Discussing Darren Aronofsky films *SPOILERS FOR BLACK SWAN, PI ETC...*

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

I haven't caught Your Highness yet (though I do want to see it as it looks like fun) but to say, less than a year after its release, that it's a classic - and more importantly to claim that it's superior to Black Swan because Black Swan was "a rehash of The Wrestler" and "Portland's Catwoman" is to say far more about your own taste in film than about the films themselves.

But then again, nyarlothotep is the person with whom I had a several-page argument over whether the possibility that hypothetical hipsters might like Scott Pilgrim Vs The World made it a bad film, so even starting out that post I already knew I was unlikely to agree.

Black Swan was just a substandard psychological film engineered, not even created artistically but engineered, put together filmic brick by brick for the Oscar committee. If you want explorations into dishevelled minds 12 Monkeys, PI, American Psycho or Fight Club do it much better. BS is bs! The swirling camera action with hallucinatory flashes was so cliched. The conclusion managed the dubious honour of portraying Portmans character as a martyr to her art, when in fact she committed suicide, which is not glamorous. I knew before going in that I wouldn't care much for the subject matter, but given that Portman was in it, and that Aranofsky directed it, I was expecting more, I was expecting an actually interesting protagonist but I didn't find it, the only character that was in the least bit entertaining was the asshole dance director.

I don't care for distinctions between high brow and low brow films. I watch both, and where one is better than the other, whether they incorporate deep philosophical themes or engage is stupid toilet humour is irrelevant to me. All I care about is whether I leave the film satisfied. And I say it here, I found Your Highness to be more satisfying!

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Black Swan was just a substandard psychological film engineered, not even created artistically but engineered, put together filmic brick by brick for the Oscar committee. If you want explorations into dishevelled minds 12 Monkeys, PI, American Psycho or Fight Club do it much better. BS is bs! The swirling camera action with hallucinatory flashes was so cliched. The conclusion managed the dubious honour of portraying Portmans character as a martyr to her art, when in fact she committed suicide, which is not glamorous. I knew before going in that I wouldn't care much for the subject matter, but given that Portman was in it, and that Aranofsky directed it, I was expecting more, I was expecting an actually interesting protagonist but I didn't find it, the only character that was in the least bit entertaining was the asshole dance director.

I don't care for distinctions between high brow and low brow films. I watch both, and where one is better than the other, whether they incorporate deep philosophical themes or engage is stupid toilet humour is irrelevant to me. All I care about is whether I leave the film satisfied. And I say it here, I found Your Highness to be more satisfying!

Enjoying one more than the other is fine. Claiming that Black Swan is meritless because, to you, it's a feeble rehash of another film by the same director is less so. Personally, I thought The Wrestler was over-rated (like The Fountain before it) but I thought Black Swan actually worked well within its own parameters. If you're going to talk about Black Swan retreading territory for Aronofsky you'd want to be pointing at Pi rather than The Wrestler.

Like your earlier dislike of Scott Pilgrim appearing to be at least partly down to your dislike of what you perceive to be its target audience, I can't help but think you dislike Black Swan because you think it's a bolted-together Oscar-bait film. Which is fair enough, but IMO also seems to not take the film on its own merits which can be dodgy territory...

As I say, I haven't seen Your Highness so I can't comment on it in any depth.

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

Enjoying one more than the other is fine. Claiming that Black Swan is meritless because, to you, it's a feeble rehash of another film by the same director is less so. Personally, I thought The Wrestler was over-rated (like The Fountain before it) but I thought Black Swan actually worked well within its own parameters. If you're going to talk about Black Swan retreading territory for Aronofsky you'd want to be pointing at Pi rather than The Wrestler.

Like your earlier dislike of Scott Pilgrim appearing to be at least partly down to your dislike of what you perceive to be its target audience, I can't help but think you dislike Black Swan because you think it's a bolted-together Oscar-bait film. Which is fair enough, but IMO also seems to not take the film on its own merits which can be dodgy territory...

As I say, I haven't seen Your Highness so I can't comment on it in any depth.

Its similar to both PI and the Wrestler, although since it deals with athletics rather than mental gymnastics I would consider it closer in spirit to the Wrestler. Also both characters make themselves martyrs at the end as opposed to PI where the lead character backs off from this.

The reason I mention the Oscars as a criticism is that making a film to win these awards imposes creative restrictions, many of these Oscar films are made in a particular mould, one which BS fits into.

I didn't say it was meritless, just that it was a very average film. I find Aronofsky way overrated although he's above average as a director, but I think the Wrestler was just quite good, not brilliant and the Fountain was mediocre.

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Its similar to both PI and the Wrestler, although since it deals with athletics rather than mental gymnastics I would consider it closer in spirit to the Wrestler. Also both characters make themselves martyrs at the end as opposed to PI where the lead character backs off from this.

The reason I mention the Oscars as a criticism is that making a film to win these awards imposes creative restrictions, many of these Oscar films are made in a particular mould, one which BS fits into.

