|
General Dog posted:I don't know if this means we agree or disagree, but I'd wager most people understood the allegory, they just rejected it. It depends on what you mean by "rejecting it'. Obviously we're talking out our asses without numerical data to back it up, but somehow I suspect that people treated the allegory similarly to how they'd react to a stranger asking for 20 to refuel their car. "I just watched a SWAT team coming out of nowhere, followed by Kristen Wiig plugging random people in the head. Don't lie to me about this movie being a Christ allegory" (I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing, either.)
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
I'm saying that I think the average moviegoer (for this, anyway) would be able to recognize "okay, Javier Bardem is God, this is Cain and Abel, this is the Eucharist, Kristin Wiig is a prophet, etc." and not appreciate the implication about their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
I don't think most moviegoers go to a movie to piece together an allegory, even a mostly obvious one. My dad hated it, but saw it as a 'woe is me, fame is hard, why won't fans leave us alone' kind of story. I hated it too. We had maybe a third of our small crowd walk out, and the rest were all pissed at the movie afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I'm saying that I think the average moviegoer (for this, anyway) would be able to recognize "okay, Javier Bardem is God, this is Cain and Abel, this is the Eucharist, Kristin Wiig is a prophet, etc." and not appreciate the implication about their beliefs. I guess we're disagreeing, because I don't think most people would take someone saying that seriously, after watching the movie go so off the rails so significantly. It'd be like SMG appearing next to you at the end of a certain movie, to tell you that the Megazord represented marxism/fascism. To put it another way, less "I get your allegory but it makes me mad", more "I'm mad at your random movie, and I'm not buying the notion that it was allegorical to anything". People would buy The Room being an intentional comedy more readily than mother! being a allegory about God/Christ/Whatever, I suspect. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
I hated the movie and then spent a couple of hours talking about it with my wife and now I like it and want to see it again. I would have enjoyed it more if the allegory and symbolism clicked with me sooner. It's fun to think back on everything once you get it. My brain was so locked in to, "This is a horror movie and at any moment we'll find out the sinister truth." that I stupidly missed a bunch of obvious stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I guess we're disagreeing, because I don't think most people would take someone saying that seriously, after watching the movie go so off the rails so significantly. It'd be like SMG appearing next to you at the end of a certain movie, to tell you that the Megazord represented marxism/fascism. I guess I have a hard time seeing people with a level of literacy that low showing up to this movie to being with, not in levels high enough to drag the Cinescore down to an F. I mean I felt like I got the Biblical stuff almost beat for beat, and it's well documented that I'm dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
I suppose I could see the Megazord as a sort of metaphor for the soviet. But in mother! I couldn't pin down who the titular character is supposed to be. I don't recall there being a mother nature figure in Biblical mythology, but she seems to best map onto that sort of role, with the house being the Earth. My brother figured she was Mary, and their baby was Jesus, which I suppose I could see too. Maybe both mother and Him are aspects of God? I don't really buy that due to the naming convention but its possible. Really, her inclusion makes me think this is more of a self-critique by Aronofsky, since it seems to have obvious parallels to the creative process. The Biblical imagery seems like an intentionally arrogant act on his part, comparing writing to an act of divinity. Overall the more I think about it the more I dig this movie, it was a hell of a ride. Also, shoutout to seeing the top of Javier Bardem's dick, that was pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Serf posted:Really, her inclusion makes me think this is more of a self-critique by Aronofsky, since it seems to have obvious parallels to the creative process. The Biblical imagery seems like an intentionally arrogant act on his part, comparing writing to an act of divinity. This is it, you got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Ehud posted:I hated the movie and then spent a couple of hours talking about it with my wife and now I like it and want to see it again. The sinsiter truth is God may exist, he just doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I guess I have a hard time seeing people with a level of literacy that low showing up to this movie to begin with Well, that's the situation mother! kinda forced itself / lucked out being in. Slow period for movies in general, early edge of the horror movie months, released on blast to the world like a tentpole instead of like an indie movie that gets 2-3 screenings total at one of your local movie chains. All that culminates in a movie like this slamming directly into a movie-going audience that is entirely capable and willing of pointing at the naked dude and noting his lack of clothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Serf posted:I suppose I could see the Megazord as a sort of metaphor for the soviet. I felt like she was Mary and the baby was like Jesus as well. It made sense on a few levels to me... - Javier Bardem's character was God and he impregnated her (immaculate conception). - Bardem's followers all wanted to see the baby but ended up killing him (anticipating a savior and the crucifixion). - They ate the baby's flesh (eating the body of Christ). - Bardem told JLaw that something good needed to come from the baby's death and that they should forgive everyone (salvation, death of Jesus washes away the sins of humanity). Or I could be way off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Saw it again with a big group of friends and I kind of soured on it more this time. Did pick up on possibly another one of the plagues though (hail = the ice for the burn).
