RageWaffles said:

The audience in my theatre was awful, though. Wish I'd I just waited to watch it at home.

Click to expand...

Krev said:

The Bible stuff is fun and silly but I think the movie is most affecting as a look at an artist's mind and the pain they inflict on those who love them. Some of the dialogue toward the end seemed really raw and leads me to think Aronofsky is drawing this from actual experience. The movie feels like an act of apology.

Click to expand...

More_Badass said:

God and religion, or an artist's mindset and apology for the pain inflicted on their loved ones, is basically two sides of the same coin subtext-wise, at least when viewed through this movie's lens

Click to expand...

Krev said:

Your initial reading was right. The metaphor and the allegory meet nicely in the middle: a portrait of the artist as an old testament God: selfish, demanding and ultimately hurtful toward those who love them most.
All the people in the house can be read as ideas rushing through the artist's head. In his time of anguish they are hostile, and they end up driving out his old source of inspiration (a previous stage of his life and a past relationship). It draws a parallel between the all consuming devotion to one's own ideas of a committed artist and the aloof selfishness of the old testament God. The chaos of his life and the endless support and love of his partner eventually give him new inspiration. After he receives positive feedback the allegorical Biblical figures return, but now it's a party, ego mania, all the time. Artistic passion takes hold, he devotes his time to his new rush of thought and inspiration and it once again brings about chaos, and he neglects the woman whose support brought him to this moment of flourishing. In the end he takes everything from her until she can't take it anymore and he moves on, but she's powerless to make herself anything more than the new source of creativity as he moves on to a new stage, in a new relationship.
It's a particularly self-eviscerating work from Aronofsky and I think a very earnest and sincere response to a break-up.
There's also the environmental reading. I admire how the metaphor works on several levels, but I do wish it had been more submerged within the narrative.

EDIT:


Exactly.

Click to expand...

ronaldthump said:

And that was what we got. It's like some stage play that was made into a movie.

Click to expand...

More_Badass said:

How is that a complaint? You know Doubt, A Few Good Men, Fences, Bug, Frost/Nixon, and many others are stage plays that were made into movies, right?

Click to expand...

More_Badass said:

- The blood stain on the floor disappears after the people leave and the wife feels like she'll have her husband back, but once the people start entering the house again, it comes back and worsens. And the blood stain came from the brother's head wound, and that murder is what reveals the dark cavern in the basement.

Click to expand...

Dandy Crocodile said:

Building on this, the stain looked vaginal to me. My brain won't form the idea into words yet because I need to rewatch the film to get all the scenes in their proper order again, but I feel like the shape and reappearance of the stain definitely had some significance relating to her pregnancy.

Click to expand...

ronaldthump said:

Mother! is an allegorical movie about creation - its actually surprisingly literal that its "about the mother of creation/and the destruction". Its also frustrating and a total wank. My least favourite Aronofsky movie. I can't imagine having to sit through that last third of the movie again.

Javier Bardem minced his words - very vitally in the last bit where he says something and I think you should be able to understand what he's saying but I couldn't and I think someone else would have better served the role.

3/10

It's a movie I'll never revisit. That third act was just awful - its a lot to take in but I just sat there and thought this was like if some kid from drama school was given a lot of budget to do shit. And that was what we got. It's like some stage play that was made into a movie.


* also casting kirsten wiig was a bad choice. When she showed up, I was like "not her smug face". She's not someone who can do serious roles and she's very distracting in this.

Click to expand...

tr00per said:

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.

Click to expand...

More_Badass said:

How is that a complaint? You know Doubt, A Few Good Men, Fences, Bug, Frost/Nixon, and many others are stage plays that were made into movies, right?

Click to expand...

HotHamBoy said:

I accept and understand a lot of negative opinions about this movie but for some reason your post really irritates me.

Maybe it's because I thought the last 3rd was the best part and I loved the random Kristen Wiig appearance.




Or maybe it's because you don't see the value in modeling a film after a stage play.

Click to expand...

More_Badass said:

I think the movie is more impressive on second watch, without having to peer through the veil of "wtf is happening".

I also found that the movie felt like it a great sense of unease, that wasn't as apparent when I was more focused on trying to understand what was happening. The cloying way the poet would declare his love for his wife, but then express such disdain a scene later. His outbursts of rage. The voyeuristic view of a gaslighting, as Lawrence's reaction mirrors our own during the off-putting sense of invaded privacy and everyone else's nonchalant dismissive reactions to her confusion and anger. The descent into nightmarish chaos. The chaos suddenly going deathly silent as they wait in reverence. Bardem's terrifying glare while he waits for Lawrence to fall asleep.

