Mother!: Symbolism Vomit

Mother! is already and will forever be a very polarizing film. People give that cliché "you're either going to love it or going to hate it" line for movies that are kind of like this, but I don't know if I've seen such a better movie to embody that line than this one. Darren Aronofsky has always been kind of a polarizing director. For anyone who has seen Pi or Requiem For A Dream or hell, even Black Swan... these are certainly not movies made for a commercial audience. These are little pieces of art with a strange and bleak narrative and intensely disturbing themes and/or visuals. Aronofsky tried to go mainstream with The Fountain and Noah, but those were both misfires. His only real commercially praised film that most non-Aronofsky fans can attribute to liking by the director would have to be The Wrestler. Mother! is not built for a commercial release. Mother! is going to piss a lot of your average moviegoers off. Mother! is going to produce a lot of box office refunds. Because with this movie... you have nooooooo idea what the fuck is coming (and I'm not going to tell you either).

Aronofsky is no stranger to dark and strange films, nor is he to biblical themes. He includes both in his newest theatrical release Mother! which follows a cast of unnamed characters including Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) who lives in a large three-story house with Him (Javier Bardem), a famous poet, as he struggles to find inspiration for his latest poem. Mother spends her days quietly trying to find motivation for Him, as well as slowly renovating their massive house. Out of the blue, a stranger (Ed Harris) arrives at the door explaining that he's a doctor, new in town, and was told their place was a bed and breakfast. Him invites the stranger (known only as Man) inside and gives him a room for the night. The next day, a Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up claiming to be Man's wife. Mother tries her best to accommodate the guests, all the while silently protesting their visit. The guests are abrasive, messy, rude, and emotionally intrusive. By the time their sons show up for a family squabble, you're feeling just as anxious and claustrophobic as Mother is. Mother gets pregnant, Him writes a new poem, and soon their house is flooded with people just trying to meet such a brilliant writer. That's about all I can tell you without giving away the rest of the film... but suffice it to say once again, that you literally have no idea what's coming. (Also, the characters avoid using these pronouns when addressing one another... this is just how they're listed in the credits. It's not as cheesy as I'm making it sound.)

First off, all of the performances are top notch. I've slowly been warming up to Jennifer Lawrence because I've seen her in films that really show off her acting chops, but I've never really seen her as a different person in any of her films. Silver Linings Playbook was just Katniss Everdeen who spoke more. Joy was just Katniss Everdeen who grew up. But in Mother! you actually get a different person. She's very soft-spoken and timid and there's a constant longing for acceptance in her eyes. When push comes to shove, she's not afraid to stand up for herself (including trying to kick her unwanted guests out of her house), but she also takes the abuse for longer than a normal person would. Bardem is great as the damn near unlikable Him. He's very cold toward his wife and really only warms up to the strangers. There's something in his past that haunts him, that he resents Mother for, but we don't know what it is and it's infuriating. Ed Harris is still as Ed Harris-y as always (this a compliment, by the way) as the sickly houseguest, but it's Pfeiffer who really gets under your skin. She's bitchy and catty and obnoxious and overall just a heinous character. You can tell she's having an absolute blast with the role. However, it's not the cast or their fine acting that polarizes the movie... it's the last forty minutes of the film.

The final forty minutes take a very slowly building and quiet movie and amps everything up to eleven. There are mild clues and moments throughout the story that indicate what is going to happen, but my guess is that most moviegoers are still going to be confused (and angry) as hell when it finally arrives. I watch everything and generally consider myself an Aronofsky fan and even I wasn't exactly expecting what happened to happen. This is fine in a horror movie, but most horror movies will define the rules of the world quite early on... or if not, by the end you'll have a satisfactory explanation. Aronofsky doesn't work that way. He doesn't spoon feed his audience answers. He looks to you to find the interpretations of his work, much like an abstract painting. If you're looking for an answer as to why the strangers (Man and Woman) stay so long in the house and act the way they do... then you're going to be sorely disappointed. If you're looking for a moment when the screen freezes during its hectic climax and Neil Patrick Harris in a suit walks out to go: "Confused? Okay... here's what's going on:", then you're going to be massively disappointed. There are no real explanations of what's going on and Aronofsky, unlike most directors, trusts his audience to figure it out on their own, which I respect. However, with the material given, the casual film-goer isn't going to have the patience to sit there and interpret every allusion, or symbol, or extended metaphor he throws at you, which will, in turn, anger the film goer, and cost the box office the price of a ticket.

