by Tony d’Ambra
- Natlie Portman in Darren Aronofsky’s ‘Black Swan’
The White Swan is dead
The wraith in the mirror
A thousand and one shards of shattered glass dissolve into a bloody cascade
A cosmic alchemy
The red phoenix rises into a hurricane of abandon
Monochrome
The black swan pirouettes into and out of the spotlight
A crescendo of liberation
She takes no prisoners
Her lips dark labia of debauchery
She bites and draws blood from the mouth of her dark prince
This is an absolutely stunning work by Tony d’Ambra that proves again he has a gift for poetry and subconscious imagery. The vivid, surreal quality of Aronofsky’s film is econonomically framed with a brooding painterly eye, and the use of colors – red, black, white, monochrome, the pervading darkness, all brings out the essence of Portman’s character far better than any extended review could.
Spectacular.
“The red phoenix rises into a hurricane of abandon.”
There was something about this line that just got to me. I’m immediately reminded of the imagery of Aronofsky’s film… However, I am also reminded of the rising evil from the ashes that was the Firebird touched by the Sprite in the final chapter of FANTASIA 2000. That segment, also based on ballet (in this case the ballet of Stravinsky), portrays innocence that brushes to close to an evil presumed made dormant by the passage of time and years of purity that have buried it. Like Aronofsky’s film, it’s what we take for granted in our security that often come back to bite us.
I agree with Sam. This short poem sums up both the character at the center and the irony of a purely psychological tug of war. Only one can come out looking like a victor…
I would never have thought to believe that eleven lines could define the feelings one is left with after viewing this audacious work. But it conjurs up images of horror, necrofilia,`and the unadulterated path of this most dominant character. Great work.
I can easily see how Aronofsky’s work could inspire one to poetry. Black Swan itself arguably qualifies as poetry in motion and the exquisite beauty of Natalie Portman is an open invitation to take off into lyrical flights of passionate fancy.
How refreshing it is to read a poem (an excellent poem no less) inspired by a movie instead of the usual workaday “review” no matter how incisive, insightful, or humorous the latter might be.
My metaphorical hat off to you Tony D’Ambra!
Well done, Tony. Your poem most impressively captures the deadly destination the protagonist has clawed herself toward. Her final words, “I’m perfect!”, may contain a subtle alert about her accomplishment.
¡Excelente poema!
I agree with Andrei Scala about a movie inspiring a poem. There is a natural kinship between images and poetry. Why wraggle over interpretation when just a few lines can translate any kind of narrative ambiguity? Well done.
Thanks guys. I couldn’t get to sleep last night – we are in the middle of a heat-wave over here – and the movie has been haunting me for a week now. I had been struggling with trying to put some order to my impressions: the blood, the mirror, the shattered glass, the metamorphosis, and the dream sequence at the beginning.
The poem wrote itself, I just had to start it, and it took all of 5 minutes. Not to say that it is great poetry, but it gets what I felt out.
This is where I think critics of the film have missed something. Aronofsky is exploring so many ideas and motifs, it is wrong to hold the film down to imposed constructs of narrative, coherence, and plot. More a phantasmagoria of dream, fantasy, and creativity unleashed when the dam of reality is cracked – that poster is so telling. Ideas and imagery – obsession, sexual repression, and transference – the never-reconciled antagonisms of true creativity: discipline and abandon, creative destruction and rebirth. Who was it that said all cinema is a dream?
Thank God you didn’t turn on the air-conditioning last night!!!!
An intense and beguiling psychological thriller with an art-house soul, Natalie Portman’s performance a will keep you riveted from start to finish.
can anything inspire such abhorrence
as a once proud moralist aligned in side
with those that argue the worth
of those in beauty to turn to bone
worse yet,
take the troubled and propose a (non)choice:
one that renders grotesque violation as
a seemingly revolutionary act, or
one that continues self-imprisonment?
