Conversation around Richard Brody's argument that Aronofsky is quite wrong concerning what his movie is about, at the New Yorker Movie Facebook Club

Conversation around Richard Brody's argument that Aronofsky is quite wrong concerning what his movie is about, at the New Yorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.

ModeratorSeptember 21 at 12:18am

Mother! has inspired a surprisingly divergent range of responses regarding the simplest questions of all—what it's about—and the most surprising of those responses are from Darren Aronofsky and Jennifer Lawrence themselves. I tried earlier today to get at why the interpretive variety strikes me as odd, why the director's and star's views strike me as odder, and where, in general, filmmakers' ideas about the meaning of their work fits into the movie-viewing experience: https://www.newyorker.com/…/darren-aronofsky-says-mother-is…

Darren Aronofsky Says “Mother!” Is About Climate Change, But He’s Wrong

What directors put into a film is different from what comes out of viewing that film.

NEWYORKER.COM

LikeShow more reactions

Comments

Peter Hoffman You mean what the director tells you the movie is about isn't Biblical allegory in itself? I guess I'm going to have to make my own mind up about these things.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 12:28am

Kat Van Exactly.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 12:37am

Peter Hoffman "Whatever."

☺

The movie is the movie.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 12:45am

Mark Schaffer Its only a movie, Ingrid..

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 1:36am

Mark Schaffer Is it time to show Carlin's Save the planet masterwork again? Mebbe..

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 1:54amEdited

Herman Costa WOW This is brilliant . . . and I agree . . . there is no greater explanation from anyone than the experience the viewer has of the movie. Thank you! Now . . . will I see Mother! or not? Only time will tell . . .

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 4:35am

George Jolly The only interpretation that matters is the viewers.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 6:35am

Charles Brower Granting the obvious point that the filmmaker shouldn't be the arbiter of a film's meaning any more than anyone else, I think it's understatement to the point of absurdity to say that "there are touches of religious symbolism in the film." Aronofsky's overlay of a older man/younger woman, artist/muse dynamic gives the whole thing its particular pungency, but it really would be pretentious and laughable if he was saying that that relationship causes fans to essentially recapitulate all the awfulness of the twentieth century.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 7:09am

Lizzie Nicholson maybe there's a little bit of a Tarkovsky perspective: The film should not be interpreted...just taken in.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 7:27am

Charles Brower I actually would agree with that. It seems to me a lot of critics are getting tripped up because all the pieces can't be assembled into one coherent explanation.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 7:30am

Write a reply...

Patrick McEvoy-Halston We are so close to Lawrence as she gets tugged, pulled, "microaggressioned" all over the place, as she tries to keep up her tenuous hold on a status -- partial host of the household -- that is her due. How many reviewers give some indication in their review that, "yeah, I know what that feels like... and it was a bit upsetting to be put back in that position." It must be that this recollection is occurring in audience members easily as much recognition of allegorical elements. Do we intellectualize to keep at bay reminders of being powerless and humiliated? This film, by the way, could be usefully served by being introduced with trigger warnings.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 7:30am

Charles Brower Certainly a lot of the reviewers on Letterboxd seemed to have been triggered by it (and were pretty pissed off about it!).

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 7:32am

Patrick McEvoy-Halston Charles Brower I know parenting is getting better, but still a lot of people as children are deliberately managed by their parents in ways that leave them feeling denied respect as individuals, humiliated, often out of deliberate disrespect for their efforts to grow up. This film will bring it all back to the fore.. with the bright spot being that it is done without the principle character ever denying to herself that she is being used -- she knows it, only that she is denied any ability to do anything about it: when she (SPOILER) calls the cops, it backfires badly. So people were right to feel triggered into reminders of abuse, and good for them for being alarmed. The finish, with her (SPOILERS) giving yet more of herself, after being so awfully taken... is going to make some people feel that much more dismayed. When they get their new iPhones, they'll be able to superimpose thrown rotten tomatoes onto the theatre screen. Right now, the trigger warning discussion should be expanded outside college campuses.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 7:43amEdited

Write a reply...

Jenna Ipcar I agree with you completely – mother! is full of superfluous symbolism, lofty rabbit holes, and allegorical structure but the only thread that follows through on the entire film is the one about relationship power dynamics.
Though if we're talking about the subconscious I find it a little interesting that Aronofsky is always described as "annoyed" when interviewers imply the movie mirrors his real life relationship, haha. There was even one where he says "yeah I thought people would get tripped up in that, but that's not it." Well, all evidence in your film points to otherwise, whether or not you were in the relationship when you were writing it.
My question is why Lawrence read a script like that and thought "yeah, I wanna date this guy!" But that's of course a bit more armchair psychologist than movie reviewer...

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 7:32am

Patrick McEvoy-Halston I think we could do with retiring this "armchair psychology" bit, if it still has any chance of causing people to withdraw their relevant questions. Lawrence's character is married to someone who constantly undermines her. She's likely repeating a relationship she knew and became comfortable with with her parents. It's on screen for people to discuss, so long as we don't insist it's all allegory, and people aren't intimidated away by being catcalled for their armchair speculations.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 8:02am

David Kaiser I remain rather surprised that people think the film could mirror their real-life relationship, for the simple reason that Lawrence, at this point, looks to me to have more power in Hollywood than Aronovsky. This may not be stereotypical but it seems to me a fact.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 8:07am

Jenna Ipcar I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to truly think Aronofsky doesn't contain anymore depth beyond a single film he wrote, I'm sure Lawrence has multiple reasons of her own to start dating him. That said, it just struck me as funny that of all of his films, this one - about an artist sucking the life out of his muse - managed to still inspire romance. But perhaps in real life the dynamic is swapped, with Lawrence having the upper hand!

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 8:48amEdited

Patrick McEvoy-Halston Jenna Ipcar I'm not sure if the life gets sucked out of her in "Mother!" She certainly is used, but it's hard to see if he even really recognizes her as her, but rather as a part-object, a toe to suck... the process you're talking about implies a direct connection between souls that only doubtably ever took place at all. The exasperation you feel while identifying with Lawrence and watching the film is if anyone else is actually of the same humanity... and the relief in the end, is "your" awareness that, no, they're not, and they never will be... so have your toe to suck evermore, "I'll" head off elsewhere--death being preferable to this. I guess she's supposed to be a giving tree, but it felt more like a break-up film.... a weighing against someone you once loved. She never once loses her sanity, while her husband wafts in cult experience far far too long to be proved to be the same kind.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 8:59am

Jenna Ipcar I agree it's a break up film, though whether it was a one sided romance doesn't discredit the initial connection, I'd say. Any person who dedicates their life to rebuilding a home for another person, metaphorically or physically, is doing that out of their desire to love and be loved. Unfortunately it doesn't mean the person on the receiving end is under any real obligation to reciprocate. She wants to give him everything, but in return she wants his acknowledgment and she wants him to give himself to her, something that he doesn't seem to require or expect in the same way she does.
It's definitely a mismatched couple as far as healthy relationships are concerned, but it's also a total jackpot for Him. She indeed doesn't lose her sanity, but by the end it's /her/ choice to hand over her heart (and soul?) - this blackened diamond created after extreme emotional pressure - therefore allowing herself to be turned into a beautiful object he can place on his mantle for his eyes only. I got the sense that only then does she realize that she never stopped to ask how or why his home burned down, and by that time it's too late.
So even in a last ditch effort to save this romance, she keeps trying to give and give in hopes he'll notice and reciprocate, but it backfires. He simply doesn't define love in the same way she does, and he is completely content with this object as memory of her love, vs a living breathing person with emotions. So she shrivels up and dies out of good intentions for his sake... only to be replaced by another mother who starts the process over again. An ending that annoyed me! But makes sense for Bardem's character and Aronofsky's script.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 9:23am

Patrick McEvoy-Halston Thanks for the great reply, Jenna.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 8:32pm

Write a reply...

Patrick McEvoy-Halston I didn't have any sense of Javier Bardem as artist. This bit -- In the film, it’s the writer’s will, the effort to break out of an ordinary life through the strength of his artistic creation, that sets the movie, and Aronofsky’s cinematic world, into grotesque and fascinating motion -- comes closest to describing Lawrence, in that we sense that her arc is to fight her way through all this will put against her to proclaim some kind of victory for herself. I assumed Bardem was scribing something akin to "the secret," or "the alchemist," or "the shack," or "five love languages"... spiritual pablum, that appeals to emotionally disturbed people. This isn't creativity. More participating in the ooze.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 7:56amEdited

Kevin Barry All the blather about what it means and what the symbolism expresses doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you can't wait to get the hell out of the theatre. Mean-spirited, contemptuous, pretentious, punishing and tedious, this is one more case of the king being caught in the all-together. Considering the countless hours of pleasurable movie viewing that most critics have enjoyed in their lives, I find it hard to believe that any of them would be so gullible as to swoon and levitate during anything by naked emperors like Bela Tarr, or David Lynch, or Lars Von Trier, or Terrence Malick, or Darren Aronofsky, directors who make films that allow audiences - and critics - to superimpose whatever meanings they want over the silly hogwash on screen. Mother! (Don't forget the punctuation) is one more piece of incoherent junk from Mr. Aronofsky, a self-indulgent poser who hasn't made a watchable movie yet.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 9:29amEdited

Hide 15 Replies

Peter Hoffman What role should logic play in cinema?

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 9:10am

Kevin Barry I meant clarity and structure rather than logic. It's much easier to create something that's open to interpretation than it is to make something that has a sound structure and makes a clear point.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 9:36am

Peter Hoffman Is that the goal: clarity?

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 9:38am

Kevin Barry Why wouldn't it be? How can you communicate your point without being clear about it?

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 9:45am

Peter Hoffman Seems to be anti-art.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 9:52am

Kevin Barry Craft.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 10:06am

Peter Hoffman Design over concepts.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 10:19am

Christian Hamaker I was with you until you threw in Tarr, Lynch, Von Trier and Malick. Please don't turn me into a "mother!" fan by lumping in those other films/filmmakers with this one.

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 10:27am

Peter Hoffman There are no correct, monolithic lists!

LikeShow more reactions

September 21 at 10:30am

Mike Kerins Art in whatever form doesn't have to be clear or make a point. Neither is it easy to make something open to interpretation as everything is open to interpretation. Art would be pretty much dead if it had to have the clarity and specifics of say a legal contract. Off the top of my head there's Beckett's Waiting for Godot, famous for being a play where nothing happens - twice. Joyce's Ulysses - just a walk around Dublin? Jackson Pollock's Autumn Rhythm - where's the clarity and what's the point - it's just paint drips? Even Henry James' novella The Turn of the Screw is written in precision prose yet elicits deliberately a less than specific conclusion to events. True art is timeless and visited over and over again as people interpret it in whatever way they feel appropriate. Only the passage of time will tell as to where Aronofsky's work will fall but the fact it is provoking such disparate views indicate he is on the right track.

LikeShow more reactions

September 22 at 4:46am

Rolly Rolly Amen.

LikeShow more reactions

September 22 at 7:00am

Kevin Barry Mike Kerins I'm talking about going to the movies, which occupies a block of time in our lives, and is a totally different experience than reading the works of literature you refer to. To quote Roger Ebert: "I feel a bargain of some sort must be struck...See More

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 22 at 8:51am

Mike Kerins 'All the blather about what it means and what the symbolism expresses doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you can't wait to get the hell out of the theatre', library, art gallery or whatever forum it seems doesn't agree with your shopping list view of...See More

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 22 at 10:39am

Peter Hoffman Maybe it's a sense that gambling on movies should have better odds than Vegas. The director is obligated to give us a sure thing, and we have a right to complain to the manager and expect a full time refund.

LikeShow more reactions

September 23 at 12:34am

Mike Kerins Even the superhero franchises don't seem to be a sure thing - unless of course you only count the money taken on the opening week. I get what Kevin is saying but time and word of mouth seem to be what decides a films status in the long run. If for instance you put a list of classic films against the list of best film at the Oscars i'm sure not many would match. At least the slow burners tend to reach their audience eventually via dvd nowadays,

LikeShow more reactions

September 23 at 5:50am

Write a reply...

Julie Cushing Well said. After seeing mother I've been disappointed by every interview w Aronofsky and Lawrence that I've read or watched; talking with people who have seen the movie is been a much more fruitful experience for the reasons you outlined here. In the end I'm not concerned with whether the movie successfully portrayed Aronofsky's many metaphors but pleased by the fact that so many people, including those who wouldn't describe themselves as interested in film analysis, have had a really powerful reaction to it and want to discuss the deeper meaning of the artistic choices. That alone saves it from its missteps.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 9:45am

Patrick McEvoy-Halston Are people talking about the deeper meaning of the artistic choices, or just why (and not mostly "why," but rather... what is wrong with this a**hole?) Aronofsky would make a film which puts a protagonist/actress so through the ringer? Do you see evidence of people's reactions drawing them to explore the film's art, or just further speculate on Aronofksy's ostensible perversities? Shouldn't we be equally pleased if after people react powerfully to the film, they not only concern themselves with Aronofsky's skill and mastery -- what he did to make us feel a certain way -- but what he had been through to draw him (to make him powerless not to) to make a film like this one, where a person has to try and weather through a gauntlet of ghouls?

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 10:23am

Julie Cushing Honestly I haven't had any conversations that revolved around aronofskys own demons, really just some commentary that he's a pretentious ahole. Most of my friends who I've discussed the movie with have at times in their life been severely depressed or otherwise mentally ill, so the roots of demonic energy and unsettling aspects are really not shocking to them and myself. And to your point about why he would put an actress so through the ringer - ha! That's exactly his point, is the exploitation of woman as artistic inspiration, so does it surprise me he does the same? Hell no.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 10:35am

Write a reply...

Lety Montelongo Andrew Sorgenfrei

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 1:05pm

Lauren Elizabeth Valmadre Laura Mitchell

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 21 at 9:16pm

John Salvatore Marin Smith

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 22 at 9:26am

Lizzie Nicholson actually the only thing i wish is that people would move on from this movie. There are already numerous postings on this movie, and i honestly don't think it deserves them. There's so many other movies to talk about.

LikeShow more reactions

September 22 at 9:35am

Nina Berry He's not wrong. He just failed to be effective in making the movie he wanted.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 22 at 11:49am

Chris Okum Aronofsky is a wrathful God. Everyone in his universe must suffer. He's like Roland Emmerich if Roland Emmerich had constant acid reflux and good taste in sneakers.

LikeShow more reactions

September 22 at 11:52pmEdited

Ray Whitley I am not sure what the fuck I just watched. Mother is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Let it be known that until I was 19 I went to the cinema for free and I worked at Blockbuster for several years while in high school. So, I have seen a hell of a lot of movies.
Mother lacked cohesion. Tried and failed at being edgy with a biblical undertone. The cinematography was horrendous, basically a shaky cam the.entire.movie.
I am actually in shock at how horrible this movie is. Mother is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen.

LikeShow more reactions

ReplySeptember 23 at 2:23am

Comments