A Divisive Movie’s Deeper Message
TORONTO — “‘Mother!’ will likely be 2017’s most hated movie,” declared the Verge, while others called it “brilliant” and “an unparalleled achievement.” “It’s a hoot!” A. O. Scott wrote in The New York Times.
On screen, the director Darren Aronofsky has conjured up all manner of ghoulish misbehavior in “Requiem for a Dream” and “Black Swan.” “Mother!,” a parable hidden in a horror flick, tops them easily. What starts as a home invasion-psychological thriller ends in flaming nightmare surrealism, stuffed with themes that divided, and mystified, critics.
With a reported $30 million budget and an artistic sensibility usually reserved for the indie crowd, it’s a wild gamble as a major release for its studio, Paramount. Even with the benefit of two Oscar winners in a usually surefire genre, and the frisson of a romance between the director and the leading lady, “Mother!” underperformed its modest box office estimates after opening in the United States on September 15. But it could be the slow-burn conversation piece of the year, with high-profile defenders including food critic Anthony Bourdain, “Star Wars” director Rian Johnson and comedian Chris Rock.
On the surface, it’s about a couple, Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, in a secluded house. He’s a poet, with one major hit but troubled by writer’s block; she is renovating their home, forever tidying up. Their placid life is dismantled by hordes of uninvited guests. All the symbolism — packed with religious iconography, celebrity culture and military-industrial-state overtones — is in service of one grander idea, the allegory that moved Mr. Aronofsky to write the script in an uncharacteristically prolific five- day stretch. “I just pounded through it, kind of like a fever dream,” he said.
But the allegory seems to have eluded many viewers, and Mr. Aronofsky and Ms. Lawrence disagreed about how much to reveal. “He wants people to go in blind,” she said, which she felt was a shame. “You’re going to miss all of the detail and all of the brilliance behind the whole movie,” she said. “My advice is to understand the allegory.”
Mr. Aronofsky favored an unsuspecting audience, the better to enable interpretations, or astonish. But, he said, looking at Ms. Lawrence, his girlfriend, “She can do whatever she wants. She’s a genius marketer and clearly doesn’t need any career advice from anyone.”
So, let’s follow her lead. Thematic spoilers ahead, but the movie will still surprise. “Mother!” is about Mother Earth ( Ms. Lawrence) and God (Mr. Bardem), whose poetic hit has the weight of the Old Testament: hence all the visitors clamoring for a piece of Him, as his character is called. The house represents our planet. The movie is about climate change, and humanity’s role in environmental destruction.
Mr. Aronofsky pitched Ms. Lawrence the concept, which she liked, yet she was taken aback by the script, which wreaks havoc on her character. “When I first read it,” she said, “I didn’t even want it in my house. I thought it was evil, almost.” She’d never encountered anything like it. She said: “I agreed with the
Jennifer Lawrence’s ‘Mother!’ is already loved and loathed.
film’s message wholeheartedly. It’s an assault, and it needs to be.”
A l t er nat i ve i nter pret at i ons abound, though, including Mr. Bardem’s. He acknowledged the environmental symbolism, but said that for him, the idea that resonated the most was what he called “the birth of a religion as a cult,” which divides more than it unites.
Other views lean on the relationship between the older, brilliant but narcissistic artist and his adoring, if unfulfilled, gorgeous young partner. Mr. Bardem is 48, the same as Mr. Aronofsky; Ms. Lawrence is 27. Mr. Aronofsky bristled at the suggestion that the screen dynamic might be mirroring real life. “How could it? Our relationship didn’t start until after the film happened,” he said. “You know, we just had a great time together, and that’s it.”
Ms. Lawrence laughed. “Can’t you tell from the movie?” The demands on her were substantial: in the two-hour film, she is in close-up for 66 minutes. Even the sounds of the ravaged house — like creaking floorboards — are her voice, digitally manipulated.
And a harrowing sequence near the end of the film took a toll. “I’ve never had to go that dark,” she said, even in the similarly transgressive child- reaping “Hunger Games.” Filming the scene, she hyperventilated, tore her diaphragm and had to be put on oxygen.
“It’s a hard movie to watch,” Ms. Lawrence said, adiing: “I was like, my brothers can’t see this. And there are moments where you go, why? Why take it that far? And for me the answer comes afterward, after the images are burning so bright, and you’re left with that feeling, that visceral feeling — that’s why.”