A true litmus test for the divisiveness of a story: Jo & I are very rarely in disagreement, and almost never (ever?) more than three stars removed on a rating. However, Darren Aronofky's latest head-scratcher, "Mother!" has served to fully and truly divide us. In reading the following, you will get the full spectrum of thought on this film, which is decidedly "love it" or "HATE IT". Surely, this will be the most polarizing film of the year, and perhaps one of the more divisive films of all time. Say what you will about it, I suppose, but everyone who has seen Mother! feels pretty strongly about it. Without having seen more than a teaser, I was intrigued, as we all were; but, I was even more intrigued after the film generated such strong reactions. And, after seeing it, I've even come out of hibernation to write about it.
Before I begin, I want to say: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS. You owe it to yourself to go into this one blind. I went in knowing a *little*, and maybe it helped, but it probably didn't. Nothing might have been better, but I'll never know. So I'm giving you a chance to leave now. Go. Shoo.
Ok, if you're still here, I hope you've seen the film. And if not, well, fine, be that way. Don't say I didn't warn you. Last chance - here goes...
Mother! opens in a quietly mysterious setting: a large run-down home in the countryside, not another person or structure in sight. A nameless couple (Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem) live in the house - he a writer, she a fixer; she's working on renovating the entire house single-handedly. He's undergoing writer's block and is excited and inspired by some unexpected visitors - a man who is an apparent fan of his writing (Ed Harris), and later, the man's wife (Michelle Pfeiffer). Yes, they're invited to stay. Lawrence is not down - "they're strangers." Bardem says "they have nowhere to go." She concedes. The guests are intrusive, invasive, inconsiderate. They break Bardem's most prized possession, and have little sorrow about it.
So far, the film has Aronofsky's distinct look, complete with lots of hand-held, claustrophobic close-ups of Lawrence (who is spectacular, by the way), but we still don't really know where things are going, or what it all means. Later, our patience is rewarded when the stranger couple's two sons show up. They argue. The fight escalates. One son (played by Domnhall Gleeson, who is in the midst of yet another amazing year in his career) KILLS the other son. Wait, what!? What kind of story is this?? OHHHHH.... (*a light bulb*). This is Cain and Abel. Biblical allegory. Ok, I get it, kind of. Let's watch the film with that in mind, then...
Although, actually, I'll skip the rest of the plot, because it doesn't really matter from now on anyway (I'll get there). The allegories and layers of course cascade from here, the seed having been planted, and the metaphors become more and more obvious. The flood. Extinction. Immaculate Conception. The birth of the Son of God. The wise men. Forgiveness. Worship. You think back to the beginning: "Oh yeah, that was Adam and Eve! And the forbidden fruit! And the garden of Eden! ADAM'S RIB WAS TAKEN OUT AND THEN EVE SHOWS UP!"
Indeed, the parallels become so obvious that we're almost literally hammered in the face with them. At some point, well before the end, you're sure to say, "Ok, ok! I get it! It's the bible, ok! Do we really need to watch people ACTUALLY eat the body of Christ?" The final 10 minutes is a mess of violence, symbolism, and shocking imagery, all with direct parallels to Biblical stories. But you eventually realize: It's not just stories from the Bible. Bardem is God. Lawrence could be many things, but is most analogous to Mother Earth. She is the meek caretaker of the house, which is itself the living, breathing Earth. These people are destroying the Earth, and there's not much she can do about it. She can't even really fight back. These facts become so obvious that you'd have to be asleep to not notice - and I think, indeed, this is a primary reason that a lot of people checked out at this point, and why, therefore, a lot of people didn't like the film. "Why doesn't she just DO something?" "Wtf is up with her deadbeat husband!?" "None of these stories make sense strung together. What's the point?"
Does Aronofsky go too far? Maybe. Does all of it make sense? No. Do biblical allegories a good movie make? Absolutely not. But, I don't think this movie is about the bible. Like, at all. I think it's about many things, but three things most of all, from most to least obvious: the merciless and thoughtless destruction of the earth, the problem of religion, and ultimately, the relationship between the two.
Let's start with the earth, climate change being the most obvious parallel here, with its being obvious actually a critical part of the theme. This is the idea that smacks you in the face, harder and harder as the movie progresses, until we really don't want to watch it anymore, either because it's hard to watch or because seriously, we get it already, stop. I think the (lack of) subtlety is one hundred thousand percent intentional, and not only that, I think it's important that it's presented this way. It's almost like we, as a population, are complete idiots for not noticing this happening, right in front of our faces, in real life. After all, when we shrink climate change down to the size of a house, it looks pretty darn terrible. Putting this relatively abstract notion ("it's below zero out - how is the earth warming?!") into a setting that we can all understand ("I just fixed that! Don't touch it!"), and then on top of it, making it over the top and horrifying... It emphasizes the obviousness of what is happening all around us, what our role is in it, and how utterly fixable some of this stuff is ("Just don't sit on the counter. Please."). Smaller themes become clear, particularly in the final moments: Mother tries fighting back. Is this a natural disaster? There are too many people in the house. Overpopulation? Stealing from the home. Using up all of the natural resources? But again, these little parallels aren't the important thing - the important thing is that the parallels are OBVIOUS.
