WEEK FOUR - PAINFUL MEMORIES
October 21
Thoughts before the rewatch: It was supposed to be the best thing ever. A "dramatic" horror film about the pressure a dancer with damaging inhibitions faces in preparation for The Role of a Lifetime? A showcase for Argento-esque flair from Darren Aronofsky, who even I could admit would probably not fuck that up? LESBIANS?!? Could this be the long awaited ballet answer to Opera, a stylistic overdose of high theater taken to extremes rarely witnessed? Oh ho, it's also a probing psychological horror film about the lengths one goes to achieve Perfection with a capital P, where living for your art goes too far and does not permit you to live. It's everything I could ever want, all in one film! Why would I ever even consider that both concepts seemed diametrically opposed to one another? They're in the same movie!
And thus, my fate was sealed.
When I left the theater, I was immensely confused. Was it a campy film that got bogged down by its horror being too obvious and its clumsy attempts at being a body horror film? Was it a psychological horror film let down by the fact that it's practically screaming at you for the entire duration of its themes, plot details, character motivations, thematic intentions, and the kitchen sink? Why was such a ridiculous, larger-than-life film shot like it was a peering behind-the-scenes documentary on a ballet company? It left me with a feeling that it wasn't sure what it wanted to be, so it decided to be all of them and let the audience do the hard work afterward.
Years later: It's still not a particularly impressive film for me, but I do feel it's definitely more firmly planted in the realm of being straight-up camp, and identifying with that makes it go down a bit easier than it did before.
What didn't suck before was, of course, Natalie Portman, who had the honor of being an actress showered with awards that actually deserved them for a strong, brave performance that few get the chance to attempt, and even less are able to pull off with the conviction that she imbues in Nina. However, I didn't give enough credit to the supporting cast the last time, as they are actually quite good. Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, and Winona Ryder play their roles at full hilt, but never mugging too hard for screentime. Cassel, in particular, gets to have a ball, getting some of the best lines in the film and relishing all of them (my personal favorite: him pleading with Nina to open her mouth over and over again during the rehearsal seduction). Mila Kunis proves to be a rather solid anchor, as well, as a bubbly, supportive Lily, who hides her deeper resentment for Nina much better than the other dancers. She proves to be an effective dark mirror for Nina, even as Nina's imagination morphs her into some far more primal, and easier to understand.
If the film is more identifiable as camp, I think its biggest problem is that it has a lot of problems getting to that point with all the hats it wears on the road to get there. As mentioned, the psychological breakdown of Nina doesn't work because it's so loud about it, letting absolutely nothing go unnoticed, and the decision to punctuate any moment of psychological uncertainty with a stock "look, this is supposed to be creepy and shit" sound effect was grating after the first time it was used, to say nothing of every instance of it afterward. The body horror aspect also doesn't work at all, as the CG lets it down; it's one thing to understand that the films low budget prevented them from doing stronger work, but it's almost inconceivable to me that Aronofsky was pleased with how unconvincing they look. I think it would have paid off more to not go as full-on showy with the literal transformations, as there were better, more effective results with the earlier bits, like the broken toe nail, the constant fingernail injuries, and the close-up of Beth's injury. Not nearly as alien, but the film deserved at least some subtlety. And I still feel there's a major disconnect with the photography: it's a good concept for a film about a dancer, rather than a film about dance, but this is the kind of big, loud, borderline incomprehensible film that deserved a more distant camera, more deliberate setups than the unbounded freedom of handheld. It's a spectacle, and that's no time for intimacy.
But the goofiness is nothing if not endearing. Nina masturbating for the first time (ever, perhaps?) wouldn't be nearly as memorable without the amazing jump cut to her mother being in the room, sleeping. The maniacal soundtrack cue that plays when Nina reveals to her mother that she got the part of the Swan Queen, and later on, when she lets her mother know again in an emotionally charged brawl, and Portman sells the line like it's the last thing she'll ever get to do. The hilariously random Requiem for a Dream cameo. Nina's imagination revealing to her a secret rendezvous between Tomas and Lily, like it was something out of a de Palma film. And who hasn't wanted to hear Winona Ryder saying "did you suck his cock," overselling her drunkenness like she's never been drunk before? It's that kind of stuff that makes me want to forgive it for the stuff it does wrong to get to those parts. I don't think I can and perhaps never will, but now, I think I can rest easy that regardless, it does get to them eventually.
October 22 preview: Rob Zombie is perhaps the most contentious horror director out there, as his talent is considerable, but his output is rather hazardous to traverse. For him, we travel back in time to his first feature, the well-intended but overly sloppy
House of 1000 Corpses, and then zoom on down to the present day for his ambitious but jumbled supernatural horror film,
The Lords of Salem.
