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

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...