Cheers to those that inspire, and
jeers to those that defile.
Twas written for the wise
yet the fool doth surmise
Alas I’ve found something worse!
to the abhorrence I’ve previously spoke,
it’s those who possess two mouths
one to bestow wisdom upon themselves,
while the other plays modest.
But the point still remains:
had the author been Argento, Martino, or Coen,
(or worse yet Noe and DePalma)
we’d have a poet singing a much prickly tune.
I thought this post was to express in poetical terms the beauty of language and visual metaphors.
What happened to freedom of taste and the refreshing admission that one can’t be pigeon-holed by expected responses?
Isn’t the idea here to discuss metaphors as they apply to Black Swan’s central character? I am perplexed by the attempt to highjack the forum to apply veiled insults aimed at one’s unwillingness to walk down the same path. It really has nothing to do with interpretation, which is why this was obviously written. I don’t really care about Tony d’Ambra’s change of heart (if there was one) about a layer of meaning connected to Black Swan. I am interested in his masterly application of words to images.
My initial poem is about my feelings on the film (that you strangely don’t feel are valid), to which I was just called ‘unwise’ and a ‘fool’.
So here’s the crux: you feel I’ve responded by being malicious, when in fact, Tony was malicious to my poem and you have no problem with. Yes what did happen to freedom of taste (here I could point you to a number of previously high-jacked threads, DUELLE being an obvious one…)?
Oh and “Isn’t the idea here to discuss metaphors as they apply to Black Swan’s central character?”
What do you possibly think these lines (below) are in reference to?
“of those in beauty to turn to bone
worse yet,
take the troubled and propose a (non)choice:
one that renders grotesque violation as
a seemingly revolutionary act, or
one that continues self-imprisonment? “
“Alas I’ve found something worse!
to the abhorrence I’ve previously spoke,
it’s those who possess two mouths
one to bestow wisdom upon themselves,
while the other plays modest.”
So this has something to do with the film? Interesting.
Look, I’ve been around this site for a long time, and I’ve placed comments at many of your own threads. And Tony’s. This site is often contentious, but I feel it is in bad taste to go after someone on ‘past infractions’ when the effort here was honorable and worthwhile. I’ll have to speak to Sam (he left the building about a half hour ago to pick up his kids) but I was under the impression that you guys buried the hatchet. Do you really feel vindicated now? I really don’t specifically remember your own poem, but I do remember always treating you with respect and of seeing the great value of your contributions. It’s distressing to see this kind of thing, and yeah I’ll always give someone their due when I see a post worth rallying behind.
Again, the portion you cite me saying was AFTER I was called ‘unwise’ and a ‘fool’. The contentiousness didn’t come from me, I merely offered a poem of my own on the film in question.
The knave protesteth too far
His ditty was but a barbed arrow
Aimed not at the verse
But at the poet’s heart
ah, always lurking, jerking
ready to squabble and malign
an assist in deflecting
when the topic was otherwise
+++can anything inspire such abhorrence
as a once proud moralist aligned in side
with those that argue the worth
of those in beauty to turn to bone
worse yet+++
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but this opening to your original missive seems to have another agenda. There are allegations about the writer in this passage, not the film. I don’t really care about fluctuating moral positions, I’m far more interested in the fusion of words and cinematic images.
It’s lucid enough to see that you came to this post with some anger. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Assuming what you say is right, two wrongs don’t make a right, and it’s too bad that a terrific poem has been sullied with this kind of rhetoric. Surely there was a better way to issue grievances?
You two are good with the verse, I will say that.
So your beef is two-fold. You haven’t forgotten a past slight and you are miffed that someone likes a film you don’t like. Is that right?
Too bad you had to drop the ‘off’ to get a rhyme
But hey it is not about poetry is it? I am off to lurk elsewhere…
Jamie your first initial poem starts with a clear attack on Tony. Frank highlights it above with three +++ on each side. I personally don’t care either way about your long running feud but anyone reading can see your intentions.
