Return to mother!

May 22, 2018 4:52 PM

Aronofsky, allegory, authorial intent and auteurship. The Partially Examined Life discusses Darren Aronofsky's philosophical 2017 film mother!.
posted by spaceburglar (10 comments total)

To me, mother! makes much more sense if you just assume all the characters are wizards.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:44 PM on May 22, 2018 [1 favorite]

Red Letter Media review (no terrible Mr. Plinkett or ha ha misogyny in this one):
"... Ham fisted biblical metaphors ..."
posted by benzenedream at 9:32 PM on May 22, 2018 [3 favorites]

I found this as I find most of the PEL podcasts to be delightful. Full of insight and smarts. Their recent go over of Guy Debords’s The Society of the Spectacle was even better, imo.
posted by n9 at 9:36 PM on May 22, 2018 [1 favorite]

I watched it without much prelude, and without watching interviews and analysis and I had a totally different take.

While there may have been some intent by the director to build a story around biblical tales, his Freudian slip was showing.

For me it was much simpler - a tone painting of a self centered 'artist' and how he heartlessly re-uses the love of smitten young women to create his 'great works' that are 'consumed/destroyed' by the ignorant/greedy masses to whose attention the artist is addicted.
posted by CheapB at 10:13 PM on May 22, 2018 [2 favorites]

I was talking to a friend after seeing this movie and he was convinced it was directed by the same person that did Children of Men, Son of Saul and The Road. I quickly pointed out his error on IMDB, but I see his point. They all flip the first person perspective to focus on the protagonist's reactions, mainly by pointing a hand held camera up their nose. In any case, if you like close up pictures of Jennifer Lawrence's terrified face, you'll like this movie. And in fairness to J-Law, this tough job of acting with your face alone gets a passing grade from me.

"... Ham fisted biblical metaphors ..."

Yeah, this is something that happens when what should be an indie film gets a big budget. Anything subtle has a big neon sign next to it saying 'COS IT'S IN THE BIBLE, GET IT?
posted by adept256 at 6:17 AM on May 23, 2018

It's weird to me that reviews said it was full of "ham-fisted biblical metaphors." No... it's an allegory. It's not that he tried to draw subtle parallels between christian mythology and his characters... he is retelling christian mythology with his characters. It's not supposed to be subtle. It's the whole damn point of the thing.

Reviews for this movie seem to be either, "This made absolutely no sense and it wasn't the horror movie I was sold in the trailers," or "This movie is too smart for its own good." The former is a combination of expectations (not really part of what the movie is) and inability to pay attention. The latter is worse... so it should have been dumber? Less ambitious? About less stuff? Get off the trolley.

I thought it worked both as a harrowing, suspenseful horror movie and as a creation myth/examination of the creative process/self-flagellation on the director's part. Amazing performances, great visuals, and anxiety-inducing nightmare logic. It's a damn good movie. I may have blinked twice during the whole thing - was plastered to my seat.
posted by skullhead at 7:28 AM on May 23, 2018 [4 favorites]

Same here. One of the things that I liked about the movie was that it worked as a metaphor for so many things simultaneously, once you let go of the idea that it's meant to be anything other than metaphorical.

Going by the reviews, the lowest-hanging metaphor appears to be the Biblical allegory, and a lot of people seem to get hung up there for whatever reason. Then you've got the environmental metaphor which Aronofsky was openly touting in interviews, which caused some critics to accuse him of giving away the game. But then you have the metaphor of the artist and muse, the metaphor of the feminine creative impulse vs. the masculine exploitative impulse, and the concept that the universe is hard-wired towards entropy and finally tearing itself apart.

None of which are terribly original, but the way in which Aronofsky nests each of them inside the other is very interesting, as is the way in which he centers everything on Lawrence's perspective as a woman, especially with regard to how she perceives Bardem's character over the course of the film.

It's not an easy film and I don't expect everyone to take the ride, as it includes a lot of upsetting aspects that may remind vulnerable people of past trauma. But I'm disappointed that a lot of critics (particularly the white men) were so quick to dismiss it mere shock cinema without really seeing how they were implicated in its message.
posted by Strange Interlude at 8:23 AM on May 23, 2018 [7 favorites]

Wait - this wasn't a comedy?
posted by bradth27 at 8:57 AM on May 23, 2018 [2 favorites]

I'm honestly glad people got something out of it that I didn't, but I'm really surprised by the slow evolution of the "no, it's good actually" critical position on this movie. The biblical allegory, the environmental pathos and the creator/creation/muse metaphor all felt as subtle as being hit by a semi truck, and I found the whole experience tedious and precious and indulgent. Even as an Aronofsky fan I really couldn't stand it.
posted by penduluum at 9:15 AM on May 23, 2018 [2 favorites]

If nothing else, we can also credit mother! with helping to inspire this month's big music video obsession: Childish Gambino's "This Is America".
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:30 AM on May 23, 2018