check it out, I was brave and tried to answer all!  See what some reisling will do!!!

Quoted from dmc2011 1 2. Yes, Nina for sure is her own worst enemy IMHO, as is the case with most phychosis.  I think that every character was necessary. Was Erika really necessary?  I mean really?  Nina could have been a socially inept, loaner without a soul in the world and still been as pathetic if not more so

I disagree here, sorry, dmc. I don't think Nina was pathetic. To me, pathetic denotes a kind of inadequacy and apathy. She however was willing to sacrifice everything she had to get to her perceived perfection.

Was Erika really necessary?

Of course. She's her mother! She woudn't have been born without her. She wouldn't be in the ballet if it weren't for her. Yada-yada-yada on it goes.

Sandra

I think it was Blake that said the transition of Act Two to Act Three is when the protagonist dies and is reborn as someone new. Something like that, anyway. What if there was a rebirth, but the old self did not die? So there is a split. Is that what happened here? I haven't read it yet, but it sounds like the Third Act was a battle between her old self and the new one trying to be born.

I guess that sounds crazy.

But Sandra, your post sounds brilliant! Very interesting observation. Especially the part about her room reflecting her inner state.

But everyone has a mother and we don't have to see them in the movie as a part!!!!

I am just saying that she served to make Nina look weaker, and also to make her look like she is trying to get stronger... when she says she is moving, which never happens...

I think it could have been done without her actually, maybe more strongly.

Quoted from leitskev I think it was Blake that said the transition of Act Two to Act Three is when the protagonist dies and is reborn as someone new. Something like that, anyway. What if there was a rebirth, but the old self did not die? So there is a split. Is that what happened here? I haven't read it yet, but it sounds like the Third Act was a battle between her old self and the new one trying to be born. I guess that sounds crazy. But Sandra, your post sounds brilliant! Very interesting observation. Especially the part about her room reflecting her inner state.

This brilliance was on the part of the writers and everyone involved. They just kept upping the importance of everything and brought it all into frame. Thank you though, Kevin.

Sandra

Quoted from dmc2011 But everyone has a mother and we don't have to see them in the movie as a part!!!! I am just saying that she served to make Nina look weaker, and also to make her look like she is trying to get stronger... when she says she is moving, which never happens... I think it could have been done without her actually, maybe more strongly.

You are correct that everyone has a mother and not every story needs her. That is absolutely correct. This one however-- this particular story needed her. In the script that both you and I read however, she was much more flat than in the movie. In my estimation anyway.

Sandra

Without Erica, the Mom, we'd have 1 less character and we're already paper thin on characters.

In the filmed version, I think Erica was a vital element of everything that transpired.

Quoted from Heretic 1.  What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict?   - How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told?   - Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator... add to this, or detract?   - Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract?

Kinda shotgunned those in there, eh? Cool.
Protag v. Self is person v. self type of conflict, often this parallels some external person v. some externality: resolve the inner conflict to resolve the outer.

Doing it this way is a very specific choice for the screenwriter to pursue.
Most creature features have little to no mamby-pamby "internal conflict" goobledy-gok! People are dying, dammit! RUN!
However, these personal drama and tragedy stories are replete with internal strife.
The very nature of the self v. self conflict construct forces the story into certain parameters that can just be skipped in the absence of internal conflict.

Unreliable self v. self adds complexity to the story.
So, if this is going to be your primary antag it'll likely come at the time and attention expense of other characters or situation.
We ain't writing novels unlimited. We got 90 to 110 minutes to tell what we gotta tell, not all the personal baggage of everyone that walks in front of the camera. (Odds are, the more personal baggage someone has the exponentially less interesting any of it becomes).

Small cast is likely crucial to defining the optimal depth of a protag's self deficiencies.
Seems like there is a zero-sum inverse relationship. If primary protag occupies 50% of the story, then the remainder needs to be divided amongst all characters secondary to him/her.
Every additional secondary character added comes at the lines-of-development expense of the others, so budget your lines accordingly.

Quoted from Heretic 2.  Almost every character in the script serves as a supporting antagonist in some way.  Is Nina the main antagonist?  Or is Lily?  Yevna?  Are there any antagonistic characters that are unnecessary?

