Dandy Crocodile
Member
It was kind of a letdown that it wasn't anything interesting but it was what let her ignite the house so I wouldn't say they forgot it happened.
-
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
ronaldthump
Member
ronaldthump
Member
it didnt though? The heater thing was already there outside the door.
More_Badass
Member
Thats not what she used at the end. She hit the boiler/oil tank that was in the other room
(Which I assume represents Hell)
Glass Shark
Banned
What the motherfucking fuck did I just watch
MHWilliams
Member
ronaldthump
Member
Pretty sure she's not in the other room. The boiler is in the laundry room. We see it the first time she comes down to do the laundry.The dark room had nothing in it. Like I said, they did nothing with it.
You're remembering wrong, she's standing in the room the door led to when she blows the house up. She doesn't blow up the boiler, that room is filled with barrels filled with oil.
Good lord the reactions. Was Half in the Bag's audience always this toxic?
Its been this way for years.
Glass Shark
Banned
I have been mulling over this movie pretty much every waking minute since I saw it last night. Im glad it got made. Im glad it got a wide release. Im definitely glad I experienced it. When I walked out of the theater I kinda felt like I had whiplash and wasnt quite sure what to think. But the more time I spend thinking about it, the less I like it.
I should say up front that I knew almost nothing about this movie before watching it. I saw the first trailer several months ago and decided I wanted to see it, so I didnt watch any other trailers, read anything about it, watch any press, etc. So I wasnt entirely sure what to expect.
Honestly, it started to unravel for me from the very first shot. The burning face and the weird crystal rejuvenation sequence made it painfully obvious to me that the movie was going to revolve around some kind of loop. That took me out of things for a bit, but as things started to unfold on screen I was willing to let my mind go a little bit and just experience it. And boy, that first third of the movie is quite a ride, and did a really good job of instilling a sense of confusion and anxiety. It just totally transported me to this house and definitely enticed me.
At this point, barring a few things that could be interpreted as dreams, hallucinations, visions, or just artistic interpretation, things seem fairly grounded, and I was okay with that. When the wife showed up I started thinking this movie was going to be a metaphor for mental illness, marital issues, etc. And I was totally willing to go along for that ride, even though I couldnt shake the feeling that I was watching a student film concept.
When the sons show up, everything went completely off the rails for me. It became pretty clear at this point that the movie was beating you over the head with Biblical symbolism, and as the characters around the mother start acting more and more detached from reality, I stopped caring about the characters and immediately started trying to figure it out. As much as I tried to let the movie just sweep me away, I couldnt. Again I felt like maybe these are real people and real situations being amped up to 11 through the filter of mental illness or anguish, and I was still prepared to be okay with that.
It was during the last act when it became clear this was completely unreal and allegorical that I just went from piqued interest to complete befuddlement. When the second round of houseguests started to show up, I started questioning my thoughts on the first part of the film and thinking maybe it wasnt Biblical, but instead about climate change. But then the Biblical metaphors kept coming hard and heavy, mixed with more of the humans are fucking up the planet stuff.
And I think this is my biggest problem with the movie. The whole thing is one giant mixed metaphor. Its about god and religion and the Bible, but its also about the Earth and climate change and human nature and, I guess, about fame. But the way all those themes and symbols overlap is completely roughshod. They dont interlock in any meaningful way, at some point its just things happening because they can.
After you have seen the whole thing and can understand what each character and object is supposed to represent, things from earlier in the movie cease to make sense. The man is Adam and the wife is Eve. They get expelled from His study, which is Eden, for breaking the rules. Okay, fair. A little ham-fisted, but fair. But then they go to the hospital which is what? The wife has a cell phone, which is what? The mother makes a big deal about them having one of those pictures of Him, but nothing I can think of makes sense allegorically for that.
Basically the first third of the movie feels like a bait and switch when you look back on it like this. Like Aronofsky was trying to make the film grounded and seem like it could be actual reality instead of a big allegory, but by the time the mother gets pregnant, there are already so many unreal and fantastical things that persist in a way that this couldnt be reality. And the fact that none of the characters have names was a conspicuous and dead giveaway that something was up.
Visually and tonallly I will admit the movie was pretty stunning. I had some qualms, including the stupid heart of the house scenes, which was a stupidly expository way of something that could have been better expressed in a more visually eloquent way. You could argue that the film is all about emotion and making you feel anxious or uneasy, and if that was the case, the movie accomplished that goal in spades. However, the endless interconnected web of symbolism completely files in the face of that interpretation, especially the incredibly obvious Cain & Abel stuff. Honestly, I expected better of Aronofsky than (to steal an observation from Half in the Bag) he has a mark on his forehead and he goes out to wander the wilderness, DO YOU GET IT?
There are shots and sequences in this movie that I will probably remember for years to come. But as a film, as a singular work of storytelling, I think it completely fails.
I should say up front that I knew almost nothing about this movie before watching it. I saw the first trailer several months ago and decided I wanted to see it, so I didnt watch any other trailers, read anything about it, watch any press, etc. So I wasnt entirely sure what to expect.
