MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

DP/30 Sneak Peek: Darren Aronofsky on The Wolverine

Next week, the full-length Aronofsky and Portman Black Swan DP/30s. But with the official announcement of the deal for Darren’s next movie, here’s this clip from the chat…

7 Responses to “DP/30 Sneak Peek: Darren Aronofsky on The Wolverine”

  1. LexG says:

    STACHE!!!! Awesome.

  2. actionman says:

    the sleazy porn star moustache is very bold. questionable and bold.

  3. Don R. Lewis says:

    I was JUST gonna log in to say that stache HA to go. He looks like the film critic/spy character Fassbender played in INGLORIOUS BASTARDS.

  4. NickF says:

    Darren is the best hire Fox could ever make.

  5. Keil Shults says:

    I suppose Aronofsky’s mustache could be the physical manifestation of his rebellious nature. If his choice in preferred film stock seems anachronistic, why shouldn’t his facial hair do the same? It is possible that Aronofsky’s grooming choices are part of a low-key strategy to subvert Hollywood — a follicle-fueled call to arms? Could his insistence on shaving the lower half of his face, but leaving the upper lip adorned with whiskers be his way of showing the film industry that he is above them?

    All this and more will be explored in my upcoming book, “Beards and Berets: An Illustrated History of Filmmaker Affectations.”

  6. Barry S. says:

    It’s phony and disingenuous for Aronofsky to claim the late Stuart Rosenberg as his “mentor.” The man was embarrassed to have Aronofsky as a student. After seeing Requiem For a Dream Rosenberg was famously quoted as saying, “Will that idiot ever grow up and make a film without his over-the-top performances and cheap visual gimmicks?”

  7. Great article. I really enjoy share for my friends and post on my blog.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies

How do you make a Top Ten list? For tax and organizational purposes, I keep a log of every movie I see (Title, year, director, exhibition format, and location the film was viewed in). Anything with an asterisk to the left of its title means it’s a 2014 release (or something I saw at a festival which is somehow in play for the year). If there’s a performance, or sequence, or line of dialogue, even, that strikes me in a certain way, I’ll make a note of it. So when year end consideration time (that is, the month and change out of the year where I feel valued) rolls around, it’s a little easier to go through and pull some contenders for categories. For 2014, I’m voting in three polls: Indiewire, SEFCA (my critics’ guild), and the Muriels. Since Indiewire was first, it required the most consternation. There were lots of films that I simply never had a chance to see, so I just went with my gut. SEFCA requires a lot of hemming and hawing and trying to be strategic, even though there’s none of the in-person skullduggery that I hear of from folk whose critics’ guild is all in the same city. The Muriels is the most fun to contribute to because it’s after the meat market phase of awards season. Also, because it’s at the beginning of next year, I’ll generally have been able to see everything I wanted to by then. I love making hierarchical lists, partially because they are so subjective and mercurial. Every critical proclamation is based on who you are at that moment and what experiences you’ve had up until that point. So they change, and that’s okay. It’s all a weird game of timing and emotional waveforms, and I’m sure a scientist could do an in-depth dissection of the process that leads to the discovery of shocking trends in collective evaluation. But I love the year end awards crush, because I feel somewhat respected and because I have a wild-and-wooly work schedule that has me bouncing around the city to screenings, or power viewing the screeners I get sent.
Jason Shawhan of Nashville Scene Answers CriticWire