Black Swan

Dir: Darren Aronofsky

2010

*****

Darren Aronofsky’s 2010 psychological horror Black Swan is astonishing. It had been a while since a film had taken my breath away quite like it did, although I don't know why I was surprised, I've been a huge fan of Darren Aronofsky since Pi, the man is a genius. His depiction of the world of Ballet is spot on. I've actually lived with a couple of Ballerinas and their discipline, focus and obsession was quite frightening at times, indeed one of them utterly ruined herself in the process. I haven't liked Natalie Portman as much since I first saw Leon and Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey and Winona Ryder are all perfect in their supporting performances. Black Swan is a metaphor for achieving artistic perfection, with all the psychological and physical challenges one might encounter, incorporating one of the greatest ballets of all time. Aronofsky conceived the premise by connecting his viewings of a production of Swan Lake with an unrealized screenplay about understudies and the notion of being haunted by a double, Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Double being a key inspiration. Natalie Portman plays Nina Sayers, a 28-year-old dancer in a ballet company in New York, which is preparing to open its new season with Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. With prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder) being forced into retirement, artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) announces he is looking for a new dancer to portray the dual role of the innocent White Swan and the sensual Black Swan. Nina auditions for the role and gives a flawless performance as the White Swan, but fails to embody the Black Swan. The following day, Nina asks Thomas to reconsider choosing her to play the role. When he forcibly kisses her, she bites him before running out of his office. Later that day, Nina sees the cast list and discovers, much to her surprise and that of her overprotective mother Erica (Barbara Hershey), she will be portraying the lead. At a gala celebrating the new season, an intoxicated Beth confronts Nina, accusing her of sleeping with Thomas to get the role. The following day, Nina discovers that Beth was hit by a car while walking in the street and Thomas believes she did it on purpose. During rehearsals, Thomas tells Nina to observe new dancer Lily (Mila Kunis), whom he describes as possessing an uninhibited quality that Nina lacks. Nina also falls victim to several hallucinations of a doppelgänger following her wherever she goes and finds unexplained scratch marks on her back. This is where the obsession and the horror element of the film begins. One night, Nina accepts Lily's invitation to dinner despite Erica's objections. Over dinner, Lily offers Nina an ecstasy capsule to help her relax. Nina turns it down, but later accepts a drink laced with ecstasy powder. The two dance at a nightclub and return to Nina's apartment late. After fighting with her mother, Nina barricades herself in her room and has sex with Lily. The following morning, Nina wakes up alone and realizes she is late for the dress rehearsal. Upon arriving at Lincoln Center, she finds Lily dancing as the Black Swan and confronts her about their night together. When Lily doesn’t recall, Nina realizes that their encounter never took place. After learning that Thomas has made Lily her alternate, Nina's hallucinations grow increasingly stronger to the point where Erica tries to prevent her from performing on opening night. Nina forces her way out of the apartment and arrives at Lincoln Center only to discover that Lily is set to take over. She confronts Thomas, who becomes so impressed by her confidence that he allows her to perform. During the end of the play’s second act, Nina becomes distracted by a hallucination, causing her partner to drop her. She returns to her dressing room and finds Lily preparing to play the Black Swan. When Lily transforms into Nina's doppelgänger, the two engage in a fight that ends with Nina stabbing the doppelgänger with a shard of glass. She hides the corpse and returns to the stage, where she loses herself and gives a flawless performance as the Black Swan. Nina receives a standing ovation from the audience and, after surprising Thomas with a passionate kiss, returns to her dressing room. While changing, Nina hears a knock at the door and opens it to find Lily alive and congratulating her. Realizing the fight never occurred, and yet the mirror is still broken, and that she stabbed herself, Nina quietly continues changing. After dancing the final act, in which the White Swan commits suicide by throwing herself off a cliff, Nina falls onto a hidden mattress. As the theater erupts in thunderous applause, Thomas, Lily and the cast gather to congratulate Nina, only to discover that she is bleeding profusely. Nina loses consciousness, but not before telling Thomas that her performance was perfect. Aronofsky considered Black Swan a companion piece to his 2008 film The Wrestler, as both films involve demanding performances for different kinds of art with alter-egos of sorts. I agree, I found both films brilliant, Black Swan the visually stunning horror/thriller and The Wrestler the heartfelt drama. He knew he would make a film about both a wrestler and a ballerina at some point and in the beginning one of his early projects was about a love affair between a wrestler and a ballerina. He eventually separated the wrestling and the ballet worlds as he felt it would be "too much for one movie". He compared the two films: "Wrestling some consider the lowest art - if they would even call it art - and ballet some people consider the highest art. But what was amazing to me was how similar the performers in both of these worlds are. They both make incredible use of their bodies to express themselves.” The screenplay The Understudy was written by Andres Heinz; Aronofsky first heard about it while editing his second film Requiem for a Dream and described it as "All About Eve with a double, set in the off-Broadway world." After making The Fountain in 2006, Aronofsky and producer Mike Medavoy had screenwriter John McLaughlin rewrite The Understudy; Aronofsky said McLaughlin "took my idea of Swan Lake and the ballet and put the story into the ballet world and changed the title to Black Swan." When Aronofsky proposed a detailed outline of Black Swan to Universal Pictures, the studio decided to fast-track development of the project in January 2007. The project "sort of died, again" according to Aronofsky, until after the making of The Wrestler in 2008, when he had Mark Heyman, director of development of Aronofsky's production company Protozoa Pictures, write for Black Swan " and made it something that was workable." With Heyman’s ideas and Aronofsky's vision, Black Swan wasn’t just workable, it proved itself a masterpiece and the first great film of a decade.

