What's fascinating is that I've heard positive reviews of this film from friends who are Pagans, Atheists, and Catholics. All of which had incredibly different interpretations of course......
Funny story. I worked on the local subtitles of M! As I was doing the translation, it all seemed so clear and obvious to me (banally so): a simple story about creating art; how bringing an idea to fruition means dealing with other competing ideas, and ultimately destroys the idea itself (and then how the audience consumes it, brings another level of destruction). I had it sooooo thoroughly figured out that this understanding influenced the choice of words I'd put into the subtitles (such as, consistently referring to the man as "the author" instead of going with more ambiguous "creator"). Somehow I only began reading up on the film after I'd submitted the work, and when I saw the other interpretations (especially the mother-Earth that seemed to be sooooo obvious to everybody else and had completely flown past me), I became mortified for pushing that one interpretation. To date, no angry mobs have shown up, so I guess it turned out all right in the end, and perhaps the "leading vocabulary" was not as strong as I had feared. The end.
fafafabigben It still works, if you look at it through the “Literal Word of God” lens. The child is meant to be Jesus, consumed by the readers (worshippers) out of their desire for intimacy with the Author (Creator). It’s also worth noting that once the Cain and Able scene happens (the point where it became obvious for me, though the Islamic prayer is pretty much spoon feeding) the plot kicks into overdrive. I’ve seen some people do the math that if you compress the entire timeline of Planet Earth into a 24 hour day, human civilization has been around for a quarter of a second. The movie takes place over the span of 36 hours, so it makes sense that the last act is just thrown at you in such an insanity inducing pace that a climate change narrative jumps out at you. But when I comes to any interpretive media, I find that the best material always has layers.
In my first viewing of the movie, I was fascinated by the first act because it had so many possible interpretations. But at some point I felt kind of overwhelmed by it because my brain was too focused thinking through all these different lines of interpretation. That's why I was glad that the 2nd half focused on the biblical/destruction of earth line. On rewatch tho, I kinda wished that the movie would have continued with the ambiguity of the first half.
People spent so long arguing the meaning of mother! that they seem to have lost sight of the fact that understanding a text is only the first step. I love this movie not because I feel smart in understanding the analogy, but because it deeply connects to my own experiences with religion.
Leon (may I call you Leon?) thought I was the only one. This is a beautiful film that is enriching, powerful, intense, dramatic, and deeply, deeply unsettling. Great analysis.
Is this also a direct condemnation of god? That what we see as a omnibenevolent omnipotent being is really just a twisted stunted thing so desperate for validation it feeds the worst instincts of the worst of its creations. I think that if god did exist and we somehow met it that this would be exactly what we would find. Good thing that will never happen lol!
I really love the last shot. The concept of there being more than just one earth is fascinating. Its like an infinite cicle of God's and humanitys failure, over and over again.
I did an astronomy final on whether there is or could have been life on Mars, and I found an interesting correlation between a period of meteoric bombardment on Mars and the development of life on Earth. We see in the Old Testament that God is by no mean means opposed to raining fire and brimstone on those who offend him, so it’s entirely possible that it’s exactly what’s happened with humanity.
I didn't know about the bible-allegory when I watched the movie so I had a similar interpretation as your second one, where it's about the creation of art. I had "her" as his muse, for she inspires him for his poem and after it is devoured by his "fans" and the glory wears off he has to find a new muse to create new art.
I loved this film too. Aronofsky had to have known this film would shoot right over the heads of 90% of the general movie-going demographic, which I admire. Aronofsky really put himself out there with this film--something most modern film makers would never do. "mother" really was one of the best films of '17, its too bad that so many people didn't understand it.
The insanity was the audience (first week moviegoer) cinema score of “F,” while the Metascore (critics) was a respectable 75. The RT score then came down from the high 70’s to 69, after the ridiculously bad word of mouth. Speculations: Were audiences offended? (US audiences nowadays score films low when bad things happen to female protagonists) Did audiences not get what they were expecting? (that has hurt some cinemascores in the past) Probably many just did not grasp or identify with the message. On related notes, films with heavy symbolism (The Witch, The Neon Demon and Nocturnal Animals just as a few examples recently) don’t do as well with audiences as initial critics receptions or responses at film festivals would suggest- likely because general audiences don’t like to work hard at deciphering underlying meanings.
i've enjoyed your videos for a long time, but this one is far and away my favorite thing you've done. doing a new introduction when discussing each new theory was really cool. i loved this movie, and after seeing this i plan on watching it again later today.
This video just ended up confirming why I dislike allegories. They barely leave any room for ambiguity or interesting character and plot development, because it is more important to bludgeon your audience in the face with your message. This film is definitely for me, but I can at least see why others would like it.
Mother! is a metaphor for people playing offline games making use of the save/load function to do crazy stuff and see what happens without repercussion to their playthrough. Mother! shows up what happens if you marry Kira Yoshikage after he got Bite za Dusto. No, no need to show me the door, I'll find it on my own, thanks. :P
Fantastically creative and informative analysis! Nice job! This film is so great and I really hope it gets a retroactive social re-evaluation. That damn ‘IT’ movie (which was not nearly as good although I will say it’s better than I thought it would be) took the audience that this movie deserves.
I loved this movie but still understand the low audience score. They really tried to advertise it as a more straightforward psychological thriller/horror movie so I think a lot of people were kind of blindsided. I went in just knowing critics and general audiences were split but was pleasantly surprised throughout. The last act was quite possibly the most intense experience I had in a theater last year. As for the meaning, I caught on to the religious allegory fairly early on but didn't see the environmental aspect until afterwards. I know some people who didn't like how forward it was with its themes, but I personally liked that it didn't try to hide its intent too much while still keeping enough ideas vague enough to warrant further consideration.
Hey leon, I have a theory that is very similar to what aronofsky said about the biblical allegory, but it goes beyond. Did you know that are some christian branches that belive that the holy spirit is a woman and for that reason is a mother, I can explain you that belief in a more detailed manner but my english is not the best, sorry. The one thing I can tell you is that in that belief in some parts of the bible when the earth is mentioned, it actually refers allegorically to the holy spirit or mother. And the other point is that in this movie jennifer lawrence (the mother) is always fixing the house (the earth) in this doctrine, the holy spirit is the one who is fixing and taking care of the earth, which it matches with this belief. And the strongest point in favor of this theory is that not only in the general christianity and this doctrine the holy spirit is the one who concievs the christ, not the earth, which is also why people follow this doctrine because the holy spirit is a woman thus the mother of christ. Now to explain the ending, I have to explain you another doctrine that some people who belive in the previous doctrine don´t follow, and some people follow both, which is that christ didn´t just die in the cross, in the 3 days he was fisically dead, his spirit was also 3 days in hell being tortured by demons, wich is when the doctrine beliefs that jesus really payed for all the sins of the world. Anyway, this doctrine beliefs that the mother came down to hell the third day to rescue jesus from the demons but both of them ended up tourtured and killed (spiritually) until the father revived both of them, as you can see all of this concurs with the movie. I can even tell you about another doctrine about the repetition of the cycle that is also shown in the beggining and final shot of the movie, just to summarize it in a few words ( because Im going crazy writting this) it is said that there was an pre-adanic human race and we are a repetition of that, sort of a new beggining of the cration of God, and maybe there will be more ahead, anyway, that´s all I can tell you, I hope that you find my theory interesting, I don´t know is aronofsky based the movie in those doctrines, we may never know, but I find that the stories line up pretty well.
I've seen this movie 3 times. The first itme I loved it. The followign two times (showing it to friends) I've found myself liking it less and less.. Knowing the Authors intent, it's hard to break away from and find new meaning. The story is closely woven with that (religous) narrative. I like how you did this review, coming back at it repeatedly from different angles.
My problem with this movie is that the parallels between the Bible and the plot are so strict that a lot of things get confusing such as: why does eve hate mother earth? Is Jesus the son of God and the Earth? Were there other earths before this one, in an ever repeating cicle? Why does the apocalypse happen in a different manner? If God is omnipotent, does he create humanity to purposefully destroy the earth? What does the thing in the toilet signifies? What about the yellow paint? I feel that if the metaphors were a bit more vague, and not so much on the nose that it completely rules out other interpretations, making lots of good interpretations contradictory to the text of the movie, this would be very close to a masterpiece.
well, some belive that in the holy trinity there is a mother, and is the holy spirit who biblically gave bith to the christ, and also is allegorically known as the earth, jerusalem and many other names. And it is also belived that there was a human race before us known as the pre-adanic race, that could also explain the cycle creation, so there you go.
This is where it gets interesting. At the video essayist put it: the basic structure in terms of the allegory is not subtle. Once you have that in mind then you break it down further and come up with the entirely interesting type of questions that you posed. That's what requires thought and conversation to work through. That's where it becomes subtle and rich and complex.
If I could *only* view this a biblical allegory I would like it much more than do. I think the movie has some very good performance and the production design and direction are obviously excellent. My problem with it comes from the fact that I can’t see it as just a biblical allegory. I can’t help but also see it as biographical and that interpretation seems pretty problematic. It just feels like the writer is pretty full of himself and can’t stand the woma(e)n in his life who are holding him back and just don’t understand his god-like genius. Still, this was a very good analysis and thanks for the insight!
A very great film indeed, with many different interpretations to go with it. I did my own video analyzing this film and I agree that there's no one interpretation of it, Aronofsky clearly implemented a multitude of different messages and meanings into it ranging from the Book of Genesis, God's will, Mother Nature, the environment, the danger of celebrity, the mistreatment of women, the fear of strangers, and the evolution of human sin. Even though I think there are a great many theories and allegories Aronofsky explores in here I'm still unsure if he found the right way to interweave all of them into one package. Still a great film though, certainly one of my favorites of the year.
Good video. I do wish people would stop already with the 'interpretations', especially Darren Aronofsky. Can you imagine Stanley Kubrick explaining the end of '2001'? Or David Lynch telling us exactly what 'Twin Peaks' means?
The problem with this film is that what Aronofsky is trying to say isn't very complex or sophisticated: humanity is bad and is destroying the Earth. So? You shouldn't need two hours of people suffering and screaming and replicating the Bible just to deliver that simple message. I didn't enjoy it either as a visceral experience, specially the-over-the-top ending, but in that respect I recognise its technical merits.
Yeah, but do you learn anything from This? You see the film and understand it but do you learn from it? It's important to see this message played out, to see the art to absorb the meaning, to think to feel, and to act.
I always find it so distracting when hollywood presents a couple in a film where the wife looks like the husband's daughter. That guy must be like 20 years older than Jennifer Lawrence.
So revolting and there are three of them at that . All that suffering without proper comeuppance was way too unpleasant to watch for whatever artistic message/value it had to be justifiably .. meaningful to me, this film was so gross
I really enjoyed mother for being a huge absurd spectacle, but its allegory of Mother Earth and the christian God were so obvious that it became really irritating. A film doesn't need to be subtle to be effective but there was something about the cryptic style choices combined with this blatant allegory that conflicted and made the film feel (im sorry for using this term) pretentious. Its a film so assured in its profundity that it doesn't seem to consider its audience. The style of the film is so offputting that only serious film watchers and aronofsky fans will be be interested in it, but the obviousness of its messages feel they are intended to teach a lesson to a broad audience. Because of this the film doesn't quite work for either. To compare against a recent example, Sorry to Bother You is incredibly obvious with its intentions but the film is designed in such a compelling way that general audiences can respond to it. Its a really fun film with a distinct message, and most importantly the fun of the film comes from how those messages are presented. It is an anti-elitist film. However despite my complaints I still like Mother for being a big wild art film, even if it just feels like a student film with a big budget. Its got great design and performances as well as a very interesting way of manipulating time as a story concept. I like that besides the obvious central point there are other parallels that you can draw from it. I just wish its central point was done a bit more elegantly and with more consideration for its audience.
9 months late, but I am so glad someone else feels the same way about mother! It honestly bothers me that the movie made such an effort to be deeper than it actually was. It also spent too much time on allegory and not enough time on a story that makes the allegory actually _mean_ something beyond the vapid, surface-level undertones that can be figured out in the first twenty minutes.
