mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#51 Post by domino harvey » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:35 am

Careful out there, trolls online are posting the ending to the film in unrelated film discussions

User avatar
rohmerin
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Spain

Re: Festival Circuit 2017

#52 Post by rohmerin » Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:07 pm

Apparently Mother has been receipt with huge loooong boos. But El Mundo critic has liked it.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#53 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:32 pm

Dave Kehr tweeted from Venice that the critics will probably kill it, but he thought it was brilliant.

User avatar
Dead or Deader
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 12:47 am

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#54 Post by Dead or Deader » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:43 pm

hearthesilence wrote:Dave Kehr tweeted from Venice that the critics will probably kill it, but he thought it was brilliant.
Glenn Kenny seems to be in the same boat, according to his reaction under Kehr tweet.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#55 Post by Big Ben » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:47 pm

Well the reviews have started to come in and well right now it's 86 on Metacritic and a 93 percent at Rotten Tomatoes.

That doesn't strike me as the divisive Lars von Trier-esque cornucopia of controversy it appeared to be. Shocking maybe but I don't think scissors or wood planks are involved here. So good news I guess?

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#56 Post by Luke M » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:52 pm

Maybe it’s only Winding Refn third act divisiveness: some eyeballs.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#57 Post by Big Ben » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:59 pm

I hope not. Another film like that may kill domino.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#58 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:10 pm

I heard that much of, if not all of Jóhann Jóhannsson's music has been replaced.


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#60 Post by domino harvey » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:40 pm

How many critics named Dave/David are there? I keep thinking y'all are talking about the same guy but that's at least three in this thread alone!

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#61 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:34 pm

There are no less than 17 of them, and they all want to protect their sweetie Jennifer Lawrence from big bad acting jobs

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#62 Post by Big Ben » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:27 pm

Although they aren't all film critics you'd be surprised how many Jonathan Rosenbaum's I've heard of. Anyway Aronofsky isn't new to controversy so I don't think the possible controversy surrounding this film will do him in. I also don't think it's a hill worth dying on for critics.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#63 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:05 pm

Really really hated the trailer that played before It.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#64 Post by John Shade » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:11 pm

So far I've clicked on only a few reviews, and they're written in such a generic way attempting to avoid spoilers. I have to say I find this kind of annoying. I never liked critics who simply summarize the plot, and that's not what I'm advocating for, but if critics can't analyze scenes then it seems difficult for them to say anything beyond: "it's really shocking near the end, therefore good." Usually I don't read reviews til after I see a movie anyway; this seems to bode well for those thinking criticism is now just another branch of marketing.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#65 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:29 pm

Critics who are writing for more traditional publications are not in the business of deep-diving into films' surprise endings - it's their job to tow that line between giving a realistic impression of what the film is like and not having a detrimental effect on the reader's enjoyment of it. What you're looking for will surely come once the film is out and more people have seen it, but it would do a critic, even one who keeps a personal blog for longer form film writing, no good to spoil the surprises of a film they enjoyed for their readers prior to it even being released.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#66 Post by The Narrator Returns » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:56 am

The New York premiere ended with a surprise three-song set by Patti Smith.

yoshimori
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#67 Post by yoshimori » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:12 am

The New York premiere ended with a surprise three-song set by Patti Smith.
The first Cinerama Dome (Arclight) screening in LA ended with some boos, hisses, and assorted snide comments shouted during the credits ... and a smattering of applause, presumably emanating from employees of Paramount Studios, which is just a few block away.

An ugly, puerile, pretentious mess ... i.e. another Aronofsky film.
Last edited by yoshimori on Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#68 Post by dda1996a » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:06 am

I fail to see how Aronofsky is pretentious. Maybe The Fountain might irk some but I find that a beautiful meditation on death, art and dreams. And Noah was an interesting failure. The only criticism laid against him that I can understand but disagree with is his go for broke mentality. His films are always incredibly personal and human, and for that I always admired him.

phantomforce
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:01 am

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#69 Post by phantomforce » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:39 am

The first Cinerama Dome (Arclight) screening in LA ended with some boos, hisses, and assorted snide comments shouted during the credits ... and a smattering of applause, presumably emanating from employees of Paramount Studios, which is just a few block away.
You're talking about a theatre that caters to the lowest common denominator these days. The type of audience that i've witnessed stand and applaud Batman Vs Superman the weekend after opening.

yoshimori
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#70 Post by yoshimori » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:40 pm

phantomforce wrote:You're talking about a theatre that caters to the lowest common denominator these days. The type of audience that i've witnessed stand and applaud Batman Vs Superman the weekend after opening.
Yes. But we're talking also about the opening night of an "Aronofsky film". A Batman v Superman screening attracts those who want to see Batman duke it out with Superman. That's not this crowd. In the seats around me at mother! were one group who, I gathered from their pre-screening chatting, were film professors, a low-level cinematographer, and someone who seemed to work in the film industry in some other capacity, and another, four Asian-American guys, who knew the Aronosfsky oeuvre quite well. In the end two of the Asian guys were among those booing and the professors and their friends were among those mocking the movie. Not a scientific analysis of audience reaction, I know, but it felt representative of the overall reaction at this particularly screening made up of at least partly Aronofsky-fans in a gigantic theater maybe two-thirds+ full.
dda1996a wrote:I fail to see how Aronofsky is pretentious.
My pretention detector went berserk already from Pi. In the latest movie, a stock and juvenile idea -
SpoilerShow
man "uses" woman's love in order to "create" - is sillily aggrandized by the cyclical nature of the (cheesy, animated) beginning/end, and the utter irrelevance to that main idea of the whole Rosemary's Baby climactic cult ritual thing is gussied up with images of what Aronofsky seems to think are indicators of contemporary cultural decline (dance clubs, combat zones, bad manners). Look-at-me-I'm-saying-something-important BIG IDEAS, undeveloped or worse. And if the baby is somehow a stand-in for the poet's "work", something that he serves to the people to "nourish" them, one that lets him off the hook for his treatment of the mother, then, whether it's an apologia for the poet's actions or a self-flagellating I-know-I'm-a-bad-boy-but-I-just-can't-help-it-I-MUST-create-great-art criticism of them, it feels super-solipsistic. And that kind of self-obsession rarely works even if one is a real artist (see Carax, Pola X). Which Aronfsky is certainly not.
That, plus shots ripped-off from Solaris.

Love it if you must.

My daughter liked the first twenty minutes, during which, in temporary sympathy for the JL character, she imagined the film was about "the anxieties of real estate development"! But each time JL failed to do what any reasonable person might do - call the police, pack up and haul ass - presumably because she just loved Aronofsky, uhh, I mean, the poet so much, my daughter cringed and muttered "moron".

User avatar
DarkImbecile
LightGenius
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#71 Post by DarkImbecile » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:25 pm

yoshimori wrote: In the latest movie, a stock and juvenile idea -
SpoilerShow
man "uses" woman's love in order to "create" - is sillily aggrandized by the cyclical nature of the (cheesy, animated) beginning/end, and the utter irrelevance to that main idea of the whole Rosemary's Baby climactic cult ritual thing is gussied up with images of what Aronofsky seems to think are indicators of contemporary cultural decline (dance clubs, combat zones, bad manners). Look-at-me-I'm-saying-something-important BIG IDEAS, undeveloped or worse. And if the baby is somehow a stand-in for the poet's "work", something that he serves to the people to "nourish" them, one that lets him off the hook for his treatment of the mother, then, whether it's an apologia for the poet's actions or a self-flagellating I-know-I'm-a-bad-boy-but-I-just-can't-help-it-I-MUST-create-great-art criticism of them, it feels super-solipsistic. And that kind of self-obsession rarely works even if one is a real artist (see Carax, Pola X). Which Aronfsky is certainly not.
I can only assume based on what you've written here that you're missing the larger metaphor at play in the film, which is shocking because it almost could not be more heavily underlined,
SpoilerShow
and I'm an atheist who is only passingly familiar with the biblical references the film is making. I'm sure there are many details I'm missing, but there is almost no way that your reading above is what Aronofsky intended (especially your assumption that the poet represents him), and being upset over a lack of realism in Lawrence's responses to what happens further misses the point.
I can see why many people are going to hate this film, but I have always loved Aronofsky's willingness to go for broke and take his ideas (thematic or cinematic) to the utmost extremes, and this might just be his masterpiece in those terms.

rawlinson
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#72 Post by rawlinson » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:31 pm

Yeah, I thought the larger idea was fairly obvious from quite early in the film.
SpoilerShow
Specifically the point where Ed Harris has a gaping wound next to his ribs and the next morning his wife arrives out of nowhere. Followed by their two sons, one of whom murders the other.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#73 Post by John Shade » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:32 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:I can only assume based on what you've written here that you're missing the larger metaphor at play in the film, which is shocking because it almost could not be more heavily underlined,
SpoilerShow
and I'm an atheist who is only passingly familiar with the biblical references the film is making. I'm sure there are many details I'm missing, but there is almost no way that your reading above is what Aronofsky intended (especially your assumption that the poet represents him), and being upset over a lack of realism in Lawrence's responses to what happens further misses the point.
I can see why many people are going to hate this film, but I have always loved Aronofsky's willingness to go for broke and take his ideas (thematic or cinematic) to the utmost extremes, and this might just be his masterpiece in those terms.
Isn't Arnofsky an atheist too? Can you please elaborate on what you think he's trying to do? One of the critics praising the film called it a Gnostic thriller, or something to that effect, whatever that means...

phred2321
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:45 pm

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#74 Post by phred2321 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm

John Shade wrote:
Isn't Arnofsky an atheist too? Can you please elaborate on what you think he's trying to do? One of the critics praising the film called it a Gnostic thriller, or something to that effect, whatever that means...
From what I remember from the press at the time of Noah, he's agnostic but was raised Jewish.
SpoilerShow
At it's core, mother! is an environmentalist allegory about mankind's destruction of our planet. Javier Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Nature, the house is the Earth, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are Adam and Eve, their sons are Cain and Abel. Bardem's study is the Garden of Eden, his baby is Jesus, etc.

yoshimori
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA

Re: mother! (Darren Aronofsky, 2017)

#75 Post by yoshimori » Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:19 pm

rawlinson wrote:Yeah, I thought the larger idea was fairly obvious from quite early in the film.
SpoilerShow
Specifically the point where Ed Harris has a gaping wound next to his ribs and the next morning his wife arrives out of nowhere. Followed by their two sons, one of whom murders the other.
SpoilerShow
Oh, I didn't miss that. It was just one of many "heavily underlined" references that seemed to lead nowhere. If you're saying this biblicism, gnostic or otherwise, is THE MAIN "lesson" of the movie, then a) the movie should end halfway through or, if the Adam and Eve thing is supposed to be sustained to the end of the movie, then, it (the movie) has been made for a couple of scholars of biblical apocrypha and for the fanboys who'll read some oracle's analysis of the allegory, and b) it's still a rotten movie because even allegories should probably be engaging, dramatic stories that don't make us laugh at the unintentional absurdity of the situations and character reactions.

The gnostic reading alluded to above doesn't seem to work, since there's no cosmic struggle here, since one side (Bardem's) is neither impish, like a gnostic god, nor powerful and scheming; and the other (JL's) is simply ineffectual. And even if we're given a cheatsheet so we lowly mortals can "understand" the penetrating genius of the allegory, I'd think there'd still be a host of questions. Chief among them is probably: why does Bardem need the love of a woman at all? But there's also: the silly crystal (which doesn't seem to be working even before Harris and Pfeiffer break it, and later doesn't seem to be necessary to "get things going again"), the fans (including Harris, which is odd -- how is he a fan of Bardem's previous work, given his, Harris', supposed biblical model?), and the role of the mother! in the post-sacrificial drama. And if, as someone suggests above, Bardem = God, JL = Mother Nature, Harris = Adam, Pfieffer = Eve, Sons = C & A, baby = Jesus, B's study = Eden, House = Earth, etc, then it's also a confusing, confused, mixed allegory that suggests, among other crazy things, that Jesus was born of Mother Nature in the Garden of Eden, that God really likes Adam and Eve and their crazy friends, but pretty much ignores Mother Nature, that Mother Nature somehow gives a fuck about what happens to Jesus, and that God, for some reason, needs the love of, not one, but a series of MNs. If one wants to make a movie about environmental catastrophe -- you know that Aronofsky himself suggests the movie is about climate change, right? -- this seems a rather pretentious way of tackling the issue, and no one I've talked to who's seen the movie intuited that this was what is was about.

The main problem, for me, with this line of reasoning is that none of the supposed cosmic, gnostic, or environmental stuff is really IN the movie. The two biblical sons of the Harris prototype, for example, are relatively insignificant in gnosticism. The Ur-children there are Seth and Norea. The dialogue doesn't feel gnostic or biblical. And the overall tone -- flat and dreary, with art direction out of Restoration Hardware -- is hardly stylized in a way one might expect of such an emphasis. And, I don't know, shouldn't there be a lot of plants and animals in the house?

Gnosticism (or mainstream Judaic mythology or environmentalism) is probably just something, like math and the Hasidim, that Aronofsky thinks is cool and SIGNIFICANT and, so, he throws a chunk of it in his masterpiece.

Whatever! It's still laughable, ugly, and obviously really really about a crappy creator who hate-fucks a never-ending parade of actresses (I mean, mother-muses).
Last edited by yoshimori on Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply