As the iconic Nicole Kidman espouses in her long-running advert for AMC Theatres: “We come to this place for magic (…)and we go somewhere we’ve never been before; not just entertained, but somehow reborn. Together.”[1]Nicole Kidman – AMC theatres. we make movies better. Genius. (n.d.-b). https://genius.com/Nicole-kidman-amc-theatres-we-make-movies-better-annotated
Her revelation of the cinematic space par excellence, the communal grounds wherein audiences can come together and experience audio-visual ecstasy in transformative fashion, rings truer today than it ever has before as modern audiences have taken the duty to enact these ideations and make them a reality that each and every one of us, persons willing to to buy tickets and carve out time in their schedules to go to such spaces, can experience in ways we never even thought possible.
Tickets and Anticipation
Tickets go on sale for the latest film that catches your attention. It’s a blockbuster. Or it’s an indie production. Perhaps, it’s even at art-house romp. Regardless of its inherent nature, this filmic media calls out to you, inviting you to experience it on the big screen and engage in an experience you couldn’t have anywhere else.
This ticket, one you eagerly purchased in anticipation of the experience waiting to be unlocked by it, sits in the palm of your hand, whether it be doled out as a more classical stub or a more modern code to be scanned later.
You count down the time before the film is set to play. For some, this waiting time is weeks or even months and for others its mere moments before showtime is set to start. No matter which side of the aisle you end up on, the anticipation before the feature whets your appetite. We’re counting on this experience to fill us up, providing a meal that could only be cooked in this environment at this designated time.
Finally, the moment arrives. The film is about to start as the adverts playing before this main course finally die down. Anticipation builds and reaches a fever pitch as we hanker down for what we were promised: to be “reborn.”
The Film Starts
Then the film starts up and the wonderous interplay between sound and image fill the space. The large screen becomes a massive canvas where visions can play out while the speakers surrounding the enclosed space begin to immerse you with their pristine sounds.
You lean back in your chair and begin to take it all in, soaking in the wealth of details offered by the artifice of the theatre. We, the audience, sit together and take in this larger-than-life vision, one created by various artists across a plethora of disciplines working together in an attempt to create something that will make our decision to attend the show worth it.
After all, ticket prices have increased across the board and time feels like it’s becoming increasingly scarce. Finding both the energy and the finances to go down to the theatre to enjoy the experience is an act of faith that must be rewarded.
Enter the Modern Audience
Sensing this dilemma and hoping to ensure that such disappointment does not come to fruition, the modern audience, one that represents a solid chunk of persons and not the collective audience at large, takes it upon themselves to ensure that these promises are kept and the theatrical experience not only meets expectations but exceeds them entirely.
However, these valiant soldiers of the art-form have few means available to them by which to do as much. After all, it’s not like they can directly go in and edit the movie itself. So, they must improvise with the tools at their disposal to create the best possible space for appreciating the movie playing
Sound Design
Of course, the first and most widely available tool in these heroes’ toolboxes is their ability to contribute to lend their talents to the audio-mix.
Some of these good Samaritans have realized that the time of the audio-commentary has disappeared, a disappointing trend that renders the films themselves the only thing to experience during their run-time.[2]Larman, A. (2020, October 22). The death of the DVD commentary: Alexander Larman. The Critic Magazine. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-death-of-the-dvd-commentary/ But audio-commentary adds a whole new layer to what’s going on, providing a feedback and explanation of why certain aspects of the picture are working and what parts of it we should pay more attention to.
Comments made during the movie, by audience members who try their best to be loud such as to ensure that everyone else can partake in the fuller experience, fill this gap and accentuate the idea of community that’s so important to the theatre in general.
A “isn’t that the person from that thing?”, draws attention to the impressive bodies of work that members of the crew have accumulated and helps us appreciate the scope of their careers, ones that would go unnoticed outside of the most current role on the screen if not for the reminder.
Series of “wait, so what just happened?” ensure that the no one is ever lost in the flow of the story, as they’re constantly reminded of key events during and after their moment on the screen. Why wait for a flashback or an explanation and risk the chance of not understanding something? Instead, being constantly reminded of previous scenes or bits of dialogue, sometimes multiple times in a row from a slew of modern audience members in the crowd, ensures that there is absolutely no room to not know what’s going on.
Meanwhile, a “this sucks” or “hell, yeah!” lets us know that our opinion of what’s happening in the film may in fact be wrong and that we should pay more attention such as to not get duped. We wouldn’t want to end up unfairly judging the piece with just our own opinions. Having help ensures that we give the movie a fair shot.
These types of comments also act as reviews — a buy one, get one free deal— that really lets us get the bang for our buck. Now we don’t even have to take the time to go and watch videos or read analyses after our viewing because we get to learn what others think in the moment without even having had to leave our chairs. The more people join in, the larger the value of the experience is. Bigger is always better, and the modern audience understands that better than anybody.
But the fun doesn’t stop there.
Some members of the modern audience realize the importance of sub-text and meta-textual interplay, understanding that it’s the relation between works that allows hidden meanings to become noticeable. These precocious people take it upon themselves to introduce these extra narrative layers to the film.
Some of them have conversations amongst themselves, ensuring that any moment of silence has some audio to go along with it. That way no one ever gets bored and they always have something to listen to. When something is happening, these conversations force us to be fully engaged, as we really have to hanker down and focus on what exactly is being said within the film.
The more intense version of these upstanding movie-goers are those who decide to have dialogues with persons not even in the environment. By taking out their phone during a showing and having a conversation that also layers over the film’s dialogue, they really make the audience hanker down and give full attention to the speakers.
But there’s the added benefit of bringing in another party to the experience from afar, as the persons on the other side of the phone conversations now get to be involved within the community present in the space without having to even be there. Now people who were unable to make it to the showing can joyfully participate with those excited cineastes who paid for their tickets and made the journey down, uniting distinctive groups of people that may otherwise not have such a chance to interact.
Phones also give the modern audience the ability to play composer. Cellphone ringtones playing constantly, one after another, can help fill otherwise quiet moments and ensure that they don’t feel too boring or hard to get through and may have the added benefit of introducing us to musical endeavors that we would have otherwise not been privy to. I personally can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a track as a ringtone and thought to myself: “Now that’s a song I need to add to my playlist!”
Visual Layering
But movies are so much more than just their sound. Video on the screen might be an even bigger part of the allure of the experience, and here, modern audiences have truly innovated when compared to their historical counterparts.