Honestly, it started to unravel for me from the very first shot. The burning face and the weird crystal rejuvenation sequence made it painfully obvious to me that the movie was going to revolve around some kind of loop. That took me out of things for a bit, but as things started to unfold on screen I was willing to let my mind go a little bit and just experience it. And boy, that first third of the movie is quite a ride, and did a really good job of instilling a sense of confusion and anxiety. It just totally transported me to this house and definitely enticed me.
At this point, barring a few things that could be interpreted as dreams, hallucinations, visions, or just artistic interpretation, things seem fairly grounded, and I was okay with that. When the wife showed up I started thinking this movie was going to be a metaphor for mental illness, marital issues, etc. And I was totally willing to go along for that ride, even though I couldnt shake the feeling that I was watching a student film concept.
When the sons show up, everything went completely off the rails for me. It became pretty clear at this point that the movie was beating you over the head with Biblical symbolism, and as the characters around the mother start acting more and more detached from reality, I stopped caring about the characters and immediately started trying to figure it out. As much as I tried to let the movie just sweep me away, I couldnt. Again I felt like maybe these are real people and real situations being amped up to 11 through the filter of mental illness or anguish, and I was still prepared to be okay with that.
It was during the last act when it became clear this was completely unreal and allegorical that I just went from piqued interest to complete befuddlement. When the second round of houseguests started to show up, I started questioning my thoughts on the first part of the film and thinking maybe it wasnt Biblical, but instead about climate change. But then the Biblical metaphors kept coming hard and heavy, mixed with more of the humans are fucking up the planet stuff.
And I think this is my biggest problem with the movie. The whole thing is one giant mixed metaphor. Its about god and religion and the Bible, but its also about the Earth and climate change and human nature and, I guess, about fame. But the way all those themes and symbols overlap is completely roughshod. They dont interlock in any meaningful way, at some point its just things happening because they can.
After you have seen the whole thing and can understand what each character and object is supposed to represent, things from earlier in the movie cease to make sense. The man is Adam and the wife is Eve. They get expelled from His study, which is Eden, for breaking the rules. Okay, fair. A little ham-fisted, but fair. But then they go to the hospital which is what? The wife has a cell phone, which is what? The mother makes a big deal about them having one of those pictures of Him, but nothing I can think of makes sense allegorically for that.
Basically the first third of the movie feels like a bait and switch when you look back on it like this. Like Aronofsky was trying to make the film grounded and seem like it could be actual reality instead of a big allegory, but by the time the mother gets pregnant, there are already so many unreal and fantastical things that persist in a way that this couldnt be reality. And the fact that none of the characters have names was a conspicuous and dead giveaway that something was up.
Visually and tonallly I will admit the movie was pretty stunning. I had some qualms, including the stupid heart of the house scenes, which was a stupidly expository way of something that could have been better expressed in a more visually eloquent way. You could argue that the film is all about emotion and making you feel anxious or uneasy, and if that was the case, the movie accomplished that goal in spades. However, the endless interconnected web of symbolism completely files in the face of that interpretation, especially the incredibly obvious Cain & Abel stuff. Honestly, I expected better of Aronofsky than (to steal an observation from Half in the Bag) he has a mark on his forehead and he goes out to wander the wilderness, DO YOU GET IT?
There are shots and sequences in this movie that I will probably remember for years to come. But as a film, as a singular work of storytelling, I think it completely fails.
Moff
Member
you pretty much mirror the half in the bag impressions. which I do not agree with, but I can understand it, just like I understand the people who expected a straight up home invasion horror movie and hated it.
personally, I do not need this film to work in a grounded home invasion setting. on the contrary, I enjoyed the overblown craziness. I also think the biblical and destroying earth layers were enough and the movie did not need a third one, that would have probably made it less exciting for me. I think it needed to be crazy to really get the point home how Gaia would feel about everything happening on this planet, so all of that really worked out for me in the end and I felt really satisfied when she blew everything up.
personally, I do not need this film to work in a grounded home invasion setting. on the contrary, I enjoyed the overblown craziness. I also think the biblical and destroying earth layers were enough and the movie did not need a third one, that would have probably made it less exciting for me. I think it needed to be crazy to really get the point home how Gaia would feel about everything happening on this planet, so all of that really worked out for me in the end and I felt really satisfied when she blew everything up.
Glass Shark
Banned
I didnt need the film to be anything in particular, but I would have enjoyed it a hell of a lot more if it had picked one thing and stuck the landing extremely well. Instead it tried to do 2 or 3 things pretty poorly in my opinion. If the whole thing is an allegory, let it be allegory. Dont try to make it appear grounded in reality, and dont throw in random objects and occurrences that seem to have some significance but turn out later to be red herrings.
Moff
Member
I think the grounding in reality without being an actual home invasion story in that reality still worked for me and others who loved this movie because it allows the audience to emphasize so much more with Gaia and how she is treated. I'd say that was pretty much the point of the movie. Of course this might have worked even better if it still was an actual horror home invasion movie as well. But as I said I enjoyed the fanatic craziness. I did not need this to be subtle, I loved it the way it is.
and the red herrings, well I think the photograph you mentioned was just mentioned to show, that Adam is a big worshiper of Him, the original worshiper so to speak, and Cain smashes the picture later. It's just another hint at the allegory, I would not consider that a red herring.
and the red herrings, well I think the photograph you mentioned was just mentioned to show, that Adam is a big worshiper of Him, the original worshiper so to speak, and Cain smashes the picture later. It's just another hint at the allegory, I would not consider that a red herring.
There are no red herrings, the film is very much about a thing. It isn't grounded in "reality", it is simply presenting a big picture concept (creation of the world -> fall of humanity) in a small scale compartmentalized setting (house -> family -> visitors).
I agree to an extent with your post in that I think the film being so obviously allegorical limits emotional involvement, but I think it's to the film's advantage that the metaphor can be read in so many different ways. If the movie could be simply boiled down to 'this = that', the movie would be dead as soon as you figure it out. If the allegory is the only thing it has to be broad enough that it can speak to a lot of different people about a lot of different issues.
I think there is definitely a third layer: a comment on male artistic ego and how a lot of artists neglect and hurt the people who love them.
Agreed. We can't really know the artist's intentions so I usually like to stay away from those sorts of readings, but I couldn't help myself here. I think Aronofsky is usually is definitely the poet. If someone supports you through all the ego-mania of totally involved artistic creation, then the relationship falls apart, what's next? You can't take that time back, and if you're someone like Aronofsky, creating is what you do, and you've no choice but to keep doing it. The cycle repeats.
Really cool, well made movie, even if I wasn't 100% into all of it. It absolutely needed a "This is an art film" disclaimer though, given the wide release and misleading marketing.
I loved the set, the way it transformed so quickly with the chaos of the last act, and the haunted house vibes it gives off throughout (even when they're revealed to be blatant allegory / symbolism).
I loved the set, the way it transformed so quickly with the chaos of the last act, and the haunted house vibes it gives off throughout (even when they're revealed to be blatant allegory / symbolism).
brianjones
Member
stupid movie
only thing I liked about it was the gradual decay of the house reminded me of silent hill 4
I agree with this.. the last act was terrible, but the first half was kinda interesting.. felt like aronofsky doing a white lady version of Get Out
that wasnt him sorry different British dude
only thing I liked about it was the gradual decay of the house reminded me of silent hill 4
I agree with this.. the last act was terrible, but the first half was kinda interesting.. felt like aronofsky doing a white lady version of Get Out
that wasnt him sorry different British dude
Guy, I'm going to be honest: I had the biggest fucking grin/jaw-drop during the baby eating scene. I had caught on that the movie was doing an Adam/Eve + Jesus thing early on, and knew something horrible was going to happen to that baby, but just...the pure audaciousness of putting that scene in there AND presenting the concept of communion as people literally killing and eating a baby...whew.
And then to follow it up with them beating up JL, which completely wiped the grin off my face. Serious emotional whiplash. It was like Aronofsky was saying, "Oh, you think this is funny? Do you think this is funny NOW?!"
Walked out of the movie feeling shellshocked. Loved it.
And then to follow it up with them beating up JL, which completely wiped the grin off my face. Serious emotional whiplash. It was like Aronofsky was saying, "Oh, you think this is funny? Do you think this is funny NOW?!"
Walked out of the movie feeling shellshocked. Loved it.
Muppet of a Man
Member
The incessantly claustrophobic camera angles of the movie literally made me feel car sick and nearly induced a panic attack for me. I want to peg down the cinematography of the movie for that alone, as it was totally fucking unnecessary to achieve what they wanted to achieve.
The use of biblical allegories as metaphors for the real life destruction that humanity wreaks on itself and its habitat was an interesting negative illustration of how human's exploit and manipulate for their own ends via religious ideology itself. Bardem is obviously a stand-in for Yahweh, human-centric ideology/religion, and human industry (e.g., capitalism), while Lawrence is a stand-in for Yahweh's wife Asherah, Mother Earth, and Earth's natural habitat/resources.
The actual history of Judaism and Abrahamic religions more broadly bury and obfuscate their true origin and evolution as pagan religions which actually acknowledged and revered the "feminine" with the fertility/creation goddess Asherah (i.e., Mother Earth, or more simply, nature). Thus, the film essentially emphasizes that Yahweh's eventual reverence above all else is actually humanity's eventual reverence of itself above its true creator and "Mother": nature.
The implications are clear: we are destroying ourselves and the livable environment via self reverence through our human-centric ideologies (i.e., self-congratulatory religion, capitalism, consumerism, imperialistic manifest destiny, etc.).
The use of biblical allegories as metaphors for the real life destruction that humanity wreaks on itself and its habitat was an interesting negative illustration of how human's exploit and manipulate for their own ends via religious ideology itself. Bardem is obviously a stand-in for Yahweh, human-centric ideology/religion, and human industry (e.g., capitalism), while Lawrence is a stand-in for Yahweh's wife Asherah, Mother Earth, and Earth's natural habitat/resources.
The actual history of Judaism and Abrahamic religions more broadly bury and obfuscate their true origin and evolution as pagan religions which actually acknowledged and revered the "feminine" with the fertility/creation goddess Asherah (i.e., Mother Earth, or more simply, nature). Thus, the film essentially emphasizes that Yahweh's eventual reverence above all else is actually humanity's eventual reverence of itself above its true creator and "Mother": nature.
The implications are clear: we are destroying ourselves and the livable environment via self reverence through our human-centric ideologies (i.e., self-congratulatory religion, capitalism, consumerism, imperialistic manifest destiny, etc.).
More_Badass
Member
Isn't that kind of a testament to how effective the cinematography was?
In a small way, this kind of reminded me of Upstream Color. Less about the dialogue and events (which is... strange... in both films) and more about the bigger picture and the feeling you're supposed to get from the experience.
That, in addition to all my other rambling thoughts posted in this thread and the previous mother! thread.
That, in addition to all my other rambling thoughts posted in this thread and the previous mother! thread.
Adam Sadler
Member
Right? Haha that's exactly what I was thinking. I LOVE how this movie was shot
BertramCooper
Banned
Without a doubt, this was the most challenging filmgoing experience I've had since seeing Synecdoche, New York almost a decade ago.
Admirable in many ways; frustrating in others. Wish the allegory had been a bit tighter and more consistent. Lots of motifs that kept appearing that seemed to have no actual meaning whatsoever.
Honestly, it was worth seeing entirely for the experience of seeing how fellow audience members reacted to it. I had at least one audience member in my screening leave during the baby eatin' - I think there might have been a couple others who left at other points. (Not sure if they were just bathroom breaks.) Also sat a few seats down from a pregnant woman who had some thoughts about the film. Some very vocal, visceral thoughts. Ha ha.
Admirable in many ways; frustrating in others. Wish the allegory had been a bit tighter and more consistent. Lots of motifs that kept appearing that seemed to have no actual meaning whatsoever.
Honestly, it was worth seeing entirely for the experience of seeing how fellow audience members reacted to it. I had at least one audience member in my screening leave during the baby eatin' - I think there might have been a couple others who left at other points. (Not sure if they were just bathroom breaks.) Also sat a few seats down from a pregnant woman who had some thoughts about the film. Some very vocal, visceral thoughts. Ha ha.
This movie is pretty good as story about older creative men vampiring inspiration from younger women, but given that the 48 year old director is dating the 27 year old star, a bit on the nose that.
Alternative title: A Catalog of Microaggressions.
More thoughts: always down for a Tenebrae reveal shot. Also thought of Argento at other moments and even a possible nod to Fulci's The Beyond.
Alternative title: A Catalog of Microaggressions.
More thoughts: always down for a Tenebrae reveal shot. Also thought of Argento at other moments and even a possible nod to Fulci's The Beyond.
whatsinaname
Member
That about sums up my reaction. A couple of decent sequences in the middle (with Pfiffer and when the guest for the wake were around) but the rest was a level of self-indulgence I haven't seen on screen since There Will Be Blood.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Although I obviously got the supernatural and spiritual component of the film, to me the strongest throughline was a commentary about ego, creativity, and celebrity. Maybe this is coloured by the knowledge that Aronofsky was married to Rachel Weisz and is now dating JLaw, but to me that's the strongest through-line. Allow me to elaborate. Again, I think all of this co-exists with the biblical and spiritual and ecological stuff:
Imagine that this is a film about the difficulties of living or being with or loving a creative type. Anxieties that you are never enough. A failure to fully understand or appreciate their work the way their coworkers or fans do. Trying to provide for them. When they have a creative block or slump (I had about a 6 month long depressive episode brought on by some creative/writing hurdles I've had, and I think a lot about the impact that had on my wife while I was going through it).
When they finally do make it big, you have to share them with everyone. Will you lose them to their fame and the demands on them?
You might interpret the crystal and the fire and the house as memories of loss, an understanding of having fucked it all up. The feeling that losing everything is often interpreted for so many people as a silver lining, a learning experience, like Tennyson would say.
I think of the religious supplicants and the priest and the crowd and the murder and consumption of the child as the experience of having your private life turned public, having your work interpreted by the public, the knowledge that the thing that you make and do is now no longer yours and that it might be savaged by those outside, or worse, appreciated by those outside but in their own way. My words are for you. The priest repeating His words literally to mother is the experience of losing any semblance of control over your own experiences and life.
Then mother's eventual sacrifice is the end of the relationship, and acknowledgement that it had failed, the choice to walk away. Offering her heart is sort of a quiet knowledge that he will move on and start again and she knows that she will just be a part of his past, another learning experience.
Some other stuff; the blood spot in the wood is a Lady MacBeth thing. Her nagging doubts and guilt about the relationship, that just won't go away. It goes away for a while, and then it comes back and gets worse and eventually quite literally swallows everyone. The medicine she took is here either a literal antidepressant or figuratively a way of coping with doubts and pushing them away. She stops taking it when she feels she has control of her life, only to lose that control.