I didn't say it was meritless, just that it was a very average film. I find Aronofsky way overrated although he's above average as a director, but I think the Wrestler was just quite good, not brilliant and the Fountain was mediocre.

I don't know, the film didn't feel creatively restricted to me - as I said before, I thought it staked out its territory and explored it very well.

Thematically the film is about being consumed destructively by obsession; in Pi Max is consumed by his obsession (which we see has also shaped the lives of others including his mentor) and eventually it drives him to self-destruction by partially lobotomising himself, while in Black Swan Nina's obsession (which is also her mother's obsession, projected onto Nina) consumes her life and her sanity, eventually leading to her effectively killing herself for her art; in The Wrestler it's not so much that Robin is obsessed with wrestling as that he can't build any other life for himself and he dies because he refuses to swallow his pride and stick with a pedestrian job, instead sticking with the role of performer that's too physically demanding for him.

Out of his last three films personally I found Black Swan by far the most engaging - I thought The Fountain was too focused on visuals and didn't engage me narratively, and The Wrestler was alright but felt a bit too plodding, and didn't really engage me to actually give a rat's ass about Robin's inability to adapt to the world.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Those jokes were hilarious! The stoned sheep herding scene, the dickless traitor scene, the minotaur bumming the squire dude, the warrior dude who immediately gets killed by a trap just like in D&D, comedic genius!

You're not getting this whole "opinion" thing, are you? :P

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

I don't know, the film didn't feel creatively restricted to me - as I said before, I thought it staked out its territory and explored it very well.

Thematically the film is about being consumed destructively by obsession; in Pi Max is consumed by his obsession (which we see has also shaped the lives of others including his mentor) and eventually it drives him to self-destruction by partially lobotomising himself, while in Black Swan Nina's obsession (which is also her mother's obsession, projected onto Nina) consumes her life and her sanity, eventually leading to her effectively killing herself for her art; in The Wrestler it's not so much that Robin is obsessed with wrestling as that he can't build any other life for himself and he dies because he refuses to swallow his pride and stick with a pedestrian job, instead sticking with the role of performer that's too physically demanding for him.

Out of his last three films personally I found Black Swan by far the most engaging - I thought The Fountain was too focused on visuals and didn't engage me narratively, and The Wrestler was alright but felt a bit too plodding, and didn't really engage me to actually give a rat's ass about Robin's inability to adapt to the world.



You're not getting this whole "opinion" thing, are you? :P

I agree that BS shares marked similarities with PI. Seems Aronofsky is obessed with obession. Still Max doesn't even have a troubled domestic life, which features prominently in The Wrestler and BS. I think the latter two films deal with insane dedication to ones art whereas PI is about the insanity of comprehending that which is incomprehensible to the human mind. Max is cognitively processing forbidden knowledge, he's contemplating beyond the limits of reality and it drives him mad. I also think Robin was obsessed with wrestling but in a positive way. He plays an ancient wrestling game on his NES, he lives eats and breathes with the wrestling community. Nothing gives him greater joy in life than wrestling. What made the film engaging to me is that he was denied his dream to pursue it as a well paying career due to the indifference of the world. I think this rings true with many people in that they find that they are forced into jobs they'd rather not do because they didn't suceed at breaking into their dream profession because of hyper competition, not being good enough, not having connections or just plain bad luck. Robin is a man out of time. He's not only at odds with the zeitgeist of the present in being an 80s dude, if he were a Viking he would be a proud and respected warrior but due to the conditions of his time and his declining health he's forced into working in a job he's clearly not suitable for. He's a gladiator and he's stuck in this job which for him is a daily humiliation. His defiance of the world leads him to his death but at least he is able to salvage his dignity which seems most important to him. He dies living out his dream as it were.

In addition I think the lobotomy scene in PI was symbolic, it didn't actually happen, Max decided to just shut off that part of his brain which was symbolized in performing the lobotomy, I think this was evident when he couldn't answer the maths question at the end.

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I agree that BS shares marked similarities with PI. Seems Aronofsky is obessed with obession. Still Max doesn't even have a troubled domestic life, which features prominently in The Wrestler and BS. I think the latter two films deal with insane dedication to ones art whereas PI is about the insanity of comprehending that which is incomprehensible to the human mind. Max is cognitively processing forbidden knowledge, he's contemplating beyond the limits of reality and it drives him mad. I also think Robin was obsessed with wrestling but in a positive way. He plays an ancient wrestling game on his NES, he lives eats and breathes with the wrestling community. Nothing gives him greater joy in life than wrestling. What made the film engaging to me is that he was denied his dream to pursue it as a well paying career due to the indifference of the world. I think this rings true with many people in that they find that they are forced into jobs they'd rather not do because they didn't suceed at breaking into their dream profession because of hyper competition, not being good enough, not having connections or just plain bad luck. Robin is a man out of time. He's not only at odds with the zeitgeist of the present in being an 80s dude, if he were a Viking he would be a proud and respected warrior but due to the conditions of his time and his declining health he's forced into working in a job he's clearly not suitable for. He's a gladiator and he's stuck in this job which for him is a daily humiliation. His defiance of the world leads him to his death but at least he is able to salvage his dignity which seems most important to him. He dies living out his dream as it were.