That final act was just as impressive. The gradual escalation from devoted fans to press to people coming inside to the book signing to theft and damage to rituals and sacraments to fights to brawls to riots to war and massacres and slavery, was expertly paced and, while it was hectic and chaotic, was very well filmed to keep you in the action and provide a glimpse of the gore and violence without lingering on it

Some other things I noticed:

- The blood stain on the floor disappears after the people leave and the wife feels like she'll have her husband back, but once the people start entering the house again, it comes back and worsens. And the blood stain came from the brother's head wound, and that murder is what reveals the dark cavern in the basement.

- Bardem calls her "his goddess" like three times throughout the movie. By the end, she becomes "the inspiration", and the publicist/herald wants her executed, perhaps invoking how once a distorted message takes hold, whatever the original truth was doesn't really matter anymore.

Click to expand...

HotHamBoy said:

I accept and understand a lot of negative opinions about this movie but for some reason your post really irritates me.

Maybe it's because I thought the last 3rd was the best part and I loved the random Kristen Wiig appearance.

Or maybe it's because you don't see the value in modeling a film after a stage play.

Click to expand...

ronaldthump said:

its an observation.

Click to expand...

coredecepts said:

I feel like the movie is trying to tell you that a trip to church is the last thing you need.

Click to expand...

ronaldthump said:

best thing about mother was michelle pfeffier and ed harris. and once they departed from the screen, the movie became a turgid mess.

Click to expand...

snausagesUK said:

So from what I got, the poet finds himself a muse and uses her up. Weird when you consider Aronofsky is dating Jenifer Lawrence

Click to expand...

ronaldthump said:

* also casting kirsten wiig was a bad choice. When she showed up, I was like "not her smug face". She's not someone who can do serious roles and she's very distracting in this.

Click to expand...

ronaldthump said:

KW has an inability to transcend her SNL roots. She is unable to play the straight woman so when the transition happens to manic and crazy - there is marginally no read.

Click to expand...

-COOLIO- said:

just watched it so this is a hot take, but i dont think the movie was really about religion at all beyond some subtexts.

Click to expand...

duckroll said:

It's not about religion in general, it IS about Judeo-Christianity presented through Aronofsky's unique lens. There's zero question about it. It's not some subtext, it is the framework of the entire film.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

That's the origin of creation - the Word, hence the Poet. Humanity comes to share in God's paradise, but JLaw warns them not to go into the room and not to touch the crystal. The breaking of the crystal is the Original Sin, and after that Eden is locked away forever. The brothers fighting over their inheritance is Cain and Abel. The guests being driven out the first time because they flooded the house is the Great Flood. It goes on and on and on. The message is really clear.

Yes the film is about a woman's perspective of what it means to love and provide, only to be taken for granted. Yes the film is also about taking that analogy to make a point about how we take the Earth for granted and destroy it. Yes the film is also about the struggles of a creative mind to make and share his work. Yes the film is also about taking that analogy to make a point about how appreciation can distort into worship and fanaticism,

But above all the film is about The Creation. A cycle of creationism and apocalypse. The eternal myth and the basis of the Bible. The failure of man, the imperfection of god, and the tragedy of our planet.

Click to expand...

More_Badass said:

I think the yellow remedy was representing the earth/nature recovering from mankind's damage, or at least trying to against all odds. Especially if it is meant to be mercuric oxide, considering the old style of bottle.

With the poet's beautiful words finally written and a baby on the way, the house should be safe now, the poet no longer needs to indulge the whims of strangers to get past his writer's block. She no longer needs such a remedy.

But the poet's words do the opposite; instead of pacifying and providing solace, they only attract more people, makes the people more frenzied and twisted.

Click to expand...

crisdecuba said:

This has probably been mentioned in some manner, but the blood on the floor not going away was akin to how in the bible, Abel's blood cries out from the soil:

God: "Listen! your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil."

This is reminiscent of what the poet eulogized, and for me is represented the death that humanity brought upon the earth: a stain or besmirchment that cannot be undone, because no matter how you try to board it over or cover it up, the deed is done and the blood will continue to cry out.

Click to expand...

KayMote said:

Well, that was probably the funniest comedy I have seen all year.

