God as a Narcissistic Artist: A Review of Aronofsky’s mother!

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.

Orthorexia Nervosa: When Healthy Food becomes an Obsession

Being healthy is good but being constantly obsessed with one’s health is neither good nor healthy. It is true that we often neglect health matters, especially in the modern day and age where we have more wealth and with it more immediate access to junk food dangerously paired up with a sedentary lifestyle. It is a sad and tragic irony that a billion of people are overweight and obese, while another billion is suffering from serious malnutrition in other parts of the world. The former attempt to shed their excess pounds through diet, exercise and pills, while the latter are trying to survive and make it to the next day.

Nonetheless, this health crisis ought not to be blamed only upon the quick and easy access to fast food alongside its quick and fast lifestyle that includes and embraces microwavable food. In fact, we are further driven and prompted by advertisement and our surroundings to consume more and to consume more often and that includes everything from electronic devices to unhealthy food options. The same way we instinctively grab for our smartphones, we munch and snack on chips, cookies and chocolate, the three deliciously dangerous and addictive Cs in our lives.

It is not a complete surprise then that we have wide-ranging and serious problems with obesity and that shockingly this begins and develops now at a much younger age than ever before. Nowadays, even children can develop Type 2 Diabetes and as a rule they suffer from more and more health problems that used to be applicable to adults only. It is also true that psychological factors aside, one of the main culprits here is our careless and constant food intake.   

As we are bombarded not only with information that is harmful to our psychological and physical well-being, we also face - in some cases too much - information about being and becoming healthy. In today’s world when technology allows and enables us to access an unprecedented wealth of information at our fingertips, this can come as a blessing but equally as a potential downside for some.

Indeed, we are often like pendulums that know not of moderation and may go from one excessive side to another. There are times where we completely neglect our health only to replace it later with an ardent obsession for it. While the previous – our neglect and avoidance of healthy behavior - is often mentioned, discussed and criticized in the media as well as with friends and colleagues, the latter – our obsessive drive for health - is not given much food for thought nor is there much discussion about its potential toxic effects on our health and well-being. But there ought to be.

In fact, not caring about one’s health is almost as equally bad as caring too much for it. In most of these cases, the root of the problem of both sides of the pendulum is psychological, namely neuroticism stemming from trauma, past experiences, drives and lifestyle. These neurotic tendencies may manifest themselves in different rather extreme forms. We only need to look at the media to notice how obsessed people have become vis-à-vis diets and dieting and that they nervously jump and hop on and off from one trend or bandwagon to another. Although some adjustment to diet is not a bad thing, the pendulum may swing from the Atkin diet to paleo and gluten-free fads, and we are often left in rather the same state and weight (if not worse) as we began initially.

I am not saying that taking care of one’s health, adjusting one’s lifestyle or watching what one eats and drinks is not important or essential for our well-being, but I am concerned with those for whom this is merely a substitute and a rather convenient foil and excuse for obsessive and compulsive behavior. While carelessness with health is generally frowned upon and obesity is often attacked up to the nasty and cruel point of shaming people, we let health-obsessed people off the hook. Well, until now at least.

They may be able to go below the radar but their fierce manners of adamantly and continuously searching for their health makes them a perfect candidate for unhealthy obsessions. Like gamblers they also are facing an addiction; however, society encourages them, turns a blind eye towards their excess and may even use them or hold them up as role models for others. But, in fact, they are suffering from a condition called Orthorexia.

Orthorexia nervosa is an obsession with one’s food intake. Essentially, at least psychologically speaking, it is not that different from anorexia or bulimia. With Orthorexia, people are obsessed with food intake and neurotically count calories while being constantly on the lookout for healthy food; they shun all types of unhealthy food as if they were the devil incarnate. Such constant and ubiquitous manners of thinking about food is exhausting and instead of providing bouts of energy, it can drain them both physically due to lack of essential nutrients as well as psychologically due to raging internal conflicts.

What are the symptoms of Orthorexia Nervosa? Like anything, even health needs to be taken with a grain of salt and while we should be concerned about our well-being, we should not be obsessed by it or think about it at every turn and moment of our waking life. Whenever, you see somebody talking non-stop about health or worse trying to preach to you about the shortcomings of your behaviors or lack of restraint, beware. I have known reasonable vegetarians in my life (I myself had been proud part and parcel of the club in my younger years) but then there are also the preaching and self-righteous vegetarians; the latter sound like posessed evangelical preachers who would like to send you straight to hell for your lack of concern regarding your health and that of animals.

But even following vegetarian and vegan diets has both its pros and cons. In fact, there are studies that show how strict or not properly attuned or calibrated vegetarian diets can wreak more havoc than provide benefits to the person in question. Imbalanced diets can lead to diseases and chronic conditions ranging from osteoporosis, cataracts, allergies as well as a number of mental health ailments and even certain forms of cancer.

Blanket statements that vegetarian or vegan diets are always good and healthy or that meat eating is completely unhealthy miss the point and lead to false perceptions as well as faulty reasoning. In fact, strict or severely restricting diets will rob the body of important nutrients and will also strain it and can lead to anywhere from negligence to poor physical and emotional health. Too much of a good thing can then suddenly turn into its unintended opposite.

I find the religious metaphor not unwarranted here. The drive for pure, right or perfect food is not unlike the puritan belief of becoming clean and pure by shunning any kind of evil influence or so-called devil’s work. People are constantly alert about possible temptations and the devil may then reveal himself as a chocolate cupcake or a slice of hot cheese-dripping pizza. There is also the unspoken and understood undercurrent that people who practice such “cleansing” behaviors are deemed or see themselves as morally superior, a kind of holier-than-thou attitude that often permeates or emanates from them and supposedly gives them the right and permission to preach to others, the perceived sick and infidels.

Some of the negative effects of Orthorexia is not just a severe limitation of necessary food intake and nutrients but people suffering from this condition may isolate themselves due to their beliefs; they may not engage in social events and gatherings due to the fact that people around them would partake of unhealthy food; conversely, they may even be rejected by their peers for upholding and executing such drastic and radical views.

Although Orthorexia is not (as of yet) an officially recognized eating disorder, there are ways of gauging its impact and influence through a simple test. Dr. Steven Bratman, who coined the term, has provided a set of questions to test yourself for this eating disorder. For example, if you are constantly reading nutritional labels or thinking about food throughout the day or are meticulously planning your next day meals in advance, or have lost, given up on or sacrificed the pleasure of eating and replaced it with cold counting of calories, then you may be prone to have or be in the process of developing this disorder.

Food should be not only providing nutrients to your body, but it should be much more. As a food lover, I very much appreciate its myriad nuances in our life and history. It is a cultural statement evidenced in the variety of ethnic food from different regions; it is also a social event that bonds and unites families and communities; it is most and foremost also one of the most pleasurable activities out there. We go out not only on dates but also eat out to celebrate important events and accomplishments. Not enjoying food or shunning, severely restricting and limiting it or even feeling consistently and constantly guilty about it are warning signs that you may be heading in the wrong direction of your quest for health.

The Death and Legacy of the Immortal Artist

Friedrich Nietzsche undoubtedly a highly influential thinker and one of the most important philosophers of the modern age was and continues to be often misunderstood and maligned and more often than not mired in controversy. The controversy may occur at times due to his innovative and revolutionary ideas, but at other times due to influences and circumstances that have been completely outside of his control.

An example of very unfortunate historical circumstance would go back to his estranged sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. She had taken charge and was mainly responsible for the legacy of the great philosopher. As she was a fervent Nazi supporter and outspoken antisemite, many of her brother’s thinking and ideas were distorted to please the growing and usurping power of the ultraright. The latter pounced upon that opportunity to appropriate and misuse the great philosopher’s ideas to align with and mold into their abhorrent worldview.

This association with the Nazis not only distorted the views, but also turned Nietzsche into someone he was certainly not. Nietzsche, in fact, would be the first to stand up against the tyranny that the Third Reich came to represent and their interpretation of the Übermensch could not have been further from the actual ideas of the great philosopher. As a result, this link and association have not only overshadowed the brilliance of his great mind, but this effectively caused hesitation if not downright rejection of the ideas represented by Nietzsche.

The situation is somewhat different when it comes to the imposing German composer Richard Wagner. That his music is majestic and brilliant is beyond doubt, but the appropriation of his oeuvre via the Nazis created a long-lasting stain and wound, which is reflected in Israel’s current stance of refusing to publicly perform his works albeit not downright banning them. When it comes to Wagner, there is palpable antisemitism expressed in his writings and hence, unlike in the case of Nietzsche, the association with the Nazis may appear justified in certain terms. Put differently, there was much less distortion needed to match and align the composer’s ideas with the Nazi mentality.

My point here is not in any way to defend the racist ideas of the musician, but to simply iterate an observation about artists and their creation: sometimes we need to separate the man (or woman) from their work. I think that choosing to censor and not to play nor listen to the beautiful music of Wagner is an error. I cannot deny feeling guilty about enjoying and appreciating his music but let us keep in mind that there are many Jewish conductors, such as Daniel Barenboim for example, who end up publicly performing Richard Wagner’s music. Although I would prefer artists to be a model and an example unto others in their personal life as well, I can think of and tolerate possible gaps and discrepancies between the created work and the persona who created them.

By all accounts and purposes, we might see Charles Bukowski as a lowlife drunkard, but his poetry is exquisite and beyond reproach. In the realm of films and cinema, Alfred Hitchcock alongside many other great directors may have been difficult and tyrannical on the movie set, but he created enduring works of art. We should refrain from immediately jumping to conclusions and judging the work by its creator. Rather we should attempt to isolate the work whenever deemed necessary and behold and regard it as a separate entity onto itself.

To give an example, what if Bach – and this is merely speculation and most likely completely untrue – was not at all religious himself. Would that make his music less moving from a spiritual and religious perspective? We might feel disappointed; we might think it hypocritical, but the fact remains that his work is imbued with divinity or at least a divine feeling and inspiration. Equally, if my own musical God in the likes of the incomparable Ludwig Van Beethoven were to be stained with scandal, I would still put him on a pedestal - not because of his personality but because of his enduring and powerful music.   

This type of judging the artist as well as the work has found new precedents in the recent Me Too Movement where some great artists have fallen from their pedestals as a result. Yet here I must offer a certain relevant distinction and caveat. In the case of actors, the situation is slightly different as they thrive and live off their persona. We know that actors are playing roles, but since their work is visually represented, it becomes much more difficult to disassociate one from the other. When I listen to Wagner, I do not think of him personally but rather I imagine scenes inspired by his music.

However, this distancing effect cannot occur or is much more difficult to do when it comes to acting. Acting is a visual form of performance and is closely tied with the person despite the current feat and ability of changing physical characteristics and age onscreen through make-up and computer technology. The fact remains that I find it harder to disassociate Kevin Spacey the actor from his actual despicable deeds. Evidently, it becomes much more intense and complicated when the main character of the show is supposed to embody a strong father figure and role model as is the case with Bill Cosby and his Cosby Show. In that case, I cannot re-watch any of those episodes without feeling queasy deep inside my stomach.

Yet the effect of disassociation would be much easier to do with directors who generally stand behind their camera and who are less visual to us. Although I strongly condemn the perpetrated actions of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, I can still appreciate and value their works of art despite those implications. Their works are indeed personal expressions and extensions of themselves, but the films become transcended in the process. Their work can then be appreciated on its own merit without the presence of its creator. In fact, often works of art somehow manage to become independent of the author and gain a life of their own and this I can respect in the greatest artists despite their flaws.

To give another and rather offbeat example of visual representation is the moustache stub. In that case, it is not Charles Chaplin’s face that comes to mind, but Hitler’s. As a result, it is anathema to use it without risking dangerous association and implication with the Nazis. The same can be said of the Swastika, which was initially an Indian symbol of purity and healing until the Nazis soiled it forever with their dirty hands.

But let us keep in mind that Hitler himself was a vegetarian. This is very uncomfortable, but few people associate this with him and see their alimentary choice as a noble one. With the exception of very few vegetarians who opt for draconian measures of implementing and forcing their views upon everyone else, the act of being a vegetarian has little impact or connection with Nazi ideology. The main reason for this is that it is not visually connected with it and not fresh or salient in our minds.

To go back to the first cases of Nietzsche and Wagner, we can see how it was much easier to disassociate the philosopher from Nazi ideology than it was with the great composer. Music in its representation is more forceful because it is auditory. The Nazis actively listened to and used his works in their operatic spectacles, which wily-nilly created a closer tie between the two. The fact that Hitler proclaimed Wagner to be his favorite composer does little to help in this matter. Ideas, on the other hand, are more abstract and have been somewhat easier to dissociate from their grip.

Finally, as a closing thought, we should not forget that people not only live in but are also a product of their epoch and that almost nothing just appears nor is created out of a vacuum. Put differently, the times must have been to an extent promoting or encouraging certain trends and movements. For instance, during the fascist reign, science was actively interested in and investigated the use and effects of eugenics. This is also a time where brave Aldous Huxley presented us a world divided and controlled by genetics.

Along a similar vein, views of women and particularly sexuality have strongly influenced how people thought and acted in their specific times. Although I believe that great minds can surpass their own times, look at Nietzsche for instance, we should not avoid judging people retroactively and with hindsight. Yes, it is troubling and leaves a sour taste that someone as enlightened as Thomas Jefferson would still keep his own slaves, but that should not diminish the power and force of his message.