Mother! (2017)

Mother! (2017)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed Harris

Darren Aronofsky isn’t a stranger to playing with themes of Christianity or religion, in fact, right from the get go with his first film Pi (1998), he was already playing with ideas of religion vs. logic. Even when he did Noah (2014) a film based on the biblical tale of Noah’s ark, he twisted the tale in a way that the film actually turned into a critical view of the bible and its teachings instead of a purely “Christian Film”. When I saw Noah, I felt Aronofksy took many fantastical elements from the bible and slapped Christians right in the face with it. What angered Christians about Noah, and part of the reason why the Christian Community didn’t fully embrace that film was because they couldn’t deny that the “craziest” elements from that film where actually in the bible to begin with. This is why I find that Aronofsky’s newest film Mother! (2017), fits right in there with the rest of his cinematic repertoire. Aronofsky has always had a strong critical voice about religion. So, how do his views on religion show up in Mother!?

Mother! is all about this couple who lives out in the sticks in the middle of nowhere. All they want is a bit of peace and quiet. He wants peace in order to work on his writing and she enjoys working on improving her home. Problems begin to develop when uninvited guests being to knock at their door to interrupt their secluded married life. Will these people ever stop coming? What do they want?

This is not a film to be watched like a regular film, it is not “linear” or even literal in any sense of the word, though it starts out that way. Mother! is a film filled with symbolisms, closer to the experience of watching an Alejandro Jodorwsky film, where you aren’t supposed to follow a story line in the traditional sense of the word, but instead, you are asked to interpret what you are watching so that you can understand what the director/writer is trying to say.  That Aronofksy has made this type of film shouldn’t surprise anyone, after all, this is the director of The Fountain (2006), also a risky film, filled with symbolisms. I say risky because American audiences aren’t used to films they have to interpret. American audiences are used to being spoon fed the plot, so I am not surprised that Mother! received such a cold reception at the box office. Aronofksy knew he was making a hard movie to sell, which is why I applaud him for taking the risk of making an honest film that will make us think. It’s so much more refreshing then repetitive dribble regularly projected in movie screens across the world.  

Paramount Pictures actually sent out a press release “apologizing” for Mother! saying that they recognize it isn’t a film for everybody, which is true. What I liked abot their press release was that they didn’t kick the movie in the gut, but rather, stood by it and its filmmaker, defending it by calling Mother! a bold film made by a director and actors at the top of their game.  The backlash from audiences has been brutal, but it’s probably because they don’t understand the film for what it is. I mean, sure its images are shocking, gory, and brutal, but what do they stand for? Could it be that it’s getting this backlash because it’s saying that Christianity is just as gory, shocking and brutal? I’m guessing that’s why it’s being lambasted. Because again, Christianity cannot deny that the savagery seen in the film actually reflects their own beliefs. It’s not nice looking in the mirror and realizing you’re a monster.

Kudos to Aronofsky for doing this. I mean, I was just as shocked as everyone while watching the movie and it succeeds in making you feel something, even if it is horrendous shock. But if you look past the shock, there’s something profound being said here. Not many filmmakers are as brave as Aronofsky.  People are saying its “the worst film they’ve ever seen” and that they “left the theater before it ended” but it’s not because its badly acted or because it doesn’t look beautiful. Lawrence and Bardem are amazing in it. The film looks as beautiful as any other Aronofksy movie, though darker and grimmer for sure. Still, it’s not a badly made film, far from it. 

Lawrence and Aronofksy working out a scene

People are saying its “bad” because they can’t take the shock. So if you can take shock, you’ll have no problem. If you can take strong themes, go see the movie. If you despise religion, politics and hive like mentalities, you’ll dig this film. But if you are a Christian, you’ll probably hate looking at your beliefs represented on film and you’ll hate the fact that you can’t deny that this is what the bible teaches. Awesome movie in my book. Go see it, test your boundaries then interpret what you’ve seen. I applaude Aronofsky and Paramount for making bold, different cinema, keep at it.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Noah (2014)

Title: Noah (2014)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman

Just so you guys know where I’m coming from with this review, I’m not a Christian, but I’ll watch movies like Noah because I love movies and I love how they attempt to wow us, how they comment on humanity and how they try to entertain us. Biblical movies are an interesting bunch because if done wrong, they will always end up pissing somebody off, probably a Christian. But to me, biblical movies are as entertaining as any other fantasy film, what matters to me when I watch any film is if it’s entertaining or moving somehow, if it has something to say. I went to see The Passion of the Christ (2005) to see what the big deal was all about and to my surprise I ended up being genuinely moved by some moments in the film. Any habitual film goer and book worm finds it interesting to see a book they’ve read come to life in some way, so that's the mentality I go with when I go see movies like this one.  So my status as ‘unbeliever’ does not stop me from enjoying films that deal with Christian themes. In fact, since I am a former Christian; I can enjoy them on a whole other level because I know the source material. I read the bible a couple of times back in my church going days, so I know the text and I know when a film is stretching the limits of their ‘artistic liberties’, case in point Aronofsky’s Noah and its myriad ways of telling a different story then the one depicted in the bible. On this review I pinpoint the specific elements that aren’t related to Noah’s tale, so if you don’t want certain elements spoiled for you, you’ve been warned!

For those of you who haven’t read the tale of Noah, this is the story of a man who is contacted by God himself. God tells him that he is going to be destroying every human on the planet because man had become evil, corrupt and violent. In other words, God wants to reboot humanity. Yet Noah and his family are lucky; In Gods eyes they are the only good people left in the whole entire planet. The bible says that Noah was “righteous” and “blameless” amongst the people of his time, so when god’s wrath comes down on the earth through a massive planet wide flood, Noah and his family will get a free ticket to survival. But before the rain starts to fall, God tells Noah to build an ark and put two of all the animals in the world in it so they will survive the flood. That’s the gist of it. And that's essentially what you'll get in this film, the problem is that along with it, you'll get a bunch of other elements that have nothing to do with the bible, in fact, they are so alien to the story of Noah that they just might completely take you out of the film. 

When it comes to biblical movies, as a filmmaker, you have to be very careful. You don’t won’t to deviate too far away from the source material because then you’ll have Christian’s boycotting your film and you don’t want that because it could mean the death of your film. You don’t want to anger your target audience, which is basically what this movie undoubtedly does. It has so many elements that are not in the bible! What elements am I talking about? Well, for example, in the film Anthony Hopkins plays Methuselah, who according to the bible was one of the oldest humans to ever exist, so okay, we’re good till there…but then Aronofsky gives Methuselah magical powers? Now I don’t find that all that weird because the bible actually acknowledges magic as being something real. The problem is that in Noah’s story, Methuselah is not a practitioner of magic! Now the bible talks about magicians and sorcerers, but it doesn’t say that Methuselah was one of them. The artistic liberties don’t stop there.

Then we have the most controversial element of the film, the giant rock creatures. I know right? Now strange creatures aren’t all that controversial to me when it comes to the bible because the bible talks about dragons, unicorns, creatures with ten heads, four faces and a whole cornucopia of strange beings, but the thing with the rock creatures that aid Noah in constructing the ark is that they are not in the bible, at all, and so right here is where Christians will put a screeching halt on this movie and say its heresy. I’ve yet to understand why Aronofsky chose to use these creatures as part of the story. I mean, did he do it on purpose to piss of Christians and get them to go to the movies? Was it to get everyone talking about it? Some sort of publicity stunt to get people talking furiously about the film? In either case, it’s a risky move because this could go either way. It could get  Christians to boycott the film and call Aronofksy the Antichrist, or it could make people want to see the film more. Now knowing how Christians react to films like this, I think it will make them see the movie in droves; just to see what the big deal was all about. But there’s no way of denying that Aronofsky took a huge risk here. 

