I'm honestly not sure if there is, but I consider that pretty recent. And cinema has a long history of biblical re-tellings without even mentioning films draped in biblical themes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mother! Discussion thread (spoilers)
- Thread starter More_Badass
- Start date
I explained to my mother what was going on and she like it a bit more in retrospect. She thought it was boring and thought where they were going was where they were going in the first 15 minutes she said, but it still didn't do much for her.
She said she wants to recommend it to my extremely religious aunt, I said it'd give her nightmares, my mom replied "I know".
She said she wants to recommend it to my extremely religious aunt, I said it'd give her nightmares, my mom replied "I know".
What's funny is nothing in this movie is any worse than what's in the Bible.
I haven't had a chance to read this thread, I just found out it existed. Going to copy/past my posts from today from the "early reviews" thread for now and will be back to read and discuss more:
The film is pretty clearly allegory yet people are scratching their heads getting hung up on the details and trying to make literal sense of the surreal.
The film is pretty clearly allegory yet people are scratching their heads getting hung up on the details and trying to make literal sense of the surreal.
I just finished watching it; I posted some remarks in the BO thread:
My thoughts about the ending, as I alluded to in that post: I thought by restarting the cycle and implying everything that had happened would happen again (and in the exact same way, just with a new girl) trivialized the entire movie. It threw away any character arc or plot resolution in an attempt to build up some of the deeper themes and metaphors it was trying to drive, and I didn't think it was worth it. Heck, if it had ended with the poet holding the crystal, that maybe would've been enough of a wink and a nod while also giving the audience some sort of resolution. Instead it went ahead and threw away subtlety (which, if I took a deeper stab at it, would be a fatal flaw to its message that kept coming up--lack of subtlety) and in the process, destroyed any intrigue that might've come from a better handled end scene.
My thoughts about the ending, as I alluded to in that post: I thought by restarting the cycle and implying everything that had happened would happen again (and in the exact same way, just with a new girl) trivialized the entire movie. It threw away any character arc or plot resolution in an attempt to build up some of the deeper themes and metaphors it was trying to drive, and I didn't think it was worth it. Heck, if it had ended with the poet holding the crystal, that maybe would've been enough of a wink and a nod while also giving the audience some sort of resolution. Instead it went ahead and threw away subtlety (which, if I took a deeper stab at it, would be a fatal flaw to its message that kept coming up--lack of subtlety) and in the process, destroyed any intrigue that might've come from a better handled end scene.
Just saw this thread in another thread about the movie so I'll copy my post from there
So I'm just gonna spoiler my post just in case
But holy fucking shit it was tough to stomach some of those scenes. I couldn't imagine being a woman who has experienced trauma and watching that movie; it might trigger some PTSD. And I understand the theory behind it but the way it was shot felt really claustrophobic.
Edit: After watching the Q&A I'm disappointed that that was the direction he was going in but hearing him talk about it, I am less disappointed than before.
It just worked so well as a story about a relationship and I found the hardened heart becoming a diamond so beautiful...
So I'm just gonna spoiler my post just in case
saw this with a group. We had a discussion afterwards. At first I thought it was a story with a metaphor for love and relationships. Then a friend proposed that it was actually a metaphor for society/humanity dealing with tragedy. I later came up with the idea that it was about mother earth and humans destroying it, or perhaps it's about the realities of being an admired artist.
Any of these theories I enjoyed but particularly the first and last. I thought it was great to have an actual discussion about a recent film beyond just spectacles and one liners. I really enjoyed it. I felt like I got something out of it.
As a friend put it "I can respect what the film accomplished. I hear a lot of people came out of the film feeling cheated like I did. But alot of people think it's a masterpiece and a lot of people think it's pretentious bullshit. Either way it's a lot of people talking about it and in the day and age of cookie cutter marvel movies and shitty reboots of 80s cartoons, it's a welcome change in my opinion"
But when that friend did some research, he started telling me it was a biblical allegory and for some reason I started to like it a lot less. Is this really what Aronofsky was going for?
And which scene did Lawrence break a rib in?
Any of these theories I enjoyed but particularly the first and last. I thought it was great to have an actual discussion about a recent film beyond just spectacles and one liners. I really enjoyed it. I felt like I got something out of it.
