DUDE BIBLICAL ALLEGORIES

>DUDE BIBLICAL ALLEGORIES
For real though this is the best movie to come out this year and is a confirmed pleb filter.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1BqoNdQ8aeg
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x/full
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Hamfisted religious references = moty for you?
Sad.

Logan is undoubtedly better and I haven't even seen Momma! yet.

>Hamfisted religious references = moty for you?

Yes, ever wonder why all these faggots love BvS so much?

Is Logan your MOTY?

It's up there. But I've fallen behind and still have a lot of flicks to see this year. And some stuff coming down the pipe looks promising.

Someone spoil the message for me. Is it anti-catholic?

I thought Logan was good but I wouldn't even put it in my top 5 this year. I'm seeing Mother tomorrow and even from the so-so trailer I still think it'll be better than Logan. Different strokes I guess

No, it's just biblical references for the sake of having them. Amateur filmmakers assume that the mere placement of references to the Bible or Christianity in your film will elevate it as an artform. This is no the case.

It's anti-religion

I'd say it's more environmentalist than anti-catholic. However God in the film can be seen as a dick or a misunderstood guy

it's not a biblical allegory, it's an allegory for the current state of global politics

"he" is the liberal/left/sjw/marxist with his egotism, narcissism and borderline suicidal egalitarianism, "she" is the right/conservative/traditionalist as she's oblivious of her husband's ulterior motives and the scheming of the guests, she's hard working and attached to her property and wants to build off of what's already there instead of aiming high and going for something new

the real question is who the fuck the police were supposed to be a stand in for

Oh? It goes after Islam does it?

yes it characterises God as viewing mankind as a means of satisfying his need to feel loved, as opposed to loving mankind unconditionally. It also depicts religion (specifically Christianity) as leading to the destruction of the world

this is correct

This is a solid interpretation too

What's your top 5? Genuinely curious to see if I missed anything good.

best ive seen this year ye

>literally just the bible
>seems interesting for the first 30 minutes until you figure that out
>tries to use the same "beginning is actually the end" thing that Arrival did

eh, 4/10
at least it was kinda an original idea

I had read that they represented god, mother earth, adam and eve before I saw it, and man it was slow in parts for me. The director really bashes the audience over the head with the allegory, I got quite bored with it. I don't think it would stand up well for rewatching...it would seem soo sloooow

Not generally good at lists but the ones that come to mind would be

>Raw
>Dunkirk
>It Comes At Night
>Silence
>Nocturnal Animals
>Swiss Army Man
>The Handmaiden

If a second year film student had made this movie I could have forgiven it, in fact that's what it felt like watching it. But Aronofsky's been directing for twenty years now, so he has to be held to a higher standard.
This was insincere, poorly executed, meandering garbage masquerading as an art house film in an attempt to avoid being criticized for it's obvious shortcomings.

The thing is it might be good, I just don't know if I trust Arronofsky enough to watch a long biblical allegory movie.
Malick maybe, Scorsese maybe, not Arronofsky though.

I'm going to see it on a date with my future son's mother

Did this shit leak online yet?

>worst movie of the year
>some idiot on Sup Forums praises it
like clockwork

...

Every character in the movie may as well be wearing a fedora

>my future son's mother

condoms right? how the fuck do they work?

hmmm

it's not a biblical allegory or an allegory for the current state of global politics

Hell is other people. Don't let them in, don't leave the basement. The world is fucked.

Every time I look at this movie I hear Glenn Danzig in my head.

Sup Forums is literally indistinguishable from r/movies at this point. Surface level symbolism is enough to get these dipshits wet

>No, it's just biblical references for the sake of having them. Amateur filmmakers assume that the mere placement of references to the Bible or Christianity in your film will elevate it as an artform. This is no the case.
I'm getting a strong feeling of deja vu right now

I'm glad I'm not the only one

There are only two movies from 2017 on this list, Dunkirk and It Comes At Night. It's easily better than both.

youtube.com/watch?v=1BqoNdQ8aeg

...

This is the stupidest interpretation I have read about the movie so far. If you wanted maybe to assess the idea of border politics within the framework of the movie, you could probably cherry pick a few scenes here and there and do it at a stretch, but to actually deny the biblical allegory which is so deeply ingrained in the narrative, the cinematography, the whole fucking movie, is just so breathtakingly retarded it's hard to even insult you properly.

TL;DR: No. You are wrong.

hot

hot

>condoms

spotted teh faggot. also It was a cuckold joke implying my future wife will cheat on me with a based nigger.

Reading interpretations to this movie just shows me that people only understand Christianity through pop culture.

Its pretty bad when Supernatural is your only frame of reference.

i thought the same as you. Fucked a ton of sluts and now I have genital herpes. faggot.

>not wearing condoms
>calling other people faggots
enjoy your stds and your children you fucking trailer trash

A pop culture understanding of Christianity is all that is required to understand any of the biblical references though? Have you seen it yet? There really isn't much going on that would require an in-depth knowledge of the bible.

b-but death of the author?

>Right wing/conservatives
>Hard working

Perhaps anti-organized religion.

>Have you seen it yet?

No but if this contains a larger statement, it is fundamentally flawed. it looks like he has did the same thing he did with Noah. The diffrence being that you cant have your own fanciful interpretation of Christianity and attack it at the same time.

you should read aronofsky's interviews on the topic. its obviously and purposefully biblical, and its about man's destruction of the environment

you'd get more out of it if you know more about the bible desu

but they
are though

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x/full

he's a jew what does he know of the bible? jews are basically atheists

Lol, just watch the movie dude. No need to throw around phrases like "fundamentally flawed" when you haven't even seen it yet.

