as i dream about movies they won't make of me when i'm dead -

Es nošērošu savas draudzenes absolūti izcilo un komiski garo heitrantu par šo filmu, ko Ciba neļauj ielikt vienā komentārā.

Part I

Ok, here is my rant about "mother!," in the form of an imaginary conversation with an Aronofsky fan. It is inspired by all the reactions to this film I've seen over the weekend, from the absolutely ridiculous fawning reviews to the thoughtful dialogue I read this morning on a colleague's wall.
It's almost 2000 words now. It's kind of insane, obviously. You've been warned. Also, SPOILERS.
M: mother! is misogynist trash.
Aronofsky fan: First of all, this movie is not trashy. You just don’t grasp his work’s complex, intricate allegorical structures, his masterful cinematic technique, and the way he mixes the profane with the sublime in order to push the boundaries of genre, cinematic representation, and audience expectations. Aronofsky went to Harvard, but he doesn’t talk about it. Aronofsky told Jennifer Lawrence, his lead actor and girlfriend, that her love of the Kardashians is “disappointing.” Aronofsky dares to be an auteur in a climate hostile to true cinematic vision.
M: We’re still talking about the man who made The Fountain and ripped off Satoshi Kon, yea? Just checking. I’ve taught freshmen with a subtler grasp of allegory. I’ve taught freshmen with a subtler grasp of *anything,* including plagiarism. I mean homage. This film is a stillborn Rosemary’s Baby, a defrosted Shining, a Crimson Peak with newer nightgowns. It’s like watching a child bash lego pieces together until they are broken enough to sort of fit. And that’s just him as a director. As a screenwriter, Aronofsky is so utterly incompetent that he throws the baby out with the bathwater. The little savory meal he serves up is not effective allegory (more on that later) or even a meaningful provocation. Neither is the rest of the schlock that happens after (more on that later, too). He’s just yelling loud enough to distract you. He’s been doing just that for years. Aronofsky is not an auteur. He is a hack (le haque if you’re French).
AF: Wow, just wow. I mean, Pi? Requiem for a Dream? Black fucking Swan? The psychological depths, the signature style, the daring vision! He explored the *relationship of the universe to mathematics,* ok? He convinced everyone that Natalie Portman learned ballet in three months! Have YOU done that? Has anyone else done that? No, of course not. I am so sorry that you misinterpreted his entire body of work so thoroughly. Nothing I can do about that, really. You’re just a lost cause. But let’s go back to this movie: You clearly haven’t read the Bible, for if you had, you’d surely know that this movie is not only an Important and Brave Work of Art, but also an Allegory with a capital A.
M: I was a Christian for twenty years. I’ve read the Bible multiple times. I’ve read a kids’ version with giant letters and pretty pictures. I’ve read the adult version, with smaller letters and no pictures. I’ve read the latter in two languages. I’ve studied it as literature in high school, which is a thing that can happen in certain parts of the world. I own Crumb’s “Book of Genesis.” So yes, I can recognize some shoddily cobbled together references if I need to. Did you have an actual point?
AF: Fine, but I can tell you didn’t read the Bible as auteur-ily as Aronofsky read the Bible, so let me break it down for you: Javier Bardem is God/creator. Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth/nature. Adam and Eve show up and make out, even though it’s gross because they are actually embracing their own sexuality. Cain comes over, kills Abel, is banished. Bardemofsky closes up his Garden of Eden because Eve broke the apple. There’s a flood because humanity does not know how to clean up after itself. Then there’s the Eucharist, but with actual cannibals. Then the whole thing burns down because everyone is still a sinner, but now with riot gear. BIBLE, duh.

(Reply)