Writer-director Darren Aronofsky is no stranger to controversial, complicated narratives. Past films include the sci-fi cult-classic Pi (1998), psychological drama Requiem for a Dream (2000), and box-office horror hit Black Swan (2010). Aronofsky’s films both stir up and rely on critical controversy. Their narratives are consistently discussed and debated long after opening weekend has passed. With his latest release, mother!, Aronofsky has created his most polarizing piece to date.
The setting is the home of “Him” (Javier Bardem), an aging poet struggling with writer’s block who lives with his wife (Jennifer Lawrence). Lawrence’s character (credited as the titular “mother”) is in the process of restoring their vast, octagonal house when the arrival of a mysterious gentleman (Ed Harris), and later his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), disrupt the the couple’s idyllic isolation and spark the poet’s egotistical tendencies. Gradually, the narrative shifts from a odd breach of domestic privacy into a horrific and bizarre phantasmagoria filled with surrealist metaphorical imagery.
At its most basic level, mother! is a story about the misogynistic tendencies of men in relationships–tendencies that rob women of any sense of autonomy or agency. Lawrence’s character is a literal homemaker who spends much of the film trying to protect her home from destructive guests, whom Bardem’s character welcomes and entertains. Bardem’s character is blatantly ignorant to the abusive repercussions of his egotistical demands; he expects mother to be there for him and provide for him, regardless of her needs and wants.
A broader analysis of mother!’s meaning lends to more ambitious metaphorical interpretations. Lawrence herself discussed how the film is an extended allegory for climate change. The title mother! is, an immediate reference to Mother Earth, while Bardem’s character personifies human greed and destruction. Religious themes and motifs are also prevalent throughout the film with obvious parallels being drawn to the story of creation and of Adam and Eve.
These vastly different interpretations are inherently controversial due to their ambiguity. One audience member will leave the theatre having experienced a vastly different story than the next–this is where Aronofsky’s brilliance is most evident. mother! is a film that is overwhelming to view and, as such, the film’s true weight and cinematic power can only truly be understood after a period of decompression and debate. The experience of actually watching the film–a claustrophobic, anxiety-inducing experience filled with heightened sound effects and psychologically ominous imagery–is thus contrasted with a period of deliberate discussion regarding individual interpretation and understanding.
mother!’s depth relies on its inscrutability. In creating a film that has no obvious meaning, Aronofsky asks viewers to fill in the blanks. This process of post-viewing analysis challenges box-office blockbuster norms and demands a level of engagement and commitment which many viewers will find invasive. mother! isn’t a film that ends when the credits roll, it’s something that sits with you on the ride home and demands to be confronted.
mother! (2017) is a slamming punch to the face—a descent from taut, domestic psychodrama to full-throttle hermeneutic madness. In director Darren Aronofsky’s words, it is “a fever dream,” dabbling in feminism, filmmaking, and biblical allegory. While all of this could make for a truly impactful film, mother! instead flounders in a sea of sensory overload and delirium, perhaps in an attempt to mask the film’s shallowness.
It must be noted, however, that despite its other shortcomings mother! is a remarkably well-made film. From mise-en-scene to cinematography to sound, Aronofsky’s craftsmanship is in peak form throughout. Unfortunately, mother!’s cinematic merits are tainted by its masquerade as a feminist narrative.
mother! is sympathetic to its titular character’s gendered struggle. Told from her perspective—the camera rarely strays from an unnerving closeup of Lawrence’s face—Aronofsky seeks to understand his character’s servile domesticity and blind devotion to her negligent husband. Unfortunately, as the narrative progresses, it subjects mother to the cruelest forms of torment and suffering, in the most uncomfortable and quasi-pornographic detail.