I didnt know anything about this film before going into it. I was confused till about half way through then it was pretty clear. Worth the time to watch it once i suppose. My woman hated it hahaha.
"By the way, I love this movie, don't @ me." THIS. I loved this movie and was truly shocked by the rather extreme negative reaction it received even in the theatre in which I saw it. Friends responded to my opinion of the film far more angrily than they usually do. I still don't get it. I thought it was brilliant. One of the most uncomfortable films I've ever seen, but brilliant. Maybe people just can't handle the discomfort.
I'm sorry, but making a film that clearly wants to stump us in the face the idea of it being "an allegory of..." is a really childish way of making a film. I didn't like it.
"Mother! The rare modern movie that's just 'oops all allegory'."- Lindsay Ellis 2018
What's fascinating is that I've heard positive reviews of this film from friends who are Pagans, Atheists, and Catholics. All of which had incredibly different interpretations of course......
Funny story. I worked on the local subtitles of M!
As I was doing the translation, it all seemed so clear and obvious to me (banally so): a simple story about creating art; how bringing an idea to fruition means dealing with other competing ideas, and ultimately destroys the idea itself (and then how the audience consumes it, brings another level of destruction). I had it sooooo thoroughly figured out that this understanding influenced the choice of words I'd put into the subtitles (such as, consistently referring to the man as "the author" instead of going with more ambiguous "creator"). Somehow I only began reading up on the film after I'd submitted the work, and when I saw the other interpretations (especially the mother-Earth that seemed to be sooooo obvious to everybody else and had completely flown past me), I became mortified for pushing that one interpretation.
To date, no angry mobs have shown up, so I guess it turned out all right in the end, and perhaps the "leading vocabulary" was not as strong as I had feared.
The end.
fafafabigben It still works, if you look at it through the “Literal Word of God” lens.
The child is meant to be Jesus, consumed by the readers (worshippers) out of their desire for intimacy with the Author (Creator).
It’s also worth noting that once the Cain and Able scene happens (the point where it became obvious for me, though the Islamic prayer is pretty much spoon feeding) the plot kicks into overdrive.
I’ve seen some people do the math that if you compress the entire timeline of Planet Earth into a 24 hour day, human civilization has been around for a quarter of a second. The movie takes place over the span of 36 hours, so it makes sense that the last act is just thrown at you in such an insanity inducing pace that a climate change narrative jumps out at you.
But when I comes to any interpretive media, I find that the best material always has layers.
Very creative way to approach this review! Great stuff!
Agreed.
In my first viewing of the movie, I was fascinated by the first act because it had so many possible interpretations. But at some point I felt kind of overwhelmed by it because my brain was too focused thinking through all these different lines of interpretation. That's why I was glad that the 2nd half focused on the biblical/destruction of earth line.
On rewatch tho, I kinda wished that the movie would have continued with the ambiguity of the first half.
People spent so long arguing the meaning of mother! that they seem to have lost sight of the fact that understanding a text is only the first step. I love this movie not because I feel smart in understanding the analogy, but because it deeply connects to my own experiences with religion.
Leon (may I call you Leon?) thought I was the only one. This is a beautiful film that is enriching, powerful, intense, dramatic, and deeply, deeply unsettling. Great analysis.
Is this also a direct condemnation of god? That what we see as a omnibenevolent omnipotent being is really just a twisted stunted thing so desperate for validation it feeds the worst instincts of the worst of its creations. I think that if god did exist and we somehow met it that this would be exactly what we would find. Good thing that will never happen lol!
I loved the approach to this video! It was a good idea to look at many different interpretations!
I really love the last shot. The concept of there being more than just one earth is fascinating. Its like an infinite cicle of God's and humanitys failure, over and over again.
Grizabeebles Existence itself is infinitely more fascinating if there are more earths.
I did an astronomy final on whether there is or could have been life on Mars, and I found an interesting correlation between a period of meteoric bombardment on Mars and the development of life on Earth.
We see in the Old Testament that God is by no mean means opposed to raining fire and brimstone on those who offend him, so it’s entirely possible that it’s exactly what’s happened with humanity.
i really enjoy how you made your different interpretations as a cyclical presentation.