To top things off, Aronofsky depicts Noah all wrong. You see, in this film Noah thinks that God is bringing the flood because he wants to completely eradicate humans from the face of the earth, when in reality, it’s the complete opposite. Allow me to explain. True; God does feel disappointed with humanity and wants to wipe them out, but in the bible, God clearly states to Noah that he wants for humanity and animals to continue living; I mean that’s the whole point behind saving the animals, so that after the flood is through they can roam the land once again and propagate, it goes without saying that God wants to save Noah and his family for the exact same reason. For all intents and purposes, God wants humanity to continue. But for some reason, Aronofsky’s Noah thinks he and his family are meant to be the last humans on the planet and that they are not to have babies? So when one of Noah’s family members becomes pregnant he thinks he has to kill the babies? That whole thing? So not in the bible! This course of action makes Noah look evil and crazy somehow. Now killing your children in the name of God is not something unheard of in the bible (just ask Abraham!) but again, this does not happen to Noah in the bible.

Now if you’re keen on reading between the lines and enjoy extrapolating on ideas and possible interpretations of what we see in films, then you might infer, as I have, that Aronofsky is actually trying to point at some particularly hard to swallow elements in the bible. Through Methuselah and his use of magic, Aronofsky points at the fact that in the bible, magic is real, and condemned, which is a preposterous idea in my book, hell even sorcerers are real in the bible. Through the now infamous rock creatures, Aronofsky seems to be saying we shouldn’t find them so strange, after all, the bible talks about talking snakes, giants roaming the earth and even dragons! By depicting Noah as a man who thinks he has to kill babies in the name of God, well, Abraham was going to do that at some point, which if you ask me is the craziest part of the bible, and one that I am completely against. Honestly, if God told me to kill my child I’d scream from the top of my lungs “HELL NO!”; yet I’ve personally met Christians who say they would kill their child if God asked them to. And to me that’s just crazy. So through his depiction of Noah, Aronofsky addresses issues of blind fanatism in religion.   

Aronofsky is one of my favorite filmmakers, he’s made some truly amazing films and the question remains, is Noah one of them? I’m not gonna say it’s a terrible film or badly acted or written, because it’s quite the opposite. The cast is amazing, the visual effects work astounding, the only real problem is that it’s not the story you might expect. Arnofsky takes incredible liberties with the text in order to say what he wants to say. There’s no doubt in my mind that these elements will irk some people out there. I’m just saying, if you’re going to see Noah, don’t expect to see the biblical story represented faithfully, Noah was just Aronofksy playing around with biblical themes and ultimately, if you ask me, pointing a finger at the more difficult to accept elements from the bible. Discuss!

Rating: 4 out of 5  

     

Black Swan (2010)

Title: Black Swan (2010)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis

Review:

Darren Aronofsky has this incredible ability to make films that play with premises that I would normally not care about. Yet somehow, the way he weaves his tale completely pulls me, and before I know it, voila! I’m hooked! This happened to me with Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (2008). When I first heard that Aronofsky was making a movie that took place in the world of wrestling, at first I was turned off by the idea. I was like what? I freaking hate wrestling! It’s so fake! Yet Aronofsky managed to pull me in with this incredibly personal and introspective story about an aging ex-wrestler trying to do what he loves, trying to recapture his glory days. And there I was, watching a movie about wrestling. And I was completely moved by its honesty and its emotion. Now here comes Black Swan, a film about a ballet dancer. And it happened again! I was like: what? Ballet? Seriously? Still, I’ve come to entirely trust Aronofsky as a director. He has never disappointed me with his films. Ever! Was Black Swan going to be his first one? Or would he wow us again with another amazing film?

Black Swan tells the story of a New York City ballet dancer named Nina (Portman) who really wants to make it. Her dream is to play the Swan Queen in a play called Swan Lake. She tries her best to impress the director of the play (Vincent Cassel) so that she will get her chance. Much to her surprise she is actually chosen! Finally, her dreams are coming true! Now she has to learn to deal with the pressures that come with participating in such a prestigious play. In the play, she has to perform the role of two characters at the same time, the White Swan and the Black Swan. One is innocent, the other more sensual and daring, edgy. The director of the play doesn’t think Portman has enough of an edge to play the Black Swan, so he is constantly pushing her to “let go” to “live” to let the dark side of her soul emerge and run wild. This is Portman’s struggle in the film; should she continue trying her best to be the good girl her mother wants her to be? Or should she live her life the way she wants to live it? Which side will win the battle?