Obviously, the phone users are punching above their weight, somehow changing both the soundscape and the way the screen itself is viewed. Bright lights scattered around the room make the screen one of many objects to look at, giving everyone else multiple objects to look at if they find that staring at one particular screen, the big one in the front of the room, gets too cumbersome for them. This way there’s always diversity present, ensuring that the movie itself does not overwhelm viewers who would otherwise be forced to pay attention to it the entire time.
But this recent era has seen the rise of “vapers”, modern audience members who decided that lights weren’t enough of a visual accompaniment and that a more poignant visual layer was necessary in the form of plumes of smoke punctuating the air and becoming hyper-visible in the projection light.
This gesture transforms the 2-D experience into a multi-dimensional one, as the smoke adds a new visual layer, a type of opacity, that you can actually touch and feel and the fragrance of these vapors takes it even further, tapping into an olfactory dimension that cinema hadn’t had before – an innovation in form if there ever was one.
The most dedicated members make sure to take as many puffs as possible and blow the smoke out in all directions, ensuring that their activity is noticed and that fellow viewers don’t miss out on the artistic flourishes being added.
Communal Engagement
The net result of these active changes to the filmic experience present newfound moments for community bonding between members of the audience who aren’t quite as modern. Now they’re presented with chances to get in on the action.
The chattering, the lights, the smokes, and the smells all allow chances for new interactions to bloom within the cinematic space, as audience members who aren’t as comfortable with the dynamic landscape often find themselves networking with the modern members, asking them to “be quiet”, “stop talking”, “stop blowing smoke due to allergies”, and the like.
These interactions, moments of genuine communication coming from the heart, would have never happened if not for the brave actions of modern audiences who push the boundaries of what the theatrical experience can be.
The Take-Aways
If the reason we go to theatres is to engage in a community experience wherein we take in fully the moving picture, a combination of both visuals and audios, meant to tap our senses and move us to new places that make the cinematic adventure wholly unique, something that would never happen in the privacy of our homes, then the modern audience makes up the viewers who are most committed to the cause.
These are the heroes taking on the responsibilities of the cinematic zone, ensuring that other viewers take away from the theatre something that would have otherwise never gotten. As Nicole tells us “We come to this place…for magic” and with a modern audience like this, we’ll certainly leave having experienced something akin to that. [3]Nicole Kidman – AMC theatres. we make movies better. Genius. (n.d.-b). https://genius.com/Nicole-kidman-amc-theatres-we-make-movies-better-annotated.
With the 96th Academy Awards coming up on March 10th, I decided to get in on the discourse and share my predictions for the awards alongside my general thoughts and musings on the nature of the candidates and appreciation for those artists who were not given the recognition I feel they should have been. I’m less interested in “snubs” and more interested in shining a light on work I felt was spectacular, so my notation of noticeable omissions isn’t meant to denigrate any of other nominees as much as it is to praise what I think is cinematically wonderful/artistically exceptional and offer a look into my own perspective.
For those looking to quickly parse the discussion for just the predictions, I have the winners BOLDED under each award category.
For any category where I haven’t seen a particular nominee, I will be marking them with an * next to the name of the respective film.
I will be skipping the following categories due to lack of familiarity with a majority of the nominees: Animated Short Film, Documentary Short Film, Documentary Feature Film.
BEST PICTURE
FILM
DIRECTOR
PRODUCER(S)
American Fiction
Cord Jefferson
Ben LeClair, Nikos Karamigios, Cord Jefferson and Jermaine Johnson
Anatomy of a Fall
Justine Triet
Marie-Ange Luciani and David Thion
Barbie
Greta Gerwig
David Heyman, Margot Robbie, Tom Ackerley and Robbie Brenner
The Holdovers
Alexander Payne
Mark Johnson
Killers of the Flower Moon
Martin Scorsese
Dan Friedkin, Bradley Thomas, Martin Scorsese and Daniel Lupi
Maestro
Bradley Cooper
Bradley Cooper, Steven Spielberg, Fred Berner, Amy Durning and Kristie Macosko Krieger
Oppenheimer
Christopher Nolan
Emma Thomas, Charles Roven and Christopher Nolan
Past Lives
Celine Song
David Hinojosa, Christine Vachon and Pamela Koffler
Poor Things
Yorgos Lanthimos
Ed Guiney, Andrew Lowe, Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone
The Zone of Interest
Jonathan Glazer
James Wilson
This year’s Best Picture nominees, from my perspective at least, feel like they’re split into two categories: ambitious in form and style with muscular filmmaking, utilizing writing and acting in service of the more technical elements to generate transcendent moments of filmmaking; heavily reliant on writing and acting to generate moments of poignant catharsis with less focus on the pushing the envelope of visual style or form. This is not to say films in the former group have worse scripts and/or poorer performances while films in the latter group have nothing technically inventive to marvel at but merely serves as an internal schema I’ve adopted to partition the nominees into more discrete entities for the sake of discussion.
This former group is the one I prefer due to my own leanings and thoughts on what makes for “great” cinema and it consists of: Oppenheimer, The Zone of Interest, Poor Things, Killers of the Flower Moon. I would be happy with any of these films winning the prestigious Best Picture award.
The latter group consists of: American Fiction, Past Lives, and the Holdovers. While Anatomy of a Fall, Barbie, and Maestro seem to toe the line between these groupings, they do seem to err towards the paradigm enshrined by the latter, so I feel comfortable including them here.
Out of all the candidates, the film I believe is MOST LIKELY to win is Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer. His sprawling biopic sacrifices no narrative heft and features a great ensemble performance on top of two masterful performances from both Cilian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. while exhibiting some of his most masterful editing work, the facet of cinema he most excels at, and strikes a nice balance between popular appeal and formal exuberance. Given it’s track record at awards shows leading up to the Academy Awards, it feels like an incredibly safe bet to win.
While I don’t think any film was “snubbed” so to speak, there are a few films which I felt exhibited the best aspects of cinema which I would have thoroughly enjoyed to see nominated, including but not limited to: Ari Aster’s Beau is Afraid, Emerald Fennel’s Saltburn, Andrew Haigh’s All of Us Strangers, Hayao Miyazaki’s The Boy and the Heron, Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City, and Chad Stahleski’s John Wick: Chapter 4. While some of these films would definitely not see an academy nomination due to their content, experimental tendencies, or genre leanings, I do believe they represent some of the very best of the year and wanted to shine a light on them alongside the aforementioned offerings.
