This shyt was stupid
Darren Aronofsky's Mother! (Trailer) starring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem
- Thread starter FlyRy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jennifer lawrence mother
Yup. Gaia/mother nature/mother earth/the innocence of mankind/the purity of motherhood.
The action/direction fits, but not the actual visuals of the CGI. We don't need to see a computer-generated heart - we just need to know that it's there or some representation that it could be there. Not only is it tacky and cheap, but it takes you out of the world it's built and the intimacy and bond of her/house. Especially since it's in conflict with the soul/nature and construction of the house/Mother Earth itself, and everything that runs parallel to it in the film.
Which takes you out of the [organic] picture it's painted. We're supposed to empathize with her and be in tune with what she's going through. If Aronofsky wanted to encapsulate the rage he had (I'll add to this later on) and have the audience feel her pain and ultimate forlorn, anything that could lead us to question her perspective would be a distraction. I completely understand what you're saying with all the interactions that go on in the film (with it being some sort of branch off of a David Lynch piece), as we're witnessing all these acts from her view. But we needed to be able to connect with her as much as we possibly could - which Aronofsky most certainly didn't maximize - which is why when the baby is born and taken from her there isn't that level of empathy that you'd usually have when a baby is being separated from her mother.
And just to tag LvT back in again, if Aronofsky had folded the emotion of Dancer in the Dark into this film's first two acts, we probably would've had a classic on our hands. But we just never get that. We never get to really sympathize with her and what she's going through. After having time to digest it more, the film does end up feeling empty.
And just to tag LvT back in again, if Aronofsky had folded the emotion of Dancer in the Dark into this film's first two acts, we probably would've had a classic on our hands. But we just never get that. We never get to really sympathize with her and what she's going through. After having time to digest it more, the film does end up feeling empty.
I guess you can take any interpretation from it you want, after all, that's the point of art right? But that was the general point of the film (everything else was just a vessel) -
Possibly realising that they’d otherwise have nothing to talk about, director Darren Aronofsky and star Jennifer Lawrence have been a bit more forthcoming about the film’s plot in recent weeks, Lawrence in particular laying out the film’s entire premise in conversation with The Telegraph.
“It depicts the rape and torment of Mother Earth,” she said. “It’s not for everybody. It’s a hard film to watch. But it’s important for people to understand the allegory we intended. That they know I represent Mother Earth, Javier, whose character is a poet, represents a form of God, a creator; Michelle Pfeiffer is an Eve to Ed Harris’s Adam, there’s Cain and Abel and the setting sometimes resembles the Garden of Eden.
“For Darren to take these massive biblical themes and condense them into a narrative about a house and a couple I think is just brilliant. I have never heard of anything like it.”
Aronofsky himself has also explained his process of making the film, and just why he decided to tackle such broad themes in the guise of a traditional horror movie.
“It came out of living on this planet and sort of seeing what’s happening around us and not being able to do anything,” Aronofsky told Variety. “I just had a lot of rage and anger, and I wanted to channel it into one emotion, into one feeling. In five days I wrote the first version of the script… It just sort of poured out of me.”
He elaborated further on the film’s biblical premise during a Reddit AMA, revealing that “finding the structure was the great breakthrough that allowed me to write this screenplay so quickly. When trying to think about Mother Earth’s relationship to people, I decided to turn to the stories of the Bible as a way of describing a version of people’s story on earth.”
Having an animal would've been a great touch, and again would've only layered Mother Earth's bond with her creatures before we destroyed her home. It would'nt have taken center stage, but just to add to her character and the narrative.
Possibly realising that they’d otherwise have nothing to talk about, director Darren Aronofsky and star Jennifer Lawrence have been a bit more forthcoming about the film’s plot in recent weeks, Lawrence in particular laying out the film’s entire premise in conversation with The Telegraph.
“It depicts the rape and torment of Mother Earth,” she said. “It’s not for everybody. It’s a hard film to watch. But it’s important for people to understand the allegory we intended. That they know I represent Mother Earth, Javier, whose character is a poet, represents a form of God, a creator; Michelle Pfeiffer is an Eve to Ed Harris’s Adam, there’s Cain and Abel and the setting sometimes resembles the Garden of Eden.
“For Darren to take these massive biblical themes and condense them into a narrative about a house and a couple I think is just brilliant. I have never heard of anything like it.”
Aronofsky himself has also explained his process of making the film, and just why he decided to tackle such broad themes in the guise of a traditional horror movie.
“It came out of living on this planet and sort of seeing what’s happening around us and not being able to do anything,” Aronofsky told Variety. “I just had a lot of rage and anger, and I wanted to channel it into one emotion, into one feeling. In five days I wrote the first version of the script… It just sort of poured out of me.”