Interesting, I didn't see it that way. I thought he played that NES game because it starred him, in the same way that he relies on the ever-dwindling number of hardcore fans who go to the conventions and remember him - in effect clinging on to the remnants of when he was at the top of his game, never really making an effort to move onto a later stage in his life beyond wrestling because he doesn't know (and can't be assed to learn) how to become 'just another person'. I don't think i'd agree that he was denied his dream - he's been famous for long enough that he had home videogames with his name on them; if anything he's just refused to ever think about what comes after that, and I don't see how that's anyone's fault but his own.


As for Max's home life, I don't think you can realistically claim he has a trouble-free home life - he's almost certainly on the autistic spectrum, he lives alone in a small flat full of elaborate computational equipment and barely has a social life outside of his mentor and the neighbour's kid who he impresses with his mental arithmetic.

nyarlothotep wrote:

In addition I think the lobotomy scene in PI was symbolic, it didn't actually happen, Max decided to just shut off that part of his brain which was symbolized in performing the lobotomy, I think this was evident when he couldn't answer the maths question at the end.

Again, that's not how I understood that scene at all. I cannot accept a character as obsessed with pursuit of the truth at all costs as Max just thinking "oh well, I should probably just stop thinking about that stuff" - that's evidently what his mentor did, but his mentor was a much better adjusted individual, much better able to acknowledge his own limitations. Max couldn't ever accept that he couldn't grasp something, and frankly if any character was going to stick a drill in his head it was Max...

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

Interesting, I didn't see it that way. I thought he played that NES game because it starred him, in the same way that he relies on the ever-dwindling number of hardcore fans who go to the conventions and remember him - in effect clinging on to the remnants of when he was at the top of his game, never really making an effort to move onto a later stage in his life beyond wrestling because he doesn't know (and can't be assed to learn) how to become 'just another person'. I don't think i'd agree that he was denied his dream - he's been famous for long enough that he had home videogames with his name on them; if anything he's just refused to ever think about what comes after that, and I don't see how that's anyone's fault but his own.


As for Max's home life, I don't think you can realistically claim he has a trouble-free home life - he's almost certainly on the autistic spectrum, he lives alone in a small flat full of elaborate computational equipment and barely has a social life outside of his mentor and the neighbour's kid who he impresses with his mental arithmetic.



Again, that's not how I understood that scene at all. I cannot accept a character as obsessed with pursuit of the truth at all costs as Max just thinking "oh well, I should probably just stop thinking about that stuff" - that's evidently what his mentor did, but his mentor was a much better adjusted individual, much better able to acknowledge his own limitations. Max couldn't ever accept that he couldn't grasp something, and frankly if any character was going to stick a drill in his head it was Max...

I think he was playing that game more than for the ego trip. Robin considered himself a wrestler, that was part of who he was as a result of being obsessed with it. His fame as a consequence from it would just reinforce his love of wrestling, that's who he is, thats what he's renowned for, that's what he will think about 24/7. I disagree that he had to learn how to become just another person as he wasn't an average joe, he simply couldn't accept that place in society as he wasn't suited to it in his personality, he would never fit in and that was quite evident in the way he was so evidently out of place in his job. If anything the film is a condemnation of the banality and cruelty of the heirarchical division of labour and the 9-5 routine for those who simply don't fit into the system.

My point about Max is that he didn't have a homelife at all, hence he couldn't have a troubled home life to begin with. I disagree about him being on the autistic spectrum, he may have had autistic traits but its too easy just to label someone as having a mental impairment because they don't fit the neuro typical norm. As I said it was symbolic act, he didn't just decide to stop thinking about it, he damaged his psyche to the extent that he couldn't think about it anymore, that was a part of mind that he decided to close off in a form of denial and repression, as symbolized by drilling a hole in his head. Seeing his brain pulsating on the sidewalk and other moments similar to this would indicate to me that it was all in his head, the tumour was a signifier for his declining mental state as a result of fully comprehending Pi.

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I think he was playing that game more than for the ego trip. Robin considered himself a wrestler, that was part of who he was as a result of being obsessed with it. His fame as a consequence from it would just reinforce his love of wrestling, that's who he is, thats what he's renowned for, that's what he will think about 24/7. I disagree that he had to learn how to become just another person as he wasn't an average joe, he simply couldn't accept that place in society as he wasn't suited to it in his personality, he would never fit in and that was quite evident in the way he was so evidently out of place in his job. If anything the film is a condemnation of the banality and cruelty of the heirarchical division of labour and the 9-5 routine for those who simply don't fit into the system.

In fairness it's very hard to say he "didn't fit into" the system when Robin had the privileged position of making a good living out of being an entertainer for decades, and during that time failed to either manage his own finances or employ someone else to do it for him, thus ending up in a position where his chosen profession was no longer feasible for him later in life. He had an entire lifetime in which he could've picked up transferable skills or learned how to have more than one way to make a living in the world, and he didn't do it - he may have been failed by whatever educational system he went through in his youth, but the majority of his life was steered by him and so he can't blame anyone else for it.

