Assuming I’ve weeded out those of you that have yet to (or never intend to) see Black Swan, I can proceed to the reason why I’m writing. It’s the following question: Do you consider the ballet director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel)--same guy who played the Merovingian in last two Matrix movies, right?
Wait, no, wrong...
That’s more like it--do you consider Thomas, the ballet director, evil? OK, so ignore the above picture of Cassel in trying to answer this question for yourself. Think back to the movie. Think back to everything the ballet director says (e.g., “Go home and masturbate”) and does (e.g., his groping Nina and French kissing her, which French kissing is itself at least to the Second Power of French kissing because Thomas/Cassel is himself French, right? Right!). Think about all the horrible sh*t that happens to Beth Macintire (Winona Ryder).
No, think about all the horrible sh*t that happens to her in Black Swan (hospital, face-stabbing). Think about all the horrible sh*t that happens to Nina (Natalie Portman).
No, think about all the horrible sh*t that happens to her after that haircut in V for Vendetta.
No, her being Padme for G-Luc was before V. Think of all the horrible sh*t that happens to her in Black Swan (e.g., her psychotic-break with reality in which she thinks she actually got Lily/Mila Kunis to go down on her, or her following through on Thomas’s “Go home and masturbate” imperative only to discover, mid rub-n-rub, that her mother is asleep in the same room).
OK, so, in light of what befalls both Beth and Nina, is Thomas evil? Well what do we mean beevil? How about: selfish--
While there are surely other definitions of evil, such as the one often found in the novels of Cormac McCarthy (i.e., a willingness to sacrifice others without any thought of gain, personal or otherwise), the above definition seems like the one that most people are comfortable with. According to this definition of evil--selfish and willing to sacrifice others towards selfish ends--it should seem like Thomas, the ballet director, is clearly evil: he is more than willing to sacrifice others (Nina, Beth) in pursuit of his own desires (having his lusts satiated, making his production of Swan Lake a good one). So he’s evil, right? Sure, unless we ask the following question: What is it that Nina wants for herself?
So ask yourself: What does Nina want for herself? Does she want to spend the rest of her life as a technically proficient ballet dancer who is only capable of roles that require such proficiency? Does she want to be an adult female, a woman, who lives in an all pink bedroom filled with stuffed animals, and with her psycho-mother of all people? A life-long virgin? Or... Or does she want to be the black swan, and all that entails/requires?
There are two ways to answer these questions. The first is from the point of personal speculation/interpretation. The second is from the point of view of the film itself. Any answers from the former will be contingent on whether or not you think Nina was living the “good life” prior to her taking on the role of the black swan in earnest, i.e., your answer will be a matter of personal, subjective taste. To answer from the perspective of the film itself, however, is slightly more complicated and depends by and large on what you make of all the early “encounters” between Nina and her dark doppelganger. Before you answer that question for yourself, ask: Why did Darren Aronofsky include those early encounters in the film? What’s his motivation? How you answer this question will determine how you answer all the others, and largely hangs on whether or not you think D.A. is the sort of director who attempts to communicate concrete messages through his films or just some Wanker whose just as likely to throw us Red-Herrings--
--and I give D.A. the benefit of the doubt on this one, which means that the early encounters between Nina and her dark doppelganger are supposed to tell us something. But what? How about this: Nina is/was already on her way to becoming the black swan, such that it must be said that a part of her wants to undergo the transformation that the film chronicles. If you have another possible interpretation as to why it is that D.A. showed us all the early encounters between Nina and her dark doppelganger, I’m all ears. Assuming this as our answer means we can proceed, for the time being, to answer the other questions we asked above.
So, what does Nina want for herself? From the perspective of the film itself, part of her must be said to want, or at least to will (or, perhaps, be in the process of willing) to become the black swan. From the perspective of this part of herself, anything/anyone that helps her along its/her path must be seen as “good,” right? Or, at least helpful. Anything that doesn’t help must be seen as “bad,” or unhelpful. So, from the perspective of that part of Nina that is already willing to become the black swan, Thomas the ballet director cannot be seen to be evil. But what about according to the definition of evil developed above (selfish and willing to sacrifice others towards selfish ends)? No, for even if he is manipulating Nina towards his own ends (her becoming the black swan so that his production of Swan Lake is actually a good one), his ends aren’t actually at odds with hers and so cannot be said to be wholly selfish, right? She wants to become the black swan and he wants her to become the black swan, ergo, he cannot be said to be evil according to the definition developed above.
If you’re not convinced by the above argument, develop another definition of evil, or try and make a case as to why/how it is that Nina doesn’t want to become the black swan such that the actions/behaviours of Thomas can be seen as evil according to the above definition. I myself, for one, didn’t think of Thomas as evil. Nasty, icky, slimy, sure. But bad? Evil? Less this:
And more this:
Yeah, icky. Not evil, just icky.
No comments:
Post a Comment