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.
That's fine with me Sandra. Gives me a chance to catch up tomorrow.
I think I just like to be a connoisseur. I hope no one minds.
Just about ten minutes ago, I finished watching this the second time. I was able to see things in it I didn't the first go around. I loved the direction and really appreciated all of the angles.
As far as Erica's room and the plastered wall of pictures goes, my problem with it was it just didn't last long enough. My eyes aren't like a vacuum cleaner and I couldn't suck it in fast enough. I would have liked to linger in that room for awhile.
Just about ten minutes ago, I finished watching this the second time. I was able to see things in it I didn't the first go around. I loved the direction and really appreciated all of the angles.
As far as Erica's room and the plastered wall of pictures goes, my problem with it was it just didn't last long enough. My eyes aren't like a vacuum cleaner and I couldn't suck it in fast enough. I would have liked to linger in that room for awhile.
I also benefited from having watched the movie a couple extra times, especially after I had read Heyman's screenplay.
And then after having watched the film I reread the screenplay and found it appropriate to adjust some biases I had assigned to some story elements as I took notes due to recollections of my first viewing of the film months ago.
I'll confess to some distinct impression and interpretational reversals due to biases, and I feel a more robust critique comes from including the additional process, time and effort consuming PITA that it is.
I'll confess to some distinct impression and interpretational reversals due to biases, and I feel a more robust critique comes from including the additional process, time and effort consuming PITA that it is.
I agree. I am no where near your level of critique ability, Ray, but I sure will understand anyone who (like Jeff) might not appreciate this film.
In my opinion, this is a film you either feel or you don't feel. I imagine it's like some people who can go to an art exhibit and really feel the person behind the work, whereas others might stand there and wonder what on earth one sees in the picture/sculpture or whatever it might be.
There are many comments early in this thread that absorb the belief that the film exceeds artistically whereas the script, though well told, is plain by comparison. I would have to agree with this, and maybe writers need to sometimes take themselves a little less seriously and realize that they're just another small link in the artistic chain... unless of course, they're taking on the whole of the project themselves and then they are like gods.
There were a couple of excellent choices (more than that) that were made in the movie. When we followed Nina from behind, this was so different than the usual front portrayal, right away, it's a subconscious thing, but we feel the difference, as if something's askew. As a matter of fact, a lot of shots were like this, deliberately off the norm. Don't ask me how. I don't have a clue, but I can sense it. You tell me.
Particularly, in the beginning, when Nina is speaking about her dream, we need to do a double take. Who's she talking to? As if to herself, but maybe Erica is there at that moment. I'm still not sure.
I think anyone who thinks the film is small has missed out on what it's actually about and is only picking up on the literal level.
It's an allegory that works on many levels. You can read it as someone who has a Dissociative identity disorder, which seems to be the most common level.
However it's really about the nature of fame and the sacrifice on a spiritual level needed to become a world famous star. It's a damning expose of the entertainment Industry.
The essential story is as old as time. You see it in the Bible, in Buddhism, Black Magic, Western Hermeticism, Thelema...etc.
It's the idea that someone who can completely embody both good and evil, the Yin and the Yang etc has the ability to transcend existence.
This results in immortality...Jesus (who has the keys to hell, and is also the son of God), Buddha, the Taoist immortals etc. But the price is always physical death.
A recent film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus recently went into great depth about this, and is an overtly occult film. However the idea can even be seen in Star Wars.
When Darth Vader, the ultimate expression of evil, saves his son, he transcends. He becomes immortal, but his body dies.
In Black Swan the transcendence is hollow. Her actions will make her legend, but there's no spiritual transcendence.
It's a bleak look at the Entertainment Industry and the way they take innocent young girls (eg Britney Spears) turn them into raving sex vixens to make them famous, then spit them out when they're done.
The corruption of Nina by Thomas is an allegory for the way the Music Industry handles its young entertainers.
Aronofsky also weaves in conspiracy theory about Monarch Programming.
A lot of the imagery used, (White Rabbits, Pink, Cracked mirrors, drugs etc) is based on what the CIA supposedly did to people to deliberately create multiple personalities in order to control their minds.
The conspiracy theory is that the Entertainment Industry uses these techniques to create its stars. Aronofsky takes these ideas and weaves them into the whole fabric of the film.
So, yeah, it's far, far from being a small film. It's incrediby deep and goes to places most filmmakers aren't even aware of, let alone have the talent to discuss.
As I recall in the beginning of the film, we hear someone almost noiselessly open Nina's door, the light falls across Nina's smiling face -- a few moments later when Nina is stretching, a woman's (Erica's) dark form hurries by in the mirror. I was impressed that the first words that Nina speaks in the film are about her dream, in the script she says a very meek "thank you" to Erica for the 4 sugar lumps. I thought the script was going to go for some sort of hummingbird (lives on sugar water, moves so fast you can hardly see it, actually flies backward so it seems to see itself coming and going ((as it were))) but did not, unless I missed it. The 4 sugar lumps was an odd moment though, yes? Note: not a reference to CIA and LSD. Not consciously, anyway. But an odd moment, for sure.
Why was the 4 lumps odd? Nina is on a diet and has to watch what she eats, Erica isn't. It's shown and stated several time about Nina's 'weight', the fat woman at the underground, the fat nurse, the costumers comments about her hips, the black dress barely fitting her etc, the contstant demand for perfection. What's odd if anything is that Erica's behaviour to do that so overtly is almost abusive to Nina. Erica is aware of Nina mental state, or so it would seem.
I took the four lumps thing just as a way of showing how "young" she is mentally. Kids always want really sweet things. The fact she has to get permission also shows how stunted her development as an individual has been.
A "normal" amount of sugar wouldn't have made that point.
Erica is trying to retard her progress into adulthood. She wants to keep her as a little girl under her control...she even dresses her which subtly hints at a breach in the incest taboo...something they really brought out in the film to an uncomfortable level....We later see she is even a block to Nina masturbating and discovering her own sexuality.
She is being mentally abused (perhaps physically at some earlier point) by her mother who seems to be trying to live out her life vicariously through Nina.
This is the development theory of Multiple Personality Disorder:
Development theory
It has been theorized that severe sexual, physical, or psychological trauma in childhood predisposes an individual to the development of DID. The steps in the development of a dissociative identity are theorized to be as follows:
1.The child is harmed by a trusted caregiver (often a parent or guardian) and splits off the awareness and memory of the traumatic event to survive in the relationship. 2.The memories and feelings go into the subconscious and are experienced later in the form of a separate personality. 3.The process happens repeatedly at different times so that different personalities develop, containing different memories and performing different functions that are helpful or destructive. 4.Dissociation becomes a coping mechanism for the individual when faced with further stressful situations.[41]
ok, Nina is young mentally, so that would seem to give Erica extra responsibility to keep Nina on track. Also, since Erica is serving the meal, she (Erica) has some responsibility for what Nina consumes.
Nina's imploring glance, wanting more sugar (affection? attention? how much is enough?), causes the begrudging response from Erica... maybe they do this routine everyday... I think it was the right decision to leave this out of the film, it makes Nina seem needy in a controlling sort of way. Just my humble opinion, of course.
I think anyone who thinks the film is small has missed out on what it's actually about and is only picking up on the literal level.
It's an allegory that works on many levels. You can read it as someone who has a Dissociative identity disorder, which seems to be the most common level.
However it's really about the nature of fame and the sacrifice on a spiritual level needed to become a world famous star. It's a damning expose of the entertainment Industry.
The essential story is as old as time. You see it in the Bible, in Buddhism, Black Magic, Western Hermeticism, Thelema...etc.
It's the idea that someone who can completely embody both good and evil, the Yin and the Yang etc has the ability to transcend existence.
This results in immortality...Jesus (who has the keys to hell, and is also the son of God), Buddha, the Taoist immortals etc. But the price is always physical death.
A recent film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus recently went into great depth about this, and is an overtly occult film. However the idea can even be seen in Star Wars.
When Darth Vader, the ultimate expression of evil, saves his son, he transcends. He becomes immortal, but his body dies.
In Black Swan the transcendence is hollow. Her actions will make her legend, but there's no spiritual transcendence.
