30milion it says on Boxofficemojo. Sounds expensive for that movie.
-
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
30milion it says on Boxofficemojo. Sounds expensive for that movie.
Turbo Killer
Member
I don't know you got all these big name actors in it and the chaos in the second half didn't look cheap.
Ok I thought you said JLaw was in a sort of Sysiphian torment.
I think the actual thing is even worse because she is a cog in Bardem's scheme. That's not to say he is free himself, he is also a prisoner of his own same actions. It's an awful situation for everyone involved.
The promotional material for the movie was fine, I expected to see something weird involving JLaw and that's what happened.
Turbo Killer
Member
Interesting, the house was earth. God got Adam to worship him so he didn't need the mother anymore, but then Adam and Eve fucked up and mother was back in play.
I'm really sitting at an in pass with this film. I'm not sure if I like it or not. I don't really think it was as crazy and wild as some have said, but I feel like they held way too much back till the end. And once the twist occurs, the entire film makes sense, but till that time. It really felt like it was more a psychological thriller, but the twist completely changed it up to a biblical allegory.
I'd never recommend it to anyone though.
I'd never recommend it to anyone though.
The Illiterati
Member
Twist?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I want to see it again knowing what is going on and see how different it plays.
Yeah I definitely want to as well.
The religion aspect, while it's extremely apparent looking back. Till they reveal it, it kept a more psychological aspect of her just being representative of the house while him the artist being loved like a cult and he their head, being treated as a god.
Not a literal, this is god and mother earth.
More_Badass
Member
How is it a twist? There is no reveal. It's a part of the film from the start. The entire movie is allegory/parable.
Yeah I'm not sure what they mean by twist either. Maybe by twist they just mean at the time they realize what the allegory is/film is about?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
After the baby was born and Bardem comes back with the gifts, the frat boy group behind me groaned and said, "It's Jesus!" Yeah, sharpest tools in the shed.
As I said, I did not think it was literal. I thought it was more just relating it to an author's struggles to create, her desire to keep him, the god like worship of artists, etc. I still thought they were humans.
When the cycle renewed itself at the end. It completed the allegory, but it was also the realization for me at least, they weren't human. I still thought they were and was banking on this being more of a psychological bit. Unless of course they are still and missing something else. But looking back, I didn't catch on to it till it went crazy as shit.
LOL, yup.
While I pretty much loved the movie, I also recognize that Aronofsky is not even remotely subtle with his symbolism... which is why I can understand why some folks (who DID get it) might still kind of hate it, because the allegory/symbolism/metaphors are all very much on the nose. It's borderline insulting, arguably.
It just feels weird that I can say Kristen Wiig gangland executed some guys, military invaded a house and pepper sprayed a pregnant woman, a babys neck was snapped and then that baby was subsequently eaten by a mob, and the mother was beaten until her boob popped out and I am talking about one movie.
That last 30 minutes is a ride.
That last 30 minutes is a ride.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
You left out JLaw shanking multiple people with a glass shard. And well, a lot of things.
So much shit happens in that last 30 minutes it is mind boggling.
Fried Food
Banned
Well that was something. Rosemary's Baby with a dose of Martyrs.
Don'tBeWeird
Member
"They're painting our walls!"
More_Badass
Member
Do you think the movie would have been received better if it was more upfront/honest in its marketing?
We already see people saying they weren't interested but are after reading what the movie is about and what it attempts
We already see people saying they weren't interested but are after reading what the movie is about and what it attempts
In a nutshell: Him (God) and mother (mother earth) living in a house (Earth) in love until Him's creation brings man (Adam) to the door. Him takes man's rib (hence awkward toilet scene with Javier helping a sick Ed Harris over the toilet with a gash over his ribs) thus bring woman (Eve) to the house. woman is told not to go into the office (Garden of Eden) which she does, and breaks Him's precious stone (eats the forbidden fruit). Man and woman's kids (Cain and Abel) come in and greed drives one (Cain) to kill the other (Abel). As more people come into the house (populate the earth) they take advantage of the house, including the sink causing a "flood" that had all the people leave... Him creates more poetry (The Bible) and they all rush back (the spread of Christianity). They praise him in different ways (war, cults, religious persecution, etc). The baby is born (Jesus) and worshiped until his neck is snapped (crucifixion) and he is consumed (communion). People beat up mother and destroy the house (Earth) until mother burns it all down (Revelations) and God starts anew.
Theres still a few things from the movie that I have yet to find the meaning of their symbolism. The yellow liquid. The creature that was flushed down the toilet. and some others.
Fried Food
Banned
ok now I like the movie even more. The sheer production and direction and visuals and sheer craft I liked before, but now that I can see how that was all used to give an interpretation of the bible, very good movie.
Interview with Aronofsky in the Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mother-darren-aronofsky_us_59b85478e4b086432b026363
I found it interesting that he kind of dismissed the allegorical / biblical parts, saying that it was largely a structural thing for him... Clearly it's a big part of it, but apart from giving him a structure for the movie to follow, the other themes appear to be more important for him.
Oddly when I saw it I completely missed most of the biblical references... it makes the film a LOT weirder and more inexplicable if you don't get those!
I found it interesting that he kind of dismissed the allegorical / biblical parts, saying that it was largely a structural thing for him... Clearly it's a big part of it, but apart from giving him a structure for the movie to follow, the other themes appear to be more important for him.
Oddly when I saw it I completely missed most of the biblical references... it makes the film a LOT weirder and more inexplicable if you don't get those!
I don't think there could have been any way to market this movie to get butts in the seats. I just don't see it in any conceivable way. This movie was sent out to die on that front.
I just got out of it about an hour ago and I'm still processing it. I went to my usual comic stop after the movie to pick up my books and the owner knows me and asked me if I was alright. I feel exhausted by that movie, but a good exhausted. The kind of exhausted that only a movie like that can do.
xKilltheMx
Member
Wow. Just wow. This movie, I can't even explain it 100% to other people let alone myself.
Robot Pants
Member
Yea this is why I didn't like it. I saw what was going on and like you said it was so on the nose it turned me offLOL, yup.
While I pretty much loved the movie, I also recognize that Aronofsky is not even remotely subtle with his symbolism... which is why I can understand why some folks (who DID get it) might still kind of hate it, because the allegory/symbolism/metaphors are all very much on the nose. It's borderline insulting, arguably.
kidtamagotchi
Member
Darren Aronofsky is on of my favorite directors, and Mother! is the first movie I've seen of his in theaters. I liked it a lot, but I actually don't want to watch it again (for a while). This was the first movie I went to where the audience left the theater in complete silence!
I do wonder, who does Kristin Wiig represent (His agent)? The church/religion itself maybe?
I do wonder, who does Kristin Wiig represent (His agent)? The church/religion itself maybe?
Turbo Killer
Member
According to the credits the Herald.
I kinda feel the same, but I still enjoyed the experience. I'll probably give it another watch at some point.
Nothing wrong with that, either. To me this isn't one of those "if you don't like it, you're dumb!" sort of movies.
Aronofsky just isn't a subtle guy. His imagery is obvious and heavy handed. That goes for all his work. But this one was such a wild ride that I can't help but kinda love it.
For what it's worth, I've been a fan since between Pi and RFAD. This one reignited my appreciation for him, after not being totally enthralled with the last three. I'll be revisiting those though.
But yeah... not a subtle filmmaker.
More_Badass
Member
Do people consider not being subtle a storytelling flaw?
I think some honestly do. I think it depends on the film and filmmaker and peoples expectations of such... which kind of ties into the themes of this flick.
Hell... this might be Aronofsky's masterpiece.
More_Badass
Member
I mean, Animal Farm is one of the least subtle allegorical stories I've read and it's a literary classic. Most fables and parables are not subtle by design.
excelsiorlef
Member
I never picked up on the religious allegory. Mind you I'm not well versed in that kind of stuff so that's probably why.
I saw it purely as authorship as seen from the eyes of the subject. In as much as Lawrence's character being that of a literary character had zero ability to affect the world around her because she's simply the creation of the author. The scene where Bardem delivers a beautiful toast but when the family turns to Lawrence she has nothing to say... because the self insert author (Bardem) wrote nothing for her.
The various groups that would appear throughout represented potential concepts for a novel (family rivalry ending in murder,a couple's quest to be parents, an author writing finally that one transcendental novel, social clashes and war, cults, etc...). They appear jumbled because the author is trying to find that perfect plot thread... the end represents the kill your darlings concept wherein the author realizes it's not working and starts a new and shows no mercy to the work that had come before ... It might be a similar plot again but the characters might be very different and thus different people. Yet for the characters, were they real, the decision from the author to start anew is very much akin to death. The fucked up elements and the debasement and torture Lawrence experiences to me came as a remark on how often through art, and especially writing fiction, authors often love to explore the taboos, the vulgar, the obscene because ultimately it's just fiction. Yet from the POV of the fictious characters it's torture.
Mixed in I saw criticism of the Celebrity Author who makes his writing too much about himself with self insertion and seems more driven by a need for adulation than the artistic fulfillment.
Finally using motherhood as a framing for authorship is fascinating because being an author is much more like being a mother than a father. You are figuratively giving birth to all these new lives and yet authorship even now is highly masculinized
I saw it purely as authorship as seen from the eyes of the subject. In as much as Lawrence's character being that of a literary character had zero ability to affect the world around her because she's simply the creation of the author. The scene where Bardem delivers a beautiful toast but when the family turns to Lawrence she has nothing to say... because the self insert author (Bardem) wrote nothing for her.
The various groups that would appear throughout represented potential concepts for a novel (family rivalry ending in murder,a couple's quest to be parents, an author writing finally that one transcendental novel, social clashes and war, cults, etc...). They appear jumbled because the author is trying to find that perfect plot thread... the end represents the kill your darlings concept wherein the author realizes it's not working and starts a new and shows no mercy to the work that had come before ... It might be a similar plot again but the characters might be very different and thus different people. Yet for the characters, were they real, the decision from the author to start anew is very much akin to death. The fucked up elements and the debasement and torture Lawrence experiences to me came as a remark on how often through art, and especially writing fiction, authors often love to explore the taboos, the vulgar, the obscene because ultimately it's just fiction. Yet from the POV of the fictious characters it's torture.
Mixed in I saw criticism of the Celebrity Author who makes his writing too much about himself with self insertion and seems more driven by a need for adulation than the artistic fulfillment.
Finally using motherhood as a framing for authorship is fascinating because being an author is much more like being a mother than a father. You are figuratively giving birth to all these new lives and yet authorship even now is highly masculinized
Trigonometrize.
Member
I don't care about the bible shit. All I know is that while the ending kind of sucked for me (I usually hate the "it's a loooooop!" ending), the sequence towards the end was fantastically entertaining up until she blows up the house. I love how the house transforms from small signing, to rude guests, to pillaging, then police takeover, prison, military takeover, war zone, baby stare-off.
Personally though, I needed more breaks from the camera being locked on the mother and zooming around as she walks through the house all the time.
Personally though, I needed more breaks from the camera being locked on the mother and zooming around as she walks through the house all the time.
The movie not being subtle is a major positive. I think that if it weren't so striking and in your face the subtleties of the performances and the heaviness of the third act wouldn't have worked so well. It comes across as a man incredibly fed up with people being so blind and just constantly consuming and not appreciating what we have and where we are.
I think I'm just bored with biblical allegory, since you know what to look for. [I half expected four frat bros to crash through the walls wearing those rubber horse heads.] The more I think about it though, the more I appreciate it.
I like the thought experiment of infinite time with an all powerful creator. If humans exist for a finite amount of time, then relatively, they never existed. There must be many dimensions or cycles or why bother only once if the adoration is so valued by the creator.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I took it as both and as a critique of a God that can take and take and take and still wants your love. The whole film was a quite visceral take on this.
Just like that crystal and its facets you can parse many things from the scenarios presented here. Its really astonishing for what essentially happens in a house.
djplaeskool
Member
So this is the first movie I can recall where the audience (about a dozen, including myself) stuck around to discuss what happened. I think it was a class. Group of people in their early 20s. When the credits began rolling, Nobody spoke but nobody left their seat. I was surprised to be honest. I stood and said aloud, "Damn, I need to think about that one." which set off some conversation about what the hell we just watched. I think people were too caught up in the stark raving insanity of the visuals in the last half hour to think all the way through. As a parting shot, I asked what other story they could think of that involved a man killing his brother. Light bulbs went off.
The allegory being completely unsubtle works greatly in this film's favor for me personally. It allowed the fantastic performances and Aronofsky's patented maniacal film-making to shine through.
I greatly enjoyed the movie. Not quite as much as The Fountain, but holy shit, the swerve in this one is something special.
The allegory being completely unsubtle works greatly in this film's favor for me personally. It allowed the fantastic performances and Aronofsky's patented maniacal film-making to shine through.
I greatly enjoyed the movie. Not quite as much as The Fountain, but holy shit, the swerve in this one is something special.
More_Badass
Member
The trailer is kind of hilarious once you've seen the movie. I don't think it's as bad as It Comes At Night, but yeah, it's pretty amazing what you can do with selective editing and snippets of dialogue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpICoc65uh0
To be fair, I wouldn't say the trailer is exactly lying. That aspect and story does still happen in the movie. But the trailer is like a candle illuminating a tiny corner of a painting and then seeing the movie lights up the entire canvas. The movie takes that story being presented in the trailer and recontextualizes it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpICoc65uh0
To be fair, I wouldn't say the trailer is exactly lying. That aspect and story does still happen in the movie. But the trailer is like a candle illuminating a tiny corner of a painting and then seeing the movie lights up the entire canvas. The movie takes that story being presented in the trailer and recontextualizes it
So I caught the late screening last night and wanted to quickly vent because I left feeling thoroughly dissatisfied. Today I'm going to try articulate why.
I'll start by addressing my expectations because I don't think anyone can ignore them for this type of movie. The most I can say is that I expected something unconventional. I saw what I believe was the first trailer when it released and it looked intriguing enough. It clearly had something more going on than your average thriller and the hint at psychological elements caught my interest. I like it when a movie keeps you on your toes by playing with subjectivity too. With a solid cast and knowing Aronofsky is held in high regard, I assumed there'd be something here for me. Even if I didn't enjoy watching the film, I expected something interesting to chew on or reflect over. At the very least, it could be technically well-crafted and/or a visceral experience that would stay with me. I don't think these are unfair expectations to have and I certainly wasn't going to sit in the cinema waiting for it to play out a certain way or else. So whether it was going to be a mindfuck or a series of redherrings, I looked forward to mother!
Yet as I sat through the film, from relatively quiet beginnings to cataclysmic ending, it never 'clicked' with me. It'd be inaccurate to describe the film as 'boring' when the film was on overdrive to engage the audience with tension and release using eerie soundscapes and jumpscares at the start before moving to the spectacle of the second half. Nevertheless, I just never managed to care about the titular character Jennifer Lawrence played. This is the crux of why despite having a lot to give, the film was completely uncompelling for me. Protagonists can be a lot of things in a story. They can change and grow or remain the same. They can serve merely as a lens or a vehicle for themes, and so on. Whatever their purpose is, we're meant to have some degree of investment - it doesn't matter how relateable or sympathetic they are because theirs is the perspective in which the story is told. We may not necessarily want to see them 'win', but we want to see what happens next. In a film so reliant on this character, not being able to care left me apathetic.
This largely has to do with how the story was presented. This is a film of symbolism and even if it's entirely metaphorical, Aronofsky still chose to express these ideas in a certain shape and form. My indifference for the story lies in how the themes manifested itself rather than the themes themselves. Anchoring the film is a domestic setting with a recognisable husband and wife relationship. This is used to communicate all of its meaning. Underneath the layers they're still meant to behave like a married couple but I couldn't buy into this. I know that in the film they're not actually a pair of human beings that share a history but we're meant to implicitly accept this dynamic, it's how they're portrayed from the opening scene to the birthing scene. Ultimately I was left with a set of characters that felt like they existed only as vessels for ideas, none of whom I cared for. It became pretty insufferable given we're meant to feel what the mother feels going along. Shocked when someone suddenly appears behind or next to her, frustrated when guests don't listen, etc. It was tiring seeing everything unravel through her eyes. How many damn times did we need to see her call out "hey!" to someone going where they shouldn't?
