Darren Aronofsky stays true to form in mother!. In fact, he takes his form farther than he has before. Should he have gone that far? Perhaps not, but since he’s already done it, let us discuss. (If you have yet to watch the film, don’t worry. You can read on for a bit.)
mother! portrays the jarring events that ensue after a lonely couple receive visitors they were not expecting. The husband (Javier Bardem) is a writer. The wife (Jennifer Lawrence) spends her time renovating their home. They seem to live a peaceful life, until a man (Ed Harris) and his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) impose upon them.
If there is something that mother! can be readily admired for, it is its boldness. This is particularly true of the outstanding performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Jennifer Lawrence. Pfeiffer takes over every scene she is in. Her presence is powerful, even when her character does not deliver any lines. For Lawrence, who carries the film, this role contrasts the more assertive and active characters she is known for. However, she still commits to her character completely. Overall, like Aronofsky’s previous films, mother! is visually bold. There is also a sense that the message of the film is bold, even if at first it may not be entirely clear what the message is.
Aronofsky presents audiences with an allegory that somehow manages to be equally as puzzling as it is direct. For me, this is where the beauty of postmodernity steps in. The film can be discussed in regards to different themes. Feminism, artistic expression, fame, and Christian symbolism are some of the themes that are very explicit in the film. Yes, Aronofsky wants to send a specific message, though audiences have generally been left so confused that he has had to explain the meaning of the film before press screenings.
(Spoiler ahead. If you have yet to watch the film and want to experience it organically, do not read any further! But, do come back later to read and discuss.)
Aronofsky told Indiewire, “I’ve been very frustrated and filled with a certain amount of rage about how much inaction is happening on my other cause, which is how do we treat our home, our world.” For Aronofsky mother! is a critique on humanity’s mistreatment of Mother Earth, and he develops his allegorical critique by positioning it within the Biblical narrative. There is a downside to this allegory related to the way this positions humanity and Earth. “Mother Earth” takes the responsibility from humans and places it on the planet. As a mother the planet has been expected to give selflessly and passively to her children.
This is neither the metaphor nor the relationship we see in the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis, God entrusts the Earth to the humans. The intended relationship is one of stewardship, responsibility, and government. In this way, the lordship of humans over Earth includes strong ethical relations and implications. In this relationship the Earth is not just a passive fountain of resources but a home. It is a living environment which we are commanded to learn to care for, for the sake of human kind.
In mythologizing and prioritizing Earth’s perspective, mother! renders humans as encroaching on Earth and Earth’s relationship with her husband (God). Here we see a disadvantage of cramming mythic allegory into Biblical narration. Aronosfky fragments and misinterprets the Biblical narrative; which is about the relationship between God and Humanity. In the Biblical narrative, It is through this relationship that God has a relationship with the earth, which is all of creation. For example, through Adam God curses creation in Genesis 3, and through Noah God establishes a new covenant with creation in Genesis 9.
Through these actions we see the God of Biblical narrative exercise his judgement on humankind and their governance of creation, so that when humans sin, judgement is placed on them and everything under their rule. Yet, for Aronofsky, Earth’s detriment is a direct consequence of the violent acts of humans against Earth, not against God. In fact, his interpretation of God is further stripped of governing authority by his domineering need of adoration, rendering the creator at the mercy of a chaotic creation that shows no signs of maturing.
In the end, while Aronofsky might have succeeded in pushing the boundaries of his directorial auteur-ity, his eisegesis fails to offer any practical morals to his story.
