Imagine every female stereotype that you might expect to be the subject of derisive conversation and sadly dismissed and forgiven in these politically tumultuous times as "locker room talk." This film's female protagonist is depicted to possess all of them: Insecure? Check. Possessive and clingy? Check. Unable to shake off the influence of her partner's manipulation and callousness? Check. Subjected to vile and obscene treatment by other women and men? Check. There is not one single positive human character in this story other than the heroine. Her attraction to and love for her husband is never depicted in a way that helps the audience understand her point of view despite the fact that the character is on screen for every single second of the film. I am deliberately refraining from mentioning one outrageous event the character experiences in this film that is the nadir of this character's destiny as victim: you should see it for yourself and decide. In short, I found nothing in this film's story to like and found its treatment of women nauseating.
And if the movie is intended to illuminate the ugliness of humanity, its existence is completely unnecessary in these times when the news feeds are full of world events that continuously report on the ugly side of ourselves. Your eyes may have seen or may see something entirely different in the movie, but the above is my opinion of what is on the screen.
Jennifer Lawrence has the ignominious luck of having been in two back-to -back films that have elicited or are eliciting polarizing reactions from audiences to the choices her characters make and the fundamental premise of each story. In Passengers her character undergoes a journey that had some members of the audience react negatively to the choice she makes at the end and to the choice the male character makes to initiate the story. At least to that movie's credit, the story presents elements that can be used to justify her character arc, even if there can be disagreement about whether you found it satisfying or not. With Mother, alas in my opinion, there is nothing. Nada. Instead, the director has the temerity to imply an inevitability to the character's destiny or fate, intimating that there is a repetitive replicating cycle of a life as a victim.
Some fans have applauded the director for being outrageous and audacious and being gobsmacked by the in-your-face assault of the story elements. Others have mentioned that the film has religious motifs and allegorical elements. Really? I don't get that at all. Is there a single redemptive aspect to this film's story? I did not see one.
By the way I don't think the film's story elements and its treatment of the lead female character can be easily forgiven because these should be viewed as merely being simple "horror" tropes. The slasher movies make no bones about the roles played by female victims in the service of the story--some of them revel, revealingly, as torture porn and should be and are dismissed easily as inconsequential in the larger scheme of things as cartoons; but there has also been a slow boil reaction to these films warning us of their potential to desensitize the audience to female abuse and gender stereotyping. In these times when debate rages over the depiction of females in Game of Thrones and lack of female representation behind the cameras and in positions of power in the film world and in the world at large comes this film that depicts the female spirit in the most derisive manner possible. Is this because the movie makers are gambling that the audiences are in fact desensitized and will flock to the film and endure near 120 minutes of a character's disintegration on screen as entertainment? As a certain President might tweet, "Sad!"
In conclusion, this film is a prime example of director as auteur. Every line of dialogue and every camera move and element of story should be owned by the director. I affirm the auteur's right to tell a story. I saw and heard his story. I simply did not like any of what I heard or saw.
And if the movie is intended to illuminate the ugliness of humanity, its existence is completely unnecessary in these times when the news feeds are full of world events that continuously report on the ugly side of ourselves. Your eyes may have seen or may see something entirely different in the movie, but the above is my opinion of what is on the screen.
Jennifer Lawrence has the ignominious luck of having been in two back-to -back films that have elicited or are eliciting polarizing reactions from audiences to the choices her characters make and the fundamental premise of each story. In Passengers her character undergoes a journey that had some members of the audience react negatively to the choice she makes at the end and to the choice the male character makes to initiate the story. At least to that movie's credit, the story presents elements that can be used to justify her character arc, even if there can be disagreement about whether you found it satisfying or not. With Mother, alas in my opinion, there is nothing. Nada. Instead, the director has the temerity to imply an inevitability to the character's destiny or fate, intimating that there is a repetitive replicating cycle of a life as a victim.
Some fans have applauded the director for being outrageous and audacious and being gobsmacked by the in-your-face assault of the story elements. Others have mentioned that the film has religious motifs and allegorical elements. Really? I don't get that at all. Is there a single redemptive aspect to this film's story? I did not see one.
By the way I don't think the film's story elements and its treatment of the lead female character can be easily forgiven because these should be viewed as merely being simple "horror" tropes. The slasher movies make no bones about the roles played by female victims in the service of the story--some of them revel, revealingly, as torture porn and should be and are dismissed easily as inconsequential in the larger scheme of things as cartoons; but there has also been a slow boil reaction to these films warning us of their potential to desensitize the audience to female abuse and gender stereotyping. In these times when debate rages over the depiction of females in Game of Thrones and lack of female representation behind the cameras and in positions of power in the film world and in the world at large comes this film that depicts the female spirit in the most derisive manner possible. Is this because the movie makers are gambling that the audiences are in fact desensitized and will flock to the film and endure near 120 minutes of a character's disintegration on screen as entertainment? As a certain President might tweet, "Sad!"
In conclusion, this film is a prime example of director as auteur. Every line of dialogue and every camera move and element of story should be owned by the director. I affirm the auteur's right to tell a story. I saw and heard his story. I simply did not like any of what I heard or saw.
Tell Your Friends