It's a bleak look at the Entertainment Industry and the way they take innocent young girls (eg Britney Spears) turn them into raving sex vixens to make them famous, then spit them out when they're done.
The corruption of Nina by Thomas is an allegory for the way the Music Industry handles its young entertainers.
Aronofsky also weaves in conspiracy theory about Monarch Programming.
A lot of the imagery used, (White Rabbits, Pink, Cracked mirrors, drugs etc) is based on what the CIA supposedly did to people to deliberately create multiple personalities in order to control their minds.
The conspiracy theory is that the Entertainment Industry uses these techniques to create its stars. Aronofsky takes these ideas and weaves them into the whole fabric of the film.
So, yeah, it's far, far from being a small film. It's incrediby deep and goes to places most filmmakers aren't even aware of, let alone have the talent to discuss.
Rick, you have put this so wonderfully well. What is interesting, is that we feel that industry of the exterior, but we never see it. We never really see a lot except for the bit with the autograph. It's very capsulized in that sense where it creates a kind of hollow whereby we witness the subject from the interior lives of the mother/daughter and feel their view as narrow and shallow and yes great, because of all of the sacrifice, but ultimately it amounts to nothing and somehow we have to know perfection in that truth as it lands, on soft padding, to die, to live the part, to the end.
It stands out to me, the first time we glimpse Erica, her smile is so very warm, then later, in subtle tugs, we see her other side and always, get the feeling that she means well, but is misguided in her treatment of Nina. In fact we have no idea what kind of upbringing she had. We can only guess, that since she too, lived the ballerina life, likewise, she might have been the victim of a domineering mother and is perpetuating the cycle.
I understand that "the smallness" to which Jeff refers is only in regards to locations and the action of "what is happening" relating to plot. I think that is what you're saying, right Jeff? Indeed, it isn't a big movie from that perspective. It's a very intricate movie. It didn't take us out onto the streets of the world really. Most we got was the subway and its tunnels. Was there one scene where we could glimpse a mountain top? The sun setting? A tree? No. All we got was a dark apartment. A subway. A theatre. A bar. A hospital. Small. Yes. Makes one think.
As long as we are discussing food I was wondering why they both had to say PRETTY at the same time about the pink grapefruit. That really struck me as odd. How do that move the story forward? Did it try to form some kind of common ground?
I that "SMALL" FILM meant that it was filmed in only a few locations. This was a deep film, to say the least.
It always amazes me how different people are. How they look at the same thing and see something so completely different. I don't think that's a bad thing, either.
But, I think everyone needs to try and understand that everything is different, depending on how you see it...hear it, or experience it.
Sandra made a very good point, and although it's so obvious, it always make sense to point it out.
Art - all in the eye of the beholder. Shocking how 180 degrees differently, the same exact thing can be viewed. Back when I was doing well financially, I liked buying art...fairly expensive art. Some of my friends like it...some love it, like I do, yet others think I'm absolutely nuts, as they not only don't like it, but they wonder why in the world I'd spend that kind of money on a piece of art in the first place, and then, why of all things the ones I chose?
Art's a personal thing. I personally get alot of pleasure looking at my pieces. They move me...make me happy...take me back to happy times.
I said I see this as a very small script and film, and Rick sees it as exactly the opposite. Rick laid out a very well thought out post on what he sees here and why it's not a small film in any way.
I totally understand where he's coming from and agree it's a well written post...but it doesn't change my feelings at all. To me, it's once again reading into to something and drawing correlations to literally everything in the script with "big" outside world things and issues.
My mind doesn't work that way, and I find it downright humorous (nothing against Rick at all, BTW!).
We all see things differently and that's a good thing. I'm going to bring up things in the script that I know no one saw. Some will say these things don't matter. Some will call me nuts. But a few will be intrigued and see what I'm saying and what I'm getting at, and maybe...even agree.
The Pink thing is a nod towards Erica's control over Nina. She keeps her dressed and has her room made out like a little girls. She even sleeps in her room.
It essentially shows the influence of Erica over Nina. That Nina has come to mirror the personality Erica expects of her.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club XIV - Black Swan
Logged