DIRECTING
FILM
DIRECTOR
Anatomy of a Fall
Justine Triet
Killers of the Flower Moon
Martin Scorsese
Oppenheimer
Christopher Nolan
Past Lives
Yorgos Lanthimos
The Zone of Interest
Jonathan Glazer
Out of the directing candidates, I’m happy to say I’d be fine with the majority of the pool taking home the big award, even though I think that the MOST LIKELY winner will be Christopher Nolan. With Oppenheimer poised to win the lion share’s of awards on Oscar night, it seems inevitable that Nolan will finally get his well deserved Oscar and subsequent recognition.
On another note, in reference to the idea of director Greta Gerwig’s snub for Barbie, while I personally do not think such an offense occurred from my perspective of what constituted the best film of the year, I do think it’s curious to see Barbie nominated for Best Picture, and Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay) along with a few other nominations and then not see the director get credited for the same especially given the cultural relevance of the film. If the award is meant to recognize the director who put the relevant elements together, and those elements are recognized as excellent in their own right and cohesive enough to generate a picture worth nominating, it feels odd to not that same director in this set of awards.
INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM
FILM
DIRECTOR
COUNTRY
Io Capitano *
Matteo Garrone
Italy
Perfect Days
Wim Wenders
Japan
Society of the Snow
J. A. Bayona
Spain
The Teacher’s’ Lounge
Ilker Çatak
Germany
The Zone of Interest
Jonathan Glazer
United Kingdom
I believe the Zone of Interestis MOST LIKELY to win. It’s by and far away the best film of those nominated for the International Feature Film award and I have no doubt it will cinch the same especially given the absence of Anatomy of a Fall which bested it at the Cannes Film Festival.
Speaking of Anatomy of a Fall however, and the related discussions of its omission due to France’s decision to nominate The Taste of Things, I have to readily admit that I think that the proper decision was made in this regards and am puzzled at the latter film’s particular omission from this final list of five nominees. The Taste of Things features poetic camera-work, includes tender and inviting performances, and certainly feels like it warrants a better reputation amongst cineastes.
But on a more positive note, while I believe that Perfect Days was not the best film made in Japan (that honor goes to Miyazaki’s The Boy and the Heron) , I do believe it’s a gem of a film and am glad to see it have gotten some recognition, especially when Japan seemed to produce a handful of incredible quality films (including: Godzilla Minus One and Monster) this past year. If not for The Zone of Interest, this would be my easy pick for the award from the current pool of nominees.
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
FILM
DIRECTOR(S)
The Boy and the Heron
Hayao Miyazaki
Elemental
Peter Sohn
Nimona
Troy Quane, Nick Bruno
Robot Dreams*
Pablo Berger
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, Justin K. Thompson
In terms of animation, 2023 proved to be one of the very best (at least at the top level), especially in recent years, with both Western and Eastern directors and studios putting out incredible, quality works. I believe it’s going to be a fierce two -horse race between The Boy and the Heronand Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse but I do think Miyazaki’s film is MOST LIKELY to win.
Miyazaki famously is the only director to have a work, Spirited Away, win the prestigious award despite having made it in a non-North American animation house, and the cult of personality surrounding him and the melancholy nature of this film potentially being his last might be enough to push him ahead of his competitors.
In terms of missing films, I believe that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem is a significant omission and certainly warranted a spot on the list of nominees. It has a wonderful aesthetic dripping with personality and makes a series of cinematic choices that use animation’s abilities as a medium to the fullest
LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
FILM
DIRECTOR
The After
Misan Harriman
Invincible
Vincent René-Lortie
Knight of Fortune
Lasse Lyskjær Noer
Red, White and Blue
Nazrin Choudhury
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar
Wes Anderson
It’s a bit of a paradigmatic snafu for me in the context of this category, because I evaluated Wes Anderson’s collection of Roald Dahl short films as an anthology film of sorts, but if forced to evaluate just The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, I do believe it is easily the best offering from the nominees and is MOST LIKELY to win.
However, I do want to call attention to the omission of Bi Gan’s A Short Story from the nominees. It’s a wonderfully hypnotic piece of film-making that fit’s nicely into the director’s wildly oneiric oeuvre and I believe that it would made this competition, from my point of view, incredibly competitive.
FILM EDITING
FILM
EDITOR
Anatomy of a Fall
Laurent Sénéchal
The Holdovers
Kevin Tent
Killers of the Flower Moon
Thelma Schoonmaker
Oppenheimer
Jennifer Lame
Poor Things
Yorgos Mavropsaridis
Christopher Nolan has made a name for himself as one of the premiere editors of the modern generation of filmmaker’s and his work with editor Jennifer Lame confirms that his sense of rhythm and penchant for formal layering has only gotten stronger and think that the latter is MOST LIKELY to win as a result. The film wonderfully dips between different timelines seamlessly and makes following otherwise un-cinematic conversations a visceral experience.
In terms of omissions, I’d like to call to attention Jonathan Alberts’ work on All of Us Strangers which deftly interweaves between internal and external, dreamscape and reality, the corporeal and metaphysical with such ease that one simply sets back and lets the experience of the film wash over them.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
FILM
DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY
El Conde
Edward Lachman
Killers of the Flower Moon
Rodrigo Prieto
Maestro
Matthew Libatique
Oppenheimer
Hoyte van Hoytema
Poor Things
Robbie Ryan
This is a category which I would have loved to see opened up this year as there were numerous director’s of photography transporting us through worlds, both internal and external, through their use of camera movement in relation to precise mise-en-scène arrangements.
In terms of the nominees proper, I want to call special attention to Lachman’s work in El Conde, which imbues a texture and sense of gravitas to the film and keeps its horror comedy blood flowing and Robbie Ryan’s masterful work in Poor Things where his staggeringly beautiful photography utilizing hyper-exaggerated and distinctive lenses feels at once totally alien and simultaneously wholly authentic to the world being showcased.
