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

To The Wonder (2013)

Title: To the Wonder (2012)

Director: Terrence Malick

Cast: Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko, Javier Bardem, Rachel McAdams

Certain directors out there make films that are an experience to watch, these films don’t subscribe to any ideas of what a film should be, these types of films are made to be taken in without any expectations; you simply have to experience them. Films like these lean more towards the artistic, the ‘avante garde’, the experimental. I’m talking about guys like David Lynch, Werner Herzog or Andrei Tarkovsky, all directors, like Malick, who will show you that the world is beautiful and strange enough on its own, without the aid of special effects. These guys don’t make films with box office numbers in mind ; if their movies make money, it’s a by-product of the thing, what they care most about is making a film that will linger on after you watch it, a film that will stir your emotions; films that will leave a lasting impression on you. I urge you to watch films by these directors, you can rest assured they’ll leave a mark on your psyche and your emotions, because directors like these care most about making you feel while commenting on the little intricacies of the human condition.

The thing with directors like these is that depending on your appreciation/tolerance for art and style, you’ll either love their films or hate them. I fall under the ‘I freaking love Terrence Malick’ category. Why? Well, what can I say, the guy makes films that move me, that speak to me even when there is no dialog being spoken, which by the way is a signature stamp on Malick films; images take over and speak. “A picture can say more than a thousand words” is a phrase that comes to mind when I watch a Malick film; what I love about the beautiful vistas and landscapes that Malick catches with his lenses is that they speak about that beauty of nature that leaves us speechless; you know how sometimes you’ll look at a spectacular sunset, or bask in the beauty of nature and you can’t help but be blown away by the magnificence of it all? About how beautiful it all is? That’s what To the Wonder is largely about, a love letter to nature and the beauty of life, which is in large part what TheTree of Life (2011), Malick’s previous film, was all about as well. But while The Tree of Life focused entirely on the magnificence of life, To the Wonder dives more into themes of relationships and faith. It is both things, a love letter to life and an exploration of the ins and outs of love.

On this film we meet Neil (Affleck) and Marina (Kurylenko) precisely at the moment when they have started to fall in love with each other, you know, those moments when physical attraction is the strongest and people can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves? When the smallest of caresses means a world, that time of the relationship when you feel you’re walking on air, ah, the beauty of the beginning. The film is amazing in that it focuses on those little details that demonstrate that these two individuals are really into each other, the looks, the caresses. But again, Malick doesn’t focus so much on dialog, it’s not what these characters say but what they do that lets us know what is going on. We do hear inner monologue as the characters whisper to themselves how they are feeling, so be ready for a film that doesn’t have people saying “I love you” or “I trust you”; nope, one this movie characters show these things with their actions towards each other. For example, in the film, Affleck has a fling with Rachel McAdams and she’s a horse wrangler, a cow girl every step of the way; she’s fallen deeply in love with Affleck, but he doesn’t want to settle down. She wants to marry him and she’s trying to sort of reel him into it, the same way she would wrangle her untamable wild horses. All a visual allegory to how Affleck’s character doesn’t want to get tied down by marriage. Malick does this type of allegorical thing with the images all throughout.

I’ve always thought that relationships, no matter how strong the bond is at first, have an expiration date to them. I am of the opinion that nothing lasts “forever”, to me everything changes, which is why I don’t believe in marriage. Why get tied down to someone legally, when eventually both grow tired of each other? Everything starts out fine and dandy, but around the four to five year mark you’ll start annoying the hell out of each other to the point where one can’t stand being with the other. But I digress, I'm sure marriage works for some, but what I have seen in this world, it rarely does. The film targets those first blissful moments of the beginning of a relationship and those awful moments when the magic is gone and you’re left with nothing but hatred and contempt for each other.  There is a scene in which Affleck is trying to hug and caress his wife and she pushes him away, a scene in which we see that obviously, the love is gone. Why do people forget why they fell in love with each other? Why do we forget what made it all work in the first place? Then there’s the issue of freedom, which you kind of loose once you are entangled with someone. In the film, Marina is a free spirit, always dancing and basking in the beauty of nature while Affleck is detached, quiet and introspective. In one particular scene, Marina’s best friend comes from France and tells her to go back to being the free spirit that she is, to go back to France and feel alive! In this scene Malick alludes to how Marina’s relationship to Affleck has degenerated to the point where the relationship sucked the vitality out of her. She’s no longer the crazy, free spirited being she once was. So is being with somebody “forever and ever” a good thing for you, or will it end up being a soul sucking experience? You be the judge; I’m sure there’s such a thing as eternal love for another person, it’s just so damn rare. But anyhow, these are the themes the film explores in regards to relationships.

