Stars: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars
I am sitting in an airport right now, desperately trying to
fight off jet lag (I never got used to my new time zone, so the next three
hours of my life could be rough as I’m not
good at being tired, and I’m already starting to fade). That being said, I am going to try and keep
myself awake while writing film reviews, and boy-howdy is it hard to sleep when
you’re thinking about something as strange, controversial, and genuinely
confusing as Darren Aronofsky’s Mother!. So, let’s give this a shot.
(Spoilers Ahead…and
genuinely, avoid spoilers if you are planning on seeing this movie at any
point, as the punch isn’t going to work if you don’t) The film focuses on
Mother (Lawrence-all of the characters are unnamed in the picture), a beautiful
young woman who is refurbishing the house she shares with her husband, creating
something from nothing as he fruitlessly works to create something great from
his writing (he is the Poet). One day, a
strange Man (Harris), shows up at the door, dying but clearly enamored with the
work of the Poet. He is soon joined by
the Woman (Pfeiffer), his wife, who prods at Mother over why she hasn’t had
children, and continually shows misguided scorn toward her. The film unfolds with the two being intensely
rude guests, breaking a stone that at the beginning of the film had transformed
the house, and having sex after Mother tries to throw them out. When one of their two sons kills the other
one, an impromptu funeral unfolds, and at the end after taunting the Poet,
Mother becomes pregnant and the Poet is suddenly inspired to write as a result.
This may sound a bit strange, but honestly-this is the
normal part of the movie. In the second
half of the film, utter madness ensues.
While we have lost the Man and Woman, the Poet is worshiped by hordes of
increasingly lecherous intruders, ripping the floor apart and destroying the
house that Mother has so cared for, and eventually even killing her baby,
breaking his neck and eating his remains.
The movie eventually has her burning the house to the ground, giving her
love to her husband in the form of a hardened crystal similar to the beginning
of the movie, and then being reincarnated as a different fair-faced young
woman, seemingly doomed to repeat the same scenario over and over again.
The film is, for its many, many faults, quite
ambitious. Aronofsky is not pulling any
punches here, literally having a baby die during a crowd surf and then being
eaten whole by a mob of people. The
movie, at least in its first half, is a pretty clear biblical metaphor, with
Adam & Eve represented in the form of Man and Woman, with their sons being
Cain-and-Abel (the elder kills the younger after learning that his inheritance
was to be tossed aside), and the Poet is a god of some sorts, while Mother
represents the Earth prior to humanity.
The similarities here are too direct to not clearly be alluding to the
Bible, though one could argue the film also has an environmental message, is an
allegory for social media, or even is as direct as the destructive nature
between artist/muse. But for me, the
first half feels pretty similar to a biblical story.
This means the second half fails, in my opinion, quite
miserably. The idea of reincarnation of
the planet seems more at home in other religions (Hinduism or Buddhism), than a
Judeo-Christian one housed in the first half of the picture. The movie also loses all direction when there
isn’t any goodness or misunderstanding in some of those who ravage the house,
the planet that Mother so deeply cares for-is Aronofsky’s view of humanity so
bleak that he doesn’t have room for goodness?
It doesn’t help that it’s obvious by the film’s midway point that the
only thing that we can’t predict is how disgusting the imagery is willing to be
(oh, and Kristin Wiig-genuinely didn’t see her cameo coming as I didn’t realize
she was signed up for the film-if the religious allegory works, she seems to be
some sort of opportunistic religious zealot, trying to use the Poet while
caring little for his muse, perhaps like a politician who claims to be
Christian but then destroys everything that his God holds dear). Pretty much any interpretation of the first
half of the picture doesn’t work with the second half-Aronofsky is trying hard
for a provocative metaphor, but metaphor only works if you make it
consistent. Otherwise it’s just
shocking, which is what I feel like the second half achieves. It’s an interesting failure, but a failure
narratively-speaking.
The acting, though, is at least worth recommending. Lawrence has never done a part like this
before, and it’s fascinating work even if it isn’t always successful; her movie
star charisma is shelved in favor of a blank loveliness, passive to the point
of frustration, and naïve to the point where the audience was laughing at
certain points of the picture, but she does the trick. It’s nowhere near her best work (still think
that’s American Hustle), but it’s
miles away from the boredom of Passengers,
so she’s at least recovered in that regard.
Her male costars are underwhelming-Bardem in particular feels too
all-over-the-place, playing a role that at once feels almost typecast for him
and yet one that he doesn’t uncover much of its heart within, playing
everything surface-level. The best of
the bunch, though, is Pfeiffer, who gives the film some heat where it seriously
would have lacked it otherwise. She is
knowing, specific, and anchors the movie’s scarier tendencies before Aronofsky
completely discards the picture you were promised in the trailers. If the film were more accessible, I suspect
we’d be hearing about a comeback fourth Oscar nomination, but I have to wonder
if AMPAS voters won’t stop the film an hour in, wondering what they’re being
subjected to from Aronofsky.
No comments:
Post a Comment