Notable nominees who I want to shout out include: Dan Lausten, whose work on John Wick: 4 imbues and ties kinetic, jaw-dropping action with wonderful, picturesque set-piece and backdrops which give the film an epic and grandiose feeling, elevating it to the top of its genre; Pawel Pogorzelski, whose work on Beau is Afraid, masterfully evokes the voyeuristic feeling of the camera and the way it points-of-views are matriculated through subjectivity and influence the way phenomena are perceived; Linus Sandgren, whose work on Saltburn contains some of the most flat-out, painterly beautiful frames I’ve seen in films this past year; Jonathan Ricquebourg, whose work on The Taste of Things, transports the viewer into the world of gourmet foods with such flair, that one cannot help but feel their stomachs grumble as the film deftly exhibits the transformative, evocative powers of a camera that knows exactly at what points to prolong its movements to create truly, sublime moments.
With that said, I think that it’s Hoyte Van Hoytema’s work on Oppenheimer, that will MOST LIKELY take home top prize. He manages to imbue such an epic scale to an intimate bio-pic and utilizes the canvas of Cilian Murphy’s hazy, blue eyes, and worry-marked face to constantly evoke and stir the palpable emotional current that keeps the film feeling grounded and monumental simultaneously.
PRODUCTION DESIGN
FILM
NOMINEES
Barbie
Production Design: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
Killers of the Flower Moon
Production Design: Jack Fisk; Set Decoration: Adam Willis
Napoleon
Production Design: Arthur Max; Set Decoration: Elli Griff
Oppenheimer
Production Design: Ruth De Jong; Set Decoration: Claire Kaufman
Poor Things
Production Design: James Price and Shona Heath; Set Decoration: Zsuzsa Mihalek
There are three glaring omissions in this category that I would like to draw attention to before talking about the wonderful nominees proper. They are: Fiona Crombie, for her work on Beau is Afraid, a film that constantly changes between what seems to be radically different milieus, each striking and viscerally shocking in their own ways, while keeping the aesthetic choices consistent within the larger schema of the film; Charlotte Dirckx and Suzie Davis, for their work on Saltburn, a film that explores the labyrinth of wealth through a debauched, grandiose setting that exemplifies the same; Adam Stockhausen, for his work on Asteroid City, a film which splits itself between two separate strands, each complete with their own trappings and aesthetic leanings, that feels wholly nostalgic, fictional, and lived-in simultaneously.
In terms of the nominees themselves, the race between them is incredibly close and I could see the award going to Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, or Poor Things. While my personal pick of these would likely go to the team behind Poor Things for the wonderful creation of a surreal world mapped off our own, I think Academy voters will MOST LIKELY be swayed by Barbie whose hot-pink, resolutely artificial sets give it a vitality that even detractors of the film at large wouldn’t be able to ignore. Given my belief that Barbie will also lose a good amount of the awards it’s been nominated for, this feels like a safe “gimme” award for the box-office juggernaut.
VISUAL EFFECTS
FILM
NOMINEES
The Creator
Jay Cooper, Ian Comley, Andrew Roberts and Neil Corbould
Godzilla Minus One
Takashi Yamazaki, Kiyoko Shibuya, Masaki Takahashi and Tatsuji Nojima
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
Stephane Ceretti, Alexis Wajsbrot, Guy Williams and Theo Bialek
Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One
Alex Wuttke, Simone Coco, Jeff Sutherland and Neil Corbould
Napoleon
Charley Henley, Luc-Ewen Martin-Fenouillet, Simone Coco and Neil Corbould
While I think this batch of nominees is more than deserving of their selections, Alexandre Lafortune’s work on Beau is Afraid and the way he was able to coalesce the work and visions of a host of creatives (especially the contributions of Cristobal León & Joaquín Cociña) to deliver Aster’s zany vision is nothing short of exemplary especially in the 3rd-part of the film which contains, for my money, some of the most spectacular film-making of this current decade.
In terms of the nominees proper, both the teams for The Creator and Godzilla Minus One deserve applause for helping to create moments of serious heft, depth, and impact, perfectly molding artifice with reality in a gripping, yet non-alienating fashion. Choosing between them is not an easy or enviable act.
While I believe that Godzilla Minus Onewill MOST LIKELY win the award due to the awards buzz hype surrounding it and its massive global reach, I would personally give the slightest edge to The Creator whose visuals and subsequent worldbuilding left me gobsmacked through its running time, never letting up and allowing me to question what I was seeing even though in the back of my mind I knew it was just digital wizardry at play.
COSTUME DESIGN
FILM
NOMINEES
Barbie
Jacqueline Durran
Killers of the Flower Moon
Jacqueline West
Napoleon
Janty Yates and Dave Crossman
Oppenheimer
Ellen Mirojnick
Poor Things
Holly Waddington
While I believe the nominees in this category to be wonderful, I do want to draw attention to Stacey Battat’s work on Priscilla as she recreates crystallized moments from the past with such careful attention to detail that the film is able to explore the ghosts of the past as though they were here with us now.
In terms of who will be taking home the award, I believe it will MOST LIKELY go to Jacqueline Durran for her work on Barbie. In the same manner of praise I lauded onto the team behind the film’s production design, I have to extend to Durran who wonderfully captures the mood of the iconic doll amongst such a large variety of variants that it becomes hard not to get lost in the wonderful details.
However, my personal pick amongst the deserving nominees would be Holly Waddington for her work in Poor Things, given her ability to switch effortlessly between so many variations and stylizations of dress-wear whilst showing their respective evolutions vis-a-vis the protagonists journey. The work is showy in the best ways, inviting the viewer to pay attention and marvel, but never becomes the focal point outside of when it needs to play that role.
MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
FILM
NOMINEES
Golda*
Karen Hartley Thomas, Suzi Battersby and Ashra Kelly-Blue
Maestro
Kazu Hiro, Kay Georgiou and Lori McCoy-Bell
Oppenheimer
Luisa Abel
Poor Things
Nadia Stacey, Mark Coulier and Josh Weston
Society of the Snow
Ana López-Puigcerver, David Martí and Montse Ribé
From the perspective of what the Academy Awards themselves would normally nominate, this category feels like it has a glaring omission in the form of the team behind Barbie which feels especially absurd given my comments above on the film’s Costume Design; this work goes very much in hand with the makeup and hairstyling work being done there and if one is worthy of winning it seems shocking that the other would not be worthy of being nominated. Just genuinely baffling.
From my own perspective, the lack of nomination for the team behind Beau is Afraid’s makeup and hairstyling – which perfectly rides the line between disturbing, campy, and endearing – feels more an effect of the Academy’s general aversion to the film and its ilk, so pointing out this omission is more a tepid sigh on my part than an aggrieved, finger-wagging condemnation.
