|
I'm really glad that mother! exists in all its glory and faults, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little disappointed it wasn't the promised claustrophobic 'strangers in your house' four-hander thriller the trailers made it out to be. It's a sub-genre I really enjoy, and I was stoked to see Aronofsky's take on it. I guess when he talks about how it's one film, then another, then another in interviews, that's the film he was making for the first twenty minutes, but decided to swerve elsewhere. I just wish I could see the third act of that hypothetical movie with Ed Harris and Michelle Pfieiffer. Matinee fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 23, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
Matinee posted:I'm really glad that mother! exists in all its glory and faults, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little disappointed it wasn't the promised claustrophobic 'strangers in your house' four-hander thriller the trailers made it out to be. It's a sub-genre I really enjoy, and I was stoked to see Aronofsky's take on it. although it's not really in the same ballpark, The Invitation was a great film that also starts out as an intensely uncomfortable houseguest story, but with the roles reversed
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
glam rock hamhock posted:What the gently caress are you even taking about? Our problem here isn't that your have endothelial, it's that your seem to be assuming horrendous abuse based on pretty much nothing. Like if you had ANYTHING people probably wouldn't be reading you like your butts but you just seems to be assuming that JLaw is now Arronofky's girlfriend so she could be in this movie and Arronofky made a movie that was a confession that he was abusing JLaw and both of those assertions are literal crazy talk. This is the point I reminded myself that, no matter how rational my argument is, it's unreasonable to expect anything other than confused babbling in response if the listener is mentally broken. coercion be bad? it compromises integrety of moobie? no u r a nice guy white knight 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:This is the point I reminded myself that, no matter how rational my argument is, it's unreasonable to expect anything other than confused babbling in response if the listener is mentally broken. Sorry that first bolded part was my autocorrect going mad and me not being able to double check because I was posting while being stuck in traffic. What I meant to say was "the problem isn't that you have apathy" Seriously though, what the gently caress are you even talking about??? Where the gently caress is coercion happening??? What proof do you have what so ever that anything you're getting up in arms with happened. You just seem to be making wild assertions based on absolutely nothing. You are pulling this all out of your rear end and acting shocked that people aren't following along. You say that your arguments are rational but they are in fact the exact opposite of that. Rather than being based on facts and reason they are based and assumption and reading between lines that aren't even there. Like, either respond to this with any evidence that anything you're talking about has any basis in reality or kindly gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Like, maybe I'm missing something but you're damning evidence seems to be Aronofsky is older than Lawrence, which, yes, is creepy but not illegal or even in and of itself morally wrong. Lawrence had nudes leaked completely unrelated to the film Aronofsky and Lawrence started dating after Mother wrapped. You seem to take this and leap to the conclusion that Lawrence is only dating him so she could be in Mother because apparently she's so desperate for roles that's the only way she can get into movies I guess He has been a relationship with an actress from one of his films before. Sure that actress was about the same age as him, they were together for 9 years, had a son together and claim to still remain friends but this is still somehow proof that this is a pattern and he is a monster! It's hard to know what you're even asserting because you seem to dance around it like it's so obvious that you don't need to. You seem to be saying that a 27 year old woman that is currently one of the most in demand actresses in the world was so desperate to be in a weird art house film that she was forced to date the director after the movie had wrapped and continue with the relationship for over a year. Am I missing anything? Like if you had ANY proof I don't think people would be treating you like you're literally crazy but you really do seem to be coming across as literally crazy. The angle you seem to be coming at here is the one that people in places of authority shouldn't date people they are the bosses of because it indicates that they are using that authority to take advantage of them. This would often seem like the case but Lawrence is literally the most powerful think Mother! had going for it. Like you seem to be imagining a scenario where Aronofsky told Lawrence they had to date or she'd be off the film and I can't imagine a scenario where she wouldn't laugh in his face. axelblaze fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Sep 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
I just got into the theatre with a buddy. It is completely empty, this is gonna be good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Penpal posted:I just got into the theatre with a buddy. It is completely empty, this is gonna be good. This really isn't a make-out movie
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:This really isn't a make-out movie Well, actually
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Just saw this movie last night. I fully expect to get crucified for having this opinion, but I liked the first 2 acts a hell of a lot more than the final act. I loved the pacing, the acting, the sound was loving fantastic, and then the third act hit and it was all just too much too fast. I almost walked out. Not because I didn't understand what was happening or why, but because (please forgive me, there is no better word) mother's experiences were very triggering. I can't handle stories where a person's agency is completely taken away. I can't get this film out if my head, and I love that about it, but the imagery at times was just too much for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:This is the point I reminded myself that, no matter how rational my argument is, it's unreasonable to expect anything other than confused babbling in response if the listener is mentally broken. china bot posted:bad faith posting right here
