Mother!

tmp_oLHXPW_d785c743c5338b61_MomSome stories do not need to be told. Mother! falls squarely within that category. I walked out of the theatre at the end of the movie asking, what was the point? Why did I suffer through two hours of claustrophobic misery to get back where I started?  And actually,  further behind than where I started because at least then I was curious about Darren Aronofsky’s latest project. Afterward, I was just tired and dreading this review.

Mother! is not an awful film, I don’t think. It has a stellar cast and is visually captivating (though it’s too harsh and dour to ever be beautiful). Maybe some will even appreciate the crazy downward spiral that is this film, as it goes to soul-devouring depths that most wouldn’t dare to approach. Me? Not one bit. Not even a little. It made me uncomfortable right from the start, and not in a challenging way, and not in a way that offered me anything.

This film is the same as Javier Bardem’s nameless poet: selfish, desiring my affection, and oblivious to anything else. It is art that takes from the audience rather than giving, which also echoes the plot of the movie itself. Is that intentional? If so, that would make Aronofsky our version of the poet, and I would suggest that you not give him your energy in service of his creation. I already gave enough for both of us.

 

 

 

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Mother!

  1. Pingback: Mother! — ASSHOLES WATCHING MOVIES | Fantasy Sources: Art, Gifts, Ideas, Article Resources, News

  2. Toxic Fletch

    This doesn’t sound promising, especially for a movie with the cast this one has. But then an accomplished cast is almost its own warning sign of scenery chewing ahead: let the cast distract the viewer from what’s missing in the story. Haven’t seen it and it was not on my radar, but it sounds like a promising bashing might be ahead. 😉

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sean Post author

      I did not think it would turn me off so much going in, but it’s just brutal and that seems to be exactly what Aronofsky was going for. It’s way too awful to be so unrewarding.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. Toxic Fletch

        Clive Barker comes to mind here, as well the Demons franchise. I realize this is probably an apples to oranges comparison, but neither of those strikes me as having a point other than to be an exhibition of a writer/director’s ability without consideration for what the audience gets out of it.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Sean Post author

      The movie doesn’t attempt to hide anything so I’m not surprised the trailer is the same way. I was going to see it either way as well. Hard to say I’m glad I did – it was rough!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    1. Sean Post author

      I’m curious to see whether your love for gore helps – except for one particular part, I didn’t find this film very gory, but it definitely is brutal throughout.

      Like

      Reply
  3. Jay

    This isn’t so much a movie as an art piece.
    There isn’t much of a narrative, the whole thing is just a metaphor. The first half has a bit of a story line that infuriated me, until the second half started and I realized I missed the first half because this was so much worse. It’s just imagery.
    It’s like Aronofsky has a big rock and he’s pummeling your head with it until you bleed, the end. Just fucking brutal.

    And looking back, I thought the camera work was distracting at best and confusing – or at least, not really thematically consistent.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  4. dbmoviesblog

    I can just admit that I love intense, psychologically dreary, tortuous films. But, I also do not like pretentiousness in films or films which are too manipulative and playing too hard to get one’s attention. I have this feeling that this film by Aronofsky just tries too hard. The film kinda disappointed already with one of its posters copying “Rosemary’s Baby”. What was the point in that? To boost the sales? Polanski is still alive for any tributes.
    I have the feeling I might agree with you on “Mother!” when I finally see it. I really think that Aronofsky produces his best on a small budget (“Requiem for A Dream”, “The Fountain”, etc.), and runs like a headless chicken when he has to produce something on a big budget. Even his “Black Swan” was not without controversy as to who was doing all the dancing there.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. CineMuseFilms

    I understand you Sean; this one can hurt. But there is a lot happening inside this film. My review concludes that “Whatever else it may be, this is a masterpiece of political and social satire”.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sean Post author

      There was too much happening for me to convert any of the imagery and allusions into any type of coherent allegory. Aronofsky’s interpretations have changed so significantly from Q&A to Q&A that it makes me think there isn’t any theme and the movie’s sole function is as a Rorschach test. Which isn’t without merit in and of itself but without a coherent theme, as a piece of cinema Mother is just “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. CineMuseFilms

        Love your analogy with a Rorschach test. Yeah, I see your point. But on the other hand, there is more “coherence” in film then we often find among the randomness of life so I’m one who thinks narrative coherence is over-rated. Give me more “sound and fury”. Cheers.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s