But in regards to the nominees in play, without Barbie to lead the way, this category is certainly harder for me to predict, and I definitely think, moreso than the other categories, my biases are have to dictate my choice; thus, I believe that the award will MOST LIKELY go to Nadia Stacey, Mark Coulier and Josh Weston for their efforts on Poor Things. Their work is subtle when it needs to be and the more extreme aspects of what they managed to do feel wholly incorporated.
WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
FILM
WRITER(S)
Anatomy of a Fall
Justine Triet and Arthur Harari
The Holdovers
David Hemingson
Maestro
Bradley Cooper & Josh Singer
May December
Samy Burch & Alex Mechanik
Past Lives
Celine Song
At this point I’ve extolled Ari Aster’s Beau is Afraid enough, so I’ll just say I think I think it should be mentioned in this conversation.
A film I’ve been waiting to bring up and now have an opportunity to do so with however, is Hirokazu Kore-eda’s Monster whose screenplay written by Yuji Sakamoto is entirely gripping from start to finish, demonstrating the powers of structure as a tool by which to break a seemingly simple story in such a way as to create a propulsive narrative force that emotionally provokes as much as it plays with the mysteries lying its heart.
With that said, this category is incredibly competitive this year and guessing the winner feels like playing a game of statistics using other nominations as a springboard to guess what’s going to win.
If it were up to me, I would, by a very slim margin, pick Samy Burch & Alex Mechanik’s work on May December. They manage to hit the perfect space of absolutely disturbing and upsettingly funny and the way the narrative progresses is a sight to behold.
However, I think Celine Song’s work on her debut, Past Lives, is absolutely masterful and certainly operating on the same tier. Perhaps it’s due to my conversations with my own friends regarding the film, but it feels like it hits so many emotional beats commonplace among persons across a wide variety of age groups, targeting a kind of unforgettable melancholy we’ve all buried away lest we look upon the same and shatter into pieces, that I can’t help but think it’ll manage to sway enough voters to win. Calling it MOST LIKELY to win feels difficult, especially given the rapturous hold The Holdovers has seemed to have on audiences who have given themselves over to its tender, heart-warming story and absolutely and endlessly quotable moments (there are few lines more memorable from the year than “Hardy, I have known you since you were a boy, so I think I have the requisite experience and insight to aver that you are and always have been penis cancer in human form.”) , so I could see Hemingson also walking away with this honor. This is certainly going to be one of the more gripping Oscar night races to witness.
WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
FILM
WRITER(S)
American Fiction
Cord Jefferson
Barbie
Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach
Oppenheimer
Christopher Nolan
Poor Things
Tony McNamara
The Zone of Interest
Jonathan Glazer
Killers of the Flower Moon glaring omission here, especially given its prominence among the other categories, is certainly felt, but the pool of candidates left are all absolutely worth of the accolades.
However, if there’s an omission that’s flown under the radar, it’s Andrew Haigh’s work on All of Us Strangers, which is certainly one of the most emotionally evocative, sublimely tender pieces of filmmaking I’ve seen in years let alone the year itself. The manner in which he’s distilled Taichi Yamada’s initial story and transformed it into his own is demonstrative proof of the magic of adaptation and would certainly be my personal pick for best Adapted Screenplay of the year.
Amongst the candidates themselves, I think it’s hard to go wrong with Christopher Nolan, Tony McNamara, or Jonathan Glazer, as each of their screenplays seems perfectly calibrated to do exactly what their respective film’s are trying to achieve thematically. Glazer’s minimalism might be a tough sell to voters even if I think it’s absolutely perfect in what it sets out to do. Ultimately, if forced to choose between the other two, I believe that Christopher Nolan will MOST LIKELY take home the prize, riding the wave of Oppenheimer’s general success.
SOUND
FILM
NOMINEES
The Creator
Ian Voigt, Erik Aadahl, Ethan Van der Ryn, Tom Ozanich and Dean Zupancic
Maestro
Steven A. Morrow, Richard King, Jason Ruder, Tom Ozanich and Dean Zupancic
Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One
Chris Munro, James H. Mather, Chris Burdon and Mark Taylor
Oppenheimer
Willie Burton, Richard King, Gary A. Rizzo and Kevin O’Connell
The Zone of Interest
Tarn Willers and Johnnie Burn
There’s only one real answer here, no MOST LIKELY about it, and that is Tarn Willers and Johnie Burn’s work on The Zone of Interest. This might be some of the greatest sound work in the history of the cinematic artform, supplementing the visuals of the film and the story told by the same with another tale entirely through the soundscape, a plane which utterly terrifies and engrosses the audience within its miasma from start to finish.
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
FILM
COMPOSERS
American Fiction
Laura Karpman
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
John Williams
Killers of the Flower Moon
Robbie Robertson
Oppenheimer
Ludwig Göransson
Poor Things
Jerskin Fendrix
My personal pick for this year’s best original score oscillated between two candidates. The first of whom, Joe Hisaishi, created one of the most somber, touch, endearing, spellbinding scores in his already legendary, storied career for The Boy and the Heron. There is a beautiful minimalism to much of it that explodes with sensational aplomb when the need arises, never overstaying its welcome or arriving too late to accentuate the oneiric visuals on screen. His omission definitely feels like the Academy denigrating the power of animation within film.
Thankfully, the second of my picks, Ludwig Göransson, is also the MOST LIKELY to walk away with this prize. Nolan shows off the range of Göransson’s musical treatise, filling his film with tracks for nearly its entire runtime. There’s absolutely no place to hide from the soundscape and no one who listens to its sonorous beauty would want to.
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)
SONG
FILM
NOMINEES
The Fire Inside
Flamin’ Hot
Music and Lyric by Diane Warren
I’m Just Ken
Barbie
Music and Lyric by Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt
It Never Went Away
American Symphony
Music and Lyric by Jon Batiste and Dan Wilson
Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)
Killers of the Flower Moon
Music and Lyric by Scott George
What Was I Made For?
Barbie
Music and Lyric by Billie Eilish and Finneas O’Connell
What Was I Made For? feels like it was born for this award and will MOST LIKELY walk away with the prize. It served as the perfect vehicle for the wonderful Billie Eilish and Finneas O’Connell to imbue Barbie with an emotional heft that one would not normally attribute to a film based on the hugely popular toy line.