I don't buy this idea that it's cruel, banal or "unfair" to not have your dream job - most people don't get their "dream" job, because a dream job isn't work, it's just something you enjoy that somehow ends with you being given loads of money. That's not how the world works. You can either cry harder about it, or you can get a helmet and get on with your life.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

My point about Max is that he didn't have a homelife at all, hence he couldn't have a troubled home life to begin with. I disagree about him being on the autistic spectrum, he may have had autistic traits but its too easy just to label someone as having a mental impairment because they don't fit the neuro typical norm. As I said it was symbolic act, he didn't just decide to stop thinking about it, he damaged his psyche to the extent that he couldn't think about it anymore, that was a part of mind that he decided to close off in a form of denial and repression, as symbolized by drilling a hole in his head. Seeing his brain pulsating on the sidewalk and other moments similar to this would indicate to me that it was all in his head, the tumour was a signifier for his declining mental state as a result of fully comprehending Pi.

Oh come on, not having any kind of home life at all is basically a troubled life. Any anthropologist you talk to will tell you we're a community- and socially-oriented species - there's no way in hell his home life is in any way normal, and the fact that he would (even before becoming obsessed with the 216-digit number) choose to live and work that way is an indication that he's not balanced. There's a good argument for him being autistic, regardless of whether you think other people throw the term around too often (and I have no idea why that's relevant here, but then I never did understand why theoretical hipsters liking Scott Pilgrim made that a bad film either, so I'm just chalking it down as one of the slightly surreal aspects I should expect of any conversation with you ).

Given that he's an unreliable narrator and probably losing his mind towards the end, there's probably no way of knowing whether he actually does lobotomise himself, and you're right that there's a lot of hallucination and weird imagery (I loved the part where he pokes his brain with a pencil and gets the audiovisual shock response ). He might have had a mild stroke or a fit that damaged that part of his brain, for example. In saying that, I did think he was being genuine when he said he didn't know the answer at the end of the film - as in, even with a gun pointed at his head he wouldn't have been able to answer, because it wasn't that he had made a choice to stop pursuing his obsession, the part of his brain that processed those calculations had just stopped working somehow.

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

In fairness it's very hard to say he "didn't fit into" the system when Robin had the privileged position of making a good living out of being an entertainer for decades, and during that time failed to either manage his own finances or employ someone else to do it for him, thus ending up in a position where his chosen profession was no longer feasible for him later in life. He had an entire lifetime in which he could've picked up transferable skills or learned how to have more than one way to make a living in the world, and he didn't do it - he may have been failed by whatever educational system he went through in his youth, but the majority of his life was steered by him and so he can't blame anyone else for it.

I don't buy this idea that it's cruel, banal or "unfair" to not have your dream job - most people don't get their "dream" job, because a dream job isn't work, it's just something you enjoy that somehow ends with you being given loads of money. That's not how the world works. You can either cry harder about it, or you can get a helmet and get on with your life.



Oh come on, not having any kind of home life at all is basically a troubled life. Any anthropologist you talk to will tell you we're a community- and socially-oriented species - there's no way in hell his home life is in any way normal, and the fact that he would (even before becoming obsessed with the 216-digit number) choose to live and work that way is an indication that he's not balanced. There's a good argument for him being autistic, regardless of whether you think other people throw the term around too often (and I have no idea why that's relevant here, but then I never did understand why theoretical hipsters liking Scott Pilgrim made that a bad film either, so I'm just chalking it down as one of the slightly surreal aspects I should expect of any conversation with you ).

Given that he's an unreliable narrator and probably losing his mind towards the end, there's probably no way of knowing whether he actually does lobotomise himself, and you're right that there's a lot of hallucination and weird imagery (I loved the part where he pokes his brain with a pencil and gets the audiovisual shock response ). He might have had a mild stroke or a fit that damaged that part of his brain, for example. In saying that, I did think he was being genuine when he said he didn't know the answer at the end of the film - as in, even with a gun pointed at his head he wouldn't have been able to answer, because it wasn't that he had made a choice to stop pursuing his obsession, the part of his brain that processed those calculations had just stopped working somehow.

I never got the impression that Robin became successful enough to insure for his future. The impression I got was that he was something of a local or very small national celebrity for a very brief period of time. But if it was the case that he did have the opportunity to ensure he wouldn't end up where he did it was possibly his own fault. In relation to the dream job thing, I don't even think large amounts of capital comes into the equation, imo the film may simply highlight the fact that in most human societies people are cattle prodded into working in soulless jobs which they rationalize as being the norm for themselves and everyone else with the attitude of put up or shut up when in reality something is defficient, in other words working to make others richer and hoping to get a few monetary crumbs rather than having the ability of self determination. It is the robbing of freedom which the film illustrates, a particularly American cultural meme of the libertarian ethos which is at odds with the demands of corporate America, ok so Robin was working in a supermarket but you catch my drift. He was one of the many who fall through the net, who don't fit in with the current societal framework and perceptions.

As for Max, the thing that differentiates him from Robin or Nina is that he has no family members or SOs to have a troubled home life with. That was my point, he has a troubled life, but not a troubled home life. His is a study of solitary existential misery, not that which is circulated among two or more people dealing with emotions or relationships. one thing that I'm reminded of is Sheldon. The writers of Big Bang Theory decided not to explicitly state whether he had aspergers or not. Instead the reading of the character that they put forward was that he was so intellectual as to not have plebian human compunctions, this doesn't necessarily imply he has autism, merely that he is so immersed in the intellectual world that he cares not for meaningless social rituals designed to reinforce norms. I would say the same may apply to Max.

As for not being able to perform the calculation I agree that he could not, imo because he had repressed that aspect of his persona so deeply that it would be like asking someone who had chosen to forget a painful memory so much that they could never remember it. This actually happened with Stephen King apparently as a child when his friend was hit by a train, he couldn't recall what had happened to his parents.

johnny_ultimate

You know, as someone who's liked or loved all of Aronofsky's films (I'd rank the Wrestler last and Requiem for a Dream first) I'd readily admit that narrative in general is one of Aronofsky's weaknesses. Few of his films surprise in terms of plot - I guess Pi is the only one to do something completely unique. It's the delivery that makes him such a special director. Taking, say, Requiem for a Dream, the story is often not all that more enlightening than your average anti-drugs ad, although Burstyn's segments are pretty strong. However, it's the intensity of the vision, the brilliant editing and inventive cinematography that make it stand out. When it comes to the Wrestler, Robin's story is probably that bit more involving (the stunning ending helps), even if it lacks originality. However, it's the comparative dullness of the delivery that disappoints. It's still a great film, but one I couldn't help but be disappointed with in terms of visuals - especially after The Fountain (great looks, so-so story).

However, I would defend him as one of cinema's great purveyors of melodrama. Black Swan is deliriously OTT - again, while it may be derivative of some films to come before it, it's presented with such nightmarish passion I was sucked into it. Requiem for a Dream, the Fountain and even Pi tell their stories with a disregard for subtlety - and that makes him one of cinemas most cinematic directors IMO.

Phony Scott

Shouldn't this thread really be called 'The Fysh Vs Nyarlothothep Smackdown'. Just saying is all.

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I never got the impression that Robin became successful enough to insure for his future. The impression I got was that he was something of a local or very small national celebrity for a very brief period of time. But if it was the case that he did have the opportunity to ensure he wouldn't end up where he did it was possibly his own fault. In relation to the dream job thing, I don't even think large amounts of capital comes into the equation, imo the film may simply highlight the fact that in most human societies people are cattle prodded into working in soulless jobs which they rationalize as being the norm for themselves and everyone else with the attitude of put up or shut up when in reality something is defficient, in other words working to make others richer and hoping to get a few monetary crumbs rather than having the ability of self determination. It is the robbing of freedom which the film illustrates, a particularly American cultural meme of the libertarian ethos which is at odds with the demands of corporate America, ok so Robin was working in a supermarket but you catch my drift. He was one of the many who fall through the net, who don't fit in with the current societal framework and perceptions.

During the WWE promotional work for the film, various wrestlers commented on it. Bret Hart states that Robin was "a main-eventer who sold out Madison Square Garden". Between that and having a home games console game developed and sold based on featuring him as its starring character, I'm telling you that as much as any famous wrestler would have been able to, Robin was making serious bank at the height of his career. The fact that he didn't (or couldn't) look ahead to a time in his life when wrestling wouldn't be a viable career may be sad, but it's still predominantly his own fault.

It has always been the case that unless you're born into a rich family, you work for a living. If you're lucky you find work that has some aspect you enjoy, but the entire reason for working is to pay the bills. This isn't tragic (unless you subscribe to some naively idealistic ideology, and can't understand the concepts of limited-resource systems and entropy), it's just the way the world is.

Robin worked hard at being an entertainer, did very well out of it, and never understood how to move on from there. It's sad, but it's not sad because "he was denied his dream" - it's sad because he never properly considered what his chosen profession involved, or what would happen when he was too old to get in the ring and fight. He never tried to make a place for himself in the world that didn't involve wrestling, and in the end he may as well have killed himself in doing so because he thought that was easier than learning a new way of fitting into the world.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

As for Max, the thing that differentiates him from Robin or Nina is that he has no family members or SOs to have a troubled home life with. That was my point, he has a troubled life, but not a troubled home life. His is a study of solitary existential misery, not that which is circulated among two or more people dealing with emotions or relationships. one thing that I'm reminded of is Sheldon. The writers of Big Bang Theory decided not to explicitly state whether he had aspergers or not. Instead the reading of the character that they put forward was that he was so intellectual as to not have plebian human compunctions, this doesn't necessarily imply he has autism, merely that he is so immersed in the intellectual world that he cares not for meaningless social rituals designed to reinforce norms. I would say the same may apply to Max.