YEVNA serves as the principle antag. Although not an classic Dr. Evil sort of bad guy, he exists in a common position of decision making power which the viewing public loves to visualize as their own evil supervisor/boss/manager.  F#ckit. The guy's in a position of responsibility. He's gotta make decisions for the company or else the donor cash dries up and they're all out of a job. Cut the prick some slack.

LILY to me is a pretty interesting cog in the wheel.
Nowhere in the screenplay nor film is she overtly gunning for NINA's spot.
SURE! if YEVNA asks them to be SQ they'd be tickled, but... Frankly, no one is knifing anyone to be Swan Queen. They all just pretty much go with it.

ERICA's the only real impediment. But with her own mental health issues it's kinda hard to point the finger of blame at her and say "Baaaaaad mother!". Sh!t. Girl just needs some Zoloft or Prozac or something.
"Welcome to the twenty-first century, Mom!"

And this all kinda dances around the one element glaringly omitted from the entire story: compassion.
Every character around NINA sees her f#cked up mental health issues but not a d@mn soul says "Hey, maybe yelling at you and beating you like a dog doesn't push you towards what YEVNA wants to see in the Black Swan. Maybe we all need to go out together and have some drinks, play a few games of Uno or Pictionary after practice. Who wants to order a cup of noodles and we'll split it twenty ways?!"
How about ERICA says something effing nice without any backhanded compliments?
How about YEVNA taking her out for ice skating or horse drawn carriage ride around the park, no strings attached? (That'd be some alternative leadership HR probably wouldn't sh!t kittens over).
How about LILY quit telling her to lighten up alllll the GD time? How about giving her a Cymbalta instead of an Ecstasy?
How about the COSTUMER keep her GD comments to herself like a effing professional?

Nope.
None of that.

To me, the destauration of thoughtful compassion and sensible employee management are what make this story... not like real life, which doesn't entertain sh!t.

Quoted from Heretic 3.  What one scene, character, or element would you take out of this script?  What one scene, character, or element would you put in?

Pirate's Code: Script's a guideline, more like suggestions than actual rule book.

I've seen enough director/producer/actor/writer commentaries to believe in any fantasy "The Holy Screenplay shall not be deviated from"!
Pfft! Ha!
Grow up, Pee Wee.
The story needs to be fundamentally compelling enough for someone to spend several, if not many, millions of dollars to produce it.
Money.
Real money.
You wanna get paid in real money? Then the whole kit-and-kaboodle is gonna cost real money for production alone. And then there's P&A, promotion and advertising, and distribution.

How much money are you spending on your screenplay?
Yeah.

Quoted from Heretic 4.  When writing a film set in a specific environment (in this case, a ballet company), to what extent is it important to "teach" the audience about that specific environment?

This is exactly where I get into trouble.
If I expect the audience to bring a lot to the table I get slammed for being too cryptic and no one know WTH I'm yammering about. ("What's that critter? What's a APC? I don't know my Glock from my Beretta. Waaa Waa Waa").
If I spoon feed 'em I get slammed for too much exposition.
And you know what?
IT DOESN"T BLINKIN' MATTER, 'CAUS THE DIRECTOR IS GONNA TURN IT INTO COLE SLAW!

Bones!
Bones!
Bones!

Fabricate a story with good bones!

Quoted from Heretic 5.  Would this story work in any place, time, and environment?  Does it have to be about ballet, or in America, or about a woman?  Why or why not?  Should all scripts be universal in that changing place, time, or environment doesn't really affect the story?  Why or why not?

H#ll no, it's not specific to ballet.

- Fireman PHIL loves the trucks, the sirens, the gear, the camraderie, but is scared sh!tless of NOT finding the person in the burning house. Consequently he balks at running into any burning building and mans the trucks.

- Policeman PETE has made a career advancing through the ranks from flatfoot to detective, but can't get what he wants the most: to pass the bar exam. Test anxiety paralyzes him, and everyone's pity-fueled encouragement only makes it worse.

- Actress ANGIE is the biggest paid Hollywood star as the Pinnacle of Purity. She's the goto girl for "Goodliness!" But her starlet days fade as her crows feet deepen. This gig can't last forever and she knows it. And the one thing she wants the most, to stand on the other side of the camera as director, is denied her due to ghost of a single casting couch past!

