Skip to main content

Why are you painting my house?

mother!

(SPOILERS) Darren Aronofsky has a reasonably-sized chin, but on this evidence, in no time at all he’ll have reduced it to a forlorn stump with all that stroking. And then set the remains alight. And then summoned it back into existence for a whole new round of stroking. mother! is a self-indulgent exercise in unabated tedium in the name of a BIG idea, one no amount of assertive psued-ing post-the-fact can turn into a masterpiece. Yes, that much-noted “F” cinemascore was well warranted.


Darren bless ‘im, who is 48, not 18, responded to the resounding audience response by claiming hewanted to make a punk movie and come at you”. Yeah, right. It’s a bit like Ed Wood saying “I intended to make terrible movies - honest”. Still, it’s always worth catching an Aronofsky joint, as the lofty plain ‘pon which he floats is as likely to turn up something interesting as something leaving one entirely dissatisfied.


At least, I thought so. But this makes two movies on the trot where there’s been nary a sliver of provocative intellectual content to make up for the seemingly endless banality of his narratives. Whatever he’s serving up clearly worked for Jennifer Lawrence, however, still young, naïve and desperate for artistic legitimacy and to prove it she’s willing to emphasise the “artistry” of her form and simultaneously fall for her “old enough to be her father” director.


She’s great here, mind. Her continued success brings ever more naysayers, but even in a project as botched as this, perhaps even more so because of that intrinsic botch as there’s little to latch onto other than the lead’s conviction, her giving 110% is never in doubt. And yet, all for nothing.


And she’s ably supported, no doubt about that. True, Javier Bardem is doing absolutely nothing you couldn’t see him do as a Bond villain more entertainingly – one thing he doesn’t have is a face for trusting, so casting him is a loaded dice – but Michelle Pfeiffer is surprisingly remorselessly sharp as woman and Ed Harris coughs like a trooper as man (that Eve is a right bitch, but Adam’s an oblivious trooper? Meanwhile, their kids include Domhnall Gleeson as the oldest son on the bad side yet it’s curiously the positive Abel – Brian Gleeson – who comments, standing in for his director, on the nice view of mother’s J-butt). Clearly, all concerned saw something in their director’s punk-flavoured brain fart. And clearly the execs who funded this to the tune of $30m saw something (J-Law signing on the dotted line?) The cosmic egg’s on them now, of course.


I’ve had my issues with Aronofsky’s fare in the past, most notably the addiction porn of Requiem for a Dream, with which mother! shares a certain unalleviated nightmarish torpor. If that’s your buzz (and for some it clearly is), more power to you. That movie at least boasts a great soundtrack. I can barely recall anything of mother!’s. Probably because it doesn’t have one.


I’m all for “What the hell is going on?” plots, less so when the possibilities presenting themselves only go to make the movie less interesting. For me, a metaphor tends to work best when the text isn’t screaming at you “There’s a metaphor here, can you spot what it is?” In the case of mother!, it’s the worst such example, since there’s nothing to engage with aside from that subtext. This conceit reaches its turgid apotheosis as ellipses illustrate the breakdown of mother’s home, by way of her pregnancy and Him’s success, invaded by celebrants of his quickening fame who quickly turn it into a free party, cause a flood (ho-ho-ho!) and then a police raid (er…), around which point the endeavour begins to resemble nothing so much as a bloated pop video, one without a catchy tune to soothe the fraying images. My kneejerk response to a piece like this, one that leaves me cold, is that those appreciating it are seeing it as good because it’s about something, rather than it being about something and, as a bonus, also good. So I won’t suggest that.


It’s been talked about how anxiety-inducing mother! is, but unless your one of the few (and since only a few have gone to see it, that’s even fewer) who didn’t realise it was a parable/allegory/metaphor/sink plunger up the jaxi, that very emotive response isn’t going to be considerable and deep-felt, but tempered by a realisation that nothing you’re watching really counts for anything, because nothing you’re watching is “real”. Which is why Jennifer really ought to have had (Sir) Anthony Hopkins on set to advise her not to put herself through the wringer for an ultimate absence of a hill of beans.