He elaborated further on the film’s biblical premise during a Reddit AMA, revealing that “finding the structure was the great breakthrough that allowed me to write this screenplay so quickly. When trying to think about Mother Earth’s relationship to people, I decided to turn to the stories of the Bible as a way of describing a version of people’s story on earth.”
Having an animal would've been a great touch, and again would've only layered Mother Earth's bond with her creatures before we destroyed her home. It would'nt have taken center stage, but just to add to her character and the narrative.
The problem I had with the ending is it's too literal (hence why I hated the CGI), all of it could've been explained more tactfully and subtlety after the brutality and bluntness of what just happened. We didn't need it spelled out to us. Ending on an ambiguous note that alluded to the cycle would've been more effective IMO, because it would've forced us to not only piece it together but think about how she's being raped, beaten, tortured and forgotten to her death.
Last edited:
Busby
Real name no gimmicks..
mother nature
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
This. This. This. I realized it was a religious allegory but looking at the story at face value I felt it was a far more powerful tale. The fact the movie works on both those levels is a credit to Aronofsky.
And for the record, I loved absolutely everything about this. My only complaints are the indeed tacky CGI, and the random-ass appearance by a certain actress in the third act that just completely broke immersion for me as I was shoulder deep into the experience.
I love how it relentlessly moves on and just builds and builds and it never lets go. Aronofsky must have loved Son Of Saul because the camera work and pressuring aspect ratio (widescreen instead of Saul's 4:3) is very reminiscent of that film. The acting is brilliant as well, for all her floozy ways you can't really deny that J-Law is just insanely good while Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer seemingly cakewalk through incredible performances.
The movie is a total riot (quite literally too at some point) and most people will absolutely hate it but I love it!
666 ReVeNGe 666
TROLL IS LIFE
some great conversation in here.
My wife had an interesting viewpoint too.
She said it could have been an author who basically wanted to fame and acceptance from all of his fans and put his wife to the side and on the back burner while she gave everything she had...riots and war ewuated to arguments and shyt etc...... and in the end he basically took the last of her heart and just got a new bytch...
I definitely saw some signs of the world's ills and religion in there but to be honest the whole movie went over my head
My wife had an interesting viewpoint too.
She said it could have been an author who basically wanted to fame and acceptance from all of his fans and put his wife to the side and on the back burner while she gave everything she had...riots and war ewuated to arguments and shyt etc...... and in the end he basically took the last of her heart and just got a new bytch...
I definitely saw some signs of the world's ills and religion in there but to be honest the whole movie went over my head
666 ReVeNGe 666
TROLL IS LIFE
Adam3000
-
Stopped reading at "over hyped Black Swan"
I just got back from mother!
Not really sure what to think. I went into it blind so I was too stunned to process it all
Guess it wasn't for me 
Going in I knew the movie was a metaphor and all that but this shyt just did nothing for me. And I see some people who's opinions I respect are rocking with it so maybe it's just me but I thought this film was utter trash and trying way too hard to be something more.
Going in I knew the movie was a metaphor and all that but this shyt just did nothing for me. And I see some people who's opinions I respect are rocking with it so maybe it's just me but I thought this film was utter trash and trying way too hard to be something more.
Yo, I don't even know how this shyt got made...but it's quite the experience.
I feel kinda gross that part of my enjoyment came from knowing that most of the people in the theater with me were hating it
And while I definitely see the religious or even environmental takes, I was all-in on the tortured artist allegory after about 30 minutes. Not every little bit clicked, but a lot really worked on that level for me.
I feel kinda gross that part of my enjoyment came from knowing that most of the people in the theater with me were hating it
And while I definitely see the religious or even environmental takes, I was all-in on the tortured artist allegory after about 30 minutes. Not every little bit clicked, but a lot really worked on that level for me.
Brilliant movie.
A lot of people will hate it, understandably. Mostly due to the fact that if they know nothing about the director and his other films, and are just going based off the trailer... they are in for a disturbing awakening.
Couple people walked out of the theatre when I watched.
A lot of people will hate it, understandably. Mostly due to the fact that if they know nothing about the director and his other films, and are just going based off the trailer... they are in for a disturbing awakening.
Couple people walked out of the theatre when I watched.
Wow excellent analysis. All the daps.
Bryan Danielson
Jmare007 x Bryan Danielson x JLova = King Ghidorah
some great conversation in here.
My wife had an interesting viewpoint too.
She said it could have been an author who basically wanted to fame and acceptance from all of his fans and put his wife to the side and on the back burner while she gave everything she had...riots and war ewuated to arguments and shyt etc...... and in the end he basically took the last of her heart and just got a new bytch...
I definitely saw some signs of the world's ills and religion in there but to be honest the whole movie went over my head
The entire film is a religious allegory. Mother = Mary, Him = God, the older couple = Adam and Eve, their sons = Cain and Abel, Mother's child = Jesus.
Martha