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

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.