Mother!

Directed by Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer

Year: 2017

Country: USA

Author Review: Roberto Matteucci

"I'm his father."

"I'm his mother."

Michelle Pfeiffer is the most lucid person in commenting on the movie Mother! of director Darren Aronofsky presented at 74th Venice International Film Festival.

"When I read the screenplay the first time I thought what this is" (i) said Pfeiffer. Of course, she was not the only one; all going out of the cinema they wondered "what is this?"

Then, the sincere Pfeiffer launches a further statement: "I had a hysterical reaction to the first vision, it destroyed me." (ii)

Even in this case, she's not the only one.

The whistles after the press screenings are normal and human; Mother! has launched a new game, everyone has looked for eccentric interpretation of the hidden secret meaning of the film.

In the film, there is everything and the opposite of everything, but perhaps no one has simply identified it because there is no meaning. Moreover, a movie does not need to launch a message to be such, it is not its goal. Not understanding is the reason for so much grudge after the screenings. The bad mood increased when we heard the smartest of the interpretations because we have the doubt of not being enough smart and bright.

We begin with the main interpretation, that of the same director:

“I really wanted to make this kind of allegory about Mother Nature and our place and our connection to our home. And so I cast Jennifer Lawrence as that spirit and then I had this breakthrough of using, to tell the story of humanity, the stories of the Bible.” (iii)

He talks about Mother Nature, the story of humanity, stories of the Bible, it means everything, because the story of humanity is long thousands of years and certainly the Bible is not a short and simple book; so the director explanation is no clearer than the narration.

The symbolic place is a large house, it needs some restoration, but definitely solid and protective. It's early in the morning, some dirty hands are shot in close-up, they are taking an object, follows a Javier close-up. He's inside a room. At the same time Jennifer wakes up, she does not find his husband in bed, she walks at home, she is shot from behind then, the director transforms the framing of a subjective one, with Jennifer's eyes. We observe the house, the door, the threatening exterior of the building constituted by the nothing, so much nature but nothing else. The look is lost, she is in close-up, she turns behind and she scares.

The film is full of Jennifer's subjective because she sees a different world: "you were the home."

The sequel to the story keeps a presence of unintelligible madness.

Perhaps Jennifer is the best outlined, also because the camera is always on the woman, especially to justify his honest love for Javier.

An unknown doctor arrives, he is a fan of the writer Javier. His wife also comes. Both are welcomed by Javier with enthusiasm, while Jennifer expresses a strong opposition to the presence of strangers; she is afraid that they can contaminate the home and her job of reparation. And, in fact, the contagion happens.

The stranger guests increase exponentially, showing an inconceivable wickedness. After the curious and rudeness of the doctor's wife, the director shows the guests as the worst human manifestations, such as the killing of a newborn to be eaten.

The history is a growing of strong images, with many incomprehensible characters, satanic noises, anxious crunches, dripping floors of blood, threatening cellars.

Aronofsky exalts each of these elements, and he uses as explained by himself in an interview three techniques:

“But the entire film is shot only with three camera angles: close-up, over-the-shoulder and P.O.V. [Jennifer Lawrence’s point of view]. That basically was the entire language. “ (iv)

The hand-held camera is the predominant element because it characterizes the disturbing and uncertain relationship, until it becomes impossible, between the couple. Always the hand-held camera to dominate the anguished and threatening presence of so many unexpected guests. The camera is unceasingly fast, pursuing action, example in the kitchen accident, the whistle of the pressure cooker it presages the catastrophe and the shaky hand-held camera runs, prophesying the disaster.

The film overwhelms science, physics, anatomy, time, reason, there is no rationality, but the latest shot maintains a hope, a circular hope, the final scene is the beginning of the story.

In the vision, we have to be as the director wants us, to become irrational and spiritual entities, to think: the story of humanity, Mother Nature, the Bible. If we pretend to watch the movie as a human being rational, we can be similar with the bunch of whistlers of the press screenings, easily metaphorically assimilated to the array of inhumane assaulter of Jennifer and Javier's home.

(i) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6LHr1K-Xn4

(ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6LHr1K-Xn4

[iii] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/movies/darren-aronofsky-interview-mother.html?mcubz=1

[iv] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/movies/darren-aronofsky-interview-mother.html?mcubz=1