Pi (AKA π)
Dir: Darren Aronofsky
1998
*****
Darren Aronofsky’s π has to be one of the most impressive film debuts of all time. He seemed to come out of nowhere and was soon established as one of the most exciting film directors working today. It’s an incredible thriller, a real antidote to the colour-by-numbers thrillers of the late 90s and one of the few modern films where I honestly believe the high-contrast black and white cinematography was valid and added to the story. It’s a film that warrents repeat viewings but in a good way. I don’t think a repeat viewing is nesessery in order to understand it, I just feel that there is much more to be learned and noticed on a second or third viewing. It was co-written by Aronofsky and Sean Gullette who also stared as the film’s protagonist. Like all thrillers there are good guys and bad guys but the difference with π (or Pi) is that the characters biggest struggle is with himself. Christopher Nolan, who also released his film debut in 1998 – in black and white – followed a similar structural pattern in his successful 2000 thriller Memento. He suggested his use of non-linear plot structure and this type of storytelling reflected the audience's inherent uncertainty about characters in film noir explaining that in a compelling story of this genre we are continually being asked to rethink our assessment of the relationship between the various characters, and I decided to structure my story in such a way as to emphasize the audience's incomplete understanding of each new scene as it is first presented. I can’t help but think Aronofsky’s π was a huge influence on him and the rest of his career. It was a sleepy hit in 1998, although it was generally revisited and discovered after Aronofsky’s second and more successful film Requiem for a Dream. I only sought out π after I learned that Clint Mansell was involved. Mansell was in one of my favorite bands of all time, Pop Will Eat Itself. He had recent left the band and this was the first film he had composed a score for. It would be the first of many greats, many of them for Aronofsky’s future films. The thriller features conspiracies and a chase of sorts but the big difference is that it features madness in the pursuit of knowledge. The film features maths but it is in fact about God – an ongoing theme in most of Aronofsky’s work. Sean Gullette plays the story's protagonist Max Cohen and also narrates. Unemployed and living in a drab Chinatown apartment in New York, Max is a number theorist who believes that everything in nature can be understood through numbers. Max suffers from cluster headaches (also known as Suicide Headaches due to their unbearable nature), as well as extreme paranoia, hallucinations and social anxiety disorder. His only social interactions are with Jenna, a young girl who is fascinated with his ability to calculate large numbers in his head; Devi, a young woman living next door who sometimes speaks to him; and Sol Robeson, his old mathematics mentor who is now an invalid. Max tries programming his computer, called Euclid, to make stock predictions. In the middle of printing out its picks, Euclid prints out a seemingly random 216-digit number, as well as a single pick at one-tenth its current value, then crashes. Disgusted, Max tosses the printout away. The next morning, he checks the financial pages and sees that the pick Euclid made was accurate. He searches desperately for the printout but cannot find it. Sol becomes unnerved when Max mentions the number, asking if it contained 216 digits. When Max questions him about the number, Sol indicates that he came across it many years ago. He urges Max to slow down and take a break. At his local coffee shop, Max meets Lenny Meyer, a Hasidic Jew who coincidentally does mathematical research on the Torah. Lenny demonstrates some simple Gematria, the