On this note, the second half left no impact on me. It sucks because usually I'd enjoy the cacophony and dramatic imagery. I'm not sure if jumping the shark is the right term, but as soon as people started to dismantle the house the film completely lost me. I flinched when the baby's neck snapped but that was about it. I'm reminded of a line of dialogue at the end of Snowpiercer which is meant to be dramatic but many found funny. I sort of share that sentiment here. Nothing had its intended effect except maybe the shot of her being beaten up and trampled on. That shit was gratuitous and I rarely feel that way.
For what it's worth, I think multiple interpretations fit perfectly fine and there doesn't need to be one 'true' version. A film can have multiple meanings and all the evidence is there. This is why I wouldn't consider the film pretentious either, not that I ever use that critique, because it does what it sets out to do. I'd just disagree it's done well, but character investment is pretty subjective anyhow.
I'll start by addressing my expectations because I don't think anyone can ignore them for this type of movie. The most I can say is that I expected something unconventional. I saw what I believe was the first trailer when it released and it looked intriguing enough. It clearly had something more going on than your average thriller and the hint at psychological elements caught my interest. I like it when a movie keeps you on your toes by playing with subjectivity too. With a solid cast and knowing Aronofsky is held in high regard, I assumed there'd be something here for me. Even if I didn't enjoy watching the film, I expected something interesting to chew on or reflect over. At the very least, it could be technically well-crafted and/or a visceral experience that would stay with me. I don't think these are unfair expectations to have and I certainly wasn't going to sit in the cinema waiting for it to play out a certain way or else. So whether it was going to be a mindfuck or a series of redherrings, I looked forward to mother!
Yet as I sat through the film, from relatively quiet beginnings to cataclysmic ending, it never 'clicked' with me. It'd be inaccurate to describe the film as 'boring' when the film was on overdrive to engage the audience with tension and release using eerie soundscapes and jumpscares at the start before moving to the spectacle of the second half. Nevertheless, I just never managed to care about the titular character Jennifer Lawrence played. This is the crux of why despite having a lot to give, the film was completely uncompelling for me. Protagonists can be a lot of things in a story. They can change and grow or remain the same. They can serve merely as a lens or a vehicle for themes, and so on. Whatever their purpose is, we're meant to have some degree of investment - it doesn't matter how relateable or sympathetic they are because theirs is the perspective in which the story is told. We may not necessarily want to see them 'win', but we want to see what happens next. In a film so reliant on this character, not being able to care left me apathetic.
This largely has to do with how the story was presented. This is a film of symbolism and even if it's entirely metaphorical, Aronofsky still chose to express these ideas in a certain shape and form. My indifference for the story lies in how the themes manifested itself rather than the themes themselves. Anchoring the film is a domestic setting with a recognisable husband and wife relationship. This is used to communicate all of its meaning. Underneath the layers they're still meant to behave like a married couple but I couldn't buy into this. I know that in the film they're not actually a pair of human beings that share a history but we're meant to implicitly accept this dynamic, it's how they're portrayed from the opening scene to the birthing scene. Ultimately I was left with a set of characters that felt like they existed only as vessels for ideas, none of whom I cared for. It became pretty insufferable given we're meant to feel what the mother feels going along. Shocked when someone suddenly appears behind or next to her, frustrated when guests don't listen, etc. It was tiring seeing everything unravel through her eyes. How many damn times did we need to see her call out "hey!" to someone going where they shouldn't?
On this note, the second half left no impact on me. It sucks because usually I'd enjoy the cacophony and dramatic imagery. I'm not sure if jumping the shark is the right term, but as soon as people started to dismantle the house the film completely lost me. I flinched when the baby's neck snapped but that was about it. I'm reminded of a line of dialogue at the end of Snowpiercer which is meant to be dramatic but many found funny. I sort of share that sentiment here. Nothing had its intended effect except maybe the shot of her being beaten up and trampled on. That shit was gratuitous and I rarely feel that way.
For what it's worth, I think multiple interpretations fit perfectly fine and there doesn't need to be one 'true' version. A film can have multiple meanings and all the evidence is there. This is why I wouldn't consider the film pretentious either, not that I ever use that critique, because it does what it sets out to do. I'd just disagree it's done well, but character investment is pretty subjective anyhow.
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.
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.
More_Badass
Member
What was the last cinematic biblical re-telling besides Noah?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked