OJ Simpsom
Banned
Done. And that scene would def give me fukked up nightmares so I'll pass on this artistic project.
Darren Aronofsky's Mother! (Trailer) starring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem
- Thread starter FlyRy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jennifer lawrence mother
Honestly, it's worth viewing for the technical/cinematic achievement of the 3rd act alone. There's a scene that shuffles seamlessly through mankind's worst traits and atrocities throughout history within a confined space that needs to be seen to be believed.
NobodyReally
Superstar
LvT the pretentious cac GAWD.
There's definitely some shades of LvT darkening it in the 3rd act, but I'd liken the feel/direction more to Polanski - Repulsion, especially.
It worked for me (which is strange because I typically don't like when things are too on-the-nose and thematically gauche), probably because the model that he used is known to pretty much everyone.The low hanging fruits of telling the narrative through the Old/New Testaments and religion - destructive nature of humanity - isn't trying too hard on some Lupe Fiasco matryoshka doll type shyt. What better way to tell a story of how we fukk Mother Earth than with a standard biblical vessel.
I haven't seen Repulsion but I'll check it out. I think it took me too long to completely let go and ride with the imagery. I was completely thrown and not expecting it to go that far left and so for most of the 3rd act, particularly when people started praying to her husband and being shot in the head, I was thinking "WTF? This is fukking ridiculous". I think a second viewing is needed for someone like me who was just completely blindsided.
I think that's why I was so thrown and perhaps disappointed. It kinda lulls you in with convention and if you get too comfortable with that, the 3rd act can feel like a betrayal, especially if you aren't willing to let go of conventional beliefs about how this thing should go.
I'm torn on this. I think after seeing the entire film, it fits. It's a part of the metaphor, right? That the house is this living thing that is very much connected to her. And when the actions of her husband begin to slowly kill her, the house begins to die as well. It's even more powerful when we see how the house gets reborn after she dies. I think the message here is that God takes and takes from us until we're spent, and when we're gone, he creates another thing and fills it with more people and things that love/admire him. I truly think that the husband was supposed represent God. I'm still not clear if Jennifer Lawrence's character represent Earth or US. I can see both interpretations.
See, I think the CGI was effective for creating an unreliable narrator. I didn't really trust Jennifer's character or her sanity for half of the movie. The heart in the house thing was one of the things that helped me question her perspective. I think that was done purposefully. If we're getting into the whole theology/philosophy of the movie, I wonder if Aronofsky was pointing out how clouded our feelings and thoughts can be when it comes to our relationship with the Earth and God. Also, the CGI helped create this hyper surrealism about the film where it made me question how real any of this stuff was. By the time we get to the 3rd act, I was primed for surrealism, but it just seemed like over the top then.
Not sure if this was the only point of what was going on. I definitely agree the message about the Earth and the way we're treating her were there, but I think there were messages in there about our relationship to God, each other, and life overall were in there. The pet thing may have been overkill.
You liked the ending?
YES.
If you want to talk about on the nose, the ending was spot on. I loved everything from his admission to her right before he takes her heart, to how she has an awakening and destroys the house and herself to free herself from him, but she doesn't even die. She ends up right back in his arms and then he takes the last thing she has to give and right before it, he admits this is what he does. He creates and he takes. That's what this entire film is about. The Creator and how he can't help but create and take and how much he loves those who love him and his creations but how little he has to truly give. How he destroys the very lives that worship him in his zeal to draw more people to praise him. And then that last shot of the house being reborn and a new woman waking up to call his name. God is forever and will keep doing what he does, while we die and others come after us to repeat our human failings. At least that's how I interpreted it.
Last edited:
I think it's worth noting that bibically, there will be a new heaven and a new earth once this world is destroyed. I think the ending of the film captures that cynical cycle of creation, destruction, and creation.
But on another note, while I find the bible/god/earth/humanity allegories interesting, I found myself much more compelled by the allegory of the tortured artist using his life experience as fodder for his work. In 2017, we have celebrities letting fans inside every moment of their lives. In fact that was the interpretation I took in the quickest, and the one that continues to resonate with me. That is what makes the film feel so personal.
Through social media, and reality tv, and tabloids, and TMZ, we have direct access to artists and people of fame. And it's instant access. Showing up at their house before they even know it. The privacy of a great artist is no longer sacred, in fact the transparency of sharing themselves with the fans and merging their work with their private life, creating a brand, has become more important than the art that they create. So not only do I want your book or movie or album, I want to see video and photos of your wedding, your children, your home. You have a secret closet housing something that is only for your eyes? Nope, I want that too. I want your darkest secrets, I want your sex tapes and nude photos, I want your shame and humiliation. I want your heart and soul.
I'm reminded of Beyonce's most critically praised album being the one where she shares being cheated on, and Jay-z in return creating his "most personal" album filled to the brim with secrets and revelations of his private life.
After directing depressing and personal films like The Wrestler, Black Swan, and Requiem, Darren has arrived at a place of pessimism, where fans expect more, more, more, and to please them he has to truly rip everything personal and private out of him to present to them. And I feel it's that way for many (male) writers.
They don't live life.
They don't appreciate moments.
They scour through life looking for moments they can strip for parts to make something greater.
They can experience one of the happiest moments of their life, the birth of a child, or the most mind blowing lovemaking ever, or a intimate conversation, or a belly full of laughter with friends, or a beautiful sunset while on vacation, but instead of enjoying it, they have to run off to write down their thoughts because the moment inspired them rather than fulfilled them.
And it leads to them alienating family, often their wives, builder of their homes, mothers of their children, who wonder why they aren't enough to make them happy, why they would rather lock themselves in a room for days on end rather than have breakfast with them, enjoy a nice dinner, or fukk them.
Why is the admiration of strangers more important than the admiration of the one you chose to build a life with?
Why must you take the happiness and love and pain of our home, and curate it to create your magnum opus?
Why is it so important for you to give the public our lives, the pain and joy of it all, for them to consume? Literal public consumption of everything that you value.
Usually, a Darren film is from the POV of the artist, or the entertainer who destroys themselves in order to give that great work or performance. But this time, it's from the POV of the women that love and build with those creators and entertainers, who then become destroyed by their lovers obsession and ambition to create and please strangers. The men willing to sacrifice their homes for the artistry.
It's a devastating portrait. And ugly and cynical but I can't say that it doesn't often ring true.
But on another note, while I find the bible/god/earth/humanity allegories interesting, I found myself much more compelled by the allegory of the tortured artist using his life experience as fodder for his work. In 2017, we have celebrities letting fans inside every moment of their lives. In fact that was the interpretation I took in the quickest, and the one that continues to resonate with me. That is what makes the film feel so personal.
Through social media, and reality tv, and tabloids, and TMZ, we have direct access to artists and people of fame. And it's instant access. Showing up at their house before they even know it. The privacy of a great artist is no longer sacred, in fact the transparency of sharing themselves with the fans and merging their work with their private life, creating a brand, has become more important than the art that they create. So not only do I want your book or movie or album, I want to see video and photos of your wedding, your children, your home. You have a secret closet housing something that is only for your eyes? Nope, I want that too. I want your darkest secrets, I want your sex tapes and nude photos, I want your shame and humiliation. I want your heart and soul.
I'm reminded of Beyonce's most critically praised album being the one where she shares being cheated on, and Jay-z in return creating his "most personal" album filled to the brim with secrets and revelations of his private life.
After directing depressing and personal films like The Wrestler, Black Swan, and Requiem, Darren has arrived at a place of pessimism, where fans expect more, more, more, and to please them he has to truly rip everything personal and private out of him to present to them. And I feel it's that way for many (male) writers.
They don't live life.
They don't appreciate moments.
They scour through life looking for moments they can strip for parts to make something greater.
They can experience one of the happiest moments of their life, the birth of a child, or the most mind blowing lovemaking ever, or a intimate conversation, or a belly full of laughter with friends, or a beautiful sunset while on vacation, but instead of enjoying it, they have to run off to write down their thoughts because the moment inspired them rather than fulfilled them.
And it leads to them alienating family, often their wives, builder of their homes, mothers of their children, who wonder why they aren't enough to make them happy, why they would rather lock themselves in a room for days on end rather than have breakfast with them, enjoy a nice dinner, or fukk them.
Why is the admiration of strangers more important than the admiration of the one you chose to build a life with?
Why must you take the happiness and love and pain of our home, and curate it to create your magnum opus?
Why is it so important for you to give the public our lives, the pain and joy of it all, for them to consume? Literal public consumption of everything that you value.
Usually, a Darren film is from the POV of the artist, or the entertainer who destroys themselves in order to give that great work or performance. But this time, it's from the POV of the women that love and build with those creators and entertainers, who then become destroyed by their lovers obsession and ambition to create and please strangers. The men willing to sacrifice their homes for the artistry.
It's a devastating portrait. And ugly and cynical but I can't say that it doesn't often ring true.
Last edited:
NobodyReally
Superstar
OMG Tasha...I knew there was something to the creator/author/artist thing, but I totally failed to see it for face value, but this is really a great interpretation. I love how it works on so many levels.
OGBIGBOY187
Superstar
Tonight!
Hopeofmypeople
Veteran
Can someone tell me is he the devil or something else and is she giving birth to his child?
Fillerguy
Veteran
He is He, God. The child is Jesus.
Hopeofmypeople
Veteran
Wow sounds better than I thought, can't wait to see it.
Drew Wonder
Superstar
I haven't seen the movie and probably won't any time soon based on what I've heard, but from the reviews I've read this is what I've gathered
That's my take, but of course I could be way off since I haven't seen it
Seems like the whole thing is a biblical allegory. Jennifer Lawrence is God, the house is earth, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are Adam and Eve, their twin sons are Cain and Able, the angry mob that shows up and messes up the house is mankind, the baby that the mob kills is Jesus. Not sure if Javier Bardem is Satan introducing evil to the world, the creators of the Bible/Christianity who need chaos to empower their movement/art or another version of God that allows free will and chaos in comparison to the Jennifer Lawrence version of God in favor of order and predetermination.
That's my take, but of course I could be way off since I haven't seen it
Busby
Real name no gimmicks..
This movie left me 
Trust me I GET the meaning behind it. But this shyt should have stayed at film festivals and limited releases.
They purposely promoted this movie like it's a horror/suspense Hitchcock like film and then u go into and left like
I mean I give J. Law respect for doing a film that's different then what she is use too. But when she breaks up with the director (cuz u know she will)
She gonna look back at this film and be like "Well it was a good idea at the time..
"
Trust me I GET the meaning behind it. But this shyt should have stayed at film festivals and limited releases.
They purposely promoted this movie like it's a horror/suspense Hitchcock like film and then u go into and left like
I mean I give J. Law respect for doing a film that's different then what she is use too. But when she breaks up with the director (cuz u know she will)
She gonna look back at this film and be like "Well it was a good idea at the time..
"
Drew Wonder
Superstar
So Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth?