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 »

“We now have a situation where audiences very often prefer commercial trash to Bergman’s Persona or Bresson’s L’Argent. Professionals find themselves shrugging, and predicting that serious, significant works will have no success with the general public. What is the explanation? Decline of taste or impoverishment of repertoire? Neither and both. It is simply that cinema now exists, and is evolving, under new conditions. That total, enthralling impression which once overwhelmed the audiences of the 1930s was explained by the universal delight of those who were witnessing and rejoicing over the birth of a new art form, which furthermore had recently acquired sound. By the very fact of its existence this new art, which displayed a new kind of wholeness, a new kind of image, and revealed hitherto unexplored areas of reality, could not but astound its audiences and turn them into passionate enthusiasts.

Less than twenty years now separate us from the twenty-first century. In the course of its existence, through its peaks and troughs, cinema has travelled a long and tortuous path. The relationship that has grown up between artistic films and the commercial cinema is not an easy one, and the gulf between the two becomes wider every day. Nonetheless, films are being made all the time that are undoubtedly landmarks in the history of cinema. Audiences have become more discerning in their attitude to films. Cinema as such long ago ceased to amaze them as a new and original phenomenon; and at the same time it is expected to answer a far wider range of individual needs. Audiences have developed their likes and dislikes. That means that the filmmaker in turn has an audience that is constant, his own circle. Divergence of taste on the part of audiences can be extreme, and this is in no way regrettable or alarming; the fact that people have their own aesthetic criteria indicates a growth of self-awareness.

Directors are going deeper into the areas which concern them. There are faithful audiences and favorite directors, so that there is no question of thinking in terms of unqualified success with the public—that is, if one is talking about cinema not as commercial entertainment but as art. Indeed, mass popularity suggests what is known as mass culture, and not art.”
~ Andrei Tarkovsky, “Sculpting In Time”

“People seem to be watching [fewer] movies, which I think is a mistake on people’s parts, and they seem to be making more of them, which I think is okay. Some of these movies are very good. When you look at the quality of Sundance movies right now, they are a lot better than they were when I was a kid. I do think that there have been improvements artistically, but it’s tough. We’ve got a system that’s built for less movies in terms of how many curatorial standard-bearers we have in the states. It’s time for us to expand our ideas of where we find our great films in America, but that said, it’s a real hustle. I’m so happy that Factory 25 exists. If it didn’t exist, there would be so many movies that wouldn’t ever get distributed because Matt Grady is the only person who has seen the commercial potential in them. He’s preserving a very special moment in independent film history that the commercial system is not going to be preserving. He’s figuring out how to make enough money on it to save these films and get them onto people’s shelves.”
~ Homemakers‘ Colin Healey On Indie Distribution