correspondence of the Hebrew alphabet to numbers, and explains how some people believe that the Torah is a string of numbers that form a code sent by God. Max takes an interest when he realizes that some of the number concepts Lenny discusses are similar to other mathematical concepts, such as the Fibonacci sequence. Max is also approached by agents of a Wall Street firm; one of the agents, Marcy Dawson, offers Max a classified computer chip called "Ming Mecca" in exchange for the results of his work. Using the chip, Max has Euclid analyze mathematical patterns in the Torah. Once again, Euclid shows the 216-digit number on the screen before crashing. As he begins to write down the number, Max realizes that he knows the pattern, undergoes a sudden epiphany and passes out. After waking up, Max appears to become clairvoyant and is able to visualize the stock market patterns he had been searching for. However, his headaches also increase in intensity, and he discovers a strange vein-like bulge protruding from his right temple. Max has a falling out with Sol after the latter urges him to quit his work. One evening, Dawson and her agents grab Max on the street and try to force him to explain the number. They had found the original printout Max threw away and had been trying to use it to manipulate the stock market in their favor; however, they caused the market to crash. Lenny drives by and manages to get Max away from them. However, Lenny takes Max to his companions, who want Max to give them the number. At a nearby synagogue, they reveal their intentions: they believe the 216-digit number was meant for them to bring about the messianic age, as the number represents the unspeakable name of God. Max refuses, insisting that whatever the source of the number is, it has been revealed to him alone. Max flees and tries to visit Sol, only to find out from his daughter, Jenny, that he has just died from another stroke. Searching Sol's apartment, Max eventually finds a piece of paper with the number. Back in his own apartment, Max experiences another headache, but resists the urge to take his painkillers. Driven to the brink of madness, he destroys part of Euclid. Believing that the number and the headaches are linked, Max tries to concentrate on the number through the pain. After passing out, Max has a vision of himself standing in a white void and repeating the digits of the number. The vision ends with Max hugging Devi, who turns out to be a hallucination. Standing alone in his trashed apartment, Max burns the paper with the number and blithely performs an impromptu trepanning (a surgical intervention in which a hole is drilled or scraped into the human skull, exposing the dura mater – classically done to treat health problems related to intracranial diseases or release pressured blood buildup from an injury) on himself in the right cerebral hemisphere with a power drill. Some time later, Jenna approaches Max in a park and asks him to do several calculations, including 748 ÷ 238, which is an approximation for Pi. Max smiles and says that he doesn't know the answer to them. He sits on the bench and watches the trees blowing in the breeze, seemingly at peace. The ending is open to interpretation and I’ve always found it pleasingly troublesome. Knowledge is power but is it really trying to suggest ignorance is bliss? I fear it may be a little more religious and ‘faith’ driven but in all honesty my opinion changes with each viewing. I like to think it is about a troubled genius who manages to escape the clutches of chaos theory. Either way, it’s a beautifully filmed intelligent thriller, with a killer soundtrack and an awesome performance. My favorite pop star also has a cameo. It’s the sort of film I can only dream of making and as much as I love it, I hated Aronofsky for coming up with the idea instead of me.

Mother!

Dir: Darren Aronofsky

2017

*****

2017’s Mother! is a tricky film to review. On one hand I have to congratulate director Darren Aronofsky for achieving exactly what he sets out to, but when the aim is to antagonize, aggravate and get under the skin of the viewer, it’s a very hard film to celebrate. The first hour or so is painful viewing, the story lifts ever so slightly once you realise what is in fact going on and what it all means, but before then it is pure guesswork with very few clues. For the first hour or so I actually thought it was a David Cronenberg-inspired film about anxiety that also alluded to abandonment, anthropophobia and mental health issues in general. The title also made me wonder whether it was a film about the anxieties directly linked to motherhood, from the twinkle in the eye to the birth itself. It is regarded as a psychological horror but I think that is a misleading description, it’s actually about destruction. Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem play nameless characters who live in a huge house together, she a homemaker and he a poet. Their idyllic life is thrown into chaos when a mysterious doctor (Ed Harris) comes to stay with them. Soon, his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) joins him and they make themselves at home, much to the annoyance of Jennifer Lawrence’s she. It was when their two sons (brothers Domhnall and Brian Gleeson)   arrived to the house fighting that the penny dropped; they were Cain and Able, their parents were Adam and Eve, making Jennifer Lawrence mother nature and Javier Bardem God. More and more people flock to the house to pay their respects and then to visit the poet, whom they have all become obsessed over. Bardem’s God/poet greets people with open arms – he needs their love in order to live. However, mankind is cruel to mother nature and the last half an hour of the film is a dizzying nightmare of pain and brutality, first directed at the beautiful house she has lovingly built, and then at her physically. The film takes an even darker tone when the mother gives birth (Jesus) and God gives the child to the people, who eventually tear it to pieces. Now, whether or not you believe in God is one thing, we can all agree that at the very least he exists in concept, and Aronofsky’s tale is bang on the money when it alludes to the fact that without love and belief, God is as good as dead. Mother nature on the other hand is real, it’s another word of the environment, Earth really for us humans. We have indeed kicked mother nature in the personals, we pillage the landscape for our own use and have caused more damage in the very short time we have existed on it, than the millions of years before we turned up. We are a cancer to this planet, a tough thing to admit, but undeniable all the same. Aronofsky’s film is a direct allegory of this and is suitably horrible to witness. It really isn’t a subject where you could treat lightly, especially if you want to tell it exactly how it is. The last half hour of the film is devastating and horrific to watch, the 90 minutes beforehand are confusing, irritating and void of pleasure. This is why so many people slated it on its release, but as much as I didn’t enjoy watching it, I have to give credit to Aronofsky for delivering an intelligent and thought-provoking story. It’s the oldest story in the book (literally, it’s basically Genesis) and there is really nothing new about it. Using a house as an allegory for the garden of Eden isn’t that much of a stretch of the imagination either, and yet the film keeps you guessing. It’s a bizarre feeling, when you know you dislike watching something at the same time as knowing that each and every scene is brilliantly realised and executed. It isn’t supposed to be ‘entertaining’ in the classic sense, every part of the film serves a purpose and that purpose is to strike the audience and get as far under their skin as possible. It’s a job well done. Aronofsky has been hugely misunderstood with this film but then all the great directors/film are. He released the following statement as a form of explanation: "It is a mad time to be alive. As the world population nears 8 billion we face issues too serious to fathom: ecosystems collapse as we witness extinction at an unprecedented rate; migrant crises disrupt governments; a seemingly schizophrenic US helps broker a landmark climate treaty and months later withdraws; ancient tribal disputes and beliefs continue to drive war and division; the largest iceberg ever recorded breaks off an Antarctic ice shelf and drifts out to sea. At the same time we face issues too ridiculous to comprehend: in South America, tourists twice kill rare baby dolphins that washed ashore, suffocating them in a frenzy of selfies; politics resembles sporting events; people still starve to death while others can order any meat they desire. As a species our footprint is perilously unsustainable yet we live in a state of denial about the outlook for our planet and our place on it. From this primordial soup of angst and helplessness, I woke up one morning and this movie poured out of me like a fever dream. All of my previous films gestated with me for many years but I wrote the first draft of Mother! in five days. Within a year we were rolling cameras. And now two years later, it is an honor to return to the Lido for the world premiere. I imagine people may ask why the film has such a dark vision. Hubert Selby Jr, the author of Requiem for a Dream, taught me that through staring into the darkest parts of ourselves is where we find the light. "Mother!" begins as a chamber story about a marriage. At the center is a woman who is asked to give and give and give until she can give nothing more. Eventually, the chamber story can't contain the pressure boiling inside. It becomes something else which is hard to explain or describe. I can't fully pinpoint where this film all came from. Some came from the headlines we face every second of every day, some came from the endless buzzing of notifications on our smartphones, some came from living through the blackout of Hurricane Sandy in downtown Manhattan, some came from my heart, some from my gut. Collectively it's a recipe I won't ever be able to reproduce, but I do know this serving is best drunk as a single dose in a shot glass. Knock it back. Salute!" Aronofsky has shown that he is an absolute master of his craft, Mother! is an unpleasant masterpiece, brilliantly accomplished and one that I will enjoy never seeing ever again. It's hated now but mark my words, Mother! will be regarded as an essential classic in years to come.

The Wrestler
Dir: Darren Aronofsky
2008
*****
Darren Aronofsky is a brilliant director. Considering they had something like 26 locations in 26 days, you got to hand it to him. He's already proved himself great from one end of directing (Pi) to the other (The Fountain) so I'm not surprised I was taken with The Wrestler. That would be an understatement though, I regard The Wrestler as a modern masterpiece, it's up there with Raging Bull in my opinion. Life, the universe and everything, played out and explained through the life and death of a wrestler. I can't help but think of Barton Fink's 'Wrestling picture' when watching this. I love everything about it. I totally understand peoples questioning of Aronofsky's direction in this, sure it's a bit rough around the edges but I really think that helps set the scene in many ways. Mickey Rourke was brilliantly cast as was the very lovely Marisa Tomei. I disagree that the film was slowly paced, I thought it flowed quite gracefully, riddled with such beautifully subtle moments of human behaviour, it was never ever boring. Clint Mansell is also another particular hero of mine, I absolutely love his score (I'm a big PWEI fan too).

Noah
Dir: Darren Aronofsky
2014
**
Darren Aronofsky is a director I adore, the visuals and the enormity of this film are recognisably his but the fact that the film isn't very good is a complete surprise. Everyone has their bad days, like I say, the visuals are fantastic and the enormity of the film is impressive but none of the flare, realism (which can exist in fantasy, much like in Aronofsky's The Fountain) or intent that we expect from him. The performances aren't terrible but they're not particularly memorable either, the problem is the story. It's a complete contradiction. Whether you like/dislike/believe/think the story of Noah is a load of old nonsense, it just doesn't work when taken away from its original form. How can the story of Noah be 'Biblically inspired'? If anything they should have gone full fantasy with the film as the fallen angels/rock people were the best thing about it. The fact that they didn't utilise any single animal that was on the arch was also a huge mistake, it was after all a huge part of the story and no doubt something everyone would have liked to have seen. At least I would. The last half of the film was pretty tiresome and the conclusion was pretty far from the payoff I felt the viewer deserved. You can't declare you're sticking to the original story one minute and then adding your own ideas the next either. A bad day in the office for a brilliant director.