You are literally too stupid for this film

You are literally too stupid for this film.

Other urls found in this thread:

ew.com/movies/2017/09/17/mother-darren-aronofsky-burning-questions-answered/
nationalreview.com/article/451398/mother-brads-status-explore-inner-demons-insecurities
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I watched this today and it was the most kinographic experience of my life
Haven't felt this way about a movie since Under the Skin
Unironically Bravo Aronofski

Jlaw can't act
Shit taste

Yeah, pretty good film. I had feared he lost it after seeing Noah, but Mother! turned out to be great again.

what is it about anyway?

>pirate central
No one's seen it

Husband and wife live in a house in the middle of nowhere. Man shows up, husband allows him to move in ... then his wife moves in, the sons show up, etc.
Wife is helpless as she has to watch more and more people intruding into her home and private life... and then it turns crazy.

its about the bible, duh.

you godless heathen

and that, yes.

care to expand on the bible stuff?

i think that's a little simplistic. its about the relationship between god, man, and earth. doesn't have to be taken as metaphors for literal parts of the bible

>I've got this really ambitious artistic idea for a movie that will require some good acting
Who the fuck thinks to cast Jennifer lawrence?

The people visiting are fanatic followers of the husband, who is a writer and "creator". He pretty much is God, while the wife is the biblical woman who is not allowed to defy the man and has to suffer terrible sacrifices.

she has such a weird face in this poster

were there any lovecraftian themes in it?

>who is not allowed to defy the man
she could have any time she wanted, the loser from ex machina even said so

That's one ugly ass poster

I don't think it's that people are too stupid, per se, it's just that American education doesn't require the amount of exposure to Kafka that is needed to fully appreciate the fever-dream madness of this film

So it's Kafkaesque?

If you think JLaw is the reason people who hate this move hate it, you clearly didn't see it.

People shitting on it is because they want all their plots clearly, traditionally structured and they want meaningless stories about vague ideas like we get with modern day capeshit and other action movies.

Maybe it's because they eat a baby in the movie.

Undoubtedly. Would compare to Das Schloss for the feelings of alienation and subservience, and would certainly compare it with Ein Hungerkunstler.

J Law is great in this. Best horror movie of 2017

you mean the Body of Christ?

The person I saw it with said: "that was the worst movie I've ever seen! Was it a dream or wasn't it?" These people never ask if transformers or The Avengers etc are dreams even though they have fantastical elements, but something that literally shows a bunch of people walking out of the forest and into the house is "too weird, where were the roads?"

MOTY 2017

>Under the Skin

BASED TASTE

People are put off by it from what I've heard. It's not even about the meaning or anything.

This movie is unironically kafkaesque.

It helps that in The Avengers it makes sense in universe. Not that it's a good movie, but you can't really wonder why people don't think it's a dream.

Reading people's 'interpretations' of this is a reminder that film audiences are still decades behind theatre audiences when it comes to understanding storytelling.

If you put this story on as a play (ignoring the logistical impossibility of that), no-one would bat an eyelid. Very few people would go off about how 'insane' it was, or produce shit-awful takes like "well that one guy was [biblical character] and this represents Mother Nature", because the audience would already grasp that the boundaries between literal, allegorical, and sensory aren't fixed or strict - and that they are there to be taken on a journey of imagination, not to try and decode a cipher or play spot the reference.

Film audiences are still terrible at this shit because film as a technique is all too eager to hold them back, disguising its own artifice in every cut. Theatre, on the other hand, can't even pretend to represent reality, so has instead been working with the sophisticated interplay of meaning and craft for decades now. Anyone who's up to speed on modern playwriting won't find Mother! a particularly challenging watch.
I really respect what Aronofsky did with it, though. I got out of the theatre about an hour ago, but (and this has rarely ever been more literally accurate) it is the sort of film you want to watch again immediately after finishing it.

1. Whats the deal with that octopus that was blocking the toilet?

2. Why was JLaw getting woozy and drinking that yellow medicine all the time? And why did she tip it away towards the end?

3. Why was the guy's blood acidic? Is it just to serve as a reminder that "hell" exists?

You must be shilling or you're actually unironically reddit and a normie. Noah was great and is pleb filter.

Mother! Was 1000 times worse

Jlaw was shit in it though, her rape face is laughable and hunger games shit tier.

Noah had the possibly great conflict between the Mickey Rourke character and Noah. However, there was too much bullshit around it - I could have done without the biblical phantasy stuff...

America was smart enough to not waste their money to go see it. Kudos to America!

The moral of the story is that J Law is a fucking terrible actress.

Is your point supposed to be that she was good or appropriately cast in the movie? Otherwise take your self fellating post and fuck off.

So it's about illegal immigration?