There are hints of Pinter in there, in terms of the closeted, non-sequitur-driven characterisation and interaction, but the complete absence of a Pinter-esque sense of humour (a prick, not in the hands of Pinter, merely becomes an Aronofosky aggravation point) soon negates such a notion. And the queasy sensation of student theatre persists (which is probably why most of the cast, nostalgically, latched onto the project).


Occasionally there’s something funny, like Ed coughing his heart up (funnier if it were his lungs), and a Sam Raimi-style blood-spattered light bulb (although they tend to be better in a bona fide Sam Raimi movie). Occasionally it becomes dramatically involving (mainly due to Lawrence), but if you aren’t invested in this, as you can’t be once it becomes clear these characters aren’t relatable in any kind of empathic sense, but merely stand for something/someone else, association is cast by the way side. So the Polanski parallels are void. Even more obvious narrative similarities are quickly dissociated, be they the brainscape free association of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or the acid-reflux of 1408. None of it really matters.


So all that’s left is the viscera – something the numbing Requiem for a Dream also fell back on as its doorstop – which equates it with any old horror movie, minus the thrills. Sure, a wee babe can be torn apart by a mob of zealots, and J-Law can have the shit kicked out of her, but since they represent something else, the effect is tempered. Aronofsky wears all this on his aforementioned much-stroked chin.


The director-writer-producer-god has helpfully commented on what his “punk” opus is all about, for us plebs out there. I was actually tending towards some kind of mangled gnostic interpretation during viewing, with Him as Yaldabaoth and mother as Sophia – after all, Aronofsky the self-pronounced atheist had previously gone and done another picture about the influence of his immaterial God – but it appears to be more mundane than that. J-Law is, simply, Mother Nature, reviled, abused and desecrated by all who should adore her (creation itself is not corrupt, only the blighted human element that would seek to blight otherwise perfection, perfection being J-Law in her chiffon nightie).


Yeah, it’s that deep. Certainly, justification for two hours of sub-Polanski climbing the walls. Noah also carries an environmental theme (as well as themes of child sacrifice), but whatever its flaws (and they are legion) it does at least have a coherent storyline to justify its excesses and indulgences. Honestly, you come away from mother! wondering if BP didn’t fund the thing, in the hope that natural-born naturalists would be so disabused by the masturbatory content that they foreswore all allegiance to the cause (there weren’t any representatives that I could see of those living in harmony with mother J-Law, despite a litany of precedents in the planet’s long history; perhaps Aronosky has been Mandela-affected).


Given his construct, Aronofosky is also suggesting, despite his avowed beliefs, a (disavowed?) concept of a god whose general indifference will allow that, whatever indignities Mother Nature suffers, and whatever interventions there are along the way (albeit, even prior to giving more than a “Waaaa!”, they will be summarily cut short), there’ll be another cycle along in just a while, so why bother trying to preserve anything anyway? Of course, one can also draw attention to the imprecision of his allegorical device. Mother Nature must incorporate mother Mary for convenience sake. And what of the yellow powder? It’s also inescapable that there’s the “artist as God” metaphor, an user of his lover/muse who will inevitably cast her aside (Weisz) for someone new (Lawrence) and the cycle goes on and on, for at least as long as Darren’s increasingly splintered chin.


Having vouched on the side of the naysayers, I’ll admit mother! make a pretty decent short film (and a better animated short film; possibly an even better comedy, although you have to be careful there – at any rate, one needs only glance at Aronofsky’s CV to see he isn’t one for evoking chuckles at bedtime. But hey, the New York Times called it “a hoot”, no doubt referencing the dying cry of a shotgunned owl), shorn of the flab and indulgence, and self-important posturing, that only someone who has made two successive multi-$100m successes can perpetrate. You can do this kind of thing well, and on point, if you don’t just let it go on as long as your lack of an editor or now-insensible producer will allow. Is being painfully self-consciously artistic something that deserves congratulation and reward, further cementing your position in a delusionary ivory tower? Perhaps so. But a pseud is a pseud is a pseud, and Aronofsky has undiluted pseud sprouting from his chinny-chin-chin.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …