Director Darren Aronofsky has become well-known for his work on psychological dramas that delve into the psyches of their main protagonists. However, while several of his films have done excellently with critics, they’ve also attracted tons of controversy for various reasons, usually because of how insane some of them get. His sophomore directorial effort, 2000’s Requiem for a Dream, was deemed too intense for audiences, thus initially earning an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. Aronofsky refuted the decision, but his appeal was denied and the film was instead released unrated by its distributor. While his 2010 effort, Black Swan, did earn Natalie Portman an Oscar for Best Actress, it also led to some debate over how much of the ballet dancing in the film was done by Portman herself. And as for his most recent film, 2014’s Noah, it ended up being banned in several countries due to Aronofsky’s radical take on the story of Noah’s Ark, while also turning out to be his most commercially successful film to date. And from the looks of it, this trend of Aronofsky’s polarizing output continues with his latest film, Mother. Headlined by the ensemble of Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, and Michelle Pfeiffer, Mother is a psychological ‘horror’ film that’s steeped in biblical allegories. However, that hasn’t stopped the film from attracting an extremely polarizing response from critics, and given that it was handed the worst rating possible from the marketing research firm CinemaScore, an F, it’s also proven to be quite divisive amongst audiences as well. As for me? Well, unfortunately, I find that I lean heavily towards the side that gave this film an ‘F’.
In a quaint, little-secluded area, a young woman (Jennifer Lawrence) lives with her husband (Javier Bardem), who’s a poet, in their newly renovated home. The young woman has spent much of her time working on the remodeling so that they can have a perfect home, even though it becomes clear that this isolation has had a negative effect on her husband’s work. However, their idyllic home life is soon threatened by the arrival of some unwanted guests. First, a doctor (Ed Harris) arrives at the house, having been led to assume that it was a bed and breakfast. He also mentions that he’s a big fan of the husband’s work. Later, the doctor’s wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives as well, and while there, she begins to question the young woman about why she and her husband have yet to have kids. This, obviously, begins to freak the young woman out but, to both her surprise and dismay, her husband is extremely welcoming of their new guests. And soon enough, more people start to arrive on the premises just so that they can meet with the husband. Thus, as the young woman begins to become more and more stressed due to all the unwelcome guests in her home, it also starts to have quite an effect on her relationship with her husband, especially after she does indeed become pregnant.
As noted in the intro (and without giving anything major away from the plot), this film’s story is basically one big biblical allegory. If you’re familiar with some of the most famous stories from the bible, then you’ll probably recognize them here by way of how they’re represented in the film’s characters. This includes everyone from the older couple that comes to visit the main characters’ home to their two sons (played by real-life brothers Domhnall and Brian Gleeson) and, of course, the titular ‘mother’ and her husband. And to this film’s credit, I do think that it’s an interesting way in going about telling a Bible-influenced story in a modern context. However, the way in which Aronofsky goes about it is what ultimately ruins it. Part of this is due to the often-temperamental cinematography by Aronofsky regular Matthew Libatique. Said cinematography involves tons of close-up shots and quite a bit of erratic/shaky camera movement, the latter of which becomes a huge problem when things get nuts in this film. And believe me, this film gets nuts, mainly during its second half where to be perfectly frank, it goes off the frigging wall… which, as you might have guessed, is not a good thing in this case. This film also utilizes Aronofsky’s quick-cut style of editing that was apparent in Requiem for a Dream, though it mostly comes into play during the more chaotic moments of the narrative. So, in other words, pair rapidly cutting editing with erratic cinematography and you have a film that can make you feel quite nauseous at times because it’s moving around so much, thereby giving you barely any time to try and grasp just what the heck is happening onscreen.
It’s a shame, really, that this film is the disaster that it is because everyone in the cast is solid in their respective roles. At the very least, they all do a fine enough job at conveying the traits of the biblical characters that they’re meant to be representing. While not necessarily the best performance of her career, Jennifer Lawrence does do a fine job in the ‘title role’. She holds her own for sure, especially given that the film mainly revolves around her, but she’s also quite good whenever she’s working off one of her co-stars, like the always charismatic Javier Bardem. With that said, though, prior to its release, there was some controversy over the fact that Lawrence’s main romantic lead in this film is 21 years her senior. However, if anything, the film does sort of address this and, again, without giving anything away, it ends up making a bit more sense once you realize who Bardem’s character is meant to be. The other couple in this film, played by Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer, provide an interesting contrast to the main couple given their overall characterizations. Harris’ character is more of a charming stranger while Pfeiffer’s character is far colder, the latter of which is seen whenever Pfeiffer interacts with Lawrence. Both Harris and Pfeiffer are great in their respective roles, with Harris providing some nice charisma while Pfeiffer is great at conveying an incredibly uncomfortable, steely persona. Ultimately, though, these solid performances aren’t enough to save this dreadful material.
Now, to be fair, I can at least see why some have reacted positively towards this film. I can see why they’ve found it to be an artistically fascinating and refreshingly original film in today’s current market. Ultimately, though, I did not see ‘exactly’ what they saw with this film. Now, to be clear, this wasn’t a situation where I just didn’t get what was going on (for the most part…). I did, at least, understand all the biblical references that this film was conveying. However, it’s ultimately the overall execution of it all that just makes this an incredibly frustrating film to watch. Because while the cast does do a good job with what they’re given, Aronofsky’s direction and the erratic cinematography end up turning this film into a chaotic mess. I mean, for the record, I do think that this is an interesting way to do a modern take on a story that’s heavily influenced by the bible. However, as much as I hate to say it, this probably would’ve worked a hell of a lot better under a different director; say, David Fincher or someone similar. Because as is, this is just an incoherent and all-around ugly film that’s way too surreal for its own good to the point where it comes off as being extremely pretentious. Now, again, if you liked this film, then all the power to you. But as for me, though, this ended up being one of the most emotionally-draining films that I’ve ever had to sit through because of everything that I’ve covered in this review… ugh, thank god this comes out this Friday.
Rating: 0.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment