Darren Aronofsky's new film 'Mother'

I watched it yesterday, then again today. I loved it. I get all the biblical references: Creation, man's downfall & ejection from the Garden, the Flood, the adoration of God, the birth & death of Christ, the wars, destruction, & famine. The bloody hole in the floor & the heating oil, hhhhmmm.

 

And the sink everybody wanted to sit on??

 

Well, he already made a three-hour movie out of Noah's Ark. He probably just wanted the most efficient scene to get that part of the story out of the way.

 

I'm sure before they hired her they made sure she was proficient in texting. And that her agent was assured that she wasn't going to be required to do anything she might be uncomfortable with like smiling.

 

Personally, I just love the idea that Aranofsky made a film whose basic moral is: Never date a writer. No matter how much you love them, it's never enough. They always need more, they never give back, they never care about you or your needs, they only take, and they never stop needing other people's approval. He didn't just throw himself under the bus, at least in terms of dating, he pretty much threw every creative person out there under the bus with him!

 

Not all writers. Some of us love the $%^&* checks, best of all.

 

This film contains far too much in the way of cheap, simplistic metaphors and symbolism and thus becomes the opposite of enlightening or thought provoking. The film also has little or nothing to do with surrealism. And in this way, Mother! is quite a disappointment.

On the other hand, I do like Aronofsky’s films (Pi, Requiem, Wrestler, Swan) and I enjoyed the way he presented the chaos with his usual intensity. It really is a marvel of filmmaking in the way that last 30-40 minutes were done.

However, I think perhaps Aranofsky needs to learn less is more when he is trying big, ambitious stories. This film is far too direct and leaves very little for the viewer to interpret and thus fails at eliciting any sort of intrigue. It would be interesting to hear his motives and whether he is aware of what he is doing. I would think he knows this but made his film this way for reasons unknown to me.

 

LOL, I had to go to the interwebs to make any sense of the movie at all! I had no idea how to interpret what I just saw, so I wouldn't call that 'direct' in any way. I should say that I also had no knowledge of the movie before I saw it - I was just there for Jennifer Lawrence, Ed Harris, Kristen Wiig, Michelle Pfeiffer.

 

Lol. What can I say. There have been plenty of films I didn’t understand but others did. Maybe all that imagery clicked with me.

I thought it was great during the first half before all the heavy handedness when there was still some suspense and intrigue left. Certainly a film worth seeing though. I thought Michelle Pfeiffer was really terrific in this film.

 

Spoiler: Example

Let me give you an example. The scene showing the scar on Ed Harris’ (Adam’s) rib. How much more direct can one get? Another one... the two brothers...they just pop in and one immediately kills the other...a far too convenient way of getting that story told.

I didn’t know the story at the time those things were happening but once she was pregnant all the direct metaphors came to light and I found it sophomoric and what came after, heavy handed. I still enjoyed it just consider the idea behind this as a missed opportunity.

 

Since I have no religiosity whatsoever, none of those scenes had any kind of resonance with me (they were just a part of the weird nature of the narrative as a whole). And don't forget that I was completely unaware of the movie details and didn't know the director, so I was in no way primed to think in a certain direction as I was watching. In fact had I known what it was about going in, I probably wouldn't have watched (despite the cast that lured me in).

 

That’s a good example of what is obvious to someone may not be obvious to others. I am not religious either but remember my childhood teachings. On another note, if the film was about Islam or some other religion, I wouldn’t have had a clue what was happening.

The other way to look at this film is the question of whether this story stands on its own for those who know nothing about Christianity. I’m not sure that it does and this could be seen as a huge flaw. There doesn’t seem to be room interpret the film in another way because so much was dictated for the viewer in such a heavy handed manner. Since Aranofsky took the film to such an extreme direction, he may have destroyed any plausible notion of an allegory.

 

I guess I was also surprised at how straightforward it was. Although it was very intense it was quite a simple allegory when you get down to it. Nevertheless, I still enjoyed it.

 

Finally saw this for the first time. I heard all the buzz, but was primarily motivated to see it for the cast. Which was great, and not only the top credits of Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, and the very welcome addition of Michelle Pfeiffer. All were great, but so were Stephen McHattie (the Zealot) and the truly inspired choice of the Gleeson brothers.

I got the allegorical angle, the symbolism. The technical elements, cinematography and editing were all very good.

But ultimately I think the film failed to show how its more overt displays of violence and chaos helped make any overall point of the film. Which I don't think it did.

Putting aside specific references to past films, I think overall Aronofsky is inspired by Stanley Kubrick. Well, this film was no Kubrick film. Aronofsky doesn't have Kubrick's way with dark comedy, among other things. There was comedy in the film, but I didn't find it compelling or, well, worth it.

But the cast led me to 6/10. Best I can do. And no, I don't want to see it again.

 

Finally got around to watching this. Like previous Aronofsky films I've seen. Other than Bardem & Lawrence I had no idea who else was in it. A film with Lawrence in is certainly no selling point.

I really enjoyed it. Picked up on the religious themes. I'm not religious in the slightest, but having been educated / indoctrinated at school I was aware of stories from Christian mythology. There were some laugh out loud bits, particularly towards the end. Don't remember any trailers for this but perhaps 2000 years of Christianity was the horror alluded to by them.

Maybe I'll get a copy of Noah. It does habe Ray Winstone in and it's as crazy as this it might be entertaining.

I might check out the IMDB review section. Some of those reviews should be a hoot.

 

Sounds good, the Filibuster era is very interesting history.

 

Walker( 1987) histotical drama springs to mind. Though that film lacked authentic period detail.

 

I'm not sure about that, even if you knew nothing about the religious underpinnings of the film, at the very least you could look at it as we are raping mother earth to the point that she has no other option but to snuff us out.

 

1492?

 

Blown away myself. Actors .. pure exhilaration. Reminded me of Luis Buñuel’s
Exterminating Angel,

 

Exterminating Angel. Good call