See?
I can do this sh!t all night.

- Animal trainer with an embarrassing bestiality fetish.
- Podiatrist that can't stop thinking of hair care.
- Circus clowns that want to start their own law firm.

Anything. Just find a conflict and grind it against against a mental health issue you and I would say "Okay" to and move on. but, noooo! Not your protag. Protag's gotta overthink the bejeezus out of the fantastically mundane.

Ta-da!
Conflict = story.

Quoted from RayW To me, the destauration of thoughtful compassion and sensible employee management are what make this story... not like real life, which doesn't entertain sh!t.

And that must be true in a lot of circles because sheeple flock to any kind of screen entertainment that satisfies them. They do not know how to entertain themselves.

People, on the other hand, are discriminating. They don't just read or watch anything. It's purposeful when they decide to invest time into something.

Ray, everything you said in the above post reads loud and clear for me. You have all your ducks in a row.  

Sandra

Ray Rocks!!!


bone bones bones people!!!

I love your loglines too.

U funny!!!

Ray, although you do ROCK, I have absolutely no clue what you're saying here, nor am I going to read it again to try and decipher it.

But, apparently whatever the Hell you're saying got through to the girls, so Kudos on that.

I still have to handle the next questions that Heretic so generously posed.

Really. Thank you so very much. Does anyone recognize the generosity here?

I am about to "hit the hay" but before I do, I came across a "holy shite moment".

We're all struggling to write and rewrite, I know. You can probably relate to this then-- when you find something you've written and you say, "I wrote that?!!!"

I'm bringing this up because in the interview that Heretic so generously supplied, we learn that although it's important to KNOW OUR STORY!!!  We must give ourselves permission to let our story develop, morph, mutate, evolve-- any number of qualifiers you want to give it. But...

Always have the central story before you. Whatever it is at any given time. Sounds easy. Hard as Hell. With a capital "H". (Ray can do it in his sleep, I know... but he's a prodigy.)

So here goes:

(And you may ask: What's it got to do with Black Swan?")

Double U, T, Eff ... What's The Understudy got to do with Black Swan?  

This is just some old piece of shite that I found lying around, but it shure's hell made me curious.

Qualifier: Novelesque

The Fire Lady                                                         Word 4,299

     Roman appeared to be constricted for a moment.  He was trying to explain magic and then found himself in a scientific quandary.  There was a knock at the door and Leanne Wallace, the house attendant entered with a rolling cart carrying a couple of carafes filled with hot coffee, trays of assorted sandwiches, potato chips, olives, pickles, and an array of rich dark chocolates in a shallow bowl displaying the  squares, crescents and other interesting shapes all mounded neatly.

“Leanne, fabulous! Roman exclaimed delighted.  

“Paul, this is Leanne.  She does so much around here I lose track.”
     
“But you’re the best to work for I say.  Very pleased I’m sure.”  Leanne held out her hand to meet Paul’s.  She gripped it with a sturdy grace and turned to the tray, explaining the kinds of sandwiches and that Philip Gallier the cook had tried something new with a curry paste, cream cheese and sun dried tomatoes.  

“Extracts for coffee—here if you like.  Anything else Sir?”
     
“More than enough dear, more than enough.”  Leanne was out like the flitting of a bird, her word “enjoy” still hanging in the air as the door closed meekly.
     
“Kingly much?”  Paul teased.
     
“You know, I tell them.  "Don’t overdue, but I must say that I rather like not knowing what is coming from the kitchen next.”

Roman stood up and handed Paul a serve and they began heaping the interesting morsels on their plates and filling their cups with coffee.
     
“Well, let’s begin,” said Roman now with a mouthful of sandwich.

“Mmm…got to tell Philip this curry spread is good.”  Paul was nodding with enormous satisfaction, humming the same sound.  
     
“Now here I am, Roman, your brother and student.  Ready to understand what can’t be explained.”
     
“That is just it, Paul.  So settle yourself in for a bit of a lecture.  It’s impossible to discuss magic without speaking of science and religion but here is the dilemma.  Magic to science is foolish and to religion is evil.”

Paul crunched down on a pickle and drew up a handful of potato chips while Roman began to speak of the world and its age, about polar shifts and ancient nuclear wars and he put his plate aside for awhile to sip his coffee and just listen.  He admired Roman for his depth and intensity.  And while he reclined somewhat in the overstuffed chair, he wondered what his last life with Roman might have been, and now he couldn’t imagine how he’d lived this life so far without him.  

He was interested now, in more than just the magic, but in Roman; in his soul’s hard edge, resolute and secure, demanding attention without effort, but by presence,  magnetic and brimming with exuberance; and… daring to be childish, to click his tongue or make a face, to dance a pirouette or bow as on stage.  

Yes..

He’d seen it that first night at the cemetery.  Among the dead, he danced, and he stumbled and fell, holding safe his bottle of whiskey.  He could be serious but he could be wild and romantic, impishly full of delight, or sullen.  Roman was a man of action and even in composure, or with subtle means; while without gesture, or sound, he would still be impressing something on the air around him; by virtue of silence, of holding the dead air, filled with concentration, and lifting it up like a god—still and reverent—and so that in between his declamatory speeches, the stillness would capture one like a whisper, a secret.  

But if he laughed, or played...

...it must have been for relief-- from the edge which compelled him; and, after he was sufficiently drained, something collusive would invariably drift in the wake of all the elaborate form and voice, as if benevolence were competing with some other dark splinter in his soul...

...as if he were beholden to repentance, his intensity thick as black through a fog.  There was something else too.   Roman was more than loud and formidable, he was gentle and contrite.  And Paul tried to understand this new brother of his and to understand what it meant to be involved in causality.
     

“…so how does magic fit with science or religion?  Quite honestly it defies both for both are strangled by orthodoxy.  There are those scientists who believe in Uniformitarianism.  In its most basic sense, its name describes it.  The idea of geological consequences coming gradually over time.  Mountains slowly lifting out of the sea bringing to great heights what once existed on the sea floor.  The concepts of erosion by wind and water over long periods of time—the idea that all of the changes come out of the same processes that have always existed and so we should be able to infer today, by what happened in the past—or put another way, the events that shaped the earth yesterday-- are the same as today.  

It’s often been attributed to James Hutton in the 18th century, but the actual name was coined by William Whewell who was encapsulating Hutton’s sense of natural order throughout time and Charles Lyell’s views of that with respect to its rates and changes.  It’s interesting to note that William who was a great man of science opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution and in 1845 published a book called:

Indications of the Creator.

He was the one who actually created the words:

Scientist

and

Physicist ...

From a similar word with “ist”—ar—tist.”  Roman enunciated while tossing his hands forward like a conductor calling halt.  “And so thereby natural philosophers became scientists.  But I’m digressing here.  I want to make the point though that just because certain fundamental ideas often overlap with evolutionism, they are not one and the same.  And Unformatarianism in its strictest sense rejects catastrophes.  For instance, Lyell had went further with the idea and considered more than just geology but also biology—how changing environments affected species and the faunal character of an area.  He knew that environments could play a role in extinctions.  But he rejected the idea of progressive change throughout time.  So, although he was a gradualist, he wasn’t a progressionist.  But the idea of uniformity—the idea implies consistency even as it relates to change.  It has its kinks.  

Roman stopped to pour more coffee and turned on the lights as the sky was growing dark and the day, a memory.

***

As I re-read this, I realize that it's not clear that Paul is arriving at the door. and that he is Roman's brother.

The dynamics are highly important because they are the basis for everything else that will take place.

***Back to Black Swan:

THE FUNNELING PROCESS

Black Swan very muchly began as The Understudy.

It morphed into something that was wilder than the original dream/s.

THIEF, conceived by Michael Cornetto, and developed by many individuals on Simplyscripts, I believe is the same kind of animal...

Gary Grademan has spent countless hours lending his solid hand. Also, there are others, where, work and day-to-day gets in the way and suffocates development. Point is though...

Many of us working on the project still feel its charm. We haven't given up. That's important.

In Hebrew, the word for faith is:

Emuna.

To bring this back around to Black Swan, which is the topic of this thread obviously-- dah!!!

I believe that the success doesn't have to do with skill and lucky accidents in filming and all of that. I believe it has to do with the people involved and the faith they expressed in their day-to-day lives.

That's what I admire and that's  what I hope to re-construct in my life and the people around me.

Thanks guys! You're ace!!!

Sandra