There is nothing wrong with portraying extreme human suffering on film if it serves a meaningful point. mother!, however, has no truly meaningful point. Beyond surface-level commentary on obsessive artists and marital breakdown, it is mostly a biblical allegory, yet the theological “insight” that Aronofsky offers is nothing that a cursory read of the book of Genesis would not provide. Aronofsky has not improved much from the hollow polemics of his previous film, Noah (2014). He uses his films as an arena to rant about his conflicted religious identity, but none of this remotely justifies the viciousness of his artistic approach. All mother! is doing is regurgitating the same images of violence against women that have saturated cinema for a century, alluding to self-reflexivity with its artistic filter, but only scratching at the surface.
Moreover, mother! has a muddled view of the agency and empowerment of its heroine. The film establishes that one’s power lies in one’s ability to create, attainable for mother only through childbirth. However, mother’s brief, precious moment of “empowerment,” gained by her mutated nativity scene, is intrinsically linked to what appears to be her sole function: Childbirth. While mother! may be attempting to make some vague commentary using this archetypal image of woman as womb, it does not spend enough time unpacking this misogynistic concept to successfully subvert it. The ensuing chaos appears as a hyper-indulgent carnival of castration anxiety under the guise of a disempowered female protagonist.
Contrast this with Aronofsky’s Black Swan (2010), where the heroine (Natalie Portman) goes through physical and mental hell as the world of art and creation consumes her, but remains an active agent, creator, and subject, in that artistic process, whereas mother is merely a victim, an object, never allowed to make any meaningful contribution to the circumstances that torment her.
mother!’s spectacle is meticulously executed, and Aronofsky once again proves his prowess as a technically brilliant filmmaker. This is overshadowed, however, by an ever-increasing onslaught of violence and pandemonium, all at the expense of a female lead. None of that serves any deeper purpose than to shock and to relay Aronofsky’s superficial toe-dipping into complex philosophical and theological quandaries well beyond his reach. The inefficacy of Aronofsky’s experimentation with feminism is not only feeble but profoundly unsettling.
It’s easy to be overwhelmed by mother!’s singular cinematic spectacle. Applying even the slightest pressure on its philosophical bent, however, reveals a hollow, heart-pounding exercise in female-directed violence, alluding to insight, but never committing to it.
mother! (2017) is a slamming punch to the face—a descent from taut, domestic psychodrama to full-throttle hermeneutic madness. In director Darren Aronofsky’s words, it is “a fever dream,” dabbling in feminism, filmmaking, and biblical allegory. While all of this could make for a truly impactful film, mother! instead flounders in a sea of sensory overload and delirium, perhaps in an attempt to mask the film’s shallowness.
It must be noted, however, that despite its other shortcomings mother! is a remarkably well-made film. From mise-en-scene to cinematography to sound, Aronofsky’s craftsmanship is in peak form throughout. Unfortunately, mother!’s cinematic merits are tainted by its masquerade as a feminist narrative.
mother! is sympathetic to its titular character’s gendered struggle. Told from her perspective—the camera rarely strays from an unnerving closeup of Lawrence’s face—Aronofsky seeks to understand his character’s servile domesticity and blind devotion to her negligent husband. Unfortunately, as the narrative progresses, it subjects mother to the cruelest forms of torment and suffering, in the most uncomfortable and quasi-pornographic detail.
There is nothing wrong with portraying extreme human suffering on film if it serves a meaningful point. mother!, however, has no truly meaningful point. Beyond surface-level commentary on obsessive artists and marital breakdown, it is mostly a biblical allegory, yet the theological “insight” that Aronofsky offers is nothing that a cursory read of the book of Genesis would not provide. Aronofsky has not improved much from the hollow polemics of his previous film, Noah (2014). He uses his films as an arena to rant about his conflicted religious identity, but none of this remotely justifies the viciousness of his artistic approach. All mother! is doing is regurgitating the same images of violence against women that have saturated cinema for a century, alluding to self-reflexivity with its artistic filter, but only scratching at the surface.
Moreover, mother! has a muddled view of the agency and empowerment of its heroine. The film establishes that one’s power lies in one’s ability to create, attainable for mother only through childbirth. However, mother’s brief, precious moment of “empowerment,” gained by her mutated nativity scene, is intrinsically linked to what appears to be her sole function: Childbirth. While mother! may be attempting to make some vague commentary using this archetypal image of woman as womb, it does not spend enough time unpacking this misogynistic concept to successfully subvert it. The ensuing chaos appears as a hyper-indulgent carnival of castration anxiety under the guise of a disempowered female protagonist.
Contrast this with Aronofsky’s Black Swan (2010), where the heroine (Natalie Portman) goes through physical and mental hell as the world of art and creation consumes her, but remains an active agent, creator, and subject, in that artistic process, whereas mother is merely a victim, an object, never allowed to make any meaningful contribution to the circumstances that torment her.
mother!’s spectacle is meticulously executed, and Aronofsky once again proves his prowess as a technically brilliant filmmaker. This is overshadowed, however, by an ever-increasing onslaught of violence and pandemonium, all at the expense of a female lead. None of that serves any deeper purpose than to shock and to relay Aronofsky’s superficial toe-dipping into complex philosophical and theological quandaries well beyond his reach. The inefficacy of Aronofsky’s experimentation with feminism is not only feeble but profoundly unsettling.
It’s easy to be overwhelmed by mother!’s singular cinematic spectacle. Applying even the slightest pressure on its philosophical bent, however, reveals a hollow, heart-pounding exercise in female-directed violence, alluding to insight, but never committing to it.
Writer-director Darren Aronofsky is no stranger to controversial, complicated narratives. Past films include the sci-fi cult-classic Pi (1998), psychological drama Requiem for a Dream (2000), and box-office horror hit Black Swan (2010). Aronofsky’s films both stir up and rely on critical controversy. Their narratives are consistently discussed and debated long after opening weekend has passed. With his latest release, mother!, Aronofsky has created his most polarizing piece to date.
The setting is the home of “Him” (Javier Bardem), an aging poet struggling with writer’s block who lives with his wife (Jennifer Lawrence). Lawrence’s character (credited as the titular “mother”) is in the process of restoring their vast, octagonal house when the arrival of a mysterious gentleman (Ed Harris), and later his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), disrupt the the couple’s idyllic isolation and spark the poet’s egotistical tendencies. Gradually, the narrative shifts from a odd breach of domestic privacy into a horrific and bizarre phantasmagoria filled with surrealist metaphorical imagery.
At its most basic level, mother! is a story about the misogynistic tendencies of men in relationships–tendencies that rob women of any sense of autonomy or agency. Lawrence’s character is a literal homemaker who spends much of the film trying to protect her home from destructive guests, whom Bardem’s character welcomes and entertains. Bardem’s character is blatantly ignorant to the abusive repercussions of his egotistical demands; he expects mother to be there for him and provide for him, regardless of her needs and wants.
A broader analysis of mother!’s meaning lends to more ambitious metaphorical interpretations. Lawrence herself discussed how the film is an extended allegory for climate change. The title mother! is, an immediate reference to Mother Earth, while Bardem’s character personifies human greed and destruction. Religious themes and motifs are also prevalent throughout the film with obvious parallels being drawn to the story of creation and of Adam and Eve.
These vastly different interpretations are inherently controversial due to their ambiguity. One audience member will leave the theatre having experienced a vastly different story than the next–this is where Aronofsky’s brilliance is most evident. mother! is a film that is overwhelming to view and, as such, the film’s true weight and cinematic power can only truly be understood after a period of decompression and debate. The experience of actually watching the film–a claustrophobic, anxiety-inducing experience filled with heightened sound effects and psychologically ominous imagery–is thus contrasted with a period of deliberate discussion regarding individual interpretation and understanding.
mother!’s depth relies on its inscrutability. In creating a film that has no obvious meaning, Aronofsky asks viewers to fill in the blanks. This process of post-viewing analysis challenges box-office blockbuster norms and demands a level of engagement and commitment which many viewers will find invasive. mother! isn’t a film that ends when the credits roll, it’s something that sits with you on the ride home and demands to be confronted.