Once again, Aronofsky succeeds in blowing me away. Black Swan, in my opinion is another stunning work of art in Aronofsky’s repertoire. In many ways, it’s similar to The Wrestler. They are both films about the working class, struggling to do what they love. They are both films about someone loving what they do so much, that they’d rather die doing it, then waste their lives doing something else. And they are both very personal stories. On both films, we follow a character closely, to the most intimate moments in their lives. The camera plays the role of the ultimate voyeur, always looming on top of the actors face, or behind them, following their every move. The similarities between both films do not end there. Originally, what Aronofsky wanted to make was one film in which a Wrestler falls for a Ballet dancer. Ultimately, The Wrestler ended up falling in love with a whore (played by Marisa Tomei) and Aronofsky separated that story into two films deciding that it would all have been too much for one movie. So in many ways, Black Swan can be seen as a companion piece to The Wrestler.

Aronofsky once again uses that documentary style that he used in The Wrestler, where the handheld camera is active all the time, following characters around. This story focuses mainly on Nataly Portman’s character, her struggles in trying to make it professionally. This is a girl who loves dancing and wants nothing more then to really make it, she wants to get a taste of greatness, of being recognized and appreciated. What I really loved about it though was that she also has to struggle with all these things that get in her way. The over protective mother, the rivalries with other dancers and her own psychological woes. It all builds up to that climactic moment when she finally achieves her goal, and you are right there with her when she makes it, you kind of get a taste of that greatness yourself. In this way the film was similar to many of Aronofsky’s other films, where events start to build momentum, slowly rising, in a crescendo, until by the films last frames we reach this amazing finale.

The film addresses themes that I wasn’t expecting. Like for example, the over protective mother who doesn’t let her daughter live her life and be herself. And this is really where the film caught me off guard because I thought it was only going to be about the struggles of a ballerina trying to make it, about following her dreams and all that. And it does address these themes, but as it turns out, the film explores a whole other group of themes as well. This is really the story of a sexually repressed girl who is so uptight, so wound up, and so conservative that she hasn’t really lived her life. Everyone keeps telling her to “relax and live a little”. So this is a story about someone learning to let go of all these rules that she lives by and learning to just have a little fun. She is the kind of girl who says she isn’t a virgin, but her shyness when it comes to talking about sex let’s us know otherwise. What I loved most about the movie was how Aronofsky compares the duality between the Black and White Swans in the play with the battle in the ballerinas’ life between being the good girl or the bad girl. That internal struggle is externalized in the play with both of the swans representing innocence and lust. Will she ever transform into who she’s really supposed to be?

The film is very dark, and at times it felt as if I was watching a Roman Polanski film. I make this comparison because like many Polanski films, Black Swan stars a female as the central character and this female is paranoid and unstable psychologically. Aronofsky plays with the notions of Natalie Portman’s character having a double, a doppelganger, so theres always that paranoia of “is someone watching me?” Aronofksy is always questioning the main characters mental state. I loved how he used mirrors on the film to illustrate her mental instability. And though it does feel like Polanskis The Tenant (1976) or Repulsion (1965) at times, it’s also very much a Darren Aronofsky film. I especially noticed this by the way he shot everything documentary style, and also because of how the film works itself up in a crescendo, by the end of the film both music and images have completely taken over. Even dialog falls into second place in the end. The direction, the shots, the editing is flawless.

By the way, I was not at all aware of it, but this “independent” film that comes to us from Fox Searchlight Pictures (20th Century Fox’s indie minded films division) was such a huge event! Well, at least here in Puerto Rico people are going to see this movie by the droves! I had not seen a line like that one at the art house theater in a loooong time! I was trying to pinpoint exactly what it was that was attracting so many people to the cinema to see Black Swan. Could it be the awesome poster? Natalie Portman? Darren Aronofsky as a director? Then it dawned on me, people are coming in droves to see this movie because they have heard that Portman pleasures herself and has oral sex with another woman in it. I guess that’s the main draw for most people. But to those that are going to see it for that reason alone, I can say this: you might be going to see Portman pleasure herself, but you will also be seeing another diamond in Darren Aronofsky’s directorial career. I have to wonder, what’s next for this amazing director?

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

Vincent Casell and Aronofsky talking out a scene