Aronofsky’s “Black Swan”: Where Ballet Meets Psycho

I’m excited to see ”Black Swan“ (coming Dec. 1).  It seems to combine both my love for ballet and my love for mystery and suspense.

The plot revolves around a talented young ballerina named Nina (Natalie Portman) who becomes the star of Swan Lake.  However, she has a strong competitor named Lily (Mila Kunis) who seeks to replace her.  In Nina’s role as the prima ballerina, she must play both the innocent and graceful White Swan (perfect for her) as well as the evil and conniving Black Swan (perfect for her competitor).  The more she tries to become the Black Swan, the more she becomes trapped in a world of back-stabbing and intrigue… of danger and excitement… and eventually finds herself no longer pretending to be the Black Swan but actually becoming one.  (Of course, it doesn’t help that Nina’s mom is a controlling ex-ballerina who pushes her even further to crazy obsession.) 

Several early reviews of the movie have put it as a contender for Best Picture for the Oscars next year.  And, Natalie Portman’s portrayal is apparently superb, so she will most likely get nominated for Best Actress.  Currently rated as 93% @ RT.

Since my favorite reviewer is A.O. Scott from NYT, I must put a few of my favorite quotes from his review of “Black Swan”:

• [I]ntensity — a swirl of dread, suspense and almost tactile beauty, brought to fever pitch by Clint Mansell’s Tchaikovsky-on-steroids score — is certainly what “Black Swan” delivers.
• The visceral impact of “Black Swan” is hard to dispute — at least my own pounding heart and clammy palms do not dispute it[...]

Overall, I can’t wait to see it!

•Post-Oscar Reviews, pt 1: the PAPD scoring card

First, I must congratulate myself on my predictions!!!

And now, before we let the judging of judges begin, I must make a note that this post-Oscar review will (unfortunately) have to be split into 3 parts so that my readers will not be overwhelmed with the vast amount of information I am about to disseminate.  The 3-part series will comprise of the following:

1. PAPD scoring card
2. Reviews of the 5 best picture nominated films
3. Conclusion on winners: best actor, best actress and best picture

As I had mentioned in my first Oscar-related post, most years, the audiences and the Academy disagree on who should win the little golden statue.  Fans go on rampages over the arbitrary selection of winners that seem to suggest the Academy judges are like the trophies they dole out—old, bald and mostly stiff.  Last year, I almost gagged on my own disbelief as I watched “No Country for Old Men” take home “Best Picture.”  I saw that movie and—trust me—it’s called “No Country for Old Men” for good reason… because the film was so boring that everyone would have shot themselves after enduring two hours of onslaught and diabolicalness if not for the hope that some picture more deserving would win “Best Picture”.  Granted, Javier Bardem played a great diabolical character, but the film moved at such a slow pace that my friend and I were elated when the credits came on!  I felt that “There Will Be Blood” was a much better representation of what “Best Picture” should be: great plot, great actors and great pace.  Needless to say, I was poised and ready for a grand battle with the judges this year.  Luckily, the Academy and I agreed…

Before I delve into why I chose those specific winners, let me provide a little background into my decision-making process.  In any type of judging, one must have a clear set of criteria.  For Best Actor/Actress, I did not have one.  In order to be completely fair, I would have had to watch all the movies in which these actors/actresses had been nominated.  I’m sorry, but HELL NO!  I love movies, yet one can only take so much drama, agony, desperation, over-acting, and somewhat heavy plotline in a short time span.  So, instead, I chose the actors I felt performed the best in the films I had seen.  For Best Picture category, I gave a much fairer judging.  Here is my rating system, aka the PAPD scoring card (1-5, 5 being the best):

• Plot: Was the plotline intriguing? Did it capture my attention? Was it different from what I had expected? Did the plotline provide a deeper meaning?
• Actors: Were they believable? Did they capture the essence of what the film wanted to depict? Did the cast complement each other?
• Pace: Was the film paced adequately? (i.e. Did it start too slow/fast? Did the plot feel rushed or overly extended?)
• Direction: Did the structure of the scenes help the film tell the story it wanted to tell? (i.e. Did the camera angles provide the necessary “umph” to jolt me into excitement? Did the Director do a good job in joining scenes?)