Heh, it's funny you mention sheldon. Jim Parsons who plays him says he's always thought it was pretty obvious that Sheldon is to some extent autistic; I can understand the writers not wanting to stick a label on it that might then lead to accusations of "playing autism for laughs" or whatever, but based on his behaviour it's a pretty hard claim to refute.

Similarly with Max, his home life is sufficiently devoid of human contact that there has to be some reason for this; either he's got deep-seated emotional trauma of some sort or he's on the autistic spectrum, or possibly both. Living by yourself in a house full of computers, and only barely being able to communicate with and relate to other humans (and even then only in order to discuss mathematics) is in no way compatible with any notion of a "normal" state of mind.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

As for not being able to perform the calculation I agree that he could not, imo because he had repressed that aspect of his persona so deeply that it would be like asking someone who had chosen to forget a painful memory so much that they could never remember it. This actually happened with Stephen King apparently as a child when his friend was hit by a train, he couldn't recall what had happened to his parents.

The psychotic-break interpretation is an interesting one but I'm inclined towards the idea of there being some actual physical damage towards the end - I must re-watch the film but I seem to recall there being a burned-out look in Max's eyes in those final scenes, reminiscent of what you see in patients who have been lobotomised.

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

However, I would defend him as one of cinema's great purveyors of melodrama. Black Swan is deliriously OTT - again, while it may be derivative of some films to come before it, it's presented with such nightmarish passion I was sucked into it. Requiem for a Dream, the Fountain and even Pi tell their stories with a disregard for subtlety - and that makes him one of cinemas most cinematic directors IMO.

Yeah, I think that was what made Black Swan work - it's not startlingly original (even within Aronofsky's own career, given that he gravitates towards characters with obsessive tendencies) but it does an unusually good job of wrapping you up in Portman's world as she descends into a hallucinatory nightmare. Unlike many films that feature unreliable narrators with a sliding grasp of reality, BS didn't bother crowbarring in an explanation of what "really" happened in all those confusing scenes; it just shows us how Nina reacts as she starts to realise that she's losing her mind.

I think one of Aronofsky's strengths is that he doesn't ever beat the viewer round the head with a moral or a theme - the thematic development is always present but it never overpowers the film itself. The only exception, I think, is The Fountain, where he had a high-concept for the film but didn't work enough on exploring it through a narrative that was compelling in its own right. Featuring mostly bland, dull characters won't have helped either.

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

During the WWE promotional work for the film, various wrestlers commented on it. Bret Hart states that Robin was "a main-eventer who sold out Madison Square Garden". Between that and having a home games console game developed and sold based on featuring him as its starring character, I'm telling you that as much as any famous wrestler would have been able to, Robin was making serious bank at the height of his career. The fact that he didn't (or couldn't) look ahead to a time in his life when wrestling wouldn't be a viable career may be sad, but it's still predominantly his own fault.

It has always been the case that unless you're born into a rich family, you work for a living. If you're lucky you find work that has some aspect you enjoy, but the entire reason for working is to pay the bills. This isn't tragic (unless you subscribe to some naively idealistic ideology, and can't understand the concepts of limited-resource systems and entropy), it's just the way the world is.

Robin worked hard at being an entertainer, did very well out of it, and never understood how to move on from there. It's sad, but it's not sad because "he was denied his dream" - it's sad because he never properly considered what his chosen profession involved, or what would happen when he was too old to get in the ring and fight. He never tried to make a place for himself in the world that didn't involve wrestling, and in the end he may as well have killed himself in doing so because he thought that was easier than learning a new way of fitting into the world.



Heh, it's funny you mention sheldon. Jim Parsons who plays him says he's always thought it was pretty obvious that Sheldon is to some extent autistic; I can understand the writers not wanting to stick a label on it that might then lead to accusations of "playing autism for laughs" or whatever, but based on his behaviour it's a pretty hard claim to refute.

Similarly with Max, his home life is sufficiently devoid of human contact that there has to be some reason for this; either he's got deep-seated emotional trauma of some sort or he's on the autistic spectrum, or possibly both. Living by yourself in a house full of computers, and only barely being able to communicate with and relate to other humans (and even then only in order to discuss mathematics) is in no way compatible with any notion of a "normal" state of mind.



The psychotic-break interpretation is an interesting one but I'm inclined towards the idea of there being some actual physical damage towards the end - I must re-watch the film but I seem to recall there being a burned-out look in Max's eyes in those final scenes, reminiscent of what you see in patients who have been lobotomised.

Ah, I didn't know this about The Wrestler. If it was the case that he was successful then yes its pretty much his own fault in a way. Or is it? The film could then be a depiction of the negative effects of the the entropy you mention, how life passes by so fast for the individual that they can't fully make sense of it. Robin wasn't able to adjust fast enough and loved wrestling too much to accept the ageing process and his declining celebrity. If anything he is a victim of his own existence, as are we all.

In relation to work, yes I agree that its a necessary thing, however what I disagree with is in relation to a system that works against the individual towards self determination in working and representing their own interests. People should have the freedom to lead themselves rather than having their lives dictated to by others, whether indirectly through economic or social pressures. Essentially the heirarchical model is primitive and antagonistic where a large number of people basically "toil" at the bottom or the middle for no other purpose than to make their respective companies profit, where is the individual reward apart from getting a salary which they need anyway to survive?.

Robins society is indifferent if not hostile to him, he lives in poverty because he wasn't a good fit for the system so he was brutally weeded out through his own mental collapse. He couldn't keep up with the passage of time so he is out of time. He wasn't able for it, he was disabled in a sense. Thats a fairly damning indictimnent of the world of humans. In any case the defining feature of human existence is to conquer the natural environment rather than to simply accept it. Nature is cruel so humans must defend themselves against it.

Sheldon is cerebral, I accept that the writers may want to avoid the tag of playing autism for laughs, but they may also want to highlight the fact that Sheldons "autism" isn't so much a disability/disorder and so shouldn't be labelled as such. Hence he is cerebral rather than autistic. If you wanted to take it to its ultimate conclusion any deviation from the norm could have its own associated syndrome. This would also apply to Max, I don't think he had autism, I just think he became really obsessed with PI.

As for the self trepanation, how could he perform it without passing out from the pain, with a black n decker drill, which is hardly going to make for a clean hole?

Fysh wrote: »

I think one of Aronofsky's strengths is that he doesn't ever beat the viewer round the head with a moral or a theme - the thematic development is always present but it never overpowers the film itself.

This is essentially correct. I can think of one director particularly guilty of this, while everyone says hes the second coming of jebus, that is to say Christopher Nolan.

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ah, I didn't know this about The Wrestler. If it was the case that he was successful then yes its pretty much his own fault in a way. Or is it? The film could then be a depiction of the negative effects of the the entropy you mention, how life passes by so fast for the individual that they can't fully make sense of it. Robin wasn't able to adjust fast enough and loved wrestling too much to accept the ageing process and his declining celebrity. If anything he is a victim of his own existence, as are we all.

He was a star in the 1980s and he eventually commits suicide-through-strenuous-activity in the late 2000s. If 20 years isn't enough time to adjust (and the experience of watching older wrestlers approaching retirement age ahead of him), it's fair to say that perhaps the problem isn't so much a conspiracy of the universe as Robin being extremely short-sighted.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

In relation to work, yes I agree that its a necessary thing, however what I disagree with is in relation to a system that works against the individual towards self determination in working and representing their own interests. People should have the freedom to lead themselves rather than having their lives dictated to by others, whether indirectly through economic or social pressures. Essentially the heirarchical model is primitive and antagonistic where a large number of people basically "toil" at the bottom or the middle for no other purpose than to make their respective companies profit, where is the individual reward apart from getting a salary which they need anyway to survive?.

It's not really relevant to the film, but a) you're generalising in a way that doesn't really apply to other people, and b) you're assuming that everyone is promised some reward that they then don't receive. The deal is "you work and you get paid". If you want to go off and be a survivalist living off the land, you're welcome to do so. I don't imagine that living off the land will turn out to be any easier than working any other job (probably harder and with more uncertainty and misery involved, at a guess) though it may be more rewarding in other ways.

Long story short, nobody promised you a reward beyond the salary you agree when you start a job. Don't like it? Go somewhere else and ask for more money.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Robins society is indifferent if not hostile to him, he lives in poverty because he wasn't a good fit for the system so he was brutally weeded out through his own mental collapse. He couldn't keep up with the passage of time so he is out of time. He wasn't able for it, he was disabled in a sense. Thats a fairly damning indictimnent of the world of humans. In any case the defining feature of human existence is to conquer the natural environment rather than to simply accept it. Nature is cruel so humans must defend themselves against it.

He's not disabled in any feckin' sense whatsoever, he rose to fame and to some extent fortune in the 80s and 20 years later has pissed it all away. That's not being disabled, that's being crap at managing your life and money. If you want to indict anything it should be nations and governments whose pursuit of free-market economics leads them to refuse any aid to citizens who fall on hard times.

I say again - Robin's biggest enemy was his own naivety and lack of long-term vision. There's no way he could ever have claimed, when he was starting out, that he would realistically wrestle his entire life - unless he genuinely expected to die before 40. So if he never planned for a retirement age, he's a damn fool. It's sad, but trying to blame someone else for his mistakes (unless you're aiming at the entire culture within which he was raised) is to fail to understand what actually happened to him.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Sheldon is cerebral, I accept that the writers may want to avoid the tag of playing autism for laughs, but they may also want to highlight the fact that Sheldons "autism" isn't so much a disability/disorder and so shouldn't be labelled as such. Hence he is cerebral rather than autistic. If you wanted to take it to its ultimate conclusion any deviation from the norm could have its own associated syndrome. This would also apply to Max, I don't think he had autism, I just think he became really obsessed with PI.

As for the self trepanation, how could he perform it without passing out from the pain, with a black n decker drill, which is hardly going to make for a clean hole?