But seriously, it's probably the most pretentious movie dealing with pretentiousness. I obviously liked the craft and the tight tension at the beginning that is carried by Lawrence's reaction shots and tied to her perspective, but man... there is nothing in this movie that will bubble up in the next days after watching it, nothing to process due to the obvious allegoric nature of the film. It's basically the same movie that Aronofsky always sets out to make, but way too aggressively out there and over the top and I much prefer his more specific movies tied to only one big, elegant metaphor ( I actually love Black Swan!).

I guess this movie speaks out from a core of truth trying to find images for the unspeakable - for example the pain and the self-sacrifice of becoming and being a mother - but for me personally it failed to do so.

Click to expand...

crisdecuba said:

This has probably been mentioned in some manner, but the blood on the floor not going away was akin to how in the bible, Abel's blood cries out from the soil:

God: "Listen! your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil."

This is reminiscent of what the poet eulogized, and for me is represented the death that humanity brought upon the earth: a stain or besmirchment that cannot be undone, because no matter how you try to board it over or cover it up, the deed is done and the blood will continue to cry out.

Click to expand...

tr00per said:

This is my main takeaway. I have to wonder how much of his own life he drew from while making this. It paints his current relationship in a very interesting light

Click to expand...

Theecliff said:

i was thinking i was just really stupid in not immediately latching onto all of the biblical metaphors and alone in my assumption about it being a meditation on the cult like culture surrounding celebrities so i'm glad i saw your post.

Click to expand...

-COOLIO- said:

just watched it so this is a hot take, but i dont think the movie was really about religion at all beyond some subtexts. okay, this is just going to a stream of consciousness:

i think it was about how hard women have it in many different respects.

overall, i think bardem is supposed to be some kind of celebrity that jlaw felt like she was losing to his work and fans. he couldnt give her enough attention even though she was having his baby. it's a semi common problem for women. in a patriacal society, men get to focus and a lot more than just family and the home, and a lot of wives do lose their husbands to their work.

which brings me to the whole home being ransacked thing. traditionally, women have been the caretakers of the home, and it's labor that goes unappreciated. it'll be the mom that insists on things being clean and right at home as everyone else kind of fucks things up. the way the home is isolated is representive of that desperate housewives kind of thing. if all you can do is stay home, that's basically your whole world. it's the house that she built. it's their relationship. she can't just uproot, this is everything to her.

the couple bouncing on the sink are kids who wont listen, who the mother has to handle.

the painter was a man who arrogantly feels he can automatically do better despite her protestations because it's what he does professionally. a sort of commentary on mainsplaining.

i think the bloody dot was that happened early in the movie was supposed to be a girl starting her period. it was a confusing mess in how it started, it was an unwanted visitor, it stops while she's pregnant, and returns when she's about to give birth.

the people clawing at her and ripping her clothes off are symbolic of things like revenge porn. jlaw herself had to deal with her nudes being leaked around the internet. this is also a problem which is mostly unique to women.

her getting the shit beaten out of her was domestic abuse. mostly a problem for women.

as for the whole crystal thing. well, i think it's symbolic of something like bardems satsifaction in life. his love before jlaw had a messy ending where everything got torched, but he was still able to distill the good from it. the crystal was everything his past lover gave to him. her love, her fertile years, her hard work etc. when he takes the new crystal from jlaw, that's her giving up everything she had including her love. and not just her literally still loving him despite completely using her up selfishly, but also her ability to love again. i think this is a commentary, that after these long term relationships, the women loses more. the women often has to sacrifice her career, sacrifice her body to have kids, sacrifice her time to being a homebody and this leaves her as husk who will have a waaaaay harder time moving on to the next person. whereas, the man will ultimately probably be richer for the experience and able to move onto another young thang. that's why things started to turn to shit when the crystal broke, he needed more, and took it all again from another woman.

all these women are just disposable to him, because that's the way the world works.


great movie btw.

Click to expand...

Renegade Frost said:

There's a saying that Familiarity breeds Contempt.

Click to expand...

jimmypython said:

Just saw this one. HOLY SHIT this was a wild ride.

Can't decide which one I like more, A Ghost Story or Mother!

I know it might be the film maker's intention to make it a religious movie, which is spot on. But my own interpretation is a political one:

Mother: Liberty
Poet: Democracy
People and the events: clash of ideas and ideologies.

Click to expand...

duckroll said:

I think the blood is also a physical manifestation of sin. The house starts bleeding when man strays from the glory of God, and becomes increasingly selfish and self-serving. The paranoia and discomfort the mother feels is akin to how humanity distances itself from being one with nature and corrupting our relationship with the world. Before the blood, there was no knowledge of the hidden door in the basement. As the blood grew, and as sin became more manifest, the mother discovers that the capacity for sin also leads to possible damnation.

