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.What was the last cinematic biblical re-telling besides Noah?
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.What was the last cinematic biblical re-telling besides Noah?
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".
I just saw the film, really enjoyed it. Beautiful movie, very original and intense. Also, it's not Rosemary's Baby.
Definitely not a film most people are going to like, very divisive.
Some choice quotes I overheard from the people exiting the theater with me:
"That was about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen." - Middle-aged man standing up in front of me right as lights went up
"Well, was it stupid or what? I wish I'd never come, what a waste of money!" - Older lady descending stairs behind me
"We just saw the worst movie" - Old lady on phone outside theater who sat 3 seats over from me and who's phone kept going off and kept slowly texting replies during the movie
The general mood I sensed from the audience while leaving was one of confusion and anger. So you know it's good.
I think it's a movie worth seeing, I just think a lot of people will not like it.
I think the main reason people won't like it is that it is obtuse and demands to be deconstructed. It's like the movie is leading you towards the center of a maze and then it ends and you're left to figure your own way out of it afterwards.
I also don't think the movie has a literal interpretation and people hate that. I don't think you're supposed to make sense of the story so much as try to understand what it is trying to say, or what it says to you.
Got out:
As for my impressions, I didn't really feel strongly about it in any meaningful way, nor did the movie compel me to think deeper about its themes or allegories, except for somewhat disliking how it ended--will post about that in the spoiler thread.
- People eventually showed up. Many of them were drunk (there was a couple in front of me who kept using their phones throughout the previews; thankfully they put them away once the movie actually started).
- The other people in the theater were mostly older; at 20 I was probably the youngest person there, and I got the feeling the people who were there weren't there thinking it was horror, but because they expected some sort of masterpiece.
- Everybody in the theater laughed at how the movie ended. There was one guy laughing to his friends about the NYT review as I was walking out--apparently that review stated it created a new genre? Either way that guy thought that was hilarious, calling the movie a "comedy."
The marketing was absolutely criminally misleading; not in that it did a movie a disservice by not allowing the right crowd to know what it is, but that the audience was made to expect one thing it was not remotely. I think it deserves to bomb for that reason alone--merits of the movie aside, you went as far as you could to trick people into giving you their money and thus you deserve as little success as possible.
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.The marketing was absolutely criminally misleading; not in that it did a movie a disservice by not allowing the right crowd to know what it is, but that the audience was made to expect one thing it was not remotely. I think it deserves to bomb for that reason alone--merits of the movie aside, you went as far as you could to trick people into giving you their money and thus you deserve as little success as possible.
I disagree. I think the cyclical nature is important to the themes of the artist, and how the process to create work begins again.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.
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.Hey, what was that nasty fleshy thing in the toilet that Jlaw pulled up with the plunger? It squirted blood and disappeared.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpICoc65uh0I 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
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.
Theres the Judeo-Christian stuff, but that was really more of a structural thing. For me, it was about telling the story of Mother Nature and giving the audience this subjective experience of what it was like to be the giver of life.
You think its one type of picture, and then it shifts and you go, Oh, its this type of picture. It becomes something else. I think its OK to have many interpretations.Look, people talk about how there should be room in writing to have different interpretations. I think cinema, especially out of Hollywood, has gotten very narrow in trying to get as many people to have one experience as possible.
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.
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.
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.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
I don't have a good read on that, maybe someone with more knowledge of the bible does?But why did he flush it then?
unfortunately it's not one I'm going to find highly rewatchable.
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).
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).
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.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).
So beyond the obvious allegory, what was the point? Surely we don't need another biblical re-telling. Was the allegory meant to show the ludacrisy of the Bible? The pointlessness of mankind?
I think most people can pick up the biblical ties (God knows it was really on the nose sometimes like with Adam's rib). But I'm still wondering what the purpose of framing it like that was.
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
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).
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.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?
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.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!
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.
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?
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?
Some jump moments from quick shocking violence, but no traditional jump scares.
The posters might have been more informative than the trailers
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 actsPretty tired of biblical retelling like its something that needs to be wrapped up in a metaphor and retold.
Fuck off Aronofsky.
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.
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
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
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.I blame the marketing. Much like It Comes At Night, the average person went into this expecting...something. A weird psychological thriller? A horror movie with Jennifer Lawrence? They sure were not expecting an entirely allegorical story that represents the Bible or the artist's struggle or whatnot. This movie was essentially a cinematic parable or the highest budget Biblical stage play
The posters might have been more informative than the trailers