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:One thing stood out to me was it had by far the best use of surround sound I have seen in a movie theater. Underrated post
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
I think the Mother is not meant to fit perfectly into the Biblical allegory. To me, the idea is that she, the Mother with a capital M, has been left out of our culture's big stories about the Father with a capital F. The whole point is to introduce a feminine point of view into a story (and an institution) that has been lacking it in order to show it in a different light. By looking at things from Mother's point of view, we might see God (as he's presented in the Bible) as a narcissistic psychopath. God simply switching to a new woman at the end after everything blows up with seemingly no real intention of changing anything else implies that he's never really going to break that cycle. Something big needs to change; specifically, institutionalized religion (and society in general) shouldn't be patriarchal. I get the stuff about the creative process, but I'm pretty comfortable viewing the movie as primarily about religion. I loved it btw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Enjoyed this movie a lot but I didn't necessarily like it, which probably makes a lot of sense weirdly enough. Great acting and cinematography and some of the best sound design ever. I don't think the relentless tension and later brutality had a big enough payoff or point to justify how tough it was to sit through. Also, the main point of the movie coming down to god/creators not loving what they create or what helps them create, only the attention and admiration they receive seems to point me more towards it being a critique of creatives rather than God. It tells a religious allegory using a modern setting but the real meaning is about the destructive process of creation, all fueled by Aronofsky's disgust with the modern world. all in all,a really interesting movie that I never plan on watching again. That said, what did the yellow drink and the hidden basement hallway represent? And  humanity being killed by exploding oil under the earth.
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Martman posted:I think the Mother is not meant to fit perfectly into the Biblical allegory. To me, the idea is that she, the Mother with a capital M, has been left out of our culture's big stories about the Father with a capital F. I think I broadly agree with this, but you could also pretty easily read her as an angel, maybe Lucifer. Endless unconditional love for the creator but he's not satisfied with her presence and devotion, she's the one who tries to keep people from loving the place up, and she's the one who gets pissed off and disobeys him to set everything on fire. Plus something something sulfur if you're really hung up on the yellow drink.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
These discussions make me want to see it again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
You can probably read her as representing paganism vs. his monotheism or some poo poo if you squint hard enough, given her connection to the earth (the house), references to her as a goddess, etc. But that said, I think it's a mistake trying to allegorize J-Law's character as anything beyond a source of inspiration for Bardem. That's the horror of the movie, her gradual realization that she's just a consumable resource. I think the elevator pitch for the movie would be "creators are insufferable, so what would it be like to live with the ultimate Creator?" At its root it's every bit as glib as that sounds. General Dog fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
In an interview with Lawrence, the movie was going to originally be named The Sixth Day.
Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Wasn't that an Arnold Schwarzenegger flick from the early 2000's?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
So what was up with the weird bloody squid thing in the clogged toilet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
What are some interpretations of the sequence of rapid escalations from people tearing the house apart to executions to Waco-like raid on a cult to the birth of the baby? I guess on the surface it could either be a condensed history of man on earth or fever dream of religious symbolism or a criticism of organized religion? I can make the biblical allegory work by looking at the first half as a neo-Genesis as people here have pointed out, and the birth and beyond as birth/death/sacrifice of Christ, but the interlude of madness throws me off a straight allegory. Curious how ya'll read it. E: also your interpretations of the the recurring floor wound and the hidden room in the basement. Fifteen of Many fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Jesus, film felt like a nightmare that wouldn't let up. I feel really stupid not getting the allegorical stuff, it's going to be an interesting rewatch full of headslappings. Having seen the trailer, I went in thinking "okay, Bardem is probably a warlock, cult leader or the devil" while simultaneously thinking Aronofsky wouldn't make a by-the-numbers horror movie. Then once the cracks in reality started showing up, I focused on the more shallow idea of "he's writing everything including his wife, she's just a character he made up." It kind of wore me down, but I liked it a lot. Definitely going to watch it again and try to puzzle things out. the baby's neck snapping went through me like a knife though, just last week I was cradling my new nephew in my arms and obsessing about supporting his head. Interesting idea that God would only be in charge of humans, and Nature is her own separate thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
My criticism sums up to this, in a biblical allegory, Mary has been replaced with "mother nature" without any explanation. And it has a cyclical ending, a completely alien concept to Christianity; in a climate change allegory, JLaw's storyline works but not Bardem's. This movie is a fever dream and Aronofsky is not as acknowledge on Christianity as he thought he is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:My criticism sums up to this, in a biblical allegory, Mary has been replaced with "mother nature" without any explanation. And it has a cyclical ending, a completely alien concept to Christianity; in a climate change allegory, JLaw's storyline works but not Bardem's. This movie is a fever dream and Aronofsky is not as acknowledge on Christianity as he thought he is. Regarding the cyclical ending: the Bible says that after Revelations God will create a new heaven and earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Plus, if you want to get REAL deep into Biblical readings, the words used in Genesis 1:2 to describe the newly created earth - "formless and void" - could, in the original Hebrew, have the connotation of meaning something ruined and destroyed. There've been theories throughout the history of Judaism and Christianity that this could indicate the creation account we read in Genesis 1 is actually a rebuilding of something that had previously been undone. It's a fringe theory/theology to be sure, but provocative in the context of Mother!. I REALLY enjoyed/responded to this film. It was like a nightmare that gave almost no relief: strange rude people showing up, acting weird, refusing to leave, escalating weirdness... Just very haunting. I also think the themes are broad enough to support multiple readings while still being made tightly enough that it doesn't feel like a sloppy mess. I can't believe this got a major, well-marketed (i think) release but I'm glad it did! You don't see movies like this everyday!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Al Cu Ad Solte posted:Wasn't that an Arnold Schwarzenegger flick from the early 2000's? Yes. And this movie would have been better if it was Arnold instead of Javier Bardem
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Could the yellow powder represent pollen, and by extension, fertility? I'm a little stuck on why that would be a tonic for nature, but it seems to fit with her chucking it out once she gets pregnant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Serf posted:I suppose I could see the Megazord as a sort of metaphor for the soviet. its a story about tom bombadil and life in his house as told by goldberry Achtane posted:So what was up with the weird bloody squid thing in the clogged toilet? Soup du Journey fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:I literally cannot think of a worse way to promote this film than the trailer that was shown before IT. I mean it worked for me. I was totally on board with the movie presented in that trailer, and I was totally on board with the actual movie, even if they don't have a whole lot in common. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Also I don't think "accuracy" was the point in terms of Biblical allegory here. There's possibly some Gnostic influence in the sense that Bardem's character is a demiurge, except that even that is reversed in that he's a writer, creating this abstract thing, while Lawrence's character is constantly creating real, physical things, fixing the house, cooking, and giving birth, obviously. Even the crystal that re-creates the entire house and births a new cycle is something that explicitly comes from Her -- it's not really His creation, he's just overseeing it, insisting on it, perhaps even trapped in it. I really don't buy the idea that the film is meant to elevate authorship by comparing it to being God, I think it's just the opposite -- the comparison to God and to organized religion is aimed at denigrating authorship, and the contemptibility of God is treated practically as a given. (Which is probably what throws people because, admittedly, that must be a really weird place to start from if you have any kind of faith.) The movie hammers you over and over with the point that physical labor (heh) is significant and meaningful and constantly undervalued, and the author constantly feels threatened by and competitive towards his wife's accomplishments, even though they underlie and make possible everything he does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, good point. I thought it was kind of weird that people were calling the comparison arrogant, but it somehow didn't occur to me that they might not even have a way to connect to that view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:Oh, yeah, good point. I thought it was kind of weird that people were calling the comparison arrogant, but it somehow didn't occur to me that they might not even have a way to connect to that view. Elevating yourself to the level of God or pulling God down to the level of yourself are just two sides of a coin, both are arrogant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Elevating yourself to the level of God or pulling God down to the level of yourself are just two sides of a coin, both are arrogant. There's a subtle but important distinction here, though. It's not about "pulling God down to the level of yourself" -- that's precisely the misunderstanding I was trying to avoid by phrasing my post the way I did. It's about pulling yourself down to the level of God, because God is already the worst. (As a father, as a creator, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:There's a subtle but important distinction here, though. It's not about "pulling God down to the level of yourself" -- that's precisely the misunderstanding I was trying to avoid by phrasing my post the way I did. It's about pulling yourself down to the level of God, because God is already the worst. (As a father, as a creator, etc.) But the movie doesn't successfully establish why God is bad, it only establishes why a man who reminds us of God is bad. In our conception of God, He doesn't have a neglected wife who's coming to harm. Whether he does what he does out of fundamental goodness or a need to be loved is debatable, but when he lets people trash His house, it's at no one's cost but his own. It's the difference between adopting three children and neglecting one you already had, and just adopting three children when you previously had none.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
God has billions of neglected creations who've come to harm. (Much of it from ourselves, but the movie certainly doesn't avoid showing this side of things either.) Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Elevating yourself to the level of God or pulling God down to the level of yourself are just two sides of a coin, both are arrogant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
And to follow up on that, I am more inclined to identify Lawrence's character with humanity rather than with some pagan mother goddess or what have you. The final scene of the film shows her being replaced by some other woman -- there's nothing special about her in particular, beyond the fact that the film was from her point of view. Rather, we're seeing a dramatic retelling of one person's relationship with God, which could be mirrored or repeated by anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
she is nicely ambiguous, isn't she? we can say that her qualities encompass the material, generative & faithful, but she doesn't correspond to the archetypes as readily as some of the more incidental characters here, and i think that helps elevate the story. though i don't think we're supposed to see her in this light alone, i do like that she shares traits with old-timey satan: namely, as the adversary, speaking against man and in favor of god. the sufis & yazidis have something similar going on, so it'd be interesting to look at mamacita over here from the perspective of those traditions. i want this out on dvd!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Loved it, challenging as it was. The bottle the yellow medicine came in was distinctive. Was it the same type of bottle she used when mixing the paint? If there is nothing to that yellow stuff it'll be a bit if a letdown since everything else seems so packed with symbolism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:53
|
|