God and earth live together before people exist. Then adam is created, then eve. They eat the forbidden fruit and the garden is sealed off. More people show up on earth. Eventually god and earth make jesus. People kill jesus and eat his body for communion.

you had ONE job ARONFSKY! Don't hire meme actresses and ya failed.

There's actually a TV spot like that on Austrian Televsion. So, yes.

Jlaw was fine. Criticism of young actresses currently exists in some kind of weird autism soup where a bad performance exists not in failing to achieve the director's wishes, or in failing to convincingly perform humanity, but in the viewer's vague and slurred mental reactions to her making the "wrong sound" or the "wrong face" and just generally not matching up to an ill-defined ideal performance (i.e. existing).

What kinds of plays use that kind of ambiguous storytelling? I'm interested. Also, how does a playwright write a play like that, if they don't have a concrete story/allegory in mind? Like, how do they decide what happens and how characters ought to behave?

First post right post. mother! is the most effective pleb filter yet.

Yeah, it annoys me when people are proudly connecting characters with obvious biblical parallels, and just saying shit like "it's just the story of the bible!" without any awareness that there's so much more to pull from it and that the allegory is just one element of the film. Lots of facile interpretations.

Quick Sup Forums. name something more lazy than bible references.

This film was too stupid for me, and I enjoyed Pooty Tang.

I consider Aronofsky one of the greatest directors of our time. I have watched his films countless times in order to decipher their meaning and I can say with utmost certainty that Mother! is his best film yet.
Too bad Sup Forums is filled with brainlets that cannot appreciate art.

I don't understand. Nolan makes an experimental war movie. He gets critical acclaim.

Aronofsky does the same thing but gets mixed reviews.

Is it that people dislike overt Symbolisms being used to tell the story in movies?

>Nolan makes an experimental war movie.
>hurr muh achronology

This is true hackery right here.

I'm convinced Sup Forums's hate for this movie right now is just part of a contrarian tug-o-war. Opening night was practically nothing but praise, and now we're in the me, an intellectual rebuttal. It'll probably balance out to the tomato meter with slightly more than half approving here, and a vocal group shutting it down anytime it gets discussed

Yes brainlet, that's the only unique aspect of the movie. I think Snyder maybe will be more suitable for you.

pretty sure its just shitposting

either that or butthurt Snyderfags who literally cant discuss anything other than BvS

Spot on. I just came out of my second screening, there is so much more to get from it once you get past its allegorical value. Reminded me of a theatre play too.

>Kafkaesque

Yes, you could say that this movie is indeed "Kafkaesque"

I had avoided all trailers and advertisements for this movie except for one headline that said that JLaw said this film was about climate change. Went in looking for that, so the Christian stuff was going over my head, but by a third of the way through the film gave up looking for any meaning and had a genuinely fun time.

There's religious symbolism and contemporary issues at hand, sure, but as a home invasion genre film I think it stood on its own

>I have watched his films countless times in order to decipher their meaning
what kind of brainlet has to watch any of aronofsky's hamfisted flicks more than once in order to "decipher their meaning"?

What's not to understand? I feel like the only people who don't get what it's about are the ones with a minimal knowledge of the Bible. I guess I can understand how it would be confusing to them, but there is no excuse for anyone else.

based capeshitter

Casting couch movie.
Literally. Aronofsky made this so that he could fuck Lawrence. And he did.

People dislike paying to watch some atheist jew shit all over their religion, which is what most normie audiences will take this as.

it's all due to marketing. audiences dont like it when they're lied to. DUNKIRK was marketed correctly and did extemely well, MOTHER was marketed as a horror film/thriller so of course normies got rustled when it was a pretentious arthouse flick about religious dogmas and mankind's destructive nature. for previous examples of misleading marketing leading to similar audience animosity cf. THE VVITCH, SPRING BREAKERS, DRIVE, RULES OF ATTRACTION...

Does JLaw get naked in this or what?

Even if it's the director saying it?

ew.com/movies/2017/09/17/mother-darren-aronofsky-burning-questions-answered/

The (pretty contrived, actually) ecological angle is secondary, and I doubt it's either a) to be taken literally (it would mean we're at the end of times) b) really that much important, if he didn't say anything we wouldn't think of it

To be fair the movie is placed as a psycological horror. So one would go see it without the same aspetactions of a Jodorowski trip.

my normie audience didnt get the religious stuff AT ALL. it's so obvious but the whole time they were whispering WHY IS HE DOING THAT? and WHY IS SHE DOING THIS? it was hilarious. not a very good film but a 10/10 experience in the theater.

She gets punched in the face so hard her tits pop out

she wears a lot of see-through shirts.

>guy's blood

I think that had to do with a stain inflicted on the house that would never go away without blowing up the whole house. It was like the original sin in the house. Literally it's Cain and Abel, which I believe is the first real breaking of the golden rule.

The problem is that Nolan didn´t cast a shit tier actress that only plebs like

Lawrence brought in the exact kind of audience that would hate a movie like this.

Nolan cast Harry Styles though.

Does this movie really shit on Christianity? (not that I'm against that, but I'd rather not embolden sjw shit with my money right now).

Depends on your point of view. A christian would definitely say it does, an atheist would probably say it's justified, and a normie isn't going to think about this movie beyond how awful it is. It's already all over conservative media the same way Noah got Christian groups riled up.

Nobody's saying there aren't biblical parallels, the point is that they're pretty obvious and there's quite a lot more in a performance than that. The allegory is simply a literary device which works towards larger themes.

She's not earth, she's the gnostic demiurge/Sophia (yep, it's a "simplified" allegory). It wanted to bear a Messiah because the world it created was slightly imperfect, which should be a big enough hint by itself.
In the actual gnostic theogony the messiah actually worked, in the movie... well, you know how it went. At the same time, whoever wasn't redeemed by this Christ was to be purged in fire.
It's worth remembering that at the end of the movie it seems he recreates her, but not the house/earth.

There are subtler hints, actually, but that's in a nutshell.

Mother nature as just, well, nature, wouldn't really give a fuck about not!Christ, wouldn't her?

Aronofsky answers your first two questions in the EW interview posted by The blood kinda makes symbolic sense if you envision the brothers as cain and abel and the murder as having the significance it does in that biblical story.

Who should the role have gone to instead of Jlaw?

The way it shits on Christianity could be this:

God first creates nature apart from life, then creates life and humans. Humans destroy the beauty of nature, but God lets them continue to be for His own hubris.

It doesn't necessarily shot on Christianity, but more the problem with sinful humans and God's unwillingness to forcefully stop them from destroying His first creation

hp lovecraft

I do say there aren't. It's LITERALLY the Bible, in a surrealist way.

The only other theme is "climate change" but it's very secondary and debatable (I don't recall a clear hint in there, honestly, I would venture to say he was inspired by that to the apocalypse part).

No, I don't but the artist angle.

Well... yes. In the sense the christians are faceless fools, and the birth and subsequent of not!Christ is somehow meaningless.

At the same time the jewish parts are more in the realm of, shall we say, respectful up to a certain point.

Nothing personnel.
nationalreview.com/article/451398/mother-brads-status-explore-inner-demons-insecurities

>be american liberal
>get triggered at a baby being eaten at the end an r rated movie
Jesus it's not like the baby got raped

t. a Serbian

Most people don't know anything about religion.

>the woman said it was about Non-Offensive Topic X
Hmmmm

Someone who can act.

I think the thing in the toilet is a reference to the gnostics as well. The first attempt to create the world results in, you guessed it, an abortion.

Emma Roberts

biblical parallels in movies make me yawn

Controversies aside, was this a decent flick? Worth seeing in theaters?

>Under the skin

And I was actually hopeful for this movie.

Anyone but that hacktress Watson

Honestly, I'd need to rewatch it, didn't get the bible thing after 1/2 of the movie at the very least (I mean, I didn't get it was a total allegory, not just some parallels). As of now it's like having watched half the movie in an unknown language without subtitles and the second half with them on.

Actually as art thing I suppose you'd say that a movie that generally makes you think "oh, NOW I get it, need to rewatch" is a success anyway.

>abortion is a right
>eating a newborn is fucked up bruh!

Without going deep into plot, I found the movie entertaining by it being such a fever dream in terms of pace and visuals.

God is an egotistic cunt in the film so yea kind of.

Is he actually? He seemed shallow but very forgiving of humans. Too much, actually.

I mean, yes, he doesn't give a fuck about her (or especially about the house), but at the same time he seemed genuinly in love with his readers.

Re: climate change: JLaw is the one that said that, but Aronofsky (whom she probably misquoted) said it was about "the problems on our planet". Simple liberal JLaw must've taken that to mean "duh, climate change", but characters in this film are named things like Pilferer, Whore Monger, Sex Slave, Adulterer, Drunkard, Executioner, etc.

Aronofsky clearly thinks that there is a lot wrong with the world and he is trying to express all of the things that he thinks will be this planet's ruin, but his girlfriend seems to think there is only one thing that this movie is trying to talk about.

This. I liked how they went with that. It would be easy to make 'God' just egotistical and narcissistic prick but instead he's benevolent. In fact, too benevolent to a fault

Because they are in love with him. God is flawed is obsessed with himself, so much that he models humans exclusively after himself. As a consequence the human being is flawed as well. The solution is obvious though, if he would model humans after jennifer lawrence's character they would be more compassionate and loving. He can't do that though because of his own egomania. In a way God is more like the biblical Satan in the film, he has too much pride.

not as kino as requiem.