He wasn't normal at the beginning of the film - even before he discovers the 216 digit number he was living in the conditions I described above. There's no way this was just a casual obsession that turned his life around - his life was already pretty solitary and emotionally empty; the obsession with the 216-digit number just made it worse. And let's not forget that he has regular crippling headaches unless he takes his medication, which he refuses to take at the end of the film in the belief that this will let him understand the number - so there's a strong possibility that he actually has some condition which manifests physical symptoms and which, if poorly managed by eg skipping medication, could cause lasting brain damage.

By the point he was considering (and perceived himself to be undergoing) drilling into his head, he was already in extreme pain because of the headache. Drilling into his head with a crude tool like a home powerdrill would obviously be a terrible idea, but it might still have been compelling in the same way that the desire to pick a scab or pop a blister can feel compelling even when you know it'll just make things worse and delay the healing process.

scico rocks

Imagine sitting between these two in a pub!!!!!!

I thought Requiem for a Dream was great, as was The Wrestler. Black Swan. on the second viewing however, was woefully boring.

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

He was a star in the 1980s and he eventually commits suicide-through-strenuous-activity in the late 2000s. If 20 years isn't enough time to adjust (and the experience of watching older wrestlers approaching retirement age ahead of him), it's fair to say that perhaps the problem isn't so much a conspiracy of the universe as Robin being extremely short-sighted.



It's not really relevant to the film, but a) you're generalising in a way that doesn't really apply to other people, and b) you're assuming that everyone is promised some reward that they then don't receive. The deal is "you work and you get paid". If you want to go off and be a survivalist living off the land, you're welcome to do so. I don't imagine that living off the land will turn out to be any easier than working any other job (probably harder and with more uncertainty and misery involved, at a guess) though it may be more rewarding in other ways.

Long story short, nobody promised you a reward beyond the salary you agree when you start a job. Don't like it? Go somewhere else and ask for more money.



He's not disabled in any feckin' sense whatsoever, he rose to fame and to some extent fortune in the 80s and 20 years later has pissed it all away. That's not being disabled, that's being crap at managing your life and money. If you want to indict anything it should be nations and governments whose pursuit of free-market economics leads them to refuse any aid to citizens who fall on hard times.

I say again - Robin's biggest enemy was his own naivety and lack of long-term vision. There's no way he could ever have claimed, when he was starting out, that he would realistically wrestle his entire life - unless he genuinely expected to die before 40. So if he never planned for a retirement age, he's a damn fool. It's sad, but trying to blame someone else for his mistakes (unless you're aiming at the entire culture within which he was raised) is to fail to understand what actually happened to him.



He wasn't normal at the beginning of the film - even before he discovers the 216 digit number he was living in the conditions I described above. There's no way this was just a casual obsession that turned his life around - his life was already pretty solitary and emotionally empty; the obsession with the 216-digit number just made it worse. And let's not forget that he has regular crippling headaches unless he takes his medication, which he refuses to take at the end of the film in the belief that this will let him understand the number - so there's a strong possibility that he actually has some condition which manifests physical symptoms and which, if poorly managed by eg skipping medication, could cause lasting brain damage.

By the point he was considering (and perceived himself to be undergoing) drilling into his head, he was already in extreme pain because of the headache. Drilling into his head with a crude tool like a home powerdrill would obviously be a terrible idea, but it might still have been compelling in the same way that the desire to pick a scab or pop a blister can feel compelling even when you know it'll just make things worse and delay the healing process.

No he was clearly disabled in the sense that his psychological makeup led him invariably to his own suicide. Being who he was killed him because he wasn't able and hence disabled to adapt. Its not really about some promised reward either, just that in relation to the film, Robin has no control over his life, his circumstances are dictated to him by other humans, and in that sense I think the film unconsciously criticizes the idea the lack of control people have over their own lives in a hyper competitive vicious ponzi scheme society. If anything its a reflection that human societies tend towards defficiency, authoritarianism, corruption and narcissistic self reflection, the individuals place within it and the darwinian choice they are faced with, adapt or die.

Yeah I remember that about Max taking the pills, although its no indication that the he had an actual brain tumour. As for being in a mentally troubled condition before the film, he was still searching for PI and happened to discover it at the beginning of the film.

johnny_ultimate

Rewatched Pi last night (DVD had been lying around for a rewatch anyway, this thread resparked my interest!) and I think there is potentially something more going on with Max's pills. Indeed, the timing of the first pill shot and the references to body shakes suggests that there is perhaps some sort of more underlying social illness residing in Max. The only person he is able to communicate with with any semblance of normality is his mentor who has also been consumed by the borderline autistic obsession with numbers, patterns and order. The 'tumour' I'm a bit more uncertain of - it seemed like a continued example of extreme paranoia, automatically reading into what may be a fairly harmless scar as something much more dangerous than that.

Aronofsky has the good sense not to rub anything in - like those subtle shots in Black Swan when faces distort or appear to be someone they're not (some are in your face, but there's a lot of blink and you'll miss it distortion too). But yeah watching through the film with this discussion in mind definitely flagged the pills as signifying or suggesting something more. It is thankfully left open to interpretation, but I certainly read them as pretty important references - indeed, one later shot shows him upping his dose to counter the increasing stress and worry social disruption is causing him.