Two important characterizations that I think fit with this theme: first, mother's character being consistently ignored and gaslighted. She wants to have control, but she can because the fans and agents and everyone want to own Him. Imagine being married to someone who, to you, is neglectful and abusive and aloof, while to the public, he's a hero and a creative and a genius. Trying to convince people. Think about all the times we hear about sexual and physical assault survivors being ignored or disbelieved because their abusers have squeaky clean public faces. Even the apparent unwillingness of every character in the film to believe it is in any way her house -- the feeling of envy, jealousy, frustration, and anger that your spouse receives more support and validation and that your own contributions are invisible. This I think is a very gendered thing, thinking of "Behind every Great Man is a Greater Woman" -- the idea of all of the women in history who supported or in many cases were equal partners with their husbands only to be cast away.
Second, the way in which Bardem leaves and comes back, leaves and come back, always telling her he'll keep her safe, always apparently meaning it when he says he loves her. Think of how when a relationship fails, in many cases, one or both partners live in denial where they really think they've done nothing wrong and that they've tried, even as they neglect and hurt each other.
Finally, as their relationship fails, the mob of people, who had no business being in their lives to begin with, kick and stomp her and scream obscenities at her. "Kill the whore". Is this not something we've seen so often? The fucking president of the United States famously tweeted a storm at Kristen Stewart because she didn't deserve Robert Pattinson. I think of every time I've seen a public or celebrity relationship fall apart, or even an ordinary relationship, and the abuse and scorn that women get for causing or allowing a relationship to fail.
Again, obviously the religious interpretation is palpable. The writer having one very famous book, people carrying pictures (idols) of him. Adam. The rib. The apple. Cain and Abel. Him reminding mother that "they lost two sons, not just one". Writing the second book. The death of God's only son. God forgiving those who killed him. The consumption of the flesh. The literal character name. And obviously so is the environmental interpretation. I'm not saying it's not those things. JL and Aronofsky have both explicitly said it's those things. Fine. I'm just saying it's hard for me to believe that there's not a human and personal thematic throughline in the film, and that's the thing that spoke the loudest to me.
I thought the cinematography was beautiful and nauseating. Whiplash camera, everything happening just outside the field of view. The wise decision to keep the camera pinned on mother the whole time. Maybe the best scene was when during the wake for Abel, mother's attention keeps getting diverted from the couple sitting on the counter and the guy hitting on her and trying to get her number. The camerawork here is just exquisite; the couple just out of view hopping on the counter again the second her attention goes back.
I think the decision to not use the soundtrack was a wise one. The film stands on its own and the lack of non-diegetic sound, along with the camera, very firmly roots the film in mother's point of view. Bad year for Johann Johannson, but still.
My showing was pretty packed, although there were a fair few walkouts and a row of dudes laughing at everything.
All in all, I actually think was Aronofsky's best film.
Imagine that this is a film about the difficulties of living or being with or loving a creative type. Anxieties that you are never enough. A failure to fully understand or appreciate their work the way their coworkers or fans do. Trying to provide for them. When they have a creative block or slump (I had about a 6 month long depressive episode brought on by some creative/writing hurdles I've had, and I think a lot about the impact that had on my wife while I was going through it).
When they finally do make it big, you have to share them with everyone. Will you lose them to their fame and the demands on them?
You might interpret the crystal and the fire and the house as memories of loss, an understanding of having fucked it all up. The feeling that losing everything is often interpreted for so many people as a silver lining, a learning experience, like Tennyson would say.
I think of the religious supplicants and the priest and the crowd and the murder and consumption of the child as the experience of having your private life turned public, having your work interpreted by the public, the knowledge that the thing that you make and do is now no longer yours and that it might be savaged by those outside, or worse, appreciated by those outside but in their own way. My words are for you. The priest repeating His words literally to mother is the experience of losing any semblance of control over your own experiences and life.
Then mother's eventual sacrifice is the end of the relationship, and acknowledgement that it had failed, the choice to walk away. Offering her heart is sort of a quiet knowledge that he will move on and start again and she knows that she will just be a part of his past, another learning experience.
Some other stuff; the blood spot in the wood is a Lady MacBeth thing. Her nagging doubts and guilt about the relationship, that just won't go away. It goes away for a while, and then it comes back and gets worse and eventually quite literally swallows everyone. The medicine she took is here either a literal antidepressant or figuratively a way of coping with doubts and pushing them away. She stops taking it when she feels she has control of her life, only to lose that control.
Two important characterizations that I think fit with this theme: first, mother's character being consistently ignored and gaslighted. She wants to have control, but she can because the fans and agents and everyone want to own Him. Imagine being married to someone who, to you, is neglectful and abusive and aloof, while to the public, he's a hero and a creative and a genius. Trying to convince people. Think about all the times we hear about sexual and physical assault survivors being ignored or disbelieved because their abusers have squeaky clean public faces. Even the apparent unwillingness of every character in the film to believe it is in any way her house -- the feeling of envy, jealousy, frustration, and anger that your spouse receives more support and validation and that your own contributions are invisible. This I think is a very gendered thing, thinking of "Behind every Great Man is a Greater Woman" -- the idea of all of the women in history who supported or in many cases were equal partners with their husbands only to be cast away.
Second, the way in which Bardem leaves and comes back, leaves and come back, always telling her he'll keep her safe, always apparently meaning it when he says he loves her. Think of how when a relationship fails, in many cases, one or both partners live in denial where they really think they've done nothing wrong and that they've tried, even as they neglect and hurt each other.
Finally, as their relationship fails, the mob of people, who had no business being in their lives to begin with, kick and stomp her and scream obscenities at her. "Kill the whore". Is this not something we've seen so often? The fucking president of the United States famously tweeted a storm at Kristen Stewart because she didn't deserve Robert Pattinson. I think of every time I've seen a public or celebrity relationship fall apart, or even an ordinary relationship, and the abuse and scorn that women get for causing or allowing a relationship to fail.
Again, obviously the religious interpretation is palpable. The writer having one very famous book, people carrying pictures (idols) of him. Adam. The rib. The apple. Cain and Abel. Him reminding mother that "they lost two sons, not just one". Writing the second book. The death of God's only son. God forgiving those who killed him. The consumption of the flesh. The literal character name. And obviously so is the environmental interpretation. I'm not saying it's not those things. JL and Aronofsky have both explicitly said it's those things. Fine. I'm just saying it's hard for me to believe that there's not a human and personal thematic throughline in the film, and that's the thing that spoke the loudest to me.
I thought the cinematography was beautiful and nauseating. Whiplash camera, everything happening just outside the field of view. The wise decision to keep the camera pinned on mother the whole time. Maybe the best scene was when during the wake for Abel, mother's attention keeps getting diverted from the couple sitting on the counter and the guy hitting on her and trying to get her number. The camerawork here is just exquisite; the couple just out of view hopping on the counter again the second her attention goes back.
I think the decision to not use the soundtrack was a wise one. The film stands on its own and the lack of non-diegetic sound, along with the camera, very firmly roots the film in mother's point of view. Bad year for Johann Johannson, but still.
My showing was pretty packed, although there were a fair few walkouts and a row of dudes laughing at everything.
All in all, I actually think was Aronofsky's best film.
Lol the Christian thing was totally lost on me
I saw it end-to-end as an allegory for creativity and writing creative works, and little else.
Fucking masterpiece.
Trying to cultivate your inspiration (J-Law) but knowing you have to abuse it and subject it to lots of different things for it to wake up and let you harness it. Then you do and it bears fruit and you take your inspiration's output and you fucking throw it to the world who tear it apart. And you burn the inspiration out so bad that it destroys itself.
Then from the ashes you withdraw the kernel of new inspiration...
Ingenious
Like, i have personally experienced that so many times and the movie totally nailed it
The "publisher" even says to her, straight up: "the inspiration! Where have you been? I knew you were cooped up with him and i was worried, but looks like it all paid off!"
And the publisher "shooting" all the cast offs and flawed ideas
Unbelievable
I saw it end-to-end as an allegory for creativity and writing creative works, and little else.
Fucking masterpiece.
Trying to cultivate your inspiration (J-Law) but knowing you have to abuse it and subject it to lots of different things for it to wake up and let you harness it. Then you do and it bears fruit and you take your inspiration's output and you fucking throw it to the world who tear it apart. And you burn the inspiration out so bad that it destroys itself.
Then from the ashes you withdraw the kernel of new inspiration...
Ingenious
Like, i have personally experienced that so many times and the movie totally nailed it
The "publisher" even says to her, straight up: "the inspiration! Where have you been? I knew you were cooped up with him and i was worried, but looks like it all paid off!"
And the publisher "shooting" all the cast offs and flawed ideas
Unbelievable
It's got some really funny moments.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
it was too warm in the cinema when I saw this movie, and it really accentuated all of this. it was suffocating at times. i kind of dug it.
tearsofash
Member
i just started screaming fuck at the screen once it ended
Peotical Injection
Member
Fucking mind fuck. I literally felt sick afterwards. That never happens to me. Probably his best work.
toythatkills
Member
Weird reading all this stuff about religion, etc, which I pretty much entirely missed when I was watching the film.
Totally read it as a metaphor for miscarriage, or something. The house being the womb and Lawrence being the child and the invaders being some kind of virus which (literally) attacks and kills the baby. Then at the end the parents try again, but obviously the child is new. Stuff like Lawrence being unable to leave the house alive and a bunch of other touches led me to this.
Made so much sense as I was watching it but I appreciate it may be all wrong. Kinda enjoyed it my way more than what I'm reading about now though, haha.
Totally read it as a metaphor for miscarriage, or something. The house being the womb and Lawrence being the child and the invaders being some kind of virus which (literally) attacks and kills the baby. Then at the end the parents try again, but obviously the child is new. Stuff like Lawrence being unable to leave the house alive and a bunch of other touches led me to this.
Made so much sense as I was watching it but I appreciate it may be all wrong. Kinda enjoyed it my way more than what I'm reading about now though, haha.
While the religious stuff plays a big part in the framework of the film, I do think it's much more "about" climate change, and our part in it with the way we treat mother earth. There's also the "genius poet" aspect, of course, and how that directly affects the woman in his life (very much a psychologically abusive relationship)... but at its core (heh) it's about climate change and how we're going to fuck up this one and only home that we have. The only "hope" or "optimistic" aspect of the film is the idea that, maybe when it all burns down, it starts again, and we all get reincarnated with another chance to not fuck it up.
No i don't take the "one and only chance" and necessarily the whole climate change angle.
The film is cyclical. It begins at the end. Every time we ruin everything there's a new attempt.
We have never ruined the world itself before. We've never burned down mother nature's house before. We've certainly never tried again/rebuilt from the ashes.
I get it as an allegory for God loving his creation despite its flaws and trying again constantly... But it doesn't work as a literal parallel with climate change imo. What are the last moments about if that's the case? We get a new earth? What?
Also don't get how the biblical angle factors in when it's totally cyclical either, unless the idea is that different religions cyclically recycling all end up the same way despite religion's intentions.
I still like the allegory of creative work and projects the most. They come in cycles, you have to abuse inspiration to get the most out of it, once you pass it to the world they will destroy it... And structurally it creates a perfect reading (you start with another project once the previous one burns out) even if details like the rib are lost.
The film is cyclical. It begins at the end. Every time we ruin everything there's a new attempt.
We have never ruined the world itself before. We've never burned down mother nature's house before. We've certainly never tried again/rebuilt from the ashes.
I get it as an allegory for God loving his creation despite its flaws and trying again constantly... But it doesn't work as a literal parallel with climate change imo. What are the last moments about if that's the case? We get a new earth? What?
Also don't get how the biblical angle factors in when it's totally cyclical either, unless the idea is that different religions cyclically recycling all end up the same way despite religion's intentions.
I still like the allegory of creative work and projects the most. They come in cycles, you have to abuse inspiration to get the most out of it, once you pass it to the world they will destroy it... And structurally it creates a perfect reading (you start with another project once the previous one burns out) even if details like the rib are lost.
Anyone else thought of the Internet when the house went into utter chaos ? Its like online interactions/browsing the web ,but physically realized.
People being turned into resources rather than ends in themselves is kind of a big part of it.
Its also about the loss of appreciation of maternity and how mothers play such a key role in maintaining life ,but get so little appreciation by humankind beyond the initial superficial wonder at the birth of a newborn.
Like,how could you not think of social media when they starting flocking to him and demanding exposure of the intimate details of their (Javier and JLaw's) lives.
Its honestly really disappointing that a childish,silly movie like IT is getting more attention,doing better at the box office ,and getting better reviews.
We need more and more movies like this.
What a fascinating ride.
People being turned into resources rather than ends in themselves is kind of a big part of it.
Its also about the loss of appreciation of maternity and how mothers play such a key role in maintaining life ,but get so little appreciation by humankind beyond the initial superficial wonder at the birth of a newborn.
Like,how could you not think of social media when they starting flocking to him and demanding exposure of the intimate details of their (Javier and JLaw's) lives.
I also want to say, when people complain that hollywood is too safe and we're stuck in a super-hero chaos cycle and then they DON'T go and support this movie in theaters...
This is probably best served to be in the non-spoiler thread, but still.
Its honestly really disappointing that a childish,silly movie like IT is getting more attention,doing better at the box office ,and getting better reviews.
We need more and more movies like this.
What a fascinating ride.
We saw Mother! again last night after finding out it was front row seating only for Kingsman at the time we preferred.
The first time I saw it, I missed all the religious allegory and mostly just enjoyed the bizarre/fucked up ride and not knowing what was going on.
I had some weird thoughts about Him being the care taker of the house and this was some kind of simulation on an alien world and a bunch of stuff that was pretty far out there.
After reading about the climate change, retelling of the Bible, tortured muse angles and going in with that knowledge in hand, it was still really good. It is pretty on the nose with the biblical stuff once you know and you easily recognize the what were confusing premonitions that Mother has of the future torched remains of the house. That is mostly when she needs to use the powder to calm herself. The publisher calling Mother the inspiration repeatedly stuck out as well.
The descent into chaos with her bringing about the apocalypse was still very powerful and a wild ride. I was surprised how well it held up and I found my self fixated on the screen again like the first viewing. I don't recall seeing anything like this and especially not with a wide release.
There was a lady and what looked like her son with 2 young daughters that came in about 10 mins before the house first gets overrun with people and Mother/Him have sex. I'm glad they left during that scene because I was going to tell her that they should not be in there at all and especially for the last 25-30 mins. They were also providing the type of obvious commentary that little ones typically do like "Look mommy, there is blood on the floor!" or "Those people are being mean to her!" Can't imagine taking my 4-6 year olds to something like that.
The first time I saw it, I missed all the religious allegory and mostly just enjoyed the bizarre/fucked up ride and not knowing what was going on.
I had some weird thoughts about Him being the care taker of the house and this was some kind of simulation on an alien world and a bunch of stuff that was pretty far out there.
After reading about the climate change, retelling of the Bible, tortured muse angles and going in with that knowledge in hand, it was still really good. It is pretty on the nose with the biblical stuff once you know and you easily recognize the what were confusing premonitions that Mother has of the future torched remains of the house. That is mostly when she needs to use the powder to calm herself. The publisher calling Mother the inspiration repeatedly stuck out as well.
The descent into chaos with her bringing about the apocalypse was still very powerful and a wild ride. I was surprised how well it held up and I found my self fixated on the screen again like the first viewing. I don't recall seeing anything like this and especially not with a wide release.
There was a lady and what looked like her son with 2 young daughters that came in about 10 mins before the house first gets overrun with people and Mother/Him have sex. I'm glad they left during that scene because I was going to tell her that they should not be in there at all and especially for the last 25-30 mins. They were also providing the type of obvious commentary that little ones typically do like "Look mommy, there is blood on the floor!" or "Those people are being mean to her!" Can't imagine taking my 4-6 year olds to something like that.
And_Gignac
Member
The message I took from the movie is that the ever-forgiving, accepting love of God is just as destructive (and narcissistic).
JoJoShabadoo
Member
So even though the biblical allegories are indisputable, I couldn't help but to feel like the movie was a fever dream/hallucinatory representation of the emotional turmoil a mentally sick woman that was pregnant and either miscarried, aborted, or lost her child finds herself in. I feel like the scope could be smaller and from the perspective of a woman questioning her faith, and not necessarily a biblical scope. That she's questioning religion and only seeing the ugly side of it. Think how not one aspect of religion depicted in the movie brings her happiness or peace. Just the prospect of being in a loving relationship with a healthy child. The death of her child could be seen as God taking away what she cared the most for.
I felt like the house was a representation of how sheltered she was, and how she isolated herself from the outside world (hence it being located in the middle of nowhere). Which is why it began to break apart (her foundation was beginning to show cracks) and then it just continued escalating as people began invading her private space.
The "creature" she flushed to me represented a fetus. The stain under the rug was complications during her pregnancy. The "elixir" she drank was a representation of her alcoholism, as she felt relieved when drinking it in private, yet anytime alcohol was mentioned or offered to her in public she would grow nervous.
When the son in the beginning died and everyone is in mourning, as Jennifer Lawrence goes to answer the door the mother in the other room is heard saying something like "Today we lost our baby, we held him in our arms (...)" something like that, it almost felt like it was a distorted memory of her being reunited with her family after the death of her child. She couldn't say anything when she was asked to, she was at a loss for words.
By the way I absolutely loved the riot/war scenes in the third act (the house party/rave scene should have lasted longer!) It was claustrophobic and a few of the shots such as the girls crammed into a cage pleading for help were really effective in making me anxious as I watched.
Now I have to bring myself to watch Noah lol.
I felt like the house was a representation of how sheltered she was, and how she isolated herself from the outside world (hence it being located in the middle of nowhere). Which is why it began to break apart (her foundation was beginning to show cracks) and then it just continued escalating as people began invading her private space.
The "creature" she flushed to me represented a fetus. The stain under the rug was complications during her pregnancy. The "elixir" she drank was a representation of her alcoholism, as she felt relieved when drinking it in private, yet anytime alcohol was mentioned or offered to her in public she would grow nervous.
When the son in the beginning died and everyone is in mourning, as Jennifer Lawrence goes to answer the door the mother in the other room is heard saying something like "Today we lost our baby, we held him in our arms (...)" something like that, it almost felt like it was a distorted memory of her being reunited with her family after the death of her child. She couldn't say anything when she was asked to, she was at a loss for words.
By the way I absolutely loved the riot/war scenes in the third act (the house party/rave scene should have lasted longer!) It was claustrophobic and a few of the shots such as the girls crammed into a cage pleading for help were really effective in making me anxious as I watched.
Now I have to bring myself to watch Noah lol.
Master Of Illusion
Member
Finally got around to watching this.
Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! I would have killed to see this in a more packed theater and watch said patrons leave in total anger.
It was great. My head hasn't completely wrapped around it yet, but I dug the shit out of this thing.
Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! I would have killed to see this in a more packed theater and watch said patrons leave in total anger.
It was great. My head hasn't completely wrapped around it yet, but I dug the shit out of this thing.
Yeah I have to admit the religious/climate allegories were lost on me. I was viewing the film strictly through a lens of creative work + living with/as an artist. Though some of what I interpreted parallels perfectly with the religious interpretations. All of the different interpretations I'm seeing make sense though (religion, climate, relationships, feminism, artistry). I like a good layered film. The movie is almost impossible to recommend widely though.
Some had mentioned being bothered by the use of camera at the end of the film was and thinking it was unnecessary. I completely disagree. There has never been a film that has made me feel anxious. During those last scenes I could feel my body wanting to reach out and just shove everything away. It was wonderful.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked