My Two Cents: mother!

"Darren Aronofsky is a f**king genius. mother! is so goddamn subversive. The average moviegoer probably won't even get it, but I, an intellectual, can appreciate such a deep disturbing controversial piece of art. Honestly, I can't believe that a mainstream studio would release something so intense and uncompromising. But they must have just been like 'f**k it, I don't care if we lose money, this needs to exist'."

This seems to be one of the narratives circulating the internet re: mother! Darren Aronofsky's latest allegorical horror flick. Despite a poor opening weekend at the box office, many critics and moviegoers were really taken with it. Even Marina Abramovic seems to think mother! is a work ahead of its time.

Sorry Marina, there is nothing historic, groundbreaking, or even human about mother! I do concede that it's the most ambitious film to come out recently. After banging away at his keyboard for 6 straight days (apparently Aronofsky wrote the script in less than a week), he ended up with a psychological horror/thriller, relationship drama, absurdist comedy, religious allegory film. But mixed all together, the stew tastes like shit. All of the ingredients negate each other. Instead of the complex product Aronofsky was aiming for, he ended up with a hollow joyless assault on the senses with no moral other than maybe: God is a total dick.

Aronofsky has always traded in the difficult, disturbing, and edgy (See: Requiem For A Dream). For this reason his films don't have great rewatch value. So it's not a surprise that he pushes even further in this direction with mother! That's not my real issue with it. However, it’s a major problem when compounded with my next grievance: there are no characters in the film.

Let me clarify. Aronofsky casts a bunch of famous actors to portray symbolic characters in a Genesis allegory like God, Adam, Eve etc. We experience the narrative exclusively from the POV of the titular protagonist “Mother” (Jennifer Lawrence). And although she is center of attention for over 100 minutes, I could not tell you one thing about her character other than the fact that she loves “Him” (Javier Bardem) and wants their house to be perfect. Slowly a mob descends uninvited on their home, starting with “Man” and “Woman” (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfieiffer), and Mother’s idyllic life plunges into chaos and eventually annihilation. 

BUT there is something very off about these characters. At first I thought the acting was wooden but it really falls on Aronofsky’s writing/directing approach. Like his actor notes were “I like what you're doing, but maybe be more mysterious and have less personality?”. Sure they express anger, fear, anxiety, but they’re all missing a vital humanity. They feel like mannequins. I guess this achieves a general spookiness but it ends up alienating the audience. I felt totally detached the whole time and unable to empathize with anyone. By not giving his characters relatable qualities or even names, Aronofsky dehumanizes them. 

This is really problematic in a movie where we are forced to watch a woman get her space violated, get emotionally/physically abused, etc. Just because Jennifer Lawrence represents an idea, doesn’t mean its any less gruesome to watch her tortured brutally. I was actually shocked that at the end of the film, Mother is not given a voice or redeemed but reduced to an object. I know displaying something fucked up doesn’t necessarily mean you endorse it, but Aronofsky shows his hand at the end. The last scene is often a litmus test for a film’s ethics and Aronofsky doubles down on Mother's abusive treatment, all for a bookended finale that felt very film school (“It’s like a big loop, man!”).

Well then, if the movie is a masochistic experience with no real characters or plot to speak of, whats the point? We've covered “What is it?” but “Why is it?” 

Aronofsky’s justifies everything under the convenient umbrella of allegory. “It’s ok! Don’t worry it’s actually about the Bible like God and stuff!” Allegory is defined as a text that "can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one”. I think much of what makes a film great is its richness, its ability to contain multiple layers of meaning and interpretation. Unfortunately mother! is a vapid 1-to-1 allegory, devoid of any greater meaning or commentary. The whole movie becomes a paint by numbers picture where you just fill in the answers and end up with a pretty sailboat or something. Except instead of a pretty sailboat it's just pain. 

I could talk about the film’s weak entry into the horror genre—Aronofsky blatantly lifting elements from past horror films: the invasiveness and sadism of Haneke's Funny Games, the fear of maternity and conspiracy of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby—but I don’t have enough energy.  Horror movies speak to some primal fear in all of us. At best they immerse you in a feeling, they shake you to your core, they get you screaming "Don't go in there!!!” mother! didn't scare me it just depressed the hell out of me. It's "artistic abuse" masquerading as "artistic horror”. 

Last thought: 

Why make this film now? mother! seems to be completely unconcerned with the zeitgeist. In opposition, I can't help thinking of a film like Get Out that, in a similar/adjacent genre, that also came out this year and struck a chord with a wide audience. Get Out is A) culturally relevant B) has internal and external motivation C) is ABOUT SOMETHING. 

Ultimately, mother! is an exercise in ego. Like the exclamation point on the end of its title: very extra.  

1 star