Any other movies that make you feel saturated

Any other movies that make you feel saturated

i will never watch this vehicle. what is this scene conveying? my guess is she is receiving a proper mansplaining. did you nail it?

You should watch it. It's not what you think it is.

>feeling saturated

>dude, artists siphons off creative energy from relationships rather than giving themselves away completely
'giving yourself away completely' and 'using people' is a false dichotomy, even for the mystical magical individuals known as artists

That was my impression of what the movie meant a well, but of course Aronofsky had to be a retard and say IT WAS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

if it's not what i think it is at the moment, it's another thing i could think of. i shan't.

Your loss, I guess. It was one of the more entertaining movies this year.

ive seen over a lot of award season vehicles in my time, read more shabby endorsements for forgettable rehashes just like yours. time is on my side.
>Aronofsky
clinches it

what do you think mother! is a rehash of?

You're kind of right, but not for the reasons you think. This is not your typical drama.

christ, this film was shit

Not him, but mother! IS kind of a rehash (but not of a movie).

Explain please?

>artists siphons off creative energy from relationships rather than giving themselves away completely
Offhandedly, Black Swan told from Cassel's perspective
Gone Girl
An Education
Countless chick flicks with pretensions of overcoming exploitation

the allegory becomes nonsensical if you think it's about nature. there's nothing cyclical about the way in which we destroy 'mother earth', once this place becomes uninhabitable (for humans) we'll have to live on a space station for millions of generations. also the themes concerning personality cults and ennoblement of suffering becomes vestigial with that kind of interpretation

How is Lawrence such a good actress but such a fucking cunt at the same time?

the bible

Is she now

I thought her performance was pretty mediocre in this film
Not terrible, but not really great either

Yeah. Are there people who honestly don't get this?

How is a cheeky adaptation of the Old Testament a "rehash"?

What do you think Hollywood was based on?

You guys realize that the movie is almost a scene-for-scene retelling of the bible, right...? The environment thing is just a facade.

Once it gets to the part where her baby is taken, killed, eaten and then bardem's character tells her "we have to forgive them" I think it's pretty impossible to miss

who was the artist in Gone Girl?
why would Black Swan be told from a minor character's perspective?
I haven't seen An Education and probably never will. Looks like shit.

And that guy you're quoting has it wrong: The movie is ostensibly about an artist's work belonging to everyone and not just to the artist. There's nothing about "creative energy being siphoned" by an artist.

>cheeky
pretentious*

ftfy

>It's another tribe member retells the history of his sand tribe for your consideration
babby's first allegory

It's a rehash of an existing story, characters, etc. The fact that the source isn't another movie doesn't make it original.

It's a fairly original retelling of certain Old Testament stories.

It was obvious before that (the scene where the brothers fight for instance), but yeah, the scene you mentioned certainly seals it. Apparently it's too deep for some people though.

the gone girl who was literally a blogger and author (a creator)
why would black swan be told from g-d's perspective?
abraham's chapter is all about the demiurge siphoning abraham's creative energy (his son)

>dark comedy movie
>plebs start making up all kinds of bullshit analogies because they didnt get it

kek

I agree. To be clear, I liked the movie, user. I'm not the guy pretending he understands it without seeing it.

>abraham's chapter is all about the demiurge siphoning abraham's creative energy (his son)
That's a bit of a reach don't you think?

>uhh u serious man is u retelling of the book of job
yea, that's not what we're talking about

>There's nothing about "creative energy being siphoned" by an artist.
he turns the heart of his wife into a crystal that he'll use for his new work. he gives away *their* baby to the masses. he talks about their suffering as a great gift, mostly because it helps his own creative process. the artist's work 'belonging to everyone' and him using the love from his wife as a motivator are not incongruent ideas

Gather round children it's the bible power hour brought to you in a soyboy wrapper! Sip your lattes while marveling at le artistetré

>the talmud's literal version of the old testament is a reach
isn't film and storytelling the business of reaching

If suffering helped his creative process then why was he able to finally write something after finding out his wife was pregnant?

Any other movies that make you feel harvested?

But the story of Abraham ends with God revealing that he was testing Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.

>isn't film and storytelling the business of reaching while making the reach appear trendy, new and socially acceptable?
ftfy

She's not a good actress dude. She literally isn't a good actress and I'm not saying this just because I don't like her. She is actually, really, not a good actress.

Just post the nudes already

Same could be said about the business of lawyering

some of it is new testament and revelations too

And? You're seem to be under the impression of making a contention

So God literally did not siphon anything from Abraham. Both Abraham and Isaac are still whole at the end of the story.

You're trying to reconcile things that happen in the movie solely because it's a retelling of the bible with the artist/environment interpretations. It's absolutely what you're talking about. I'm just pointing out that the cycle refers to human sin and the themes you say become vestigial AREN'T when you consider it's just the bible story.

Is not the entire relationship between the creator and the subject tested by a proposal of siphoning? The same parasitic tension that must be resolved in order for the story to be a story and a movie to be a movie?

suffering is not the sole motivator, obviously. he needs the entire process of their relationship. he needs her to love him so much that she's willing to carry his baby and she has to become so disillusioned that she's willing to burn the entire thing to the ground. the reason the man survived is because he didn't have an emotional investment, only an artistic one. it's a comment about the emotional impotency of artists who has to live vicariously through their work

>The same parasitic tension that must be resolved in order for the story to be a story and a movie to be a movie?
Of course. JLaw wants the artist all to herself but since the artist is not just hers, but everyone's, then she is the one who must make the sacrifice. But she can't do that which is why she fails at the end.

The only thing that bothers me about her acting is that she can't scream or yell. Every time she does it sounds like someone who's been smoking for at least 40 years.

I got really drunk while watching this movie and by the end of it I felt like I'm on MDMA

>rip gets released
>no webm of tit popping out

Explain this.

What was the point of Pfeiffer's character? Was she based on a bible character?

I never even watched the trailer ler alone interview and I knew it was about jesus and the environment when the brothers fought

Eve the whore.

>"adam" gets his rib removed and a few minutes later Pfeiffer appears

hurrr what character is this

Ah, as what I thought, Abraham's crisis stays the same but his denouement is reversed. How clappingly original, much clever. Thanks for clarifying, and to the rest of the brainlets: enjoy your simple stories in new sleeves, dear children. Dropped.

Everyone's already had their fill of Lawrence's tits. Also the fappening pics are better than the few seconds in Mother.

Ugliest body of work

You're not quite as smart as you think you are.

yea and I'm saying I don't care for it. it's inelegant and done to death. I'm talking about how these these constructions are lackluster in adding to/complicating further interpretations
I like a serious man but not because it's literal retelling of the book of job

You've heard that a lot in your life huh. I can tell. It's not your fault.

>"adam" gets his rib removed
i didn't catch that

And your skill at insults is weak.

scene in the bathroom when he's puking or whatever, he has a big scar in his back. I stood up and clapped

Whoever taught you to equate opining about shitty films with insulting was being ironic. You got meme'd on once again. This is why it's always difficult to take anything you post seriously.

Don't be rude all types of brain are allowed here

My point is very simple: whether you like it or not, mother! is a retelling of the bible story. You're searching for meaning in scenes that only happened a particular way to make them fit with the existing story. Ironically, this is exactly what religions do with their holy texts.

ye I get it. I'm saying that a better director would find more elegant solutions and touch more expertly on the related themes. a serious man is better because it touches on the darkly humorous idea of someone getting fucked up and punished for no apparent reason. it's drawing a parallel between buster keaton and a biblical figure. it enriches the original work with more material

A cartoonist couldn't draw a better depiction of a pervert.