Perhaps the hidden room is hell itself, and her final inferno is the apocalypse itself. She -does- literally say that she has to prepare for the apocalypse earlier, jokingly - so.... the fires of hell is a pretty obvious reading from that.

Click to expand...

crisdecuba said:

Hrmm that feels a bit fast and loose with the interpretation, though the movie itself plays fast and loose with the source material. But basically if it's to be consistent with the source material then sin entering in would be represented by the breaking of the crystal rather than the sons blood, no? I took the blood to be the ever-present reminder that humanity will bring death and destruction as part of their desire to be favored by "God." So for mother it's a constant reminder that she's never safe / the earth is never safe when humans are around.

Click to expand...

JamminSalmon said:

Saw it twice this weekend. It's a much different experience when you see it already having an idea of what it's about. The emotional impact is lessened, and you catch many more symbols and themes.

As Aronofsky said, this movie represents our Mother: the one who gave us all life, yet whom we neglect. Basically, J-Law is a Gaia-like figure. She builds and gives and loves, but is taken advantage of and utterly consumed.

The biblical allegory is just structural, not the entire point of the movie. It provides a reference for us to look at our progress as a species. The first half of the movie is the story of creation and the coming of sin to the world, ending with the biblical flood (the sink bursting). The creature J-Law flushed down the toilet is foreshadowing the flood, and I think symbolizes imperfect creation, or humanity. It's being flushed away, and a new version will be created to replace it.

The second half of the movie is basically all of human history taking place in the house. People band together, form tribes. They do primitive dances and worship. They share, eat together, and live together under God/Javier. Soon, they take. And take, and take, and take. Their sins become more and more egregious. God believes Mother's work (the house) is there to be shared, but Mother ain't happy about it. Soon, humanity sins more and more, escalating to murder. There is slavery, violence, zealotry and extremism. There is war and plague. I kept an eye out for famine and death, to represent all four horsemen of the apocalypse, but couldn't find them.

Then, the baby is born, representing Christ. He exists to redeem humanity and forgive them of their sins. But, humanity all wants a piece of Christ, and it is the last thing they take from Mother. Like the sacrament, the body of Christ is eaten. They want to be a part of it. They want to do whatever they can to feel closer to God. They even speak his words when eating Christ. Finally, they abuse the shit out of Mother, until she's had enough and destroys her home and its invaders in a fiery apocalypse. God is like "whoops, that didn't go well," and tries again all over. He's narcissistic and unable to learn and mature.

I welcome any further discussion of this movie. It's not perfect, but its most valuable asset is the way it allows people to talk about it.

Click to expand...

duckroll said:

When they broke the crystal, Bardem crushed the pieces with his own hand and bled into the box right? Was that the first instance of any bleeding in the film? It's a bit of a loose interpretation sure, but the first murder in human history is a significant turning point. Original Sin is Adam and Eve being cast out of Eden, but it wasn't until the first murder that man showed capacity for what we consider actual evil. I think the blood represents many things though, including the literal bleeding of the Earth as she is exploited by humanity and hurt. So yeah.

Click to expand...

wutwutwut said:

Right. This is the interpretation that's one layer beneath the surface.

I'm thinking about the not-so-obvious ones. For example, the cycle of rebirth thing at the end is not Abrahamic.

Click to expand...

duckroll said:

When they broke the crystal, Bardem crushed the pieces with his own hand and bled into the box right? Was that the first instance of any bleeding in the film? It's a bit of a loose interpretation sure, but the first murder in human history is a significant turning point. Original Sin is Adam and Eve being cast out of Eden, but it wasn't until the first murder that man showed capacity for what we consider actual evil. I think the blood represents many things though, including the literal bleeding of the Earth as she is exploited by humanity and hurt. So yeah.

Click to expand...

Krev said:

One area where this is a big advancement over Black Swan is that here I felt like Aronofsky was aware how ridiculous a film he was making and he occasionally lets black humour slip through the cracks in the darkness. I felt like I was laughing with this movie, not at it (as I felt with Black Swan).

Click to expand...

crisdecuba said:

Fair enough - I can understand your take on it.

Hey by the way, what do you think was the meaning of the poet crushing the pieces with his own hand and bleeding into it? I can't fit that into what I know of the old testament.

Click to expand...