☆☆½
Ah, mother!
On one level, that's about all there is to say about Darren Aronofsky's new film, a movie that makes the director's Pi, Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream look like staid models of cinematic form and structure by comparison.
What is it, exactly, this film? Because although it's being released by a major studio and features one of the biggest movie stars in the world in the leading role, mother! is not, by any definition, a traditional film. But it's not quite experimental, either; even in its wildest moments, and there are some insanely wild moments, mother! doesn't remake or even toy with cinema-as-art the way directors did in the 1960s and '70s, when so much of moviemaking still seemed new.
mother! is, I guess, more of an art installation in your local cineplex, the work of a singular (but not single, I'll get to that in a moment) director who undoubtedly has a vision. But what is the vision, exactly? It's tempting to want to write, "Spoilers Ahead!" in a sort of traditional caution, but: When you look upon, for instance, a giant Hieronymus Bosch triptych, the more you know about it in advance, the more you appreciate it, or at least understand it. Or at least can acknowledge what you are seeing. Or something.
It's the same way with mother! Or something. So, if you're going to go see this crazed, frenetic, chaotic, apocalyptic, religious, surreal horror-comedy-disaster-melodrama, it helps to know a few things. Like, it's a religious allegory. I think. One that has something to do with the way artists create. Maybe. And that carries a lot of Aronofsky's own guilt about his personal life. Probably. And observes how we live in insane times that are filled with religious zealots and overbearing, self-absorbed people who invade our lives even when we try to keep them away. That last bit I'm pretty sure about.
So, you should know that about mother!, and you should know that if you go into it looking for a plot or thinking that it might be like Rosemary's Baby (check out that misleading homage in the poster above), you should know that you're going to be terribly disappointed. You may end up like one of the half-dozen or so people who walked out of the opening-night screening I attended. Or like the people I heard walking out of the theater who said, "I don't get it."
You probably won't get it.
I certainly didn't get it.
Or maybe I did, on some level. I don't know yet. I do know that it starts with a woman (Jennifer Lawrence) who is married to a much older man (Javier Bardem), and they live in the country. Aronofsky seems to want us to believe they have some sort of idyllic life -- she has been fixing up the house for who knows how long (maybe forever, wink-wink) and he is a famous poet. All they need is each other, there in that big house in the middle of nowhere. You'd almost think they were Adam and Eve, until a chain-smoking, vaguely creepy guy (Ed Harris) shows up one day, followed not too long later by his sexually open, inappropriate wife (Michelle Pfeiffer).
More people show up. The tranquil house is overrun by life ... and death. And Mother (that is, the woman, that is, Jennifer Lawrence) is overcome.
By the way, no one has traditional names in mother! It's that kind of movie. Because, you see, it's all a big allegory.
mother! is going to attract a lot of attention among film enthusiasts because it breaks so many conventions, and because it heads into some of the craziest, most unexpected, most off-putting and deeply disturbing territory of almost any recent studio film I can think of. There's a scene of cannibalism, and a long, loud sequence in which war and anarchy invade the house that Mother has built, in which Mother and the Man who will be Father to their Child have a cataclysmic disagreement over whether to stay safely inside the house or let the world in.
That's the kind of movie it is.
And visually, it's undeniably magnificent. I mentioned earlier that it's the work of a singular visionary, but what's really extraordinary is that it clearly took many, many people to make this movie -- and they all were able to convey Aronofsky's grand ideas. Actors, set designers, camera crew, editors; lots and lots of people worked on the movie, and yet, it is Aronofsky's accomplishment. That may seem a silly thing to point out; after all, it's the same on every film, isn't it? But the realization that all those people are in service to one man's ideas seems more relevant on this film than maybe any other.
Still, though, there's a big problem: It's not clear, not by a longshot, whether mother! is any good. It's certainly something, and it's certainly an artistic achievement. Aronofsky probably couldn't give a hoot about whether audiences will like it, he has made his artistic statement that will live on long after him, will see many lifetimes. But did I enjoy mother!? It's hard to say yes. There were many stretches were I was fascinated by it, even drawn into the fleeting moments of linear storytelling; and there was no time during its entire two-hour length when I wanted to look away. But I wouldn't want to do it again.
Filled with surrealist, disconnected, hyper-violent, warped and strange images, seeing mother! is like walking through an elaborate Halloween haunted house created by visual arts majors who are minoring in religious studies. There are a lot of freaky moments that completely unnerve you, and there are other times when you're almost giddy with the rush of adrenaline it pumps into you. It's an experience unlike any you'll ever have.
And one time through is most certainly enough.
Ah, mother!
Viewed Sept. 15, 2017 -- ArcLight Sherman Oaks
1945
On one level, that's about all there is to say about Darren Aronofsky's new film, a movie that makes the director's Pi, Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream look like staid models of cinematic form and structure by comparison.
What is it, exactly, this film? Because although it's being released by a major studio and features one of the biggest movie stars in the world in the leading role, mother! is not, by any definition, a traditional film. But it's not quite experimental, either; even in its wildest moments, and there are some insanely wild moments, mother! doesn't remake or even toy with cinema-as-art the way directors did in the 1960s and '70s, when so much of moviemaking still seemed new.
mother! is, I guess, more of an art installation in your local cineplex, the work of a singular (but not single, I'll get to that in a moment) director who undoubtedly has a vision. But what is the vision, exactly? It's tempting to want to write, "Spoilers Ahead!" in a sort of traditional caution, but: When you look upon, for instance, a giant Hieronymus Bosch triptych, the more you know about it in advance, the more you appreciate it, or at least understand it. Or at least can acknowledge what you are seeing. Or something.
It's the same way with mother! Or something. So, if you're going to go see this crazed, frenetic, chaotic, apocalyptic, religious, surreal horror-comedy-disaster-melodrama, it helps to know a few things. Like, it's a religious allegory. I think. One that has something to do with the way artists create. Maybe. And that carries a lot of Aronofsky's own guilt about his personal life. Probably. And observes how we live in insane times that are filled with religious zealots and overbearing, self-absorbed people who invade our lives even when we try to keep them away. That last bit I'm pretty sure about.
So, you should know that about mother!, and you should know that if you go into it looking for a plot or thinking that it might be like Rosemary's Baby (check out that misleading homage in the poster above), you should know that you're going to be terribly disappointed. You may end up like one of the half-dozen or so people who walked out of the opening-night screening I attended. Or like the people I heard walking out of the theater who said, "I don't get it."
You probably won't get it.
I certainly didn't get it.
Or maybe I did, on some level. I don't know yet. I do know that it starts with a woman (Jennifer Lawrence) who is married to a much older man (Javier Bardem), and they live in the country. Aronofsky seems to want us to believe they have some sort of idyllic life -- she has been fixing up the house for who knows how long (maybe forever, wink-wink) and he is a famous poet. All they need is each other, there in that big house in the middle of nowhere. You'd almost think they were Adam and Eve, until a chain-smoking, vaguely creepy guy (Ed Harris) shows up one day, followed not too long later by his sexually open, inappropriate wife (Michelle Pfeiffer).
More people show up. The tranquil house is overrun by life ... and death. And Mother (that is, the woman, that is, Jennifer Lawrence) is overcome.
By the way, no one has traditional names in mother! It's that kind of movie. Because, you see, it's all a big allegory.
mother! is going to attract a lot of attention among film enthusiasts because it breaks so many conventions, and because it heads into some of the craziest, most unexpected, most off-putting and deeply disturbing territory of almost any recent studio film I can think of. There's a scene of cannibalism, and a long, loud sequence in which war and anarchy invade the house that Mother has built, in which Mother and the Man who will be Father to their Child have a cataclysmic disagreement over whether to stay safely inside the house or let the world in.
That's the kind of movie it is.
And visually, it's undeniably magnificent. I mentioned earlier that it's the work of a singular visionary, but what's really extraordinary is that it clearly took many, many people to make this movie -- and they all were able to convey Aronofsky's grand ideas. Actors, set designers, camera crew, editors; lots and lots of people worked on the movie, and yet, it is Aronofsky's accomplishment. That may seem a silly thing to point out; after all, it's the same on every film, isn't it? But the realization that all those people are in service to one man's ideas seems more relevant on this film than maybe any other.
Still, though, there's a big problem: It's not clear, not by a longshot, whether mother! is any good. It's certainly something, and it's certainly an artistic achievement. Aronofsky probably couldn't give a hoot about whether audiences will like it, he has made his artistic statement that will live on long after him, will see many lifetimes. But did I enjoy mother!? It's hard to say yes. There were many stretches were I was fascinated by it, even drawn into the fleeting moments of linear storytelling; and there was no time during its entire two-hour length when I wanted to look away. But I wouldn't want to do it again.
Filled with surrealist, disconnected, hyper-violent, warped and strange images, seeing mother! is like walking through an elaborate Halloween haunted house created by visual arts majors who are minoring in religious studies. There are a lot of freaky moments that completely unnerve you, and there are other times when you're almost giddy with the rush of adrenaline it pumps into you. It's an experience unlike any you'll ever have.
And one time through is most certainly enough.
Ah, mother!
Viewed Sept. 15, 2017 -- ArcLight Sherman Oaks
1945
No comments:
Post a Comment