So, what's exactly so wrong with the film that it earned an F on Cinemascore? (For those who don't know, getting an F on Cinemascore is as close to impossible as you can get... for example, Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill has a B). The reason that Mother! has such an impossibly low score is that Aronofsky doesn't just shower you with metaphors and symbolism, he saturates you with it... he ice bucket challenges you with it, he grabs your throat and vomits it all over you until you're past the point of "Jeez, I get it, bro!" And it isn't a pleasant metaphor either. He's making some seriously painful religious claims that kind of make sense, but he's taking a very dark point of view with it. The back nine of the movie is so chaotic and so unlike what you've been watching up until this point, that it's very easy to see the story flying off the rails and going deep into what-the-fuck-sville. It's also not a movie that can be advertised very well. I had only seen one trailer for it and a few rumblings that it is being compared to Rosemary's Baby. The trailer looked like Aronofsky might be making a bit of a mainstream horror movie with a wicket twist at the end. Mother! is not exactly a horror movie... sure it's tense, and there are movies where it's downright creepy, it's more along the lines of batshit crazy mixed with disturbing... and pretty much the complete opposite of Rosemary's Baby. And I'm honestly not sure if I liked it or not. I kept trying to figure out what the twist was going to be, and when I was dead wrong... I felt anger and confusion. But, did this stem from the fact that I was wrong... or from the fact that what happened wasn't effective?

Look, there's a lot of good in the film, especially the first half. Somehow Aronofsky is able to establish such a feeling of claustrophobia when it comes to crowds of people that I empathized with Lawrence's character and didn't want to be around another person ever again. Hell, there were probably fifteen people scattered about the theater I was in, and as the movie went on, they all felt like they were too close to me. But, the symbolism vomit that expels out of the movie is almost too thick. Aronofsky doesn't just ride into the ground his commentary and message and metaphor and any other figurative STUFF he loads into the back half, he beats you over the head with it, nay, bludgeons you over the head with it until you're nothing but brain chunks and skull fragments. Fans of his will give him the benefit of the doubt, which I am probably doing, but those unfamiliar with his previous work-- I can't really see how they'll walk out of the movie loving what they've just witnessed. It's not a horror movie, it's not a thriller, it's not even that suspenseful... but it will make you anxious, it will make you squirm, and it will make you utter these exact words as the credits begin to roll: "What the hell did I just watch?"

C-

IT: If The Goonies Were Chased By A Killer Clown

Stephen King is truly the master of horror. For those of you who think otherwise, I highly suggest picking up literally any of his books. He gets a bad rap from the "literature" community, but not only does he know how to scare the bejesus out of you, he's actually a great writer. His book On Writing changed my entire perspective of the craft of writing in general. Unfortunately, his books have a tendency to get adapted into really shitty films (Creepshow, Cujo, Christine, Children of the Corn, Firestarter, Sleepwalkers, Needful Things, Thinner, Dreamcatcher, Secret Window, Carrie [the 2013 version], Rest Stop, The Dark Tower). His non-horror films actually turn out alright (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Stand By Me), but only a few of his horror novels have actually turned into stellar films (Carrie, The Shining, Silver Bullet, 1408, and obviously Misery). We've just been waiting to get a capable filmmaker to truly know what it means to adapt a King book and bring the terror King brings in his writing. The original IT was a TV movie back in 1990 and introduced us to a very iconic villain-- the demented clown Pennywise (played by the wonderful Tim Curry). And while the film itself is quite dated, it is still beloved-- and a remake-- especially with its new version of Pennywise-- had some large shoes to fill (no clown pun intended). Thankfully... we got our capable filmmaker. 

The original film was three plus hours long and mostly adapted the entire book of over 1000 pages. However, it relied on the creepiness of its clown and circumstances rather than the graphic terror King wrote due to the fact that it was made for TV. Director Andy Muschietti (Mama) took over for True Detective producer Cary Fukunaga (who left the project due to disputes about how graphic he wanted to make the film-- though he still retains a writing credit) and has given us a very faithful and very ballsy adaptation of King's original novel. Thankfully, we aren't given a watered down version of the story (though due to King's natural ability to not give a single fuck, every adaptation of his is watered down). Hell, the movie begins with little kid Georgie finding our clown Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård), getting his arm graphically bitten off and his little body dragged into the sewer through a storm drain. A few months later, the town, and especially his brother Bill, are  still feeling the effects of his disappearance. Not just from Georgie missing, but a large number of kids who have gone missing in the small town of Derry, Maine. Bill, and his friends, the self-proclaimed Losers Club, slowly start getting terrorized by horrifying entities manifested by Pennywise, who feeds off of what scares them the most. Once they realize what it wants from them, they now must band together to take down the clown before it gets them all one by one. 

The original film covers the entirety of the story-- the first half focusing on the main characters as kids and the second half, 27 years later, on the kids as adults. This version of IT focuses on just the first half of the novel-- the battle of the Losers Club vs. the monster. This was a great choice-- not just for money-making purposes-- but because the story with the kids is widely regarded as being the stronger portion of the book. Had we been given an overly long singular film, we would've missed out on a lot of what makes the first half of the film great-- getting to meet and know our group, getting the personalized scares for each one, the personal growth of each one, the fun as well as the screams. Thankfully, Muschietti had the balls (and studio approval) to not hold anything back. Because it is darker, because it is more gritty-- it's a hell of a lot scarier, and it feels more real. These kids have some foul mouths, especially Finn Wolfhard's character (the child actor who you may remember most as the lead kid in Stranger Things). By allowing these kids to act the way kids really do (yes, young boys swear just as much as we do when we're not around-- I know... I used to be one). There's a sense of realism and camaraderie within the group that feels genuinely authentic, and by doing this we, as the audience, get to care about these boys even more than we would if they were watered down by a PG-13 rating. 

We also get a more terrifying film. We get actual dread when any of the boys encounter Pennywise because a demon this sadistic isn't going to hold back either. He's going to rip off limbs, he's going to show them bloody carnage and incantations that PG-13 just can't effectively do. There are good horror movies that work better when the terror is off screen and your imagination freaks you out better than anything Hollywood could provide. However, IT is not that type of movie. IT is all about what visually scares you. IT is all about offering enough in-your-face visual fear that you actually shit your pants. This works about 80% of the time in this movie, which is plenty enough to give you the fear and chills you crave when purchasing a ticket. The other 20% doesn't work for various reasons (coming off as silly instead of scary, obvious CGI that could've worked just as well with creative make-up, etc.), but doesn't hinder the movie because it is surrounded by enough fright, it's very effective. And it is a very scary film. The techniques utilized by Muschietti are a combination of suspense, dread, and the occasional jump scare. You know me... I'm not one to really ever advocate for a cheap jump scare, but when they're earned due to the surrounding tension and they seize the opportunity to really GET you... I'm all for that. Plus, it makes the movie that much more fun as well. 

There's also a good amount of humor peppered in between the scares. These boys really are quite enjoyable to watch and because they're so immature and self-deprecating, they're actually funny. When the people in my theater weren't screaming, we were also laughing hysterically. This is another King staple that most novice horror writers don't know how to organically accomplish-- good humor. None of this, though, would be as effective as it is if any of the boys were cast wrong. Each boy brings his (and one her) own uniqueness to the movie and to their respective characters. They could easily be stock characters, but we're given SEVEN wonderful young actors to lend their talent to a film that really just is the horror version of The Goonies or Stand By Me. Bill Skarsgård is the other shining achievement in the film. His Pennywise is just as frightening as Tim Curry's, without trying to imitate him. He brings in his own vision to the character so that it still serves the story without being a lesser carbon copy. All of the actors work to make the movie as good as it is. 

If you're familiar with the original film, or even the book, then you know what to expect from this version. But know that it doesn't hold anything back. There are some truly disturbing images and scenes involving young kids, but it's not just played for shock-value. There is true depth to the story and to the characters. It's also a lot of fun to watch a film that has a very nostalgic 80s feel to it (the good 80s... you know the difference). IT is a very impressive horror film, and definitely the best of 2017 (and certainly one of the best Stephen King adaptations). It's one of those movies you'll be thinking about for awhile after seeing it, and as soon as it was over I was ready to watch it again. But be warned... it's not for the faint of heart... so bring fresh pants. 

A