While I am finding fault in Tony (and other’s appreciation of this film) most of the fault I’m showing in the initial poem is towards the films director:
the line “with those that argue the worth”, is about Arnofsky, and I’m contesting that he’s dressed up despicable morals or arguments in art to bring intelligent people like you or Tony to champion the film. Same goes for the end: “Cheers to those that inspire, and
jeers to those that defile.” that ‘jeers’ is for films like BLACK SWAN not for people like Tony.
And for some reason because I offered my own, and not a congratulations to Tony, he deemed me needing of an insult. I thought offering an opposite, but just as measured poem of mine own would give the thread some needed discussion instead of all back-slapping (does anyone read poetry anymore?)
Again, (to Maurizio) offering an opposite opinion to Tony is NOT attacking him. So my first two lines is my surprise to his liking a truly immoral piece of cinema (which is quite different then an ‘attack’). If you guys can’t understand this clear distention and would rather the conversation continue with nothing really spoken, then I’ll leave… and be lurked elsewhere.
Trust me Jamie you don’t need to lurk elsewhere. I personally was not bothered by your poem retort. I was able to decipher your other points on Black Swan and believe your overall sincerity in not liking it. I just agree with Frank that it starts with an obvious attack towards Tony. You may argue against this point and perhaps your long standing feud may color all of our perceptions…. but I got the same feeling Frank expressed above when i read it. I also knew that Tony would be firing back. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the inevitable outcome.
Well I’m glad that I was able to get you and Frank to contribute to the thread, unfortunately I and Tony remain the only opinions on the film.
Where’s the original Maurizio? (instead you chose to just join in to join sides in a non-fight)
As for not liking Black Swan, feel free to tee off. Trust me I don’t lose sleep over others not enjoying the same film as me. In fact when I like a movie I always read the negative reviews first to approach the picture from a different angle or viewpoint. Your own reservations on Aronovsky’s work is fair enough. I just don’t agree that it’s a immoral film. I need to see it again though to understand why you feel this way….
Haha blogger burnout perhaps lol…….
To quote William Holden in NETWORK: “Now I’m the one who’s supposed to be the hard-bitten realist!” Ha!
The numbers:
379 page views for this post over a day and a half. This is more than exceptional!
So far, 2,500 page views exactly (so far) today at the site in general, with the Diary performing exceedingly well as always.
Mr. d’Ambra is a very talented fellow. You say he’s Australian? Too bad. We could use his expertise in this school system. “Black Swan” has never been given this kind of interpretation, that’s for sure.
This remarkable poem defines a character, and commutes a theme as well as a thesis ever could. I like the film more than you do Sam, as you know. But if if I didn’t I would still be awe-struck.
I love the red phoenix line, but I think this one is my favorite——
Her lips dark labia of debauchery.
Awsome. It would really be something if Mr. d’Ambra’s poem were sent on to the Academy of Motion picture Arts and Sciences. They could read it on stage when they hand Portman her Oscar. That’s a hell of a lot better than a film clip any day.
I’ve always found writing short pieces, trying to find just the right phrase, the right word is far more difficult than composing sentences, which is always a compromise of sorts. Poetry leaves little room for the errant word, and forces the writer to reel in a train of thought with the best and most economical choice. I’ve always shied away from asking students to write this kind of thing, as I know how easy it is to be embarrassed. It’s frustraing and often mind-numbing. Tony d’Ambra has risen to the challenge with this consideration of Natalie Portman’s character in Black Swan.
It’s one of the best pieces of writing I’ve ever read at Wonders in the Dark, and I’ve read some great ones.
I was also surprised you liked this film Tony. I didn’t think it was the kind of movie you would champion. Your poem goes a long way in expressing the merits that you found in Aronovsky’s movie though. Personally I happen to agree with you and concur.
I can’t fathom the view that Black Swan is somehow the work of a misogynist, or even if it was, what relevance it would have.
Amazing that I am taken to task as a moralist and yet my critics argue the line of political correctness. Men in authority can be jerks and sexual predators, and young women do engage in risky social behavior. Why should Aronofsky be pilloried for depicting such a reality?
Vincent the ballet master may be a lecher, but he knows that Nina’s mastery of technique is sterile and won’t cut it. He is ambitious also and wants above all his production to succeed. He (and Lily) know that for Nina to fully embrace her role, she must lose her inhibitions. And Nina is not passive, she bites Vincent and draws blood when he attacks her. Nina does resist his sexual advances. She magnificently just ignores the old lecher in the subway. In desperation she accepts Lily’s offer of a spiked drink, but she rejects the brutal sex in the disco. Like everything else, her claim to her mother that she ‘fucked’ the two guys in the disco is as real as Lily going down on her in her bedroom.
Aronofsky embraces the women in the film – even the distraught Beth.
“Amazing that I am taken to task as a moralist and yet my critics argue the line of political correctness. Men in authority can be jerks and sexual predators, and young women do engage in risky social behavior. Why should Aronofsky be pilloried for depicting such a reality?”
Because the same can be said of De Palma’s SCARFACE, Noe’s highly moral IRREVERSIBLE, among others, but you didn’t allow leeway in those instances to us fans of or champions of those works. So rather I’m not arguing political correctness, but rather a matter of aloof sexual politics, or a more consistent reading of gender matters in film. Saying I’m arguing for other, is akin to a strawman.
As I said in a similar conversation about the music and lyrics of the Rolling Stones (which you unfathomably argued as not misogynistic), your sidestepping or inability to see the misogyny in this film is more a matter of your gender. In other words only can a man not find this film misogynistic, a film where a man in power reduces females to their ability to present their sexuality for employment (and when they become old and no longer appealing are readily cast aside– after the Male Employer has had ample sexual liaisons) ‘OK’. Even the sexuality he asks of her is defined by a males POV (he asks a male dancer “would you fuck her?”), as if the whole of her sexuality comes down to her turning males on.
Then the matter of the ‘roofie’ sequence again is absurd (and you’ve yet to refute this point I’ve made about three times rather just calling me ‘unwise’ or ‘a fool’), it’s a flawed choice heavily stacked against women: you either remain trapped by a stilted non-sexual cold female (Mother), or you willingly take a sedative with the risk of sexual assault (as best) or murder (at worst). Quite a non-misogynistic choice huh guys? The reality that is female sexual assault, which that sequence clearly is playing with, is disgusting (and, as I’ve said before Arnofsky quickly plays it off as potentially ‘not happening’, which is quite cowardly. But even if it did only happen in her mind she is still having a rape fantasy, which being presented by a male is also disgusting).
Then, when Portman does seek to liberate herself through her art it’s the other female (another person NOT in power) she is given by Arnofsky to go after. It’s a film who’s sexual power structure is clearly and disgustingly defined. But hey, you saw the cartoonish PULP FICTION as offensive so you’re in the clear…
The whole idea that Swan Lake in itself is given such a base level sexual reading (it’s about a whole hell of a lot more then the leads ability to eroticism the Black Swan character) is a point of contention too, but that’s a whole other discussion.
So the roofie scene and potential date rape that may all be fantasy is worse than Noe filming a nine minute rape sequence?!?!? After about 53 seconds have we not figured out the point. Is not the other 8 minutes and 7 seconds purely exploitation or simply Noe’s juvenile need to push an envelope that has no bearing on the thematic proceedings. I need to see Black Swan again to fully give your argument the proper due. Maybe your point is valid. I must admit that watching it at the time did not offend me or my girlfriend. I guarantee you she would not feel the same about Irreversible.
No it’s not. We’ve gone over this countless times, I’ve linked you to what I think is the best understood and argued essay for IRREVERSIBLE’s highly moral (and feminist) framework countless times, yet you still approach the film in such an easy, populist way. Here is the essay one more time,
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2004/feature-articles/irreversible/
and it goes without saying that the amount of time of an act neither worsens or passives the meaning of said event on screen. And when the WHOLE body of the work is put into CAREFUL consideration the length or reality of the event becomes clearer. You arguing that perhaps if the event was shorter– and easier for your stomach to digest– it would be ‘better’ is absurd. Perhaps even if the event was completely glossed over as it is in BLACK SWAN, you’d have even given IRREVERSIBLE 4 stars, or whatever.
Then, when watched his new ENTER THE VOID as I did again last night, his worldview comes into even sharper focus: he’s a man that values life like few other directors, to the point that it (life’s creation) reaches a transcendent quality.
and, it’s funny that Noe is called ‘juvenile’ (he’s clearly not) but a man that directs a film where someone is told to ‘touch yourself’ as the only way to unlock their creative side isn’t, is beyond humorous to me.
I was also referring to others who have made similar arguments elsewhere.
As for your response, I can’t untangle where your criticism of Aronosfky ends and your contempt for me begins. Though I am sure of one thing: womankind will be so thrilled to have you and Quentin in their corner.
Btw, I have not sidestepped the ‘roofie’ scene – you did not follow-up on your expressed intention on another thread to revisit the scene.
ah great deflect Tony, claim you don’t have to think about my argument because it’s ‘about you’. It seems Maurizio got my argument fine. My argument isn’t about you, so sorry to deflate your ego.
I posted a modest perhaps awful poem. In my few lines the Black Swan avenges the White Swan. But Mr Uhler is not interested in the poem.
A red rag to a bull. His arguments have as much finesse. I stated my case, he offensively posted his rebuttal ad nauseam. What else does he want?
==========================================
A chronology of deliberate personal attacks courtesy of Mr Uhler, who let it be known drew the first bow:
can anything inspire such abhorrence
as a once proud moralist aligned in side
with those that argue the worth
of those in beauty to turn to bone
[ My Response:
Twas written for the wise
yet the fool doth surmise]
Mr Uhler then all by himself goes on to dig a deeper and deeper hole:
Alas I’ve found something worse!
to the abhorrence I’ve previously spoke,
it’s those who possess two mouths
one to bestow wisdom upon themselves,
while the other plays modest.
Then the denial:
My initial poem is about my feelings on the film [sic!] (that you strangely don’t feel are valid), to which I was just called ‘unwise’ and a ‘fool’.
But hark later a backtrack – my emphasis:
most of the fault I’m showing in the initial poem is towards the films director
Another (self?) parody from Mr Uhler:
ah, always lurking, jerking
ready to squabble and malign
an assist in deflecting
when the topic was otherwise
And yet more ‘reasoned’ arguments cum denials:
. you saw the cartoonish PULP FICTION as offensive so you’re in the clear…
. you claim you don’t have to think about my argument because it’s ‘about you’. It seems Maurizio got my argument fine. My argument isn’t about you, so sorry to deflate your ego.
==========================================
Tantum mortuis bellum finitum est
what else do I want? perhaps you could post this thread inside this thread again to cover your bases? lol, since people can’t just scroll…
In regards to Jamie’s statement about a performer being advised to “touch” herself to get in touch with her creative side…how about Ingmar Bergman advising Liv Ullman to have a baby so that motherhood would be incorporated into her persona and I suppose give him more to work with on the “creative” level?
My dislike has nothing to do with populist sentiments. I disapprove of Noe’s overbearing anti-subtle style. He hammers his points in a manner that I find highly annoying and heavy handed. Also even if the rape scene was glossed over I would not like Irreversible. We all have our own personal tastes and Noe’s are far from my own. I will probably see Enter The Void at some point. I did read a review panning that newer film at Popmatters recently that echoed my own reservations on Irreversible.