Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Black Swan

The metaphoric framing device that is the premise for Black Swan is inherently and relentlessly Manichean. It is therefore satisfying on many levels (glorious and easy structurally, allows for simple categorization and identification of characters), but also left me feeling unsure how to feel about this film, and wondering whether I was (or should be) annoyed. Black Swan vs. White Swan. Overachieving Nina (Natalie Portman) is too much the frigid, perfectionist White Swan to successfully "let go" and "loose herself" in the seductive, dangerous character of the Black Swan. But she desperately wants to dance it, so she experiments and spins herself into a vortex of self-exploration (in this case, synonymous with destruction) in order to dance the role--which apparently, she can only do once she has completely lost it.

My feathers get ruffled (apologies for sticking with Aronofsky's metaphor) any time I am presented with the frigid-uptight-perfectionist and the sexy-dangerous-vixen female archetypes set in opposition to each other. It is an overly simplistic view of female motivations, behavior and sexuality. And knowing (or perhaps assuming) Aronofsky is too smart for this, it left me wondering if instead he was parodying this dualism. In which case, rather than taking offense should I just be ironically amused? The simplification of female sexuality and it's inherent misogyny is one of my favorite ironic amusements!

More central to the film's theme is yet another related duality. The conflict between the Apollonian and the Dionysian as it relates to the arts. Nina begins as a classicist. She is technically perfect. However, she is unable to give in to her inner darkness, her inner seductiveness. As she dances, she is not dangerous enough to give an inspiring performance. For homework, her sleazy and charismatic choreographer instructs her to touch herself. Somehow, that will make her a better artist. And as she goes on a bender, she only gets better and better. This brings up the Romantic ideal of the "tortured artist." Must artists be destructive, dangerous wrecks in order to create great art? In Nina's case, the answer is yes. To frame this as either-or, is troubling. Either one is technically perfect, but soulless and uninspired, or self destructive and transcendent. This is a duality that many involved in the arts seem to believe. And my stomach turned when the choreographer told Nina to "let go" and "loose herself", as I have heard those phrases told to me and numerous others countless times by somewhat patronizing and self satisfying acting gurus. I mean, teachers.

However, perhaps the nuance in these dualities is that in both instances, Nina is destructive. In her Apollonian phase she destroys herself by self mutilating and through eating disorders, in her Dionysian phase it's through drugs and sex. In Manohla Dargis' review she implies that those who are too bothered by or hung up on these simplifications would be in fact simplifying the movie and missing the depth of it. Perhaps that is true. Perhaps this is not so much a film about what it takes to be an artist (as a woman?) as it is a slightly trashy horror film about the limitations of the dualisms that so often pervade the arts. And despite my questions about what the film is implying about art and gender, I do have to admit that I really enjoyed it, in all of its terrifying salaciousness and easily identifiable categories and archetypes.

For further thematic resonance see also:
-"The Hitchhiking Game" by Milan Kundera
-Goodbar --a rock/theater piecethat deals with similar issues and themes and is generally fantastic and disturbing.

4 comments:

santosh said...

"The simplification of female sexuality and it's inherent misogyny is one of my favorite ironic amusements!" -- I love it. I didn't see black swan, but the frustration over the characters being one-dimensional archetypes reminds me of my frustration with "vicki christina barcelona" - in that case, it seemed more clear to you to be tongue-in-cheek. less so in this one? i wonder, especially given aronofsky's desire to mock cultural archetypes (mathematical geniuses in Pi, drug addicts/cealers in Requiem). Thoughts?

jenniferjoan said...

ah, the fateful vicky christina post--i remember it well, and it did in fact come to mind when writing. perhaps this was tongue in cheek, but i couldn't see clearly whether or not--and i just had a lot of questions about the philosophical landscape.

my friend michael was struck by how fantasy and reality blend so seamlessly and confusingly in Black Swan, perhaps the same could be true of parody and world view. I dunno. You should see it and comment further. I didn't see Requiem as a mockery, perhaps I don't have a good radar for his usage of irony and satire.

santosh said...

well...i think (or at least my interpretation) that he was mocking the cinematic glorification of drug use in mid 90s movies (human traffic, trainspotting although i dont think danny boyle was full-out glorifying heroin use)

jenniferjoan said...

from an email response from a friend:

i think it's really important to remember that, for the Greeks, the balance between the Dionysian and Apollonian was the goal. In our Puritanical country, we've somewhat deified (forgive the pun) the Apollonian elements (discipline, rigor) and demonized the Dionysian.

personally, I think much of my life has been about finding the true balance between these things - not the swinging from one extreme to the other (which is my adult wont) but really having both exist simultaneously, with an ebb and tide.

With these thoughts, I think the movie is about a woman who lives in one extreme and her desire for perfection (this is so clearly her arc - early she says, "I want to be perfect" and her last line is "I was perfect!") leads her to swing in the other extreme. Ultimately, this reading is about how immature artists (god knows that neither she nor that ballet master are portrayed favorably) destroy themselves to create good art, and what follows, I think, is that mature artists like the maker of this movie, who ostensibly did not destroy himself in making it, do not. In that way, it's so clearly satire.