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
remigious posted:Just saw this movie last night. I fully expect to get crucified for having this opinion, but I liked the first 2 acts a hell of a lot more than the final act. I loved the pacing, the acting, the sound was loving fantastic, and then the third act hit and it was all just too much too fast. I almost walked out. Not because I didn't understand what was happening or why, but because (please forgive me, there is no better word) mother's experiences were very triggering. I can't handle stories where a person's agency is completely taken away. I think almost "triggering" was pretty much the point. If you didn't have a strong emotional reaction you might be a sociopath. Actually affecting people at a deep visceral level with a message is often much more effective than just explaining things academically. I don't think your opinion or experience will be (lol) crucified
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah I though the worst part was the loving nice guy dude who's acting entitled over JLaw in her own house, and then calls her an arrogant oval office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:This is the point I reminded myself that, no matter how rational my argument is, it's unreasonable to expect anything other than confused babbling in response if the listener is mentally broken. You can actually gently caress your boss without it being coercion. Especially if you started loving before he or she became your boss. People involved in movies entering long term relationships with one another is not sexual abuse no matter how mad you are that some dipshit old rear end director is loving your crush
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Haven't been shocked by a film since Irreversible. You got me, dullard. Shocked. You wannabe intellectual. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:After thinking about it, it's obviously just saying "I have no idea what to make of this movie." Because if the metaphor and message was way too obvious, you would just articulate what it is and say why it's bad. It is bad because it is lazy and, get this, way too obvious. That's the criticism. It doesn't need to be anything more than that. To be obvious takes no skill, intellectual depth, and is not impressive. Kudos for not using the word "incoherent" when bitching about criticism, though. BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I don't think it's smug to simply point out that contemporary audiences don't understand cinematic language. Most people don't bother reading books anymore either. Well, they don't have Cinema Discusso threads to explain things to them and recommend books for them to read - because they're so lacking in natural curiosity - like you do. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You got me, dullard. 'Floored', dotard. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
I saw this movie last night and I couldn't shake the feeling like I'd been had. I kept reading about how vile and repulsive many critics found it and thought I was in for some pure cinematic sleaze, instead what I got was the lamest biblical allegory ever with really tortured imagery. Very amateurish and student filmy even for Aronofsky, who is pretty drat didactic with his metaphors to start. This film is perhaps shocking to middle America but otherwise just very disappointing, and I usually like Aronofsky's brand. Would not recommend!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I saw this movie last night and I couldn't shake the feeling like I'd been had. Your trolling isn't as good as Judakel's. You can rest easy though, he'll be posting in this thread again when his probation ends in 3 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:'Floored', dotard. So you admit you're an easily impressed fool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Your trolling isn't as good as Judakel's. You can rest easy though, he'll be posting in this thread again when his probation ends in 3 minutes. Goddamn right (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
Judakel posted:So you admit you're an easily impressed fool. I am often impressed by your inability to comprehend the actual definitions of english words and phrases, yes. Judakel posted:Goddamn right Happy to suffer your cheesedick posting. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:This really isn't a make-out movie Aronofsky says it would make a good date movie. As creepy as that sounds, his reasoning is totally right. It would drive most dates away, though. http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/darren-aronofsky-says-mother-is-a-good-date-movie.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
quote:If watching this movie doesn’t lead to conversation the relationship won’t work out,” Aronofsky reasoned. “So yes, I think it’s a good date movie.” Yeah this seems entirely reasonable to me. Any person that walks away from this movie feeling nothing at all, is probably not dateable to someone like Aronofsky or frankly, anyone posting about movies on a discussion forum. Maybe not a good first date movie, but if the objective of a movie date is to inspire conversation, you can't do much better than any Aronofsky film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Your trolling isn't as good as Judakel's. You can rest easy though, he'll be posting in this thread again when his probation ends in 3 minutes. Just because he disagrees with you and other people in this thread does not mean he is trolling. Engage with him and talk about the movie, don't just dismiss it as trolling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Aronofsky says it would make a good date movie. Mostly though you shouldn't be making out at a good movie because you'll miss something!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Just because he disagrees with you and other people in this thread does not mean he is trolling. Engage with him and talk about the movie, don't just dismiss it as trolling. I'm sorry, I guess it feels like trolling since everyone and their mother! at this point pretty much acknowledges that the biblical allegory is not only easy to catch (sorry, detectives), but essentially facilitates the structure of the narrative, not the text. That is, religious iconography is used for flow over content. The only reason for the presence of religious iconography in this film (held in great contempt, if you ask me) is as a step-stool to a larger point. The very idea that someone could come away from the film having completely missed ALL OF THAT and then label the filmmaking "amateurish" is loving  That's called getting played, son.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Unlike some of Aronofsky's previous, more grounded character studies like The Wrestler or Black Swan, there is no narrative to cling to other than the allegorical. The actions of the characters taken at face value are so extreme and nonsensical that a metaphorical reading can be the only valid one. This alone is fine btw, movies can exist on an entirely symbolic plane, but the so plot tortuously adheres to a clunky 1:1 biblical analogue with no nuance or subtlety. Wow, people are lovely to the earth and God is an egomaniac, this will surely ruffle some feathers of people who can't wait to see the touring cast of Hamilton. And can you believe the violence against babies, my word! Aronofsky can and has done better. The biggest criticism I have against this movie is that I was expecting to be offended, was hoping to see something provocative based on what all the critics were saying, and just ended up bored because I saw every story beat coming. exquisite tea fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Saw this myself this past weekend, and have been chewing on it all week like a dog worries a bone. It's... interesting to read the reactions to this movie, both in this thread and in the film reviews, and one of the most interesting things is:BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I'm sorry, I guess it feels like trolling since everyone and their mother! at this point pretty much acknowledges that the biblical allegory is not only easy to catch (sorry, detectives), but essentially facilitates the structure of the narrative, not the text. That is, religious iconography is used for flow over content. The only reason for the presence of religious iconography in this film (held in great contempt, if you ask me) is as a step-stool to a larger point. The very idea that someone could come away from the film having completely missed ALL OF THAT and then label the filmmaking "amateurish" is loving -just how many people, otherwise academic or making pretensions to the same, have come away from the movie thinking the Biblical analogy was "the point" of the movie. (I think my favorite is the New Yorker reviewer writing, "Unlike Buñuel, Aronofsky is not making sport of religion. He is plundering it for images of wrath and apocalypse, and it might be best if he simply filmed the Book of Revelation, complete with ten-horned beasts, and got the whole thing out of his system." and I'm like...  Dude, a) No, and b) Did you not see Noah? He already did. God, why is the New Yorker such trash?) And... I just don't see how somebody can come to that conclusion at all. First of all, the analogies are not simple, very deliberately so; not only can they be read as completely non-religious, as several people have already done, but one of the most interesting things about the way Aronofsky approaches religious depiction is that he doesn't take from one source of anything- his iconography and themes are this glorious grab bag of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jewish mysticism- pretty much anything he thinks will make his point, add to the narrative, or that he just finds interesting. That's the thing that made Noah such a blast to watch for me, the way he just took all of the ideas, both mythological and scientific, of the time of the Old Testament and the story of Noah's Ark, and just threw it all into his setting kitchen-sink style to compose a world both visually striking and memorable and pushing the themes he wanted to push, one of the most obvious being "Yes, climate change is real, and yes, it is completely our fault." Is it religious appropriation to do so? I suppose it is, but like what he's doing or not, you cannot just say "oh, look, it's a simple analogy and nothing else" and call it a day.For example- I'm probably going to get this wrong, I'm not a religious scholar or anything, but there is an idea in Gnostic philosophy that the God mainstream Christianity isn't really the Creator of the universe, but a Usurper who pretends to be, this stranger who just takes credit for the work of creation and wants to be loved. This theory further holds that Jesus Christ was actually an apostle of the true Creator, sent to the world not only to save mankind from itself but to save us from this Usurper by reminding us of the true path (which is certainly one of the more novel ways to separate the Old and New testaments that I've heard). Now, think about that, and think back to a specific part of the film: After the Baby is born, Him wants to show the baby to the masses to "calm them down", but Mother want's no part of it: she just wants them all gone, and suspects-correctly- that this is just another gambit of Him to get even more love. So Him straight up steals the baby from Mother, and gives it to the followers, who promptly kill it and eat it. That sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it... and another odd thing that one notices is that most everything supernatural in this story happens not because of Him, but around Mother- wounds on her manifest on the house, and it is through her heart that the house is created again. So... does Him have any real power at all, or is it all Mother- a fact backed up