darren aronofsky's mother!

xp Vice reviewer was otm. She mentions that mother could be mother *nature*, which makes the poet the godlike figure, and humanity's abuse of mother nature the allegory. But if that's the case, then the movie sort of glosses over it in favor of secondary themes like womanhood and the suffering artist, and it's a mess.

I realized how much I'd missed Pfeiffer the last 25 years.

what were the bible allegories i am too stupid and unlearned to catch them

I haven't seen the film but, based on the plot synopsis I read, the allegories seem to have been very, very blatant so I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic

Awards blogger-racist nitwit Jeffrey Wells is calling this the new L'Age d'Or

xp all that stuff about Jesus seemed as reasonable a Biblical parallel with the film as any

She mentions that mother could be mother *nature*, which makes the poet the godlike figure, and humanity's abuse of mother nature the allegory. But if that's the case, then the movie sort of glosses over it in favor of secondary themes like womanhood and the suffering artist, and it's a mess.

I took the Bardem figure as being just as abstract as Mother, which would make the fact of his being an "artist" just as much a metaphor as the house is. but then I don't really buy the "this is about how hard it is to be an artist" reading at all tbh

or at least I don't buy it as the primary driver of the movie

Again, I am only getting this via plot synopsis (which described the movie events and didn't link them to particular stories) but the movie runs through God creating the earth, the creation of Man and Woman, Man and Woman getting cast out of Eden after eating the apple, Cain and Abel, and the birth and sacrifice of Christ, expressed as a cyclical pattern.

Kristen Wiig as murderous prophet is almost admirable in casting against type.

I like the one moment of diegetic music as the house party cranks up. Not sure what Bible parallel that was meant to be.

Is it? I've always seen her as rather imperious.

Yeah Wiig was great & casting made perfect sense

“There were actors we were talking to, but when I heard Kristen was available, I said, ‘Sure.’ I think it works with the whole weird dream vibe of the movie. That suddenly this familiar face shows up. I don’t want to say that Kristen shows up in a nightmare, but it’s very strange and odd. You’re not expecting it, and it kind of throws audiences. I think it’s just another way of people going, ‘What’s she doing?’ and seeing her character take all these surprise turns you would never expect of her. It was fun, and about giving audiences a little gift in the middle of the film.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/09/darren-aronofsky-explains-mother

movie made like 7.5m over the weekend and had a 'F' rating on cinemascore

yeah, imagine Americans being dumb dipshits that would watch the scary clown reboot that looks like a live action Five Nights at Freddys

*imagines this with zero difficulty*

Haven't seen it, in no hurry to see it, etc. (or It, for that matter). But $7.5 million seems so super low to blame just on bad word of mouth or cinemascore numbers or whatever, right? You'd think enough people would be just curious enough to see the movie (which features a host of big names) to top $7.5. I assume that's why Paramount opened it so wide, to get the most while it could. Maybe this is just the downside of keeping something so totally batshit under such tight wraps that no one even had an idea what the movie was, let alone who it stared or whatever.

I mean it's a 30 million dollar flick which for hollywood is basically a writeoff, and it's not like they went nuts with the marketing budget (that trailer they released last week was hilariously misleading)

I'm pretty sure they preferred it make money over losing money.

Cinemascores & especially RT have so much more impact now just bc they're so easily accessible & right next to showtimes on most apps.

But people had to see the movie first, right? Critical pans don't usually hurt a film that badly, and Cinemascore also gauges responses, right? It just surprises me that it couldn't do more than $7.5 million even taking into account those shitty negatives. Like, $15 million might still have been a bad opening at the scale it was opened at.

Jennifer Lawrence is a bankable star, so I feel like it could have done better with a bigger marketing push, even if it meant tipping the public off that this is a fucked up movie. Maybe the chatter around it will bring more people in.

I mean it's a 30 million dollar flick which for hollywood is basically a writeoff

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Monday, September 18, 2017 9:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ

Could also be the clown movie overperforming and drawing audiences away from Mother.

Richard Brody gives it a rave.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/mother-darren-aronofskys-thrilling-horrifying-nearly-unbelievable-satire-of-fame

I haven't seen the film but, based on the plot synopsis I read, the allegories seem to have been very, very blatant so I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic

― this iphone speaks many languages (DJP), Monday, September 18, 2017 10:45 AM (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

serious

ok so upon reflecting for five seconds

bardem: god
pfeiffer: eve
adam: ed harris
sons: cain & abel

who's jlau? who's who in the second half

I know that Brody has his fans, but friends of mine went through a bad streak of watching movies they hated based on raves in the New Yorker, so I asked them who the writer was, an inevitably it was always Richard Brody. Now, he obviously knows his movies, and makes a case for all sorts of esoteric stuff, but he reminds me a lot of Rosenbaum in that his raves (and pans) often need to be taken in context, let alone with a grain of salt.

re Mother vs It, whichever you prefer the former is inarguably more meorable

*memorable

when Brody tweeted out his review he started with 'beyond good or bad, ' lol i don't think it's a ringing endorsement

Is that not a nietzsche joke/ref

so what about Darren Aronofsky's mother

The bitch got knocked up by a clown, but not the one from It!

This was a terrible incoherent mess

who's jlau? who's who in the second half

JLaw = Earth, the various ppl in the second half = humanity getting religion super wrong

Again, I am talking out of my ass because I just read a plot synopsis but that seems to be what it was describing

I guess strictly speaking JLaw= the heavens and the earth

so this is aronofsky's third more or less religious film? I don't know what to think about that, but it seems generally worth thinking about.

he's in his dylan christian period

Which other one was aside from Noah?

I guess Pi had kabbalah elements.

The Fountain yo

Yeah, I guess.

O rite, thats the only one I havent seen haha.

Aronofsky always sounds like the biggest fraud when he speaks about his movies: http://www.indiewire.com/2017/09/mother-darren-aronofsky-explains-mythology-allegory-bible-jennifer-lawrence-1201877848/

Paramount Defends 'mother!' Against Bad Box Office and 'F' CinemaScore: 'This Movie is Brave'

'Rick and Morty' Review: 'Morty's Mind Blowers' Clip Show Subterfuge is the Show at its Most Dependable

I want Aronofsky to stop saying "allegory"

Explaining your movies = dud.

Explaining your movie, the week it comes out = DUUUUUUDDDDDD

Explaining your movie the week it bombs

yeah, the whole idea of wanting people to see it with fresh eyes doesn't exactly hold water if you're explaining the symbolism by week's end.

places like Alamo/Arclight could have probably kept a single Darko-esque nightly screening going for weeks just on the chatter of nerds

yeah exactly. that entertainment weekly interview is so fucking dumb. when the interviewer asks him "that thing in the toilet - was it the rib of Adam?" and he just says "Ding ding ding!" ---- wtf dude

The worst part is stuff like this: ' “The fame stuff is purely a side effect,” said Aronofsky. “A lot of people are seeing that. It is because we have Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, and Michelle Pfeiffer dealing with the crowd, the paparazzi and autograph seekers. When I was writing I wasn’t seeking comment about that, it was about the allegorical sense of worship.”' The idea that you should sort out what's 'side effects' and what's the true and proper artistic effect. But if people are getting a wrong idea due to the casting, well that kinda means the film was miscast. A lot of directors wouldn't have used so many big stars for pretty much exactly this reason.