Through the character of Father Quintana; Malick explores issues of faith. It’s interesting because in the film Quintana is a person whom people look up to as a spiritual leader, yet secretly, he doubts the existence of god. It’s not that he doesn’t believe in God, it’s just that he’s never had any real proof of his existence, he wants to believe but has no physical or empirical evidence to do so. This is something that happens to people who start to question faith; secretly in your mind you tell yourself it’s all feeling like a bunch of bull, but you don’t dare say it out loud for fear that someone might discover you are beginning to doubt God. In Father Quintana’s case, his doubt is starting to show on his face; so much so that his own parishioners begin to tell him he doesn’t look happy. His doubts are so strong, he feels his life as a preacher is a lie. Yet while the film does question the existence of God, at the same time it’s an ode to the wonder of the world, the beauty of nature and the planet which is something real and undeniable. There are many scenes in which the camera simply focuses on the beauty of a breathtaking landscape or some curious thing that happens in the world, like the wind blowing through the trees, or the water forming odd shapes on the sand. The way I see it, Malick sees the world the way I see it, as a constant wonder, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant the event, according to this film, there’s beauty in everything and Malick wants you to see that. Without a doubt, one of the most beautiful looking films of the year.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Skyfall (2012)

Title: Skyfall (2012)

Director: Sam Mendez

Cast: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris

Review:

Through the decades, various directors have taken a stab at directing a Bond film. Usually directors  chosen to direct a Bond film are not what you’d call “popular” or well known directors. Usually they are directors who have made a successful action film at some point and so they are given the opportunity to take Bond for a spin, but it’s not like we’ve seen a Bond film directed by Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson.  Most Bond directors can almost be labeled as anonymous in the industry; they’ve done a successful film or two, but they aren’t house hold names. It seems that with this new cycle of Bond films, producers are attempting to change that; Skyfall was directed by Sam Mendes, the director behind such amazing films as American Beauty (1999), and Revolutionary Road (2008), two films that have nothing to do with action or espionage, yet are extremely well written, acted and directed. He was also the director behind Road to Perdition (2002), a gangster film that was also heavy on the drama. So I think it’s great that for Skyfall we get a director with a solid background on drama, taking that into consideration, what did Mr. Mendes bring to the world of Bond?   

On this Bond film, Bond has to protect ‘M’ from an old foe who wants to exact revenge on her and all of MI-6. Problem is that Bond has taken something of a sabbatical and is simply enjoying the life, hanging out at the beach, getting drunk, partying. He is taking advantage of the fact that the folks at MI-6 think he is dead. But when M’s life is suddenly in peril, Bond decides to step out of the shadow life he’s been living to protect M; considering how out of shape he is in, can Bond still be Bond? Is Bond as indestructible as he’s always been?

One of the elements that I’ve enjoyed the most about the new Bond films is that Bond isn’t the indestructible super spy he’s been in previous films. Unbelievable as it may seem, Bond’s only gotten shot in two of his films and Skyfall is one of them; so we can deduce that Skyfall aims to make Bond a more vulnerable character. On these last three bond films Casino Royale (2006), Quantum of Solace (2008) and now Skyfall, Bond has been portrayed as a hero with an element of mortality to him, he makes mistakes, he gets beaten to a pulp by villains, in fact, on Skyfall he is practically falling apart, no longer able to pass the physical test that MI-6 gives to its operatives. But I like that about this new Bond, it makes him a bit more real and therefore, more interesting. On this one we get a partied out Bond who’s having a hard time readjusting to the secret agent lifestyle.  Daniel Craig does a great rendition of Bond; dare I say that he has proven himself to be one of the best and most credible Bonds ever? Well, yes, I do dare say it, because that’s exactly what he’s become. When I compare Craig’s Bond with the old ones, the old ones feel like cartoon versions of Bond, while this new one feels so much more credible and serious. He doesn’t have that smirk on his face so much, he’s not about the classic one liners. He comes off as a Bond with lots of inner turmoil. 

  

Actually, you will notice that this film makes fun of the way the old movies were, for example, when ‘Q’  gives Bond his new weapons, Bond asks “is that it? A gun and a radio?” and Q answers “What did you expect; pens with lasers shooting out of them? We don’t do that sort of thing anymore” making an obvious statement at how much more realistic these next batch of Bond films will be. To be honest I welcome this more realistic rendition of Bond…for now. Chances are that at some point Bond will revert to that jokey version of himself at some point? Who knows, all I know is that right now, I like this super serious version. Daniel Craig does a fantastic job on this one. The filmmakers behind Skyfall have not only humanized Bond more, they’ve also made this film decidedly less technological. By that I mean, Bond doesn’t have all these unbelievable gadgets like exploding toothpaste or cars that turn invisible. On this there’s less unbelievable gadgets; things are made more difficult for Bond this time around. In fact, the car Bond gets on this one is a Silver 1965 Aston Martin DB5, no doubt it looks stylish and slick, but it’s very retro, not cutting edge. It does shoot missiles out of it though, so we still get that. But in many ways, this stylish yet old car represents Daniel Craig’s Bond, he’s growing old, yet he’s still got it, he can still kick ass. 

And what is Bond without a good villain and a good cast of characters to populate his world? For years now we’ve had the same actress play ‘M’ the motherly brains behind MI-6, I speak of course of the awesome Judi Dench. But it’s time for her to move on, and I found it interesting how they’ve structured a whole Bond film around M’s retirement. It gives the filmmakers a chance to show the mother/son relationship that M and Bond have always had. Bond’s an orphan, so he sees M as his mother and she sees him as her son. The dynamics that stem from that relationship offer us some of the most heartfelt moments on this Bond film, this is something rare in a Bond film; heartfelt moments. But we do get those, because thanks to the involvement of director Sam Mendes, this film has an emphasis on drama and characterization. This Bond film isn’t about saving the world, this is a more personal film, with a villain who has a more personal agenda in mind. It’s a different type of Bond film in that sense. We get a mad man, but his vendetta is personal. Javier Bardem eats up the screen whenever he’s on proving once again that he is one of the best actors of his generation.  I mean, I loved how this film has such an amazing cast, we even get Ralph Fiennes playing the new ‘M’. So expect a Bond film whose emphasis isn’t so much in action, but more in characterization, good performances and a well developed story. It might not be the most action packed of the Bond films, but it’s brilliantly acted, you might find yourself more invested in the characters with this film. But fear not action lovers, the film does have some spectacular action scenes, the opening of the film for example is a good twenty minutes of nonstop action. 

It’s no surprise that Skyfall has turned out to be one of the most successful of all Bond films. It’s a well made film, with an amazing cast. Sam Mendes has made a Bond film that pays its respects to everything that came before it, while shaking things up and establishing a whole slew of new characters for future films.  Sam Mendes also infused this film with a great visual flare, there are lots of colors, beautiful locations and vistas, the images conjured up are simply beautiful. Aesthetically speaking, this is one good looking Bond film. The opening credit sequence with Adele singing her bond song, awesome visuals! That opening montage was one of my favorite things about the film. It’s like we get the elements that make a traditional Bond film (gadgets, bond girls, sex, martinis, cars and bullets) but with enough new stuff to keep us on our toes. Skyfall redefines Bond movies for years to come; it shakes the status quo of things, nothing is the same after this one, for this and many other reasons, it’s a special Bond film, highly recommend checking it out in theaters.

Rating:  5 out of 5

Biutiful (2010)

Title: Biutiful (2010)

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Cast: Javier Bardem, Maricel Alvarez

Review:

What I like most about Alejandro Gonzalez Inaritu’s films is that they have this enhanced feeling of reality to them. It’s not only the documentary style he uses or how he lights them, or the excellent performances he squeezes out of his actors, which are all attributes that I love from his films; no, what I really love about Inarritu’s films is what happens in them; because when you watch an Inarritu film, you feel like you’re getting a slice of raw realism placed before your eyes. Inarritu’s films are filled with the kind of realism that most Hollywood films shy away from. Sometimes when I watch a film, and I see for example a character living in a house or driving a car that’s obviously way out of the characters financial reach, I feel disconnected and cheated. I mean, sometimes you can just tell that the filmmakers are putting their characters in these unrealistic situations just so the film can look pretty and so the characters end up surrounded by huge houses and expensive cars that only Hollywood can buy. Unfortunately, both you and I know that in films like those, real life isn’t being represented. This is something that does not happen in Inarritu’s films, where the common man, the poor man, lives in a humble home and has very little food to eat. Inarritu's characters wear worn out clothes and have to struggle to survive.

Poverty is a theme that not a lot of filmmakers like to address, or more appropriately Hollywood doesn’t like address. Why? Because poverty by nature is an extremely sad thing, real poverty and the kind of lives that real poor people live can bring you to tears...and the masses (read: the grand majority of people) want to go to the movies to laugh and to be entertained. There are exceptions of course. That scene in The Pursuit of Happiness (2006) for example, where Will Smith’s character ends up having to sleep in a public restroom with his son because he has no money, I bet you choked up with that one didn’t ya? Or how about that scene in Cinderella Man (2006) where Russell Crow’s character doesn’t have a job and all he has to give to his kids for dinner is a slice of salami? I know that one got the waterworks going for me, and with good reason. Damn, we can even go as far back as Chaplin and his tramp eating a shoe during New Years Eve in Chaplins Gold Rush (1925). Situations like these happen in the world every day, and worse, and its sad that this is so. Yes folks, poverty is a sad ugly thing that many choose to ignore, but not Inarritu.

Javier Bardem plays Uxbal, a hustler with no money to feed the kids

I love it when films explore the dark sad side of life, because all that sadness and darkness is part of the world we live in. What’s the point of ignoring it when we can learn something from it? Inarritu is a filmmaker that knows this and has become a champion of the dark side of life. From day one in his career back when he made his first film Amores Perros (2001), I fell in love with his style of filmmaking. It felt real somehow. You felt like these characters could very well exist in the real world. And they act and talk like real people, not an ounce of dialog feels unnatural. Inarritu’s films are filtered through the sadness and despair of real life. It’s why his films are so refreshing.

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

In Biutiful we meet Uxbal, a hustler. This is a character rooted in duality, he is equal times a good guy and a bad guy. He’s a bad guy because he works running a sweat shop that employs illegal immigrants in the production of cheap imitations of big name brand products. Basically they make imitation purses, watches, sun glasses, you know the drill. He delivers the dirty money used to pay the police so they can sell these things on the streets without getting caught. He makes sure his workers have a place to sleep and are paid for their work. But he is also a good guy in the sense that he is a family man, and he is trying to give his children a better life. But no matter how much he tries, he just can’t seem to get out of the rut he is in. He barely has enough money to put some decent food on the table for his kids. One heart breaking scene has his kids begging for a good dinner, and all he has to give them is a bowl of cereal. As he pours the milk on it, he says “heres your steak and your potatoes”

So yeah, the film is about poverty and about money (or lack of it) and of how the world we live in has people back stabbing each other for it. It’s kind of similar to No Country for Old Men (2007) in that sense. Almost every single character in Biutiful is looking for a way to make that little extra cash by cheating, lying and betraying others. This is the kind of world we live in. Uxbal himself is always trying to take a little for himself, he takes money from the money he is supposed to give to the cops, he takes money that’s given to him to run the business. He does this in order to feed his family. He’s the kind of character that looks for the cheap solution to whatever problem, just so he can have some money left for his responsibilities as a father. He steals so that he can feed his kids, this is the kind of situation that he has been forced into. And it’s the kind of movie this is, actually it’s the kind of movie Inarritu has been making from the beginning where he shows us the lengths and risks that the poor will take to make some extra dough. Biutiful is a movie that shows us how the world we live in forces people to live this way. Does the world have to be like this? Why is Uxbal and his family struggling like this? Why can’t Uxbal get out of the rut?

Which brings me to the films title: Biutiful. The title of the film accentuates what it’s really about. The lack of education and the need for it in order to get out of the proverbial hole. One scene has Uxbal’s daughter ask him how to write the word ‘beautiful’ in English and Uxbal writes it the way it sounds in Spanish: Biutiful. It is misspelled, accentuating in this way the need for education in order to have a better life. But education is currently under attack in the world we live in, schools are being shut down, the price you have to pay for Higher Education has gone up to astronomical prices, hell, right now even federal grants are in danger of being taken away in some countries. And so, for me, Biutiful was trying to show us how much Education is needed for the poor to get out of poverty. My question is: why is higher education becoming so inaccessible to the less fortunate? Is there some sort of master plan to keep education out of the reach of the poor? If it is, then families like the one seen in Biutiful will continue to multiply. Yes, Biutiful is a bleak picture, the kind of film where nothing but bad things happen to the main character, so be ready for that.

And yet another theme that Biutiful addresses is death. Uxbal is a character stricken by cancer. He’s case is pretty hopeless, cancer has practically eaten him up, so much so that he urinates blood. So this urges him to do something for his kids, save money for them, because ultimately, that’s all that matters when you are a parent. The well being of your kids. When you are about to leave this world, you want to leave something for them, make sure they will be okay when you die. Sadly, in this difficult and complex world we live in, where ‘the people’ are the ones that have to end up paying for their governments economical “crisis’s” and “deficits” even that becomes a difficult task.

Rating: 5 out of 5