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
FILM
ACTOR
Maestro
Bradley Cooper
Rustin
Colman Domingo
The Holdovers
Paul Giamatti
Oppenheimer
Cillian Murphy
American Fiction
Jeffrey Wright
As we come to the final set of awards, one’s related to acting, I have to mention Beau is Afraid one final time as Joaquin Phoenix’s turn as the iconic Beau is absolutely legendary and one of the legendary actor’s finest performances. He’s forced to both be a receptacle for Aster’s world and exhibit a neurotic indecision that would be nauseatingly grating by any normal measure but also be sympathetic enough such as to not totally alienate the viewer, and I believe he achieves that striking balance with such precision that it’s hard not to be impressed.
However, when it comes to awards night, the MOST LIKELY, and by this I mean almost definitely, winner will be CILIAN MURPHY, whose piercing eyes and worried facial lines ground the film’s epic scale with a human intimacy that lingers on the viewer long after the runtime has finished. This is the best performance from a storied actor, one whose worked with Nolan for years on end now, and come Oscar night I hope to see him recognized for the same.
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
FILM
ACTOR
American Fiction
Sterling K. Brown
Killers of the Flower Moon
Robert De Niro
Oppenheimer
Robert Downey Jr.
Barbie
Ryan Gosling
Poor Things
Mark Ruffalo
Like his cast-mate, Robert Downey Jr. win feels less like a MOST LIKELY and more like a certainty. He is every much Cilian’s equal, both within the Oppenheimer’s‘ narrative and in regards to the depth of the performance he has to give to humanize the stakes.
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
FILM
ACTRESS
Nyad
Annette Bening
Killers of the Flower Moon
Lily Gladstone
Anatomy of a Fall
Sandra Hüller
Maestro
Carey Mulligan
Poor Things
Emma Stone
This is certainly the most competitive race of the night and feels like a battle between Emma Stone and Lily Gladstone. While I believe Emma Stone’s performance is legendary and might be one the young, but incredibly accomplished actress’s best and is easily my pick for the category, her status as an Oscar holder and the narrative forming behind Gladstone might be just enough for the Killers of the Flower Moon star to cinch the award.
It’s hard to deliberate between one’s gut and the way one perceives the flow of public opinion, but I think that Emma Stone will MOST LIKELY walk away with the award given both more transformative nature of her performance and the fact that, unlike Gladstone, she’s in almost every frame of her film as it’s star.
Funnily enough, I believe that the second best performance by an actress this year came from Sandra Hüller for her work in The Zone of Interest, but it’s her work in Anatomy of a Fall which has been nominated. If anything, it demonstrates what an exceptional phenom she is, having been a part of two of the better films of the year and delivering masterful performances in both.
However, while Hüller has at least been mentioned for her work in one of the films, even if I think it’s the weaker of her two roles, Scarlett Johansson’s work in Asteroid City has largely flown under the radar and is certainly worthy of adoration. Standing out in an Anderson ensemble is hard enough work, let alone to a newcomer to his iconic filmography, but Johnasson absolutely delivers a wonderfully subtle performance that fits within the director’s style while being totally her own. The lack of attention given to her work seems to be more an effect of the film’s larger alienation among the director’s usual fanbase – a shame.
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
FILM
ACTRESS
Oppenheimer
Emily Blunt
The Color Purple
Danielle Brooks
Barbie
America Ferrera
Nyad
Jodie Foster
The Holdovers
Da’Vine Joy Randolph
Given her absolute decimation of this category throughout the season’s award shows, it’s not a MOST LIKELY as much as it is an inevitability that Da’Vine Joy Randolph will win the award for her emotionally compelling work in The Holdovers.
I’ve loved horror movies for a long time, but I’ve always found it hard to talk about it with others because of my lack of familiarity with the western cannon. As a kid I started off with horror movies like The Ring and The Grudge and subsequently got into Asian horror. Because of this I never ended up watching common American classics like A Nightmare on Elm Street.
This challenge was my chance to play “catch-up” and improve my understanding of western horror history. I thought it’d be hard because of how many slashers I’d have to watch. I’ve never liked blood – it always makes me feel queasy – so slashers were my natural enemy. However, I did look forward to movies like The Silence of the Lambs and The House of the Devil, because I like supernatural and psychological movies and I find them easiest to get lost in.
The biggest part of the challenge I was scared about was actually forcing myself to watch a horror movie everyday and then write a review within the day. Yes, I tell my friends what I think of movies all the time but writing my thoughts out is a lot more time intensive than casually speaking them. My biggest concern was having a competent review for each movie.
Now that the challenge is done- I thought it’d be interesting to go ahead and analyze the results and experience overall. Did I meet expectations? Was it everything I wanted and more? How did my reviews compare to aggregate sites like IMDb? Tune in and find out.
GENERAL STATISTICS
I went to Metacritic and IMDb and found the aggregate ratings for each of the movies I saw. The Metascore on Metacritic uses a scale of 100. I scaled it back down to a scale of 10 to make comparing the numbers easier.
The sample size is only the 32 movies I saw during the challenge, so take the numbers as you will. As I get more reviews up here I can do more robust analyses. This particular retrospective might seem more trivial, but it’s a fun journey nonetheless.
NOTE: Ratings may change as more reviews are added over time so if you view this well after the posted date- keep that in mind.
Based on my ratings you can tell that this month was good for me. Out of the 32 movies I saw 8 movies that I would classify as a 10. Those movies were:
The Shining
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
The Thing
The Silence of the Lambs
In the Mouth of Madness
Candyman
Jaws
The Lighthouse
Even though I’d say I’m more willing to give 10’s than other critics, I still find it amazing how many of the movies profoundly impacted me. On top of these 8 “unicorns”, an additional 4 movies made the A+ squad meaning that 37.5% of the movies I saw were good enough for me to want to recommend then to everyone. These additions include:
Night of the Living Dead
Nosferatu
28 Days Later
Ringu
The distribution of these movies genre-wise is also something I’m surprised by. I didn’t think that I would rank any slasher up that highly, but Candyman and Texas Chain Saw Massacre were both so nuanced that I couldn’t help but be entranced by both movies. I love supernatural and psychological movies so that part makes sense.