I didn't know about the bible-allegory when I watched the movie so I had a similar interpretation as your second one, where it's about the creation of art. I had "her" as his muse, for she inspires him for his poem and after it is devoured by his "fans" and the glory wears off he has to find a new muse to create new art.
I love that you started the video 3-5 times just like the creation story in Genesis. Very clever and interesting
I have waited so long for you to do an analysis of this movie! Thank you for your hard work!
I loved this film too. Aronofsky had to have known this film would shoot right over the heads of 90% of the general movie-going demographic, which I admire. Aronofsky really put himself out there with this film--something most modern film makers would never do. "mother" really was one of the best films of '17, its too bad that so many people didn't understand it.
YES! Love the cyclical structure of the analysis.
This film was criminally underrated and vastly misunderstood by filmgoers.
The insanity was the audience (first week moviegoer) cinema score of “F,” while the Metascore (critics) was a respectable 75. The RT score then came down from the high 70’s to 69, after the ridiculously bad word of mouth.
Speculations: Were audiences offended? (US audiences nowadays score films low when bad things happen to female protagonists)
Did audiences not get what they were expecting? (that has hurt some cinemascores in the past)
Probably many just did not grasp or identify with the message.
On related notes, films with heavy symbolism (The Witch, The Neon Demon and Nocturnal Animals just as a few examples recently) don’t do as well with audiences as initial critics receptions or responses at film festivals would suggest- likely because general audiences don’t like to work hard at deciphering underlying meanings.
Eh, the vast majority of people seem to lack critical thinking skills. That's why this channel is so great.
I liked the endless loop of the various meanings. :D
Neat vid. I always enjoy it when you dive into a film that's polarised many.
i've enjoyed your videos for a long time, but this one is far and away my favorite thing you've done. doing a new introduction when discussing each new theory was really cool. i loved this movie, and after seeing this i plan on watching it again later today.
You're my favourite movie review channel
This video just ended up confirming why I dislike allegories. They barely leave any room for ambiguity or interesting character and plot development, because it is more important to bludgeon your audience in the face with your message. This film is definitely for me, but I can at least see why others would like it.
Regardless of the alegory, I found the movie to be very entertaining and anxiety inducing, the symbolisms are just the icing on the cake imo.
this movie really made me feel so many emotions but i still didnt hate it, i thought it was brilliant
*mother!* is my trash. I love this movie with all its on the nose allegory and its complete lack of subtlety.
Mother! is a metaphor for people playing offline games making use of the save/load function to do crazy stuff and see what happens without repercussion to their playthrough.
Mother! shows up what happens if you marry Kira Yoshikage after he got Bite za Dusto.
No, no need to show me the door, I'll find it on my own, thanks. :P
Fantastically creative and informative analysis! Nice job! This film is so great and I really hope it gets a retroactive social re-evaluation. That damn ‘IT’ movie (which was not nearly as good although I will say it’s better than I thought it would be) took the audience that this movie deserves.
The Edenic theory blew my mind. He's got to be taking the piss!
That was great. Gotta watch it now
Honestly love this film.
I loved this movie but still understand the low audience score. They really tried to advertise it as a more straightforward psychological thriller/horror movie so I think a lot of people were kind of blindsided. I went in just knowing critics and general audiences were split but was pleasantly surprised throughout. The last act was quite possibly the most intense experience I had in a theater last year.
As for the meaning, I caught on to the religious allegory fairly early on but didn't see the environmental aspect until afterwards. I know some people who didn't like how forward it was with its themes, but I personally liked that it didn't try to hide its intent too much while still keeping enough ideas vague enough to warrant further consideration.
Hey leon, I have a theory that is very similar to what aronofsky said about the biblical allegory, but it goes beyond. Did you know that are some christian branches that belive that the holy spirit is a woman and for that reason is a mother, I can explain you that belief in a more detailed manner but my english is not the best, sorry. The one thing I can tell you is that in that belief in some parts of the bible when the earth is mentioned, it actually refers allegorically to the holy spirit or mother. And the other point is that in this movie jennifer lawrence (the mother) is always fixing the house (the earth) in this doctrine, the holy spirit is the one who is fixing and taking care of the earth, which it matches with this belief.
