Skip to main content

Mother! is Pure Aronofsky


          There’s a distinct line in storytelling between ambiguity and senselessness. The use of ambiguous or undefined elements in a story can be very evocative, and effect the way we view the work as a whole -if they are within an identifiable context. We don’t need to know where the monoliths came from, or the exact nature of Dave Bowman’s transformation into the star child, but we do need to know that Dave is an astronaut and that monoliths effect evolution. You don’t need to explain everything, but you have to explain something.
          Unless you’re Darren Aronofsky, and vagueness is your wheelhouse. This is where Mother!, comes in, a film which from a literal point of view is perfectly incomprehensible. And while it’s impeccably directed, utilizing fresh techniques, and is heavily metaphorical, the execution is both confusing and blunt at the same time.
          An unnamed young woman (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in a beautiful secluded house with her husband (Javier Bardem), a popular author going through writers’ block as she continually renovates the house. But soon their lives are interrupted by interlopers (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer) coming to stay, leading to more and more imposing guests. All the while the protagonist feels anxious in her relationship possibly spurned on by the mysterious powers of the house.
          The fact that none of the characters are named in this film is an interesting idea, and to his credit, Aronofsky manages to get around using names in character interactions well enough. This movie is also shot terrifically well, following Lawrence for the duration of the runtime with only a few very particular exceptions. This is a benefit to creating an atmosphere of distrust and just a general disconnect she has from all the other characters. The movie also has a very tense build. It reminds me particularly of Rosemary’s Baby (and not just because one of the posters is a direct mimic to that earlier film), but also elements of Rebecca, in the mystery inherent to the characters around Lawrence.
          However if you try focusing on the story for any length of time, it falls apart, largely because of the way the story is told. There are dozens of plot holes, and swaths of psychological, supernatural, and basic story points that are completely unexplained if held to traditional scrutiny. However there is a method, though it’s emphatically pretentious in that regard. There’s an almost ingenious idea at play, but there are still aspects present that are convoluted. It tries to blur the lines of reality in a couple of these, through things Lawrence does that impact her perception, but this device doesn’t support the intent of the film. Also, Aronofsky’s so predisposed with the narrative structure he’s created, he doesn’t care about how the story looks, which is ultimately utter insanity. 
          The characters are never characters, rather they’re stand-ins. As such, you can never quite engage with them, save for Lawrence on occasion, who has semi-realistic responses to the insanity of her circumstances. But even then, she’s often pointlessly passive and submissive, not calling out nearly as much as she should. However, she succeeds in giving her role some humanity while Bardem has been proven to be good as the uncomfortable enigma before. Their chemistry is lacking though, in part due to the age difference, and neither can quite sell some of the more deficient dialogue. Harris and Pfeiffer are quite good, as are Domhnall and Brian Gleeson in their small parts as a pair of brothers. And Stephen McHattie gives one of his signature bizarre performances.
          He doesn’t appear until the third act, which is where Mother! takes a nosedive into lunacy. Though Aronofsky clearly intends for it to be claustrophobic, intense, and really uncomfortable, it’s too ridiculous to convey any of those. Circumstances escalate so quickly and in such strange directions, until the climax where you could almost say it goes needlessly dark. Again, there’s ulterior meanings behind all these, but so much comes out of nowhere so fast it goes off the rails of subtlety. There is an attempt to tie everything up that is a little clever. But it’s also very vague, and even thematically doesn’t really make sense. At the close of the movie, it leaves you discombobulated, a little condescended to, and just in utter bewilderment at what you just watched.
          I realize this review is a little incoherent, but it’s terribly difficult to discuss this movie and its symbolism without massive spoilers. But it’s been some time since I’ve seen such a glaring case of style over substance and its fascinating. There’s definite cleverness in Mother! in its presentation and what it’s saying with its story. And while there are quite a few areas here where it works well, it also comes off as inarticulate, pretentious, and sensibly void in spite of its themeing; and no amount of good camera-work and bottle show staging can truly fix that.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day