by the fact that she does all of the work and he gets all the credit? Was she the God figure in this story all along? Or is Aronofsky just deconstructing the idea of the Savior narrative and the horror of choosing some mother's baby to "die on the cross" to prove a point, especially to the mother? Or is something else entirely going on? There is no clear answer to that, and that's okay. That ferments discussion and debate, and the lack of a clear subject of the allegory speaks to the movies power not its weakness. If this were a straight-up, simple allegory with nothing else to say, then yes, it would be bad and deserving of scorn, but that's not this movie. Movies like this are part of the reason I got into movies in the first place, so it disturbs me just how many "serious" critics are dismissing it out of hand. But just as many seem to love it, so... I guess movie criticism is alive and well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
That was a quality post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Bosley Crowther wikipedia page posted:The end of Crowther's career was marked by his disdain for the 1967 film Bonnie and Clyde. His review was negative: Vanity Fair posted:I will leave you with this quote from the critic Rock Hudson, who saw [2001: A Space Odyssey] at an early private screening and, according to Bizony, “rose from his seat in disgust as the lights came up. ‘Will somebody tell me what the hell that was all about?’ he said.” e: not to say mother! is as important/great as either of the above-mentioned films, just trying to put this in the larger context of people always being flummoxed by any new approach to the medium china bot fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 16:43
|
|
exquisite tea posted:just ended up bored because I saw every story beat coming. You know movies aren't puzzles to solve right?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Hmm no poo poo, but it does help when the movie isn't so predictable you're whispering "they're gonna eat the baby" to your wife ten minutes before they eat the baby. Anyway this movie isn't the worst thing in the world but it was supremely Not Good and a Disappointment and will probably be forgotten in a few months just like that other Aronofsky bible movie and everything else in our increasingly accelerationist culture. But if you like this sort of film I would recommend Possession as it kind of does everything mother! set out to do in a far more inventive and more intelligent way about 35 years earlier. The end, love peace and chicken grease.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Saw this myself this past weekend, and have been chewing on it all week like a dog worries a bone. It's... interesting to read the reactions to this movie, both in this thread and in the film reviews, and one of the most interesting things is: This is a good post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Hmm no poo poo, but it does help when the movie isn't so predictable you're whispering "they're gonna eat the baby" to your wife ten minutes before they eat the baby. What do you think Possession and mother! have in common, exactly? This comparison only suggests that you didn't understand either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Hmm no poo poo, but it does help when the movie isn't so predictable you're whispering "they're gonna eat the baby" to your wife ten minutes before they eat the baby. So you don't just post about how much better you are at consuming media than everyone else, you have to show off your Holmes-like predictive skills by also spoiling the movie for your spouse while you watch it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
She didn't like the movie either, and I apologized for wasting her time since I'm a bigger Aronofsky fan than she is. I even defended the last act of The Fountain! But I don't think mother! is his best. In fact it's not even all that transgressive as I hoped it would be, but dull dull dull! That's all I have left to say on this subject really, continue your discussion, don't @ me, god bless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Hmm no poo poo, but it does help when the movie isn't so predictable you're whispering "they're gonna eat the baby" to your wife ten minutes before they eat the baby. exquisite tea posted:She didn't like the movie either, and I apologized for wasting her time since I'm a bigger Aronofsky fan than she is. I even defended the last act of The Fountain! But I don't think mother! is his best. In fact it's not even all that transgressive as I hoped it would be, but dull dull dull! That's all I have left to say on this subject really, continue your discussion, don't @ me, god bless. Holy moly, you are loving delusional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
The guy just seems to not like the movie which is perfectly alright 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
yeah i disagree with exquisite tea in the extreme here but you guys are making this weirdly and extremely personal instead of talking about his arguments i realize this thread has just recovered from a storm of actual trolling shitposters and there's not much good will left but let's try and be better than that
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:yeah i disagree with exquisite tea in the extreme here but you guys are making this weirdly and extremely personal instead of talking about his arguments in all fairness, Possession is a horror-allegory about the crumbling of relationships & male jealousy that plays like an extra-gory Bergman film, so to say it does what mother! does is, at very least, inaccurate. as I've said before, I don't see anything wrong with disliking mother!, but if you're going to be an absolutist, you're going to get some push-back
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
glam rock hamhock posted:The guy just seems to not like the movie which is perfectly alright It absolutely is, but that's not what the pushback is about. Rather it's the implication that if everyone else weren't an uncultured troglodyte they would also realize how simplistic and stupid it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 21:58
|
|