mother!
Many, many viewers will be repelled and sickened by 2017's mother! I can easily imagine the reactions of audiences (I did not see this in the theater) during this film's chaotic final forty-five minutes. Gasps, declarations of anger, tears. I'm sure some immediately decided it was the worst movie they've ever seen. Especially sensitive viewers. Sensitive to violent imagery that crosses more lines than I would've expected in a major studio film. Women will undoubtedly have more difficulty with it than men. These descriptions are already some manner of spoiler. The first act of the film, with its carefully constructed vise of portent, does not (at first consideration, anyway) necessarily point toward its third.
There is an unnamed couple (Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem) who live in a restored country house in the middle of nowhere. She's done all the restoration herself while he's suffered writer's block. One day a man (Ed Harris) appears at the door. He's a physician who needs a place to spend the night. He has this mysterious wound on his side. The lady of the house - Mother - is skeptical of the stranger, but goes along with her husband's hospitality. The next day, the stranger's brash, insensitive wife (Michelle Pfeifer) appears. Then their two sons. Violence erupts. Tragedy. More people come later to mourn. The house is overrun. Mother is baffled and angered by these outrageous invasions. Her husband is suspiciously accommodating and patient of it all.
The house itself has odd disrepair: a bloody hole in the floorboard and what appears to be a beating heart in the walls. Blood trails reveal themselves throughout.
I can't reveal more. Even if I did, it would only say as much as where your interpretations would lead. Writer/director Darren Aronofsky has already released his interpretation of the screenplay. What the characters and the house represent; I agree with much of it. Though the primary considerations of biblical texts, religion as a practice, and ecology, may only be the beginning. There are also obvious treatises on Art and the cult of personality (of artists and otherwise). And politics, of course, with fingers pointing at both poles. It may be limited only by your imagination. If you're a viewer who takes everything in a film literally, you will bail in frustration before the fiery climax.
The final act features some bold, jaw dropping events, all symbolic but keep telling yourself that as you witness some things that many might rightly consider unwatchable. Aronofsky stated that the movie "poured out of him" as he completed the script in five days. Any writer who has felt the rush of inspiration can relate. To wit, Bardem's character wakes up one morning, head filled with ideas, and can't find a pen fast enough.
I'm not sure if the director entirely succeeded here. I applaud his fearless march to erect what might be the "mother" of contemporary allegories and his willingness to stage some outlandish sequences. But I also feel that his intentions could've been achieved in a far quieter, more introspective fashion. He is clearly emulating Roman Polanski and maybe Harold Pinter, among many others. They did not result to the sort of over-the-top extravaganza seen in mother! That said, Aronofsky's direction here is quite good. He employs horror elements quite effectively, but it's always obvious he has bigger ideas to exploit.
Ms. Lawrence is great. It truly is a without a net bit of bravery. Ms. Pfeifer does some of her best work here. The women in this film fare best, and despite the charges of unbridled misogyny I think mother! is strongly pro-woman, if not entirely feminist. Lawrence endures some indescribably difficult emotional scenes, and Aronofsky's film respects her in ways that only deepen with consideration. I will venture say that his movie is the best kind of art that dares to consider itself as such - willing to go for broke and alienate millions to exclaim its sober, if maybe disorganized concerns. They'll be talking about this movie for years to come.
Comments