As a friend put it "I can respect what the film accomplished. I hear a lot of people came out of the film feeling cheated like I did. But alot of people think it's a masterpiece and a lot of people think it's pretentious bullshit. Either way it's a lot of people talking about it and in the day and age of cookie cutter marvel movies and shitty reboots of 80s cartoons, it's a welcome change in my opinion"
But when that friend did some research, he started telling me it was a biblical allegory and for some reason I started to like it a lot less. Is this really what Aronofsky was going for?
And which scene did Lawrence break a rib in?
But holy fucking shit it was tough to stomach some of those scenes. I couldn't imagine being a woman who has experienced trauma and watching that movie; it might trigger some PTSD. And I understand the theory behind it but the way it was shot felt really claustrophobic.
Edit: After watching the Q&A I'm disappointed that that was the direction he was going in but hearing him talk about it, I am less disappointed than before.
It just worked so well as a story about a relationship and I found the hardened heart becoming a diamond so beautiful...
More_Badass
Member
I watched the trailer again and I think it's a bit much to say the trailer lied or was "criminally misleading". The story presented in the trailer does happen (weird surreal story of a husband and wife and the mysterious people that keep showing up at their house, and why), only that the movie recontextualizes that premise of the trailer as something else entirely when you watch it in context. I'd say the most misleading aspect is that it isn't a horror movie or a psychological thriller, which the trailer does portray the movie as.
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
I disagree. I think the cyclical nature is important to the themes of the artist, and how the process to create work begins again.
Also, the new woman does appear to be younger than Jennifer Lawrence, which as was mentioned earlier, presents pretty disturbing subtext in its own.
Did we ever get confirmation it was Rachel Weisz in the opening?
The Man's rib. In the bible, God used Adam's rib to create Eve, which is why the Man's wife shows up right after that scene.
I don't know why it farted blood, other than to be disgusting, heh.
Saw it tonight. The scenes with the packed house and JLaw struggling to deal with the people actually triggered my social anxiety to the point where I almost had a panic attack.
The biblical allegory actually made the later scenes easier to watch once you realized what it was. The initial surrealness of that part of the movie completely caught me off guard.
It's not the type of movie I could watch again soon but I respect the filmmaking that went into it. Absolutely uncompromising vision and succeeded in making me feel it deeper than most films can.
The biblical allegory actually made the later scenes easier to watch once you realized what it was. The initial surrealness of that part of the movie completely caught me off guard.
It's not the type of movie I could watch again soon but I respect the filmmaking that went into it. Absolutely uncompromising vision and succeeded in making me feel it deeper than most films can.
I guess I should note I purposely did not watch any of the trailers for the movie, outside of a short snippet of a teaser montage posted to Twitter; that specifically implied much more horror than what the movie actually was.
edit: this is the one i saw: https://twitter.com/MotherMovie/status/904044003569451010
But why did he flush it then?
Interesting to see so many different reads of this film. Walking out of the theater, I definitely didn't take much of a biblical allegory stance. I read it as Aronofsky's expression of the creative process, and how it feels to create and then release something to people you need, but don't necessarily like or respect.
Trigonometrize.
Member
I enjoyed the movie a lot more when I was just watching it as a movie about how being overly compassionate, sympathetic, and communal can actually have a negative effect on the people that really matter to you and need those things, as well as excessive idolization. When I got home and started reading about the allegory memes, suddenly it feels more like a simple jigsaw puzzle — you fill in the pieces (nearly) exactly where they need to go, but once you're done, it's just kind of like "meh. I guess I did that." Doesn't really make me think of the movie more highly.
More_Badass
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpICoc65uh0
Yes, it does edit and portray it as a horror movie/psychological thriller, but that is basically the story we get in the movie. Couple in a rebuilt house, strangers start coming over, she doesn't know who they are but they know the husband, surreal things start happening, more people come and it gets chaotic.
excelsiorlef
Member
Yeah. It really felt like a meta presentation of what life would be like for someone who is a character in someone else's writing
Okay. After reading the huffpost interview, I feel a lot better. I actually really appreciate what he was going for.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59b85478e4b086432b026363
Might as well throw my interpretation in here, since it doesn't feel so invalidated anymore.
I saw the religion stuff but I felt that would be too on the nose. I saw that stuff as more of the cult-like nature we sometimes build around our favorite artists. Also, the religion stuff falls flat for some events in the film. I don't think it is purely about any one thing. It has multiple layers, but here's what I saw coming right out of the theater.