And the strongest point in favor of this theory is that not only in the general christianity and this doctrine the holy spirit is the one who concievs the christ, not the earth, which is also why people follow this doctrine because the holy spirit is a woman thus the mother of christ.
Now to explain the ending, I have to explain you another doctrine that some people who belive in the previous doctrine don´t follow, and some people follow both, which is that christ didn´t just die in the cross, in the 3 days he was fisically dead, his spirit was also 3 days in hell being tortured by demons, wich is when the doctrine beliefs that jesus really payed for all the sins of the world. Anyway, this doctrine beliefs that the mother came down to hell the third day to rescue jesus from the demons but both of them ended up tourtured and killed (spiritually) until the father revived both of them, as you can see all of this concurs with the movie.
I can even tell you about another doctrine about the repetition of the cycle that is also shown in the beggining and final shot of the movie, just to summarize it in a few words ( because Im going crazy writting this) it is said that there was an pre-adanic human race and we are a repetition of that, sort of a new beggining of the cration of God, and maybe there will be more ahead, anyway, that´s all I can tell you, I hope that you find my theory interesting, I don´t know is aronofsky based the movie in those doctrines, we may never know, but I find that the stories line up pretty well.
Excellent video, Leon. Thank you. Enjoy the comments!
I've seen this movie 3 times. The first itme I loved it. The followign two times (showing it to friends) I've found myself liking it less and less.. Knowing the Authors intent, it's hard to break away from and find new meaning. The story is closely woven with that (religous) narrative. I like how you did this review, coming back at it repeatedly from different angles.
How did I not hear about this?!
Masterpiece
Aronofsky does it again with something beautiful, emotional and thought provoking
The interpretation which I agree with the most is the biblical one. Considering, as well, how religious Aronofsy´s filmography is.
My problem with this movie is that the parallels between the Bible and the plot are so strict that a lot of things get confusing such as: why does eve hate mother earth? Is Jesus the son of God and the Earth? Were there other earths before this one, in an ever repeating cicle? Why does the apocalypse happen in a different manner? If God is omnipotent, does he create humanity to purposefully destroy the earth? What does the thing in the toilet signifies? What about the yellow paint?
I feel that if the metaphors were a bit more vague, and not so much on the nose that it completely rules out other interpretations, making lots of good interpretations contradictory to the text of the movie, this would be very close to a masterpiece.
well, some belive that in the holy trinity there is a mother, and is the holy spirit who biblically gave bith to the christ, and also is allegorically known as the earth, jerusalem and many other names. And it is also belived that there was a human race before us known as the pre-adanic race, that could also explain the cycle creation, so there you go.
This is where it gets interesting. At the video essayist put it: the basic structure in terms of the allegory is not subtle. Once you have that in mind then you break it down further and come up with the entirely interesting type of questions that you posed. That's what requires thought and conversation to work through. That's where it becomes subtle and rich and complex.
If I could *only* view this a biblical allegory I would like it much more than do. I think the movie has some very good performance and the production design and direction are obviously excellent. My problem with it comes from the fact that I can’t see it as just a biblical allegory. I can’t help but also see it as biographical and that interpretation seems pretty problematic. It just feels like the writer is pretty full of himself and can’t stand the woma(e)n in his life who are holding him back and just don’t understand his god-like genius. Still, this was a very good analysis and thanks for the insight!
A very great film indeed, with many different interpretations to go with it. I did my own video analyzing this film and I agree that there's no one interpretation of it, Aronofsky clearly implemented a multitude of different messages and meanings into it ranging from the Book of Genesis, God's will, Mother Nature, the environment, the danger of celebrity, the mistreatment of women, the fear of strangers, and the evolution of human sin. Even though I think there are a great many theories and allegories Aronofsky explores in here I'm still unsure if he found the right way to interweave all of them into one package. Still a great film though, certainly one of my favorites of the year.
Dude. This is probably your best one ever.
I love it too
Great man.
Great video Leon... and is it just me or did you have a cold while recording this?
How can I talk to u?
Haven't seen the movie, but good analysis.
The Meaning(s)[?] Of Mother!
Good video. I do wish people would stop already with the 'interpretations', especially Darren Aronofsky. Can you imagine Stanley Kubrick explaining the end of '2001'? Or David Lynch telling us exactly what 'Twin Peaks' means?
Why is your voice suddenly so smooth? Sorry I hadn't view your videos in a while.
The problem with this film is that what Aronofsky is trying to say isn't very complex or sophisticated: humanity is bad and is destroying the Earth. So? You shouldn't need two hours of people suffering and screaming and replicating the Bible just to deliver that simple message.
I didn't enjoy it either as a visceral experience, specially the-over-the-top ending, but in that respect I recognise its technical merits.
Yeah, but do you learn anything from This? You see the film and understand it but do you learn from it? It's important to see this message played out, to see the art to absorb the meaning, to think to feel, and to act.
glortidor I think you misunderstood the film.
How many times did you have to watch it to edit this?
This channel is criminally under-watched.
Brilliant way to present such a critically divisive film.
Yaaaaas
Best movie of 2017.
I always find it so distracting when hollywood presents a couple in a film where the wife looks like the husband's daughter. That guy must be like 20 years older than Jennifer Lawrence.
That's because God was there before Earth
So revolting and there are three of them at that . All that suffering without proper comeuppance was way too unpleasant to watch for whatever artistic message/value it had to be justifiably .. meaningful to me, this film was so gross
So Aronofsky is saying God is Responsible for decay of earth??
No.
Renegade Cut
What is he saying than?
I told you in the video.
But he is not 'Father'. He is 'the creator' but not a father.
I really enjoyed mother for being a huge absurd spectacle, but its allegory of Mother Earth and the christian God were so obvious that it became really irritating. A film doesn't need to be subtle to be effective but there was something about the cryptic style choices combined with this blatant allegory that conflicted and made the film feel (im sorry for using this term) pretentious. Its a film so assured in its profundity that it doesn't seem to consider its audience. The style of the film is so offputting that only serious film watchers and aronofsky fans will be be interested in it, but the obviousness of its messages feel they are intended to teach a lesson to a broad audience. Because of this the film doesn't quite work for either.
To compare against a recent example, Sorry to Bother You is incredibly obvious with its intentions but the film is designed in such a compelling way that general audiences can respond to it. Its a really fun film with a distinct message, and most importantly the fun of the film comes from how those messages are presented. It is an anti-elitist film.
However despite my complaints I still like Mother for being a big wild art film, even if it just feels like a student film with a big budget. Its got great design and performances as well as a very interesting way of manipulating time as a story concept. I like that besides the obvious central point there are other parallels that you can draw from it. I just wish its central point was done a bit more elegantly and with more consideration for its audience.
9 months late, but I am so glad someone else feels the same way about mother! It honestly bothers me that the movie made such an effort to be deeper than it actually was. It also spent too much time on allegory and not enough time on a story that makes the allegory actually _mean_ something beyond the vapid, surface-level undertones that can be figured out in the first twenty minutes.
Me 2
boy thats a cheesy film
I saw this movie when it came out and was not fond of it.
I didnt know anything about this film before going into it. I was confused till about half way through then it was pretty clear. Worth the time to watch it once i suppose. My woman hated it hahaha.
Great analysis. Still don't like the film.
"By the way, I love this movie, don't @ me."
THIS. I loved this movie and was truly shocked by the rather extreme negative reaction it received even in the theatre in which I saw it. Friends responded to my opinion of the film far more angrily than they usually do. I still don't get it. I thought it was brilliant. One of the most uncomfortable films I've ever seen, but brilliant. Maybe people just can't handle the discomfort.
Why do you keep saying "Mother is a 2017 film directed by Darren Aronofsky" between each interpretation?
Great video Mr. Renegade Cut.
I really enjoy your content. You deserve more subscribers mate.
Took me a minute to get it, but once I did, I thought it was a real nice touch.
I'm sorry, but making a film that clearly wants to stump us in the face the idea of it being "an allegory of..." is a really childish way of making a film. I didn't like it.
Hahaaaaa.... Brilliant answer!
the mother is earth and the father is God and the couple are Adam and eve while the boys are Cain and able
In other words: God is responsible for all shit we have on the planet today.