“…and that, kids, is How I Met Your Mother.”
I hated Noah, but went to see mother! anyway, on the strength of Pi, Requiem For a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler, and Black Swan, all of which I either enjoyed or adored. It’s certainly true that mother! is unique and a singular vision and all that jazz, but for me it didn’t work as a piece of art, on any level. The allegory is rote and obvious (save for the inclusion of a Mother Earth figure, which doesn’t square with the Biblical stories); the misanthropy is tired, vacuous, and comes from a place of privilege; the sexism is creepy and off-putting. It was just Noah 2.0, the films are hobbled by very similar weaknesses.
At this point, I’m afraid that Aronofsky is the middle of a Kevin Smith-level creative swoon. Both have lost interest in telling stories about people; Smith is making trash that’s intentionally stupid and meaningless, while Aronofsky wants to make Big Biblical Movies about Big Ideas, but he has nothing interesting to say about them.
Reading the synopsis on Wikipedia did nothing to contradict my initial suspicion that I would have found sitting through this movie an incredible chore. If you liked it, I’m glad, but I think I will pass.
Worst. Big-budget-movie. EVER!
Oh, and I got it. I read all the reviews and Darren’s explanation. Yeah, understand the imagery and iconography. The symbolism. That doesn’t mean it’s good. It sucked and it was a total waste of time. Yuck
I think that all of the above is actually not wrong, yet the acting performances blew my mind. Especially Ed Harris.
I think it may be my favourite movie ever. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Just watched it on video recently. Someone upthread described it as a “frustration nightmare”, which is pretty much the effect it had on me. I mean that as a compliment - the effect D.A. creates is uncannily like that kind of annoying dream experience.
Acting is top-notch, especially by Michelle Pfeiffer. Aronofsky’s staging of various “invasion” sequences are also superbly done.
I got much (but not all) of the religious symbolism on first viewing. To me, the film never solidifies into any kind of coherent statement. It feels like Aronofsky throws all kinds of allegory at the wall and hopes some of it sticks. The Bardem character does seem to represent God, but more like a Greek god (full of insecurities and vanity, susceptible to flattery, and displaying various character flaws). Not so much the God of the Old Testament. (So God suffers from writer’s block? Huh?)
It’s an interesting experience, but I don’t see myself ever watching it again, and I can’t imagine to whom I might recommend it.
I just watched this on Blu-ray, after managing to remain completely unspoiled (all I knew was that it starred JLaw, was directed by Aronofsky, and that it was apparently very strange and divisive). I liked it a lot, but I think it’s legit to hate it.
I will join the chorus that “frustration dream” is an apt descriptor. I also liked something I heard on the Slate Spoiler Special podcast: that on Twitter, people were calling it “an introvert’s nightmare”, which seems about right.
Yeah, people are constantly invading Mother’s (Jennifer Lawrence) personal space. And they won’t f***ing leave!
I would buy this. I thought mother was self-indulgent nonsense. Obvious and without a coherent message. Not unlike Aronofsky’s Noah, in that regard.
Contrast this with Jim Jarmusch, who does the same sort of indie efforts but makes them about the people involved in the story. Jim Jarmusch’s Paterson says more about humanity and the nature of life in a much smaller film than Aronofsky’s been able to do in years, maybe a decade.
The escalation from when she is testing the bread she made and laying out food on the table, to the climax in the basement, is just an amazing sequence. I was reasonably into the earlier part of the film, but in retrospect that portion of the film would be pretty awesome on its own, and that is what I would be tempted to show others.