Genre
Count
Supernatural
3
Psychological
3
Slasher
2
Monster
1
Science Fiction
1
The movie I ended up liking the least was Friday the 13th, which I gave a 7.2. After A Nightmare on Elm Street, I was hoping that one of the other great slasher series could give me something meaningful to bite into. Unfortunately, despite having a few nice moments, the movie didn’t hit me the way I wanted it to. It’s funny- before I started the marathon I didn’t want anything to do with the movie, but after being spoiled by some great ones, I started looking forward to the ones on my list. Congrats slasher movies – you got a fan in me.
RELATIONAL ANALYSIS
Review Source
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
Me
9.09
9.25
0.81
IMDb
7.49
7.5
0.61
Metacritic – User
8.03
8.3
0.96
Metacritic- Meta
6.82
7.3
1.56
My friends have always said I’m a film snob, and I’ve always maintained I’m not. But everytime I end up loving a horror movie (The Witch, It Follows, The Babadook…) it ends up being one of those divisive movies that gets good “critic” reviews but not so great user reviews. That’s what made the comparison of the major statistics so surprising.
My ratings were closest to the Metacritic – User ratings and also furthest away from the Metacritic – Meta ratings. It’s also interesting that that’s the only source that had a standard deviation well above 1. It seems like “critics” are more broad compared to a more “in tune” user base. I’d be interested in finding out why that’s the case, but that’s for another time when I have more data and better codding knowledge.
I also wanted to check out just how different my A+ movies differentiated from the way my counterparts ranked them. Maybe my self perceived greats were so good that they elicited similar reactions in others. I’ve excluded Nosferatu, Candyman, and Ringu because they have missing Metacritic data.
Title
IMDb Difference
Metacritic Meta Difference
Metacritic User Difference
The Shining
1.6
1.2
3.4
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
2.5
2.0
2.5
Night of the Living Dead
1.6
1.0
0.6
The Thing
1.9
1.2
4.3
The Silence of the Lambs
1.4
1.2
1.5
In the Mouth of Madness
2.8
3.2
4.7
28 Days Later
1.9
1.8
2.2
Jaws
2.0
1.2
1.3
The Lighthouse
1.7
1.7
1.7
The differences are promising in a certain light. Though my final rating for most of the above titles is higher than my counterparts, their position comparative to other movies on the list remains similar. I may give higher ratings – but those ratings are in line with (for the most part) the trend of rating horror movies. The biggest exceptions to this rule so far are The Shining and In the Mouth of Madness. Both movies are cult classics and I appreciated their depths into darker, more Lovecraftian themes. After looking it up, I found out that they’re part of John Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy”. When I found out I still had one movie, Prince of Darkness, to watch I felt tremendous jubilation.
In a more general sense, the ratings for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Night of the Living Dead, The Silence of the Lambs, and The Lighthouse have the closest score distributions out all the movies. The Lighthouse is the most striking given that every source sans myself had given the movie an 8.3.
WRITING STYLE REVIEW
When I first started writing reviews, I thought the process was overwhelming. I’ve always been someone who just focuses on plot and interpretation. I’ve always appreciated things like score and camera angles but never thought about how they impacted my viewing experience. Trying to find a way to incorporate discussion about all the elements was my first big hurdle.
My earlier reviews like , Review: The Hour of the Wolf, exhibit the issue clearly. When I mention certain things, they come off as static and feel more like statements that have to be there as opposed to streams of natural thought that followed from the previous one. This is mainly because I’m not the best at using commas, so translating my spoken thought into proper written work is… difficult to say the least. If you’ve been reading for a while, you may notice I use a lot of “-“‘s in my work. I don’t know how correct it is, but the feeling it creates feels natural.
Thankfully, my more recent reviews are more fluid, even if the difference isn’t as big as I wanted. Sentences extend for longer and there’s more voice and expression in everything. There’s probably a lot more, but I’m more interested in seeing where my writing is at in a year, so I’ll wait until then to take a deeper look.
FINAL TAKEAWAY
Overall, this experience was great. Watching a movie and writing a review everyday was challenging but was also incredibly rewarding. I was forced to critically inspect each movie at multiple levels and ended up appreciating the craftsmanship at work.
The hardest part of the process was feeling like there was a constant deadline for each movie. Some of the movies hit emotional beats pretty hard and it was difficult to force myself to watch a movie the next day. Balancing a movie a day on top of work and everyday life was also challenging and something I should’ve prepared around more.
The more serious movies that were playing in theaters proved to be the hardest to review. Joker and The Lighthouse both moved me and brought up a lot of interesting points, but I couldn’t pause, write out my thoughts, and rewind to catch up with certain points like I could do back at home on my PS3.
I’m definitely planning on doing this challenge next year, but now I think I have some good changes to make the process more manageable. I definitely need more fun/cheesy movies to lighten the mood. Being scared and philosophically boomed is great but there’s a charm to less serious movies. At the very least, they would serve as a much needed change in current that would keep the experience fresh.
In this analysis I’ll be taking a look at Nina’s (Natalie Portman) journey through Black Swan. I’ll be analyzing why the swan is so important and the philosophical underpinnings that make Portman’s transformation so haunting. NOTE- this is a spoiler zone. I will be talking about plot deals intricately so if you haven’t watched the movie yet, but plan on it, don’t read past this.
The Swan
The film starts off with a shot of a girl doing ballet. We focus on just her feet, noticing her precise and technical execution. The background is dark- there’s almost a supernatural aspect to the dance happening. The camera encircles Nina and her partner- then as quickly as the dance begins,it ends. It was only a dream.
This first scene establishes the story of Swan Lake as the backdrop by which the film operates. Nina is the white swan, pure and innocent and what follows will be her tumultuous journey towards becoming the black swan. But the scene has a dual function- on top of establishing the perceptual metaphor of the movie- it highlights the significance of the play in Nina’s life. The role of Swan Queen is quite literally something she idolizes. Why? Because ballet is quite literally the only thing Nina has going for her.
The Repressed Subject
Art is a form of escape for Nina. As a subject she has been restricted in almost every avenue- forced into a scenario that necessitates action and urgency. She’s 28. At this age it’s make or break and can determine how far her career can really go.
The narrative set up establishes just how repressed every other aspect of her life is. Despite being an grown adult, she still lives with her mom. That by itself isn’t the problem – it’s that she and her mom have a relationship akin to one a mom has with an child about to go through puberty. It feels unnatural and highlights the way she’s been conditioned and brought up.
Erica is abusive. You can debate on whether or not her overprotective tendencies are partially justified, but she does more than enough to suggest that she’s been emotionally and psychologically damaging her daughter. She constantly insinuates that Nina’s sexuality must be protected. Sexual pleasure and questioning has been prohibited- cast aside by the parental Other that determines the boundaries the child is and is not allowed to cross. Every-time Nina has a sexual experience it turns into something horrifying. Symbolically, the loss of this sexual innocence marks a passage into an adult- so by restricting it- Erica can ensure her daughter stays attached to her at all times.
This is evidenced at multiple times:
1. Nina’s room doesn’t have a lock – which is why she’s had to come up with a make shift solution to keep her mom’s prying eyes out. This is also why she’s so sexually withdrawn. She never had a sense of privacy long enough to engage in that sexual discovery that happens in adolescence.
2. Whenever Nina goes out with Thomas, her mom insinuates that he’s touching her or abusing her. While the accusations become more and more accurate over time, her tone doesn’t feel like it comes from a place of love as much as possession. It feels like Nina’s sexuality is a possession that only she is allowed to control.
3. She literally slaps her daughter for saying that she had sex. Instead of trying to comfort her daughter or ensure that she was okay post experience, her first response is one of anger and indignation.
On top of this, we see through the mother-daughter interactions that Nina’s not allowed to disagree. When she makes Swan Queen, Erica buys her a cake to celebrate. Nina doesn’t want to eat it because she feels nervous- that’s understandable. But instead of responding like a normal parent should, Erica lashes out – threatening to throw the entire cake. It’s passive aggressive behavior meant to guilt and shame Nina.
Regardless of Erica’s motivation, the result is an alienated child- Nina never got a chance to grow up and has been reduced to ballet. But ballet also becomes an escape. She stays later and later at the practice hall, because it’s better than coming home to the rules and dictates that make it impossible for her to find herself. Ballet here is a line of flight- a break through the madness and shackles imposed upon her by her mother. By becoming a star she can leave- maybe her career can flourish and she can financially escape. Or maybe in the act of becoming a true star, she can feel a sense of self- one strong enough to resolve the anxiety and loathing she’s internalized and experienced. Whatever it is – it’s freedom. It’s the only thing she can control anymore.
Duality
But to get to this freedom- Nina has to master the duality inherent to the role of Swan Queen- a journey that requires a mastery of herself. As evidenced by her early characterization and mannerisms- we know why she’s so effective as the white swan. Her childlike innocence combined with her pressures causes her to remain innocent but fragile. However, the black swan is the diametric opposite to these attributes.
The black swan is seductive, alluring, and chaotic. As Thomas repeats, portraying it requires an dancer to lose themselves in their routine. He notes that the issue with Nina’s performance is not in its technical execution. Her technique is flawless. Rather, what’s missing is an emotional intensity. A pure burst of affect moving across the scene. Technicality demonstrates a mechanic kind of mastery, but in order for art to cause a kind of catharsis in the audience, it has to have an emotional resonance to it that can’t be described or explained- only felt. This is why Nina struggles- because she’s been stunted of experiences and interaction- she can’t tap into those feelings. How does one understand seduction without understanding love and loss of love?
Shadow Nina is her mind’s response to this lack of information. The doppelganger serves as the inner projection of what Nina thinks the black swan is. It’s her minds attempt at creating a persona of what she needs to master and embrace. But because it’s so different from her, she runs from it and is scared of its presence. However, she eventually “overcomes” this fear.
Instead of trying to control and be timid towards the situations stunting her she lets the intensity of her emotions to serve as the catalysts to her action. These manifest in her actions and her delusions. From an early scene in act one, we see a shadow Nina come about. This serves as the inner projection of what Nina thinks the black swan is.
When Erica starts to yell at her when Lily comes over, Nina stops trying to argue with her mom. Instead of cowering away from her and giving in she acts like a teenager and acts rebellious. In this moment of symbolic growth she gives in to her frustration and angst and decides to experiment and try new things. Since Lily’s introduction into the ballet troupe, Nina has come to view her as a stand-in for the black swan. Unlike her, Nina is free-flowing and flexible. Her personality matches the aesthetic of her dance. She’s flirty, seductive, and playful.
When Nina comes home and gets slapped- instead of cowering from her sexuality, she uses her rage to have “sex” with Lily. The scene might be steamy, but where it really shines is in its symbolic meaning. We know Lily isn’t real in this scene- she seems to be the same shadow delusion Nina has seen the whole film. She transforms from Lily to Nina back to Lily and then Nina again at the end. The point isn’t just to highlight how tenuous Nina’s relationship with reality is. Rather it shows how she’s forming her “black swan” self. Lily is a template for everything the black swan represents. Having sex with her is opening her up to the influence, The constant transformations reflect her absorbing the perceived characteristics .
This is also why Nina sees Lily having sex with Thomas during the night of the performance. It’s most likely a delusion- but needs to happen. If Lily was the white swan, and Thomas was her beau, then the story dictates that he’s “stolen” by the black swan, Lily. Nina’s projection is necessary to cement her place and to drive her transformation fully forward. Now that the white swan has seen her partners infidelity, she must die. Nina must allow herself to die, so that “black” Nina can be born.
Becoming-Swan
At the end of the second act, Nina walks into her dressing room and sees a delusion of Lily getting ready to take her place. In a jealous fit of rage, Nina kills Lily and then drags her body elsewhere. What really dies in this scene is the barrier between the white and black halves of Nina.
In killing Lily, Nina has rid herself of the black swan proxy. She no longer needs Lily there to learn from because she’s finally assimilated the perspective and feelings of the black swan. Even the weapon of choice here is a shard of the destroyed mirror- the mirror between the dual sides of Nina. She literally uses the shattered symbol of her multiple selves, to destroy and absorb the sensual and chaotic side of herself.
Her makeup becomes more realistic- her feathers feel like they literally are growing off of her. In this moment, Lily isn’t the held back and repressed child, incapable of taking her own actions. She has become the literal embodiment of the swans. Careful and meticulous but filled with a frenetic energy. Both white and black – by removing the barriers between the sides of her identity- she has become pure artistic experience. It’s why the violence and pain she goes through at the end don’t affect her. It’s why her eyes are in a daze as Thomas stares at her in awe.
For a few moments, she had transcended all limits, and gave way to a beautiful, but fleeting performance.
