I remember that at the beginning of the year, Darren Aronofsky’s
mother! with its headlining poster of
Jennifer Lawrence was heralded as one of the most anticipated movies of the
year. As a film buff, I was also quite thrilled to see the next film of the
filmmaker who had critically acclaimed movies the likes of Pi (1998), the brilliant and innovative Requiem of a Dream (2000) and Black
Swan (2010) under his belt despite the occasional missteps and misfires
such as The Fountain (2006) and Noah (2014), which are easily forgiven
and certainly not as bad as they were made out to be by some film critics.
Then when my movie-watching group at work ventured out to
see this long-awaited film on the silver screen, alas I could not go as I was
agonizing with a case of the stomach flu. Any other kind of flu and I would
have been there, heavily sedated and drugged if need be, but the stomach one is
a very tricky affair and a highly uncomfortable issue to deal with.
Eager to find out how this movie went down but already
slightly wary due to some incoming negative criticism, I was given an earful of
how bad this movie was (supposed to be). Yet a couple of my co-workers who had hated
the movie with an unprecedented passion (and we had previously endured
inexcusably abominable movies, such as Suicide
Squad) carefully interjected that I just might end up enjoying the film
more than them, whereas one of them, my former boss, even suggested that he
could see me blogging about this movie at some point. And right he was, and so
here it is.
My thoughts and reflections come with a delay because I
stayed away from this film by avoiding it like the plague. I read about it and
even, which is very unusual for me, read up on its gory scenes and sequences to
see if I would be willing to stomach them (even without the ‘flu). The trailer
(also unusual for me as I do not like previewing films with trailers) had made
me think of Polanski’s cult horror film Rosemary’s
Baby (1968), but I was told that it was nothing like it and that the whole
thing was rather confusing, pretentious and even disgusting. I could not mention
the film to my colleagues without having them shudder in front of me as if
traumas and wounds had just re-opened and were being relived before my eyes.
At some point, the suspense got to me and curiosity won the
upper hand and killed the proverbial cat. I watched it, once again uncharacteristically
I did so on my own, that is without my regular and trusted viewing partner, my
wife. Characteristically, I wished to shield her from possible atrocities and decided
to test view it. Should it pass - and there were two criteria to be considered,
namely is it too disturbing and is it any good – then we would watch it
together. As a comparison, Lars von Trier’s Antichrist
(2009) did not make it because that is one of the rare instances where I
felt a movie simply went too far and was simply not as good as it should have
been, while Haneke’s The Piano Teacher (2001) had been put on hold indefinitely; the
latter is certainly good but – with pretty much anything this great film director
has done – it is at the same time on the disturbing side of things.
Yet as I was finally watching Aronofsky’s mother!, I could not shake off the
feeling that this was much better than I had initially thought. The first half
did remind me of Rosemary’s Baby in
how it was building suspense around the mysterious personality of the house and
the enigmatic, odd and intrusive visiting couple (Michelle Pfeiffer keeps
getting better at her craft) who were disturbing in both senses of the word.
The second half of the movie just went berserk, bonkers and
off the rails, and although it was definitely over the top, in certain ways I
appreciated it and was not as shocked about it. I must confess that my previous
preparation for the film had buffered possible shocking effects as I had inklings
of what was about to happen towards the end of the movie.
There are two interpretations I shall offer here for this
film. They can be considered separately and independently, or they may be
combined in a hybrid, which is what I would prefer. The first interpretation is
of Biblical nature and status. As the film progresses, we realize that these
people are not meant to be real or fictional for that matter but are rather
symbolic representations of the Bible.
The couple that enters the secluded cabin are Adam and Eve;
the diamond that the Javier Bardem Jehovah-like character so cherishes is
perhaps the forbidden fruit they are not to see or touch on their own, while
the couple’s sons are evidently stand-ins for Cain and Abel where, and this is
no spoiler for those who know their Bible, the former kills the latter. Who
JLaw is supposed to be remains a bit unclear and enigmatic, and it is certainly
not facilitated by the fact that none of them are given names. Alternatively,
she could be the Tree of Life, God’s wife, Mother Earth with the cabin (our
planet) as her home, or although less likely, she may even be the Virgin Mary.
What becomes clear though is that she is intimately
connected to the house and that she passionately loves and is in love with
Javier Bardem’s godly character who is incidentally much older than her. She is
completely devoted to him and has vowed to rebuild, reconstruct and redecorate his
house, which had previously succumbed to a devastating fire. At various times
and on different occasions, she wants to protect the house from others, which
to her has become a living, breathing and heart-beating entity. Later, she tries even more desperately and
passionately to protect her son and to shield him from any impending harm,
including from his own father.
Yet the latter is either too naïve and trusting or simply craves
and even demands attention and adulation from his subjects and creatures, all
of which comes at the expense of his house’s and his family’s health and well-being.
For instance, without asking for nor heeding his partner’s (wife’s?) opinions
and protests, he welcomes Adam into his home and offers him a place to stay.
Even when his guest takes advantage of this generous hospitality (the
chain-smoking (!) Adam continuously disrespects house rules by smoking
everywhere and even unabashedly and without asking brings along his wife to
stay with him), God still embraces him.
Unlike Genesis in the Bible, the couple is not rejected nor
expelled even though they have broken God’s most precious jewel. He showed it
and bragged about it to them, but they (of course it was Eve but with Adam
present) accidentally (or so they claim) break it. Yet despite their error or
carelessness, they show no remorse whatsoever. When God finds out, he is
devastated and exasperated, and he even shouts at them in a godly furious demeanor
with reverberating echoes added to his voice for effect. He then bloodies his
hand by crushing the shards of his precious jewel as a form of atonement for
his guilt, but he refuses to blame his hosts for the transgression.
This refusal may have been due to selfish reasons since it
is their presence that has provided him with much needed and sought-after
inspiration. Now we move to the second interpretation, namely that of the
frustrated and uninspired artist. She – the Jennifer Lawrence character - is
his muse, but she is not (strong?) enough to spark his passion and interest, so
he uses other people’s presence and stories to provide him with much needed
inspiration.
He also gets confirmation by and through them. In fact, it
must be mentioned that he had previously published a book of poetry that was a
major success, but his writing abilities had dried since then. His hosts, it
turns out, knew in fact that he was the famed poet, and they had purposely
sought him out because they wanted to meet him in person; supposedly, they worshiped
him and his work.
Despite the many and continuous protests of his wife, his
attention is never fully on her, but he is adamantly focused on and preoccupied
with his writing. It is only after the continued presence and reaffirmation of
his prowess via his guests that his passion for her is ignited and he finally “knows”
her (to use a biblical term). As a result, she becomes pregnant. In a magical
scene, which occurs almost immediately after their lovemaking (details of which
are not provided onscreen), she claims to him that she is with child. How do
you know, he asks in his slumber, and she responds that she simply as a woman
knows it to be a fact.
This then jump-starts him and instead of celebrating the news
and moment with her, he impatiently demands for a pen and some paper, then sits
down as naked as He himself made himself and starts writing nonstop for hours
or days on end until his manuscript is finally completed. He ceremoniously
gives his work to her awaiting and expecting her judgment (praise); she reads
it in one sitting, and she is blown away by the depth of emotion expressed
therein. She is moved by his gesture of turning a veritable emotion of
expecting fatherhood into a book of poems.
But like many (though not all) artists, he is being somewhat
dishonest. In fact, she was not the first to read the poems, but he had already
sent out a copy to his editor who then calls him and exuberantly accepts it for
publication. There is an element of betrayal in the sense that the Jennifer
Lawrence character as his supposed muse awaiting his child was not even the
first person to be given the manuscript; he had already sent a copy to the (female)
editor whom he seemed to deem more highly than her.
When his book turns out to be a complete success and they
are about to celebrate this event in a lavish and intimate dinner that she
personally prepares for him despite her pregnant state, he is quickly
distracted by a number of unannounced visitors who show up at his door that
same evening. Instead of sending them off and opting to protect his privacy and
choosing to dine with his wife, he uses this opportunity to showcase himself.
He gives speeches and toasts and indiscriminately invites all of them to his
home. They, hungry and driven for any kind of token and souvenir, enter and
eventually destroy his home.
They try to take anything they can get their hands on while
at the same time eating the food that she had lovingly prepared for him. Starstruck,
they want to touch him and him to touch and bless them; he obliges because he
relishes the fame and attention that he receives from them, even though they
not only destroy his home but also abuse and beat his pregnant wife in the vilest
manner possible. When she gives birth, he is even willing to offer his son to the
wild and hungry mob. He presents his infant to them because he wants admiration
from them, and the ravenous crowd in their careless over-zealousness not only
break the infant into pieces but even consume the baby’s flesh.
At this point, my two interpretations intersect. These
admirers are those who blindly follow God and who at the same time are immensely
selfish, insatiable and destructive. They keep asking for more and whatever God
gives them is never enough. At the same time, God endures their horrific
pettiness because they give him love and attention. They build altars in his
name and image, and they worship him feverishly and ecstatically wherever they
go. They may incite God’s wrath, but he is more than willing to turn the page
and forgive them even though they have cruelly dissected his only begotten son.
The son may represent Jesus whom God has willingly offered
and slated for sacrifice. The film portrays God here as a sycophant who is so set
on pleasing his fans and followers that he would even turn a blind eye to the
most despicable and heinous acts committed by humanity (that evidently lacks
all kinds of humanity). They are needy, but he does not stop short of giving
them what they want as long as they promise to follow and worship him. Their
greatest sin would be to turn their love and attention away from him.
In fact, God’s obsession with following his orders and
commandments and his insistence on obeying him to the utmost degree of potentially
sacrificing one’s own child (as in the case of Abraham) is borderline
narcissistic. A similar strain of narcissism can be delineated among those
artists who Faust-like do not stop short of selling their soul for a bit of
fame and recognition. In presenting and showing these ideas, the film succeeds;
it willy-nilly and despite its excesses, flaws and failings, provides food for
thought and fodder for discussions regarding religion, art and the possible combination
of both. You may not have enjoyed the ride (though I personally did as well as
my wife who for your information ended up loving the film), it is certainly worth
seeing, thinking and talking about it.
