Black Swan

David.rhsc said:
Because they were stealing shots* on the NYC subway and they needed to be as low profile as possible. There's supposedly some 1dm4s stuff in there as well, but I didn't see any specific reference to scenes. I'm pretty certain the AC article talks about the 7D. There's a picture of him shooting Natalie's reflection in the article.
Click to expand...
From what I've read, the 7D and 1D were both used on the subway scenes, but I didn't see any reason given for choosing one over another on a particular shot. Good to see people shooting on them without all the usual paraphernalia… the 7D and Canon 24mm 1.4 L would set you back less than even some non-Zacuto rigs.

I don't think the AC article mentions that as part of it, but the ICG magazine article (went out and snagged both, trying to decide which one to subscribe to, probably AC as it has more on lighting than ICG does, although as a magazine ICG is more nicely presented and printed) - i think mentions that point.
Click to expand...
Do let us know what you decide on! Have been meaning to subscribe to the AC for a while, but the print version costs a small fortune over here, and I'm not sure I'll be as interested in reading the digital one - I tried their sample issue and the e-reader software was a pain in the arse to use.
 
chilipie said:
Do let us know what you decide on! Have been meaning to subscribe to the AC for a while, but the print version costs a small fortune over here, and I'm not sure I'll be as interested in reading the digital one - I tried their sample issue and the e-reader software was a pain in the arse to use.
Click to expand...

I picked up AC in my local newsagent for £3.50 the other day which I thought was pretty reasonable...
 
We saw it last night. Very enjoyable. Portman was really awesome. The film on a whole didn't blow me away, but Nina's paranoia and psychosis did get to me. "She's so fucked in the head." kept going through my mind. It certainly pulled me into that world and kept me there for a while.

The hangnail pulling scene was cringeworthy!
 
NicklausLouis said:
Yeah. Just didn't grab me at first. The "[blank] who finally gets a shot to be a [blank] but finds it more difficult than they thought" is a story I've seen a million times. It was only when Aronofsky let himself be Aronofsky did I start enjoying the film.

And TRUE GRIT is overrated. Good, but overrated.
Click to expand...

I see this completely different. As for the story, every story line has been told a million times, very rarely does a new interesting plot come about. I think a lot of movies are reinterpretations of classic plots.

You say it wasn't till the end when "Aronofsky let himself be Aronofsky". Personally I think that he was in control of everything up until the hallucinations started getting out of control and a little over the top. Its like the studios really wanted to market it as a scary suspense thriller so they had to throw in some dumb shock stuff (i'll save the spoiler, if i still can) It's true though that the sound mixing was bogus, and better sound probably would have made that section of the film less corny.

Someone might say 'it IS a scary suspense thriller' but i would disagree. It's a psychological drama. He had a very interesting way of showing her transform into her roll. Again, a little corny sometimes because of the sound, but it could have worked.

Someone said that he used to many shots from the wrestler, but its been said many times before (by aronofsky) that this is a similar story to the Wrester. Originally, he was going to write a movie about a Wrestler/Ballet couple but decided it was too much for one film. He considers this a 'companion piece' so i think it makes sense to have some similar visuals. Aside from that point tho, its just a great camera technique. I lived it in the Wrestler when the camera followed him around from behind, and I lived it in this movie. They seem so isolated. You don't see where they've been but you see where they're going.

I almost cried at the end. I got shivers when Aronofskys name came up on the credits. This is a great piece of filmmaking. and dare I say.... ART!
 
Last edited:
I went to see it solely on word of mouth and didn't even watch a trailer beforehand. I had no idea what to expect and was riveted through most of the film. What's funny is I didn't even know it was Aronofsky until the credits rolled. And then it all just made sense at a much more profound level. Gave me goosebumps. It was pretty cool.
 
chilipie said:
Do let us know what you decide on! Have been meaning to subscribe to the AC for a while, but the print version costs a small fortune over here, and I'm not sure I'll be as interested in reading the digital one - I tried their sample issue and the e-reader software was a pain in the arse to use.
Click to expand...

Most likely AC. The articles go into more detail on lighting and in general tend to be a little more in depth on BTS info.

The ICG magazine is really great. As a physical object it is vastly superior. Better paper, better binding, nicer page layouts, etc. It's more focused on the camera crews though, which is interesting in its own right. There's also usually a directory of things that are in production (or recently wrapped) in the back. In reality it's just a list of jobs that members have reported to the 600. In theory it's an interesting resource for finding out who's working on what.

In a perfect world I'd get both. :lol: Fortunately, a shop in my neighborhood sells both, so if I want to pick up one occasionally it's not too tough.

kgasser2 said:
Someone said that he used to many shots from the wrestler, but its been said many times before (by aronofsky) that this is a similar story to the Wrester. Originally, he was going to write a movie about a Wrestler/Ballet couple but decided it was too much for one film. He considers this a 'companion piece' so i think it makes sense to have some similar visuals. Aside from that point tho, its just a great camera technique. I lived it in the Wrestler when the camera followed him around from behind, and I lived it in this movie. They seem so isolated. You don't see where they've been but you see where they're going.
Click to expand...

I said that. I'm aware he made the choice to do that, I just disagreed with the choice. Not a large criticism on my part, but I don't think the style served Black Swan nearly as well as it served The Wrestler.

You'll notice that a few of the shots in Requiem were initially tested in Pi. That bothered me less - I think because there was a less obvious connection between them. From what I understand of the film; Supermarket Sweep also has some shots that were used in later films. (Particularly Requiem).
 
The scenes they shot digitally looked really good, think it's the best faked "filmlook" I've seen so far.

I found the film entertaining, nothing more, nothing less. Technically perfect but completely failing at keeping me interested beyond its running time; even though I liked it, I will forget about this film quickly.
 
Just saw it last weekend and enjoyed it a great deal as well. Despite all the hype, it was quite different than I'd expected. It strongly reminded me of the movie Jacob's Ladder, which I loved.
 
I didn't know anything about it before I saw it, other than reading that whatsername had supposedly stretched herself physically to do the role.

I thought it was the stupidest godawful drivel I'd seen in a long time. The idea for the film had so much potential, but the execution gave us a messy confusion of drama and horror that totally took the audience's intelligence for granted. It would have been much more suspenseful if the audience was NOT seeing what she was seeing all the time. And how many times can you have a character "wake up" or snap out of it and realize "it's all a dream?" That soap opera crap got old real fast. And Portman was just so one-note, she bored me. Not award-worthy IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top