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

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

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…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

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.

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.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998)
An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar.

Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins, and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch, in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whether the audience was on …