The next theme is the problem of religion. If I had to pick, this might be the reason that I like the movie so much. Very obviously, the film is filled with religious symbolism and allegories. An endless amount of them. I keep thinking of more, two days later. But once again, that's not the point! He tricked us again! As an aggregate, these metaphors paint a picture of God and of organized religion. And, you may have noticed, the film really does not paint a very favorable portrait of God, or of religion. There's even a fair amount of satanic imagery around Bardem. Bardem's character is not a hero. He is, in fact, pretty one-dimensional - all he cares about is receiving praise for his work; indeed, he seeks this to the utter destruction of anything and everything else ("Oh, you killed my son? That's fine. I understand. I know you did it because you love me."). That is the very DEFINITION of one-dimensional. But again, I think THAT is actually the important thing here. Once again, when God (and indeed, some of these biblical stories) are thrust into a real-world setting, we can finally see Him for what He really is - selfish. Forgiving, yes, but ultimately self-serving. Now, I'm not here to comment on whether there is a God, or what His/Her/Their/Its personality may be like, or whatever, but in any case, I think this is a fascinating commentary on the idea of God, how people see Him, and ultimately, the utter ridiculousness of the mental hoops you have to jump through to justify classical Christian beliefs (as emphasized by the numerous outrageous allegories in the film, e.g. Cain and Abel). I think that yet another reason people may not have liked this movie is because the portrayal of God and religion is so unfavorable. Religion is very personal to many; it's a sensitive topic and easy to offend when discussed. But though I might not personally agree with the details of the portrayal shown here, I find the implications here endlessly fascinating.
Ok, so finally, the last theme: how religion/God and climate change are related. Why have all this religious symbolism if all you're going to do is talk about climate change? And how religion can be harmful to climate change? Well, once again... isn't it a bit obvious? The people make God who He is. Without the people, God and Mother would probably be pretty happy... we get glimpses of this at the beginning and through a central stretch of the film. It's the people that make Him into a monster. It's the people that destroy the Earth. It's the Christians that are destorying the Earth, and God is letting them because He is being worshipped in the process. The people could care less about the house, or about Lawrence. They're there for Bardem, to worship and praise him, at whatever expense. Once again, we're shown this in an over-the-top fashion, almost as if to say: Look what you're doing! Seriously, look around for one second! Isn't it obvious how awful this is? Almost, as if we should be looking around and questioning our actions in our own real lives. Almost.
So, sorry not sorry for the novel. If you've seen the movie, maybe this will change your perspective, but I doubt it. I suspect it's kind of like trying to convince someone that they're wrong about their religion. And I really don't think it's ok to convince someone they're wrong about their religion, so of course, you can continue to think whatever you'd like about Mother!. Though perhaps by reading this, you'll go around and just be a smidge more observant and considerate of your surroundings, which is, after all, what Aronofsky was going for in making this film... I think. Right?
Jo (**)
Darren Aronofsky is surely a skilled filmmaker. He made what I thought to be the best movie of 2008 (The Wrestler) and then came back to shock and delight with Black Swan a few years later. His films have style and a raw viscosity to them. They play out in claustrophobic closeups and a shaky cam that convinces us of the setting. That is all present in his latest headscratcher, MOTHER!, a movie with seemingly vast ambitions and little interest in telling a cohesive, tangible story. This is style over substance.
We meet the characters of Him (Javier Bardem) and Mother (Jennifer Lawrence), an odd married couple that lives in a remote field and works slowly at renovating this grand home. Lawrence works on painting, spackling, designing, and building, while Bardem is tediously trying to work on his writing. A man visits the home (Ed Harris), a self-professed fan of Bardem's writing. He is invited to spend the night. Odd. The next morning, his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) pays a visit. Then their sons. Bardem is welcoming of any people who want to offer him praise. Lawrence is thinking the logical thoughts, mainly "what?" "who?" "why?" "excuse me?" and "stay off the furniture."
That's the story we were shown in the trailer. Okay, sounds good. We heard this might be a soft reworking of the classic "Rosemary's Baby," and there are certainly elements that play off the paranoia and occult. The suspicions begin early on for Mother, who is curious about her husband's intense fascination with these visitors, and then equally puzzled by a newfound tunnel in her basement and a beating heart behind the walls. Where "Rosemary's Baby" worked on a slow build that ended in a shocking climax, Aronofsky doesn't have the patience or belief in suspense.
Something happens in the last third of this picture that throws the entire story off its axis. Mother is pregnant, and as she and hubbie sit down to a freshly-cooked dinner to celebrate, there's a knock at the door. Then another. Then another. Pretty soon their home seems like a frat party during Homecoming and their house is thrust into a state of panic, shock, and the like. We meet new characters. Things happen. A lot of things. What exactly I don't know. What began as an intimate thriller divulges into something that more closely resembles a nightmare of Charlie Kauffman. It's a complete wash of disorder and incoherence. Of course many are drawing religious parallels and feel smart for doing so. "Obviously this is a reference to Cain and Abel." "It's about Mother Earth." Perhaps this makes some people feel smart. For me, this was an assault on the senses.
The film carries the director's distinct look. There is a strong flow and style to the work. Does the story hold water on its own? I don't think so. Lawrence and Bardem do what they can with the work, but there have been interviews by all 4 of the main cast members where they admit to not understanding the idea behind the very movie they star in. I can't blame them. This is a movie that is surely ambitious but ultimately falls flat. Not only can I understand the motivations of any of our 'heroes,' but the cyclical conclusion feels like another effort to present profoundness when there is none. Some feel like this is a movie that is made for repeated viewings, guessing at the symbolism and spokem words for years to come. Don't waste your time. You'll be scratching your head for so long that your hair might fall out.
No comments:
Post a Comment