No it wasn't, Norton/De Niro banters made up half of the trailer and Norton/De Niro banters were exactly what we got. The other half of the trailer was the affair and we got that too.
And I never said it was intended to be AHX or Fight Club or expected that. Because AHX is by far Norton's best role, when you see Norton playing a thug, initially you can't help but think about his character in AHX. That has nothing to do with the actual story.
Not sure if you're agreeing with my prior post or not here..
Well ^ that's just slightly contradictory..
If you stick to what you said, about the trailer being intentionally misleading, then I disagree. If you retract, then I agree.
No it's not. Ex: when I saw the trailer for "American Gangster", Denzel was the only reason I wanted to see it and one of his best and most memorable roles prior to that film was playing a bad guy, so his character in "Training Day" crossed my mind even though you know it's two completely different movies.
You're right. Aronofsky, who has made, in my opinion, one of the greatest sports movies of all time (The Wrestler) knows NOTHING about story or structure. Did you see "The Fountain"? There's more story in that than there is in all his movie's combined. Same with "Requiem For a Dream".
So what you're saying is that Black Swan was, in essence, a plot-less bed of pretty girls and tricky camerawork?
I think you're wrong in the assumption that the director went for style over substance. The film didn't try to "lose" anyone or mislead them in any way. Yes, the film looks stunning and the camerawork is as good as any film made this year, but that isn't even the HALF of what makes it good. The film made great strides in editing, cinematography, screenwriting, acting and direction. There is no gimmick to making a quality film. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the movie lacked a story and/or plot that drove it forward.
No, no... I'm not saying it was plot-less at all. I'm saying instead of trying to be mysterious, it could have polished the characters and story more. For instance: From the jump (1st or 2nd scene) we immediately know that Portman's character is crazy. This keeps us from loving her to an extent... we don't get to see another side of her outside of thinking 'oh no. She's crazy'. We really have nothing else on her character. The rest was pretty vague too... hard for me to go in to detail without spoilers.
People put way too much in to cinematography these days. I hate people justifying their opinion on a movie because "they made strides in blah blah blah... technical aspects"... Like Pulp Fiction for instance. Terrible movie. Terrible.
Yet... because it did something different... people say it was a great movie. Unique does not equal GOOD. I think people confuse the 2 far too often.
Again... I liked most things about Black Swan. I think it could have been polished out to be much better, but still... I liked it.
- The Fountain? I wanted to see that a while back. I love the score, but it did seem like the type of movie that'd be all art and little story.
The greatest books we know didn't get to bank on angles, acting talent, and pretty colors. Why should movies?
People put way too much in to cinematography these days. I hate people justifying their opinion on a movie because "they made strides in blah blah blah... technical aspects"... Like Pulp Fiction for instance. Terrible movie. Terrible.
Yet... because it did something different... people say it was a great movie. Unique does not equal GOOD. I think people confuse the 2 far too often.
Again... I liked most things about Black Swan. I think it could have been polished out to be much better, but still... I liked it.
- The Fountain? I wanted to see that a while back. I love the score, but it did seem like the type of movie that'd be all art and little story.
The greatest books we know didn't get to bank on angles, acting talent, and pretty colors. Why should movies?
We can agree to disagree with your first paragraph.
Film is art. It has every right to look any way the artist (the director) wants it to look. Just as books have paragraph breaks and chapters, films have the art of the camera lens and of the editors hands.
Pulp Fiction's screenplay is still regarded as one of the most triumphant things ever written for the screen, and for good reason. I'm not sitting here telling you that Tarantino didn't tip off of Scorsese all day, because he did. Essentially, non-linear scripts were RARELY used in Hollywood and most certainly didn't use an ensemble cast like that one. The closest thing you got was a Robert Altman film (which are great). So yeah, Tarantino did something different but that isn't why I liked Pulp Fiction...I liked it because it was something I had never seen or heard before. The dialogue was fresh and often uncompromising and the acting was as comedic as it was interesting.
Also, Tarantino, along with guys like Jonze, P.T. Anderson, Fincher, and Soderbergh shut the door in the faces of the old Hollywood guys that had, in more ways than one, peaked (Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Altman, etc). Speilberg will never make anything as groundbreaking as Jaws again. Coppola lost his mind after AN. Scorsese peaked after The Departed, though the jury is still out.
Film is art. It has every right to look any way the artist (the director) wants it to look. Just as books have paragraph breaks and chapters, films have the art of the camera lens and of the editors hands.
Pulp Fiction's screenplay is still regarded as one of the most triumphant things ever written for the screen, and for good reason. I'm not sitting here telling you that Tarantino didn't tip off of Scorsese all day, because he did. Essentially, non-linear scripts were RARELY used in Hollywood and most certainly didn't use an ensemble cast like that one. The closest thing you got was a Robert Altman film (which are great). So yeah, Tarantino did something different but that isn't why I liked Pulp Fiction...I liked it because it was something I had never seen or heard before. The dialogue was fresh and often uncompromising and the acting was as comedic as it was interesting.
Also, Tarantino, along with guys like Jonze, P.T. Anderson, Fincher, and Soderbergh shut the door in the faces of the old Hollywood guys that had, in more ways than one, peaked (Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Altman, etc). Speilberg will never make anything as groundbreaking as Jaws again. Coppola lost his mind after AN. Scorsese peaked after The Departed, though the jury is still out.
Tarantino is a joke. Decent actor. Terrible director. But that's another topic I'll surely go in to in another thread.
Yes, film is art... but it shouldn't neglect the art of story-telling. This film was about Swan Lake. We know ballet is a pure artform... but ah! It actually tells a story! Imagine that. Compiling a bunch of pretty scenes, being imaginative, having great vision, etc means nothing if you can't figure out how to make the audience appreciate it all with the sound on.
Most the movies praised for cinematography we could push the mute button from jump and get the same feeling when the end credits roll.
Substance > Style.
And that coming from an art nerd. But... this is simply my preference. My opinion. I want to be entertained and see a great story with depth to characters in a movie. Not a bunch of trendy shots and vague plots.
Yes, film is art... but it shouldn't neglect the art of story-telling. This film was about Swan Lake. We know ballet is a pure artform... but ah! It actually tells a story! Imagine that. Compiling a bunch of pretty scenes, being imaginative, having great vision, etc means nothing if you can't figure out how to make the audience appreciate it all with the sound on.
Most the movies praised for cinematography we could push the mute button from jump and get the same feeling when the end credits roll.
Substance > Style.
And that coming from an art nerd. But... this is simply my preference. My opinion. I want to be entertained and see a great story with depth to characters in a movie. Not a bunch of trendy shots and vague plots.
Me? A fan of pretentious movies? My favorite films are bad '80s Canon films and movies about robots and s***. If anything, I relish in camp and goofiness more than most othe aspects. I just happen to enjoy this film. Just because you think Coen Bros. films or anything else that don't fit your criteria for plot are pretentious doesn't make it so.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it overrated or pretentious.
Because it's an entirely different medium. Hell, the story for some of the greatest modern novels aren't always relevant even! It's the prose and the style that make them beloved and studied.
You're more than allowed to like whatever it is you think makes a movie or a book, but don't tell other people what they can and can't enjoy because it doesn't fit a certain criteria.
I don't.
I do like to hear a decent justification of why people like certain things though.
Mostly it seems like "well, I heard it was great... so I also thought it was great". I know that's not always the case but people are sheep these days. Nominate a film for awards and they'll pretend to love it. Heaven forbid they think differently.
You would sincerely hate Italian Neo-Realism and the French/German New Waves. You can't cage creativity. If the film's purpose was the convey a story simply through visuals, but all the while not neglecting the story (something like Wild Strawberries or Days of Heaven)...what is there to complain about.
Jackson Pollack once said that he didn't have to explain his work. Why do you need reasoning and rationale in order to say a bed of flowers is beautiful?
Let's just say that's that, Deuce. We aren't going to meet anywhere in the middle on this one. Especially because you said Tarantino is a decent actor...you know better than that.
I listed out the reasons I liked it. So did others here. So did critics, so did other moviegoers. Even you said you liked it (which curiously didn't say why really, other than it was entertaining). For a film with so many "pretensions", you gave it a high rating.
Because to some people, that bed of flowers might be pretty, but what's the point? And that's okay. But some people NEED a rational, succinct, definable reason for liking something. Nothing really wrong with it, but it is different from the people who do enjoy the arts for different reasons.
I thought we were dangerously close to having a discussion on Existentialism. Haha.
As boring as existential philosophy can be about art, there really is a lot of it intertwined in what people want in art.
Some like Deuce want a strong story - the narrative HAS to be there. There has to be clear meaning as to why we, the audience, should care about these characters and what they're doing.
Some people really could care less about coherent narrative, and just want to experience something. A purely visceral experience.
I'd probably fall somewhere in the middle, although I like narrative, sometimes I'll go balls out just for the absurd or camp, just for the sake of it.
I agree. I have "I Spit on Your Grave" in my collection literally beside "Ikiru"...that should give you some insight into my film taste.
If y'all are still talking about "Black Swan", I haven't seen it, but I just want to say Natalie Portman can shave her head, dye her hair passion purple, get a mohawk, whatever, I'll still marry her.
I'd mila her kunis.
The bed of flowers thing works, if you watch movies for visuals.
Visuals are 1/4 of a film for me.. and one of the least important. Characters, Plot, and Substance all come first for me. But I think without at least 2 of them being strong, a movie isn't going to be great. I've seen great roles in bad movies. Bad roles in great movies. Boringly filmed wonderful stories, etc.
I want a story though. Same with music. Sure... I can listen to beautiful instrumentals, but I'd rather have a vocalist accompanying the sound... and then not only sounding great, but saying something worth hearing.
Visuals are 1/4 of a film for me.. and one of the least important. Characters, Plot, and Substance all come first for me. But I think without at least 2 of them being strong, a movie isn't going to be great. I've seen great roles in bad movies. Bad roles in great movies. Boringly filmed wonderful stories, etc.
I want a story though. Same with music. Sure... I can listen to beautiful instrumentals, but I'd rather have a vocalist accompanying the sound... and then not only sounding great, but saying something worth hearing.
So it all comes down to preference, as it should. Argument closed. Woo!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