Interpretation 1 : love
So some of this may be a stretch to fit the story but just hear me out.
So the house represents their relationship. Not just in a romantic sense but the altogether meaning of relationship. She is largely responsible for creating and maintaining it because he's not a good lover.
The heart 'in the walls' is more or less the love between them. Notice that it grows darker and hardens as everything gets worse. Remember this.
The elixir that she drinks is everything that she tells herself to reassure her that they'll stay together. Notice that she discards it after learning they are pregnant and things are going well.
The baby could be a literal baby, or just a byproduct of their love and/or something that bonds them or that they 'made' together. The sex they had could just be having sex for the first time. Or marriage. Something that takes commitment.
With me so far? Ok here we go
Other people (Harris/Pfeifer) enter their relationship (their home) in one way or another (not necessarily romantically or sexually) . She is hesitant but he says it "feels alive" with them. She goes along with it because she loves him. How often have you heard that line?
Naturally they bring their own baggage into the 'house'. She wants them gone. She covers up the blemishes on their relationship (the rug) and sees the potential darkness (the cellar) but after 'getting pregnant' she thinks it's fine and leaves it alone. Later she will return to this darkness...
Eventually his (Selfish? Giving? Lustful?) nature brings them back. And they appear to multiiply. They may try to separate them (the wife), take them for themselves (the younger men, the publisher(?)), maybe even try to help fix their relationship (the painters? Grateful for letting them into their lives?). Some may show up unexpectedly.
Perhaps he starts to care for them but she doesn't (remember the eulogy scene).
Eventually they wear out their welcome and fuck up their relationship. They are enamored with the love (or sex) (his words (his love language?)) he gives them. Almost to the point of worship. They disregard her and their relationship. They dismantle and take pieces of their 'home' as keepsakes. These will mean different things to each person but the point is that you always take something from everyone you meet, particularly in relationships. She is powerless to stop them.
While she eventually disowns him and wants to leave their relationship (but notice she never does...she can't). During this period it appears that everyone and their mother is getting involved. Some may even try to help her but they are lost in the din. Everyone is looting. Authorities get involved. It devolves into chaos as some relationships unfortunately do.
The baby is being born. He wants the child for himself (hell, it could even be a house) but she put in the work for it. Eventually he takes it from her but it gets torn apart by his adoring fans. She goes crazy and harms the people and her house. She gave him everything (you can dig deeper here)
In the end she goes nuclear. Destroying any trace of relationship they had. He is basically unscathed because he wasn't nearly as invested as she was. He takes her "back to the beginning" (of their relationship) and asks for her love. This diamond that was so admired (and broken) by others is this pure love that started it all, in the beginning.
The heart that had been hardening is so compressed (like carbon) that you can pull a diamond out of it.
The ending can be interpreted in a few ways: Even after your heart is broken and 'the apocalypse' happens, you come out stronger. You learn something. You find a diamond in the rough. Love is precious and takes time and the right conditions. Etc.
He keeps this diamond as his own keepsake and starts over with a new relationship (house). We are left to wonder what the diamond means to him (that love can happen again, even after heartbreak?) and if it will end the same.
Now, imagine if the director sees himself as the mother OR if the first woman IS Rachel Weisz.
Edit: my friend suggested that the diamond could actually be all of the baggage and pain from a previous relationship. Think about what happened after it broke. You always carry it with you into your next relationship
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59b85478e4b086432b026363
Might as well throw my interpretation in here, since it doesn't feel so invalidated anymore.
I saw the religion stuff but I felt that would be too on the nose. I saw that stuff as more of the cult-like nature we sometimes build around our favorite artists. Also, the religion stuff falls flat for some events in the film. I don't think it is purely about any one thing. It has multiple layers, but here's what I saw coming right out of the theater.
Interpretation 1 : love
So some of this may be a stretch to fit the story but just hear me out.
So the house represents their relationship. Not just in a romantic sense but the altogether meaning of relationship. She is largely responsible for creating and maintaining it because he's not a good lover.
The heart 'in the walls' is more or less the love between them. Notice that it grows darker and hardens as everything gets worse. Remember this.
The elixir that she drinks is everything that she tells herself to reassure her that they'll stay together. Notice that she discards it after learning they are pregnant and things are going well.
The baby could be a literal baby, or just a byproduct of their love and/or something that bonds them or that they 'made' together. The sex they had could just be having sex for the first time. Or marriage. Something that takes commitment.
With me so far? Ok here we go
Other people (Harris/Pfeifer) enter their relationship (their home) in one way or another (not necessarily romantically or sexually) . She is hesitant but he says it "feels alive" with them. She goes along with it because she loves him. How often have you heard that line?
Naturally they bring their own baggage into the 'house'. She wants them gone. She covers up the blemishes on their relationship (the rug) and sees the potential darkness (the cellar) but after 'getting pregnant' she thinks it's fine and leaves it alone. Later she will return to this darkness...
Eventually his (Selfish? Giving? Lustful?) nature brings them back. And they appear to multiiply. They may try to separate them (the wife), take them for themselves (the younger men, the publisher(?)), maybe even try to help fix their relationship (the painters? Grateful for letting them into their lives?). Some may show up unexpectedly.
Perhaps he starts to care for them but she doesn't (remember the eulogy scene).
Eventually they wear out their welcome and fuck up their relationship. They are enamored with the love (or sex) (his words (his love language?)) he gives them. Almost to the point of worship. They disregard her and their relationship. They dismantle and take pieces of their 'home' as keepsakes. These will mean different things to each person but the point is that you always take something from everyone you meet, particularly in relationships. She is powerless to stop them.
While she eventually disowns him and wants to leave their relationship (but notice she never does...she can't). During this period it appears that everyone and their mother is getting involved. Some may even try to help her but they are lost in the din. Everyone is looting. Authorities get involved. It devolves into chaos as some relationships unfortunately do.
The baby is being born. He wants the child for himself (hell, it could even be a house) but she put in the work for it. Eventually he takes it from her but it gets torn apart by his adoring fans. She goes crazy and harms the people and her house. She gave him everything (you can dig deeper here)
In the end she goes nuclear. Destroying any trace of relationship they had. He is basically unscathed because he wasn't nearly as invested as she was. He takes her "back to the beginning" (of their relationship) and asks for her love. This diamond that was so admired (and broken) by others is this pure love that started it all, in the beginning.
The heart that had been hardening is so compressed (like carbon) that you can pull a diamond out of it.
The ending can be interpreted in a few ways: Even after your heart is broken and 'the apocalypse' happens, you come out stronger. You learn something. You find a diamond in the rough. Love is precious and takes time and the right conditions. Etc.
He keeps this diamond as his own keepsake and starts over with a new relationship (house). We are left to wonder what the diamond means to him (that love can happen again, even after heartbreak?) and if it will end the same.
Now, imagine if the director sees himself as the mother OR if the first woman IS Rachel Weisz.
Edit: my friend suggested that the diamond could actually be all of the baggage and pain from a previous relationship. Think about what happened after it broke. You always carry it with you into your next relationship
All of these are things that came to mind for me too. The metaphor and allegory covers a ton of issues. It's the type of movie I could watch several times and get a totally different read on but unfortunately it's not one I'm going to find highly rewatchable.
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
I don't have a good read on that, maybe someone with more knowledge of the bible does?
I thought this was a really great piece that got into several elements of the film, including the rib: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/09/mother-movie-meaning-explained/amp
You know, I never got any sort of religious subtext watching the film, but reading about it makes it so blatantly obvious.
I thought it was about how men destroy their relationship with women to fuel their own destructive artistic endeavours. Death of the Muse and all that. Kind of like that issue from the Sandman comic where a writer rapes one of the last remaining Muses in order to clear his writer's block (it's a lot less Sophomoric than it sounds).
I thought it was about how men destroy their relationship with women to fuel their own destructive artistic endeavours. Death of the Muse and all that. Kind of like that issue from the Sandman comic where a writer rapes one of the last remaining Muses in order to clear his writer's block (it's a lot less Sophomoric than it sounds).
True. I've been debating whether I will see it again any time soon.