>Implying America is nothing but conservative right wing vs progressive right wing

I bet you even think Hillary is a marxist.

is this online yet i need something comfy to jack it to

only going by what people have said about it.

maybe at some point although im more averse to the fact that it is directed by afronsky and starring the worst actress in modern cinema.

If all you got from mother! was
>lmao it's the bible dude
then you're a guaranteed pleb.

I think she's a loser

Ok.

>conservative right wing vs progressive right wing

Did you mean progressive left wing there. I honestly can't figure out what you are trying to say. I must be dense

It's an allegory for the creative process.
"He" is the creative who takes a spark of an idea from a muse. (Her) The house represents the ideal vision, while the masses pervert it until nothing is left.

>progressive left wing
>in the US

are you suggesting there isn't much of a progressive left wing in the US, or just clarifying but you used greentext for some reason.

Help an autist out

>my face when I know this movie isn't about God or Christianity, but about love and fame, and God is merely a stand-in as a well known loving and famous figure

Aronofsky bangs actresses. His relationships don't last. This movie is about that.

stfu you fucking cuck

There is no true left in the US, or at least is not really important. Democrats and Republicans are both right wing.

Aronofsky has literally confirmed all the biblical allegory stuff and said he feels the creator/muse reading of the movie works up to a point but ultimately falls flat.

He should have called his movie The Aristocrats

I wasn't that user you were replying to, but yes, I meant there isn't really a major progressive left wing party in the US.

>create love letter film to Rachel Weisz
>get cucked

you can't make this shit up

there is no classical liberalism in eurofag land its all colors of socialism and soft authoritarianism.

Fair enough. I guess progressives are out there but not in the halls of power.

Does this have something to do with conservatives being industrious?

Yeah, essentially. There are left-wing superpowers, but they are not socially progressive. China for instance is a communist country, though arguably less socially progressive than America, yet America's economy is completely reliant on global human exploitation. These aren't things that can fly under the banner of a "socially progressive" country.

Just the simple fact the title has an exclamation mark makes me want to avoid it like an AIDS needle

Jeb!

if you're the kind of person who uses cringy similes like that you should definitely avoid my man

So Arranofsky is clearly a pagan.

This is the second time he's done an environmental mother theme. He did the same with Noah when he replaced the biblical reason for the flood (humanity turned into rapists, thieves and murderers) with "muh environment".

I can't take the overall theme of anything he does seriously when he's just another sad hippy.

Did anybody get major Bunuel vibes from this? Specifically Viridiana for the way the people treat mother, and something like the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie for how everybody just wouldn't leave.

maybe wiccan

>Democrats and Republicans are both right wing.

Democrats aren't right wing, Dems are moderate/centrist.
The Conservative Party of Canada is also moderate/centrist, and are not right-wing, regardless of what the name implies.

Some parts of the wolrd view centrist/moderate governments as "right-wing" or "leftist". That just tells me whatever government you like is not close to center, and therefore shit.

I didn't see it so much as religion but, jennifer lawrence representing mother earth and javier bardeem is man. Basically carelessly destroying the earth with war, etc.

Basically shows that arronofsky hates humanity though

>he feels the creator/muse reading of the movie works up to a point but ultimately falls flat.

Because he would have to admit that the only reason he created it was so people would tear it apart.

He projected a lot of himself into Bardem.

>Basically shows that arronofsky hates humanity though

He should start with himself.

Seems like a load of surface level pretentious bullshit desu.

Reminds me of the people that like BvS because they put in a bunch of imagery with Superman as Jesus or God or something.

cool, but what about conservative industriousness. Is anyone disputing this?

>Basically shows that arronofsky hates humanity though

This also backs up the Environmentalism ideology of Arranofsky because they seek to detriment humanity to the point of genocide.

Did you just unironically describe someone as a pagan?
Did you time travel here from the 17th century?

Was I too high or was the tension building in the first half incredibly well done. I was shitting bricks. I wish the allegorical components of the story were kept more subtle, the transition between acts took me out of it a bit. Great movie regardless, almost want to see it again.

fine neo-pagan then. no need to be pedantic

To say all conservatives were industriousness would be a pointlessly broad statement. I don't know what you expected.

Do you think it's less stupid because you put "neo" on the front of it? Like you just go around LARPing as some kind of ridiculous devout Puritan in tights and it's totally normal as long as you use the right prefixes?

the see thru thing she wore in the beginning was hotter

If you're the kind of person who would rather I'd used a cliché like "avoid it like the plague," you should definitely fuck off

>Did you just unironically describe someone as a pagan?
>Muh nature
>Muh climate change
>Muh humans are evil for using fossil fuels
>2 movies with mother nature concept
>Obsessed with human sacrifice

It checks out

>Did you time travel here from the 17th century?
The pagans were wiped out by then. Get your shit right.

I loved mother but i agree Logan was moty

You're still not saying why it's a bad thing.

Arranofsky checks the boxes.

Get the pyre ready fellas.

I don't understand people saying this is only critical of conservatives or christians. Seems to be also critical of communists, sharing everything and taking everything. Basically both sides are criticized. Whether thats delivered too heavy handily I guess is your own decision, I enjoyed it

This was a stupid high school production tier approach at an art film.

"It's like the bible but it's all dark and edgy and we eat a baby but the baby is Jesus"

So very very stupid.

Well if you'll pardon my rigour, I would defend this statement "The research on the relation between personality differences and politics has shown a correlation between conservative political temperament and the personality trait consciousness. Industriousness being one of the subcomponents of consciousness means that we at least have enough reason to conclude that conservatives are slightly more hardworking than others".
How's that?

I'm just saying that there are modern pagans out there. It's not so crazy that he might be one.