True to life?

I’ve been reading some criticism about “Black Swan” by real ballerinas and professionals of the area. They say it is not true to ballet, it fails to portray the pleasure one feels dancing, and it sticks to clichés. It might be true, but there is a trouble, an old one: art does not need to “mock” reality necessarily. A work of art is always free to grab elements from reality and model them according to the convenience of the moment. Every time a work of art deals with a specific activity, there is the risk of not being faithful to it and its proud members.

            Then, how can a film or book or play reach a balance and please both the specialised audience and the general public? Hard task, isn’t it? For whenever we propose to take a look at a place or activity, we have the great opportunity to cast some more light on it and make the non-specialised audience more aware, respectful or at least wondering. If I write a book about Nicaragua, I want people from there to say it is a decent portrait of their society. It makes the artists proud. However, as strange as it may sound, it is not the only condition to make a great work of art. I mean, we can fail to be true to reality, to enlighten the general audience about a specific aspect of the world, and still have a masterpiece as the final result.

            Which “Black Swan” is not. Natalie is wonderful, of course. The production, the photography, the caustic atmosphere are very well done, and the fact that it was not true to ballet does not reach me because I am not from the area. It just fails to engage me thoroughly as a film. Not that it is a bad one: it is totally worth watching, it is stylish, sexy, and again it is a pleasure to see Natalie Portman at full capacity and beauty. There are some unforgettable scenes, and a little exaggeration in the tone, maybe necessary to the plot, but which does not suit me.

            I could have talked about the shadow and the double, yes, I could…

.