Darren Aronofsky's Mother! (Post-release)

Vivek

Master Member
mother! Tease - YouTube

Full trailer next week.



C_zGyLPUwAA4ugR.jpg
 

Attachments

  • C_zGyLPUwAA4ugR.jpg
    C_zGyLPUwAA4ugR.jpg
    225 KB · Views: 73
  • C_zGyLPUwAA4ugR.jpg
    C_zGyLPUwAA4ugR.jpg
    225 KB · Views: 64
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought it was hilarious that Reed was able to skewer both the movie and other reviewers trying to make something of it.

EDIT: It just occured to me. They ripped the plot of a 90's comedy called Madhouse.
 
Last edited:
Festival audience in Venice expressed their disliking of the movie by booing during the screening. I haven´t read worse reviews in a long time, at least not for an a-lister movie, although genre.
 
While I personally think Aronofsky has been living up his own rear end for his entire career, I can accept that his movies just aren't for me. This movie seems to have fallen victim to its 'blockbuster' star and marketing. Most mainstream movie goers don't want to go and see an art movie on their weekends and it seems the horror crowd are rejecting it for the same reason.
 
While I personally think Aronofsky has been living up his own rear end for his entire career, I can accept that his movies just aren't for me. This movie seems to have fallen victim to its 'blockbuster' star and marketing. Most mainstream movie goers don't want to go and see an art movie on their weekends and it seems the horror crowd are rejecting it for the same reason.

Yeah, they really mismarketed it. I rolled my eyes through most of the trailer assuming it was another crummy jump scare horror movie with a stupid justification for characters to get killed one after another by psychos, untilI saw Aronofky's name. That was the only thing out of the marketing that interested me because I knew there had to be more going on there than one of our best arthouse directors making schlock.

And indeed he did not..but if you're not familiar with his work, you will not know what you are in for.
 
That's how pretty much every positive review sounds. Claiming it's a good movie. But the only explanation given is that it's Aronofsky and thus good.
 
It was a hell of a cinematic experience. Extremely metaphorical, absurdist stuff. Film isn't always about a journey from A to B, and it shouldn't be. As much as people might scream pretentious when they fail to grasp something, sometimes time is required to form an understanding that works for you. Sometimes it never comes, but its fun to try and find it. To chew the film over in your head.

Now that I've had chance to process it and think about my own interpretations, and read about those of others, I appreciate it more than when I walked out of it.

I walked out of it not really knowing how to feel. Which isn't a bad thing. I was pretty shell shocked from the last third as it's relentless - in the same kind of way that Fury Road left you feeling drained (in a good way) after it finished for never letting up steam, this was similar but for different reasons.

I think if you dismiss this film immediately upon viewing, you're not giving film as an art form the respect it warrants. That does not mean you have to like it. If you know immediately its not for you, you at least have to respect the filmmaking involved IMO. It's interestingly shot, inventive, intriguing.

A main issue might be audience connection, but it seems many films (though I'm inclined to blame it on audiences) miss that connection sometimes.

Overall, I don't think it's a phenomenal film. I do not either think it fails, or is bad at all. I enjoyed the different experience, I enjoyed thinking about the film and its meanings, intended or otherwise. I got more enjoyment out of it than the simple run time experience, which is more than I can say for a lot of films out there now. 7.5/10 for me.

Don't read on if you haven't seen it yet. Spoilers people. And some graphic discussion.

My own interpretations as I watched, and then afterwards.

She was quite literally the mother at all times. The film comments on how mothers have to do everything in the house, have to tell children repeatedly not to do things, have to "give way" to the husbands work, all while conflicting with her own desires to do something that matters to her.

He was the typical "man" - distant, caring but not loving, obsessed with work over family, and eventually, newer, fresher people took his interest and held it. Inspired him.

The people represented humanity at large, our ridiculous nature of losing care for things, our selfishness, our ability to multiply rapidly and drain resources, our incessant obsession with taking, taking, taking.

There was commentary on rioting, quickness to violence, slavery, the bestial nature of humanity.

And eventually, how we consume. We consume everything, no matter the sacred nature, or the innocence around it. And how man uses, loves and extracts from woman.

What I didn't get in that viewing (which when i look back on it, is INSANE that I didn't even tweak at the parallel) was the entire biblical story laid out in film format.

God restores Mother Nature. Mother Nature builds the earth, the home. Comes close to perfection, almost finished. And then along comes Adam. God is inspired by the creation. This human, so interesting. Creates Eve from Adams rib (the scene where he has a cut on his side as he throws up). Adam and Eve flout the rules - they touch the forbidden fruit (mother natures heart stone). Cain and Abel come along, Cain murders Abel. Humanity grows, organised religion takes over, God enjoys their worship, even at the detriment of the earth. ***** is born, raised up, and dies. His flesh becomes the literal bread/wine and the baby is eaten. Horrifying, and yet directly metaphorical for ******. God insists that even for this most heinous of crimes...they need to be forgiven. Mother Nature gives everything, including her love inspite of all this, and God takes her heart stone - ready to restart the cycle and for God to try again. "It's never enough."

Mental, that I actually overlooked that while I watched.
 
Art movies like art in general are lost on so many. I understand the miss marketed comment but I don't see it like that. It's more like the general public just expect every film to be bubble gum. Stephen King has set the bench mark so low
 
Art movies like art in general are lost on so many. I understand the miss marketed comment but I don't see it like that. It's more like the general public just expect every film to be bubble gum. Stephen King has set the bench mark so low

I'm not even certain how you could market this "correctly" because the two ideas are so opposed. Make as much money as possible vs. releasing somebodies artistic vision (that, as you mention, is lost/unwanted by a large General Audience)
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top