When I was still trying to interpret it literally, I thought of this too. It's sickening how true this can be sometimes
That and how women are expected to serve, to please others, with no regard for their own happiness.
show me your skeleton
Member
i adore the sound design of the film, the noises of the house being so prevalent in the first half to being completely overpowered by the calimity of the invaders of the second half. humanity losing touch with, no longer to hear, mother nature.
am i correct that the invaders were painting the house grey, where the mother chose shades of green, yellow ocher and brown?
edit: just remembered the tapping/chime when in eden/the writing room, how sparingly it's used until the birth scene. wonderful stuff.
am i correct that the invaders were painting the house grey, where the mother chose shades of green, yellow ocher and brown?
edit: just remembered the tapping/chime when in eden/the writing room, how sparingly it's used until the birth scene. wonderful stuff.
That's the thing tho. That interpretation is completely valid. The framing device allows anyone to reinterpret from multiple angles and have clear clarity in their reading of the movie and incidences within it. This film is absolutely a tragic comedy on artistic creation and what the artist must give up for success but also what the artists relationships both with people and their work must at some point become broken down, shared, loved, deified and destroyed in only a few rotations of a cycle.
I definitely at one point was watching this film from that perspective. How quickly people can take a work and say "mine" even though they have no clear agency over the project. They still call it "mine" and place their meaning into it and take a piece of it and share that piece into the world, slowly breaking down what was artistic intent and remixing it into something only they see in their unique way.
I'm gunna need a good period of time before I watch this again tho, but I also think seeing this at home is going to recontextualize a lot of things. I certainly won't have 11.1 surround sound chasing me around the house as I bump into these subjects again.
Moff
Member
the purpose of this movie was, as the title suggest, to show us the history of mankind and christianity from mother earths point of view. how everyone acts like an asshole around her and treats her like shit, ignores her, tears down her work and fucks her up. how she blows up everything in return and that god doesnt give a fuck about her, just about his followers and starts over again.
Sorry for quoting wholesale but this is the interpretation I identify the most. I'm not a woman but I know what it feels like to be in one sided relationship until your heart hardened and there's nothing left to salvage.
djplaeskool
Member
This is actually a good take.
I haven't been able to stop thinking about it all, and I think I've developed a summation.
To build on what you've noted, from a religious context, I feel that this movie is something of a rebuke of the behaviors of Christians in the face of something that was supposed to be so harmonious, a relationship with the Creator. Even with just two (Adam and Eve) we fuck things up, and multiply, and fuck things up, and multiply, and fuck things up, to the point where our only portion in the matter is our own summary destruction. Even as we are constantly forgiven for our transgressions, that forgiveness only goes so far, and it ends in pure fire as we live beyond the means for which nature can endure.
Fuck dude, my mind feels weighed down by the inevitability of it.
andythinkpad
Member
I have to say both the biblical and climate change allegories don't work very well for me.
First the biblical allegory. The baby feasting scene, has to be a Christianity allegory, there is no way around it. And here is the problem. God the father didn't have sex with mother nature to beget Jesus. Jesus Christ was result of union between the monotheistic god and a human being. Changing Mary into mother nature doesn't work for me. And the cyclically ending is definitely not a Christianity concept. It may work under a different religion, but not Christianity. It makes you question if Aronofsky know his christianity fundamental?
Secondly the climate change allegory. It's mostly from JLaw's POV you have to go with climate change interpretation. Her own plot and her interactions with the house and the randos works well with an that angle. However the Bardem character doesn't make sense in this allegory. You can't half ass both allegories and tell me it's up to the audience's interpretation. No! I think you didn't thought this through when you directed this fever dream!
This is my problem with a lot of non religious directors who take on the religious subject matter. They felt amateurish most of the time. I am a atheist all my life, but I can feel the strength of faith when I watch Gibson or Zemeckis movies.
3/10
My favorite/dumbest scene in the movie was the two guys who dressed in funeral dress shirts picked up the paint buckets and started painting. That's when I knew the director had took a dump on common sense and set it on fire.
First the biblical allegory. The baby feasting scene, has to be a Christianity allegory, there is no way around it. And here is the problem. God the father didn't have sex with mother nature to beget Jesus. Jesus Christ was result of union between the monotheistic god and a human being. Changing Mary into mother nature doesn't work for me. And the cyclically ending is definitely not a Christianity concept. It may work under a different religion, but not Christianity. It makes you question if Aronofsky know his christianity fundamental?
Secondly the climate change allegory. It's mostly from JLaw's POV you have to go with climate change interpretation. Her own plot and her interactions with the house and the randos works well with an that angle. However the Bardem character doesn't make sense in this allegory. You can't half ass both allegories and tell me it's up to the audience's interpretation. No! I think you didn't thought this through when you directed this fever dream!
This is my problem with a lot of non religious directors who take on the religious subject matter. They felt amateurish most of the time. I am a atheist all my life, but I can feel the strength of faith when I watch Gibson or Zemeckis movies.
3/10
My favorite/dumbest scene in the movie was the two guys who dressed in funeral dress shirts picked up the paint buckets and started painting. That's when I knew the director had took a dump on common sense and set it on fire.
Moff
Member
It's not meant to be an exact retelling. After all this is one of countless tries and variations. Notice that there are three actresses for mother nature, with the focus on JLaw's variation. It did not work out.
the movie is meant to show the relationship between mother nature and mankind, Bardem as the biggest god of mankind representing their leader and motivations.
I actually thought it was hilarious, it was meant to show how people don't give a fuck about mother nature's work, do not respect her at all and only care about themselves. the movie wants to show our history from the point of view of mother nature. from her perspective this must seem crazy and lack common sense.
djplaeskool
Member
I didn't take it to be cyclical, just a linear passing of time.
The world will continue to be here. Even if we set the whole thing on fire and eradicate ourselves, nature will return to its verdant self.
From a biblical perspective, I think the case where Bardem is gone when she wakes up at the end is an allusion to God having left and created his new kingdom for his chosen people after Armageddon.
Starphanluke
Member
Thought this might be the best place to ask this, but also trying to avoid too many "spoilers" for the movie:
Thinking about seeing this this afternoon, but I'm not much into horror. I can deal with psychological shit and gore, but can't handle jump-scares (I'm a total chicken). Is that going to pose a problem with this one, or should I be good?
Thinking about seeing this this afternoon, but I'm not much into horror. I can deal with psychological shit and gore, but can't handle jump-scares (I'm a total chicken). Is that going to pose a problem with this one, or should I be good?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Some jump moments from quick shocking violence, but no traditional jump scares.
Interesting.. I'm not religious, and have very little religious background, so I didn't really think to look at it from that perspective.
I went in with very little knowledge about the movie, as I had just seen one trailer. I walked out thinking that it was about narcissism. Bardem was the narcissist and JLaw was the wife that he destroyed through his narcissism. At the end, he took everything she had to give and she was gone, then in the next scene a new girl woke up in his bed, meaning that he had moved on to another woman whose life he would destroy with his narcissism.
I wasn't sure what to make of the religious stuff. But if the story is the story of the bible, why did it end the way it did?
Overall, I didn't really like it. It felt really slow and long and the end didn't justify the rest of the movie to me. I also was expecting something completely different, but that's not the fault of the writer/studio.
I went in with very little knowledge about the movie, as I had just seen one trailer. I walked out thinking that it was about narcissism. Bardem was the narcissist and JLaw was the wife that he destroyed through his narcissism. At the end, he took everything she had to give and she was gone, then in the next scene a new girl woke up in his bed, meaning that he had moved on to another woman whose life he would destroy with his narcissism.
I wasn't sure what to make of the religious stuff. But if the story is the story of the bible, why did it end the way it did?
Overall, I didn't really like it. It felt really slow and long and the end didn't justify the rest of the movie to me. I also was expecting something completely different, but that's not the fault of the writer/studio.
More_Badass
Member
The posters might have been more informative than the trailers
Starphanluke
Member
Awesome, thanks! I can handle that. Just bought my ticket for 1:30. I'll be back here after that to discuss!
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Oh, never saw the Bardem poster before. The JLaw one is still awesome.
More_Badass
Member
In hindsight, seeing that Bardem poster makes think of "he's got the whole world in his hands". Also Bardem is extending his right hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_hand_of_God
Garrett Hawke
Member
Despite hating Aronofsky I got taken to see this today by a friend. I don't think I liked it very much tbh.
There was a lot of good things about it but I think the whole isn't very compelling, and the search for meaning required to "appreciate it" makes it feel unfocused imo.
There was a lot of good things about it but I think the whole isn't very compelling, and the search for meaning required to "appreciate it" makes it feel unfocused imo.
More_Badass
Member
Pretty sure this movie had nothing good to say about the Bible and religion, especially considering it shows religion as something that twists and corrupts people and being something people use to justify war and murder and slavery and other horrible acts
Ah okay. I figured out what was going down at the Adam and Eve portion. Yeah, this could've been cool if marketing hadn't done what it did, but I now fully understand why audiences were upset. The advertising made it seem like all of this was building up to a grand twist, but the twist is the symbolism itself, and as such the movie never actually reveals to you what was actually going on. You just had to get it. It also relies entirely on the idea that the viewer knows anything at all about the Bible, and that seems like a poor decision unless you're a sequel or you reveal it outright.
This is something best left to David Lynch (mainly because by now you expect this sort of thing from him and would be more willing to go in with the knowledge that you run the risk of understanding absolutely NONE of it), although he'd never be so blatant about the allegory.
This is something best left to David Lynch (mainly because by now you expect this sort of thing from him and would be more willing to go in with the knowledge that you run the risk of understanding absolutely NONE of it), although he'd never be so blatant about the allegory.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Agreed about the Lynch comparisons.
More_Badass
Member
Funny thing is, I think if there was a twist that it was all in her head, that she's going insane, or that it was all an elaborate gaslighting scheme (i.e. the expected twist reveal), people wouldn't have any issues with the movie. Or less issues at least
The globe is also reflective. So he sees his own image reflected in it.
I actually would've been pissed if that had been the twist. Too cliche. Unfortunately with the way that the story is structured that's really the only way to do a twist outside of the obvious "they're just a crazy cult" one.
My GF and I have discussed the movie pretty extensively at this point. Besides all the obvious allegory discussed already, we discussed the idea that the entire film takes place in the mind of the artist from a mental health perspective.
Bardem represents the ego, Lawrence the superego, and every other character that arrives represents the id.
The ego has no concept of right or wrong. Something is good if it achieves it's ends without causing harm to itself. The ego seeks a new creation, and allows the id to fuel that creation. The superego seeks to control the id's impulses, but as the ego becomes more and more reliant upon the id to create, the superego loses influence on the ego and everything spirals out of control.
This is Ed Harris and Pfiefers family, who have no inhibitions and act like children. They only know their most basic desires and act upon them with no sense of morality.
This inspires the creation of the work.
The child represents the creation, which the superego willingly bears. When the creation is finished, the superego rewards through the ideal self with a great sense of pride, which heals the mind for the briefest of moments.
But inevitably, the ego gives into the id's expectations and fantasies, detaching from reality. It concedes to the desires for adoration, allowing the id to quickly take control and breed chaos. The superego, so helpless to stop the complete destruction of the psyche, blows everything up (psychotic break), only for the ego to start rebuilding all over again, beginning with the basis of the superego.
Bardem represents the ego, Lawrence the superego, and every other character that arrives represents the id.
The ego has no concept of right or wrong. Something is good if it achieves it's ends without causing harm to itself. The ego seeks a new creation, and allows the id to fuel that creation. The superego seeks to control the id's impulses, but as the ego becomes more and more reliant upon the id to create, the superego loses influence on the ego and everything spirals out of control.
This is Ed Harris and Pfiefers family, who have no inhibitions and act like children. They only know their most basic desires and act upon them with no sense of morality.
This inspires the creation of the work.
The child represents the creation, which the superego willingly bears. When the creation is finished, the superego rewards through the ideal self with a great sense of pride, which heals the mind for the briefest of moments.
But inevitably, the ego gives into the id's expectations and fantasies, detaching from reality. It concedes to the desires for adoration, allowing the id to quickly take control and breed chaos. The superego, so helpless to stop the complete destruction of the psyche, blows everything up (psychotic break), only for the ego to start rebuilding all over again, beginning with the basis of the superego.
broncobuster
Banned
The weirdest theory I've heard so far is that mother! is a retelling of the Leg Lamp subplot from A Christmas Story.
They really fucked up the marketing. The trailer looked like an amazing haunted house horrormovie, and now I am sitting here, a not sure if I would call it shit or pretty good, but I would never ever call this a horrormovie.
They should've just released the two posters and plastered them all over the world.
marketing done.
snausagesUK
Member
So from what I got, the poet finds himself a muse and uses her up. Weird when you consider Aronofsky is dating Jenifer Lawrence
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked