mother! - Darren Aronofsky (2017)

Most of my friends, who know much about film anyway, are disciples of Darren Aronofsky. I did not care for his work. In fact, "Requiem for a Dream" remains one of my least favorite films ever.

Then a magical thing happened. He surprised the hell out of me with "Black Swan." It's nothing less than a work of elegant magic.

Since then, my interest in Aronofsky as artist was piqued. I watched his other films, I even gave "Requiem for a Dream" another shot. This has led to repeated disappointment.

So every time I see he has a film coming out, I'm wary, even about a film that looks as compelling as "mother!", I'm curious to see if he has made his second great film.

I'll try not to be heavy on the allegorical language, but that's easier said than done. I'll do my best.

"mother!" is a very old story. The oldest. In the beginning, was Him (Javier Bardem.) He discovers a beautiful crystal and He is in a beautiful home with a woman in his bed known to us as Mother (Jennifer Lawrence).

He and Mother live in an intimate dream. They are clearly so deeply in love that neither of them needs anyone else. The crystal He discovered seems to be the only thing they truly need. He keeps it in a special, somewhat restricted room.

He is a writer. The film is vague on what kind of writer or His status. We only know that His work is significant.

Mother's role in the dream is constructing the house that He had lost in a cataclysmic fire. She does a wonderful job, building the building's structure back and taking care of the decorations inside. Her attention to detail is impressive. There is even beauty in the way she blends earth tones. Such delicacy just with browns.

It's a paradise until Man (Ed Harris) shows up at their door. While Mother is wary, He welcomes Man as if he were a long lost friend. The term "mi casa, su casa" is more than just an expression to Him.

When Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up, she is accepted as well. After all, she is Man's wife. Despite Mother's objections, He insists they put the two up because they have nowhere else to go.

Things change when Man and Woman wander into His personal room to get a better look at His crystal. The two of them break it to shards, leaving Him beside Himself. He scoops up the pieces, clutching them so tight, blood runs out of his fists. He orders them out of the room, but does not make them leave the house because again, they have nowhere to go.

He closes off the segregated room, and life goes on. But the crystal is irrevocably gone. Of course that means unbearable wickedness awaits.

Man and Woman's sons show up, running for their parents, already in a shouting match about some kind of financial grudge. The Oldest Son and Younger Brother fight until Oldest Son beats Younger Brother to death.

Of course, friends and family of Man and Woman come to the house to comfort them. To Mother's horrified disbelief, He welcomes them all to celebrate, mourn and stay. Even His publisher (Kristen Wiig) contributes to the riot as a monstrous herald.

This leads to chaos and the rest of the film plays out the dangers of His love for people even as they destroy everything He and Mother have. The third act of "mother!" has haunted (I know, strong word, but apt) me more than practically anything I've seen in cinema, period.

And as gorgeous as this allegory is, there's something you should bear in mind before you watch it. "mother!" is a horror film. Be careful.

I saw the film twice and waited to write about it because I've been quite obsessed and I wanted to get some distance before I tried to make sense of it to put my thoughts and feelings into words.

The allegory is fairly obvious, but what isn't is how it's going to work into one's world view.

For me, "mother!" is a private film, as it meditates on my faith.

I don't know exactly what Aronofsky believes, but I found the movie both reverent and troubling. He's absolutely right about how human nature has been slowly destroying mother nature from the beginning. And we're not only talking about the ruins our physical world is in right now. Aronofsky also submits that humans are also responsible for every kind of evil. And he's right that we are responsible for original sin.

Here's where I can not agree with Aronofsky. He has characters to signify everyone and everything in our faith except for Satan. A lot of you may laugh at me when I say I believe in Satan, but I do.

How could anybody in their right mind look back on the last century and maintain that he doesn't exist?

The concept that Earth is a phoenix is an intriguing one that I still haven't formed an opinion about. There's a fascinating discussion to be had about that prospect.

I was deeply touched by His love for the adoring, riotous and destructive people. He loves them more than his creation. More than mother. Even more than his only Son.

Like I said, "mother!" is intensely personal, so you'll have to watch it and put it together yourself. But do go and see the film. It wasn't nearly as beautiful as "Black Swan", but how many movies are?

There are so many pretentious adjective words I could throw around to impress you, but I'll just say this. There are good movies and there are bad movies and we spend a lot of time criticizing and adoring them. "mother!" is so much more than that. The dialogues the film is sure to open up revisions of exactly what we believe about God.

You can't really say that about many films. But this one is that important.

I've heard this film referred to as heretical, but that's just not so. It's not only worth watching, it's worth reflection.

So go.

Quote of the Day: Scanners - David Cronenberg (1981)

"A brother should be close, don't you think?"

Ladies and gentlemen, the film that had all of us grasping our heads in our hands, trying to keep our brains on the inside.


 

The Autopsy of Jane Doe - André Øvredal (2016) Revenge of an objectified woman

Some genre pics are just that. Formulaic horror, action, sci-fi, romantic comedies, etc. give the fans of their genre what they want and to hell with everyone else.

So it is important to recognize a genre film when it breaks the boundaries and speaks to something important to a wider audience.

And "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" has something to say.

Normally, when you see an autopsy in a crime film or in a horror movie, the horror is diluted. There is a protective wall, shielding us from the real suffering that was endured. Not here. Director André Øvredal puts us through so much we can not simply pass these events we are watching off as just another horror film.

The victim is already dead, so there's nothing to prevent. And a mortician does not have to worry about the trickier aspects of murder. It is just how and when. Never why. "Jane Doe" has tunnel vision at first, highlighting only one aspect of a murder: the autopsy.

The first act focuses on the concept of morbid curiosity. The approach is aggressive, but it works.

The film opens with the police making a grizzly discovery. Several people were killed messy and one victim is half-buried in the basement. The cops need to find out what happened to her. It's critical to the investigation.

The head cop brings the body straight to the local mortician, Tommy (Brian Cox.)

Tommy and Austin (Emile Hirsch,) his son/protege, get straight to work.

Like I said, normally, a mortician's job is detached from the story of the crime. They do not have deduce anything. They just report on the science so others can come up to their own conclusions.

But here, bizarre and menacing signs start to manifest themselves. They are not explainable in Tommy and Austin's small, scientific world they spend their lives, in the basement of a funeral home.

But this time, if for no other reason but for survival, they have no choice but to play the role of detective.

This poor woman has suffered, that is clear. There are marks of torture everywhere on her body, on the inside. Burns, cuts and tattoos are all over her body, but there is not a single exterior wound.

Austin realizes something supernatural is happening, even though his scientifically grounded father refuses to look any further than their physical findings.

It is not long before we realize we are watching a possession picture, a widely appreciated sub-genre. "Jane Doe" poses the question: can a spirit possess a corpse?

When you read between the lines, this film is a rather poetic deconstruction of misogyny.

This poor woman is literally being used as an object. She represents dehumanization. To them, she is just a bell on a toe.

She was tormented in life and now, humiliated in death.

The only thing this film lacks is the sly humor from Øvredal's last film, "Trollhunter."

The end of "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" is hokey, cheesy and other synonyms for stupid, but that does not matter. That is not the point. What matters is that an innocent and terrified woman has been transformed into a force of nature and a force of vengeance.

That is how the film rides the genre fence. It is both a horror and an art house flick and God, it works. I felt both self-righteous and terrified.

A Cure for Wellness - Gore Verbinski (2017)

"A Cure for Wellness" is Gore Verbinski's first attempt at a psychological thriller since his mediocre 2002 film, "The Ring", a remake of the Japanese phenomenon, "Ringu." (And by 'Mediocre' I mean terrible. I just didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings who may have like that movie. But if you are one of those people, what the hell is wrong with you?)

Going in, I was curious to see if the filmmaker responsible for the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies was up to the task.

Lockhart, (Dane DeHaan) is presented to us as a dull, disappointing protagonist and a dick. (Think Leonardo DiCaprio having a love baby with Dr. Sheldon Cooper.)

The board of the company he works for has found some in some discrepancies in Lockhart's work that the SEC would find very interesting.

They agree not to turn him in if he will complete one mission. The company's CEO, one Roland Pembroke, (Harry Groener, the snake-mayor from (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) went on a two-week spa vacation in Switzerland and has refused to come back.

Lockhart's task is a simple one: go and fetch Pembroke.

On his way to the isolated retreat, Lockhart learns that the place has a dark history. When his car hits a deer, he is wounded and wakes up inside the retreat three days later.

The first person he encounters is Dr. Volmer (Jason Isaacs, a.k.a. Lucius Malfoy) who tells him he may not leave, but of course, he is not a prisoner and neither is Pembroke.

But they are at altitude, so Lockhart needs to stay hydrated. He drinks more than his share of water. As Lockhart stalks the grounds, he notices that much of the patients' time is spent in water whether in swimming pools, steam baths or the sensory deprivation tank. Maybe there is something strange about these 'treatments'. He looks high and low and at the beginning of the second act, Lockhart finally finds Pembroke, who agrees to return to New York.

Then, the man vanishes again, into thin air. Again, he is told that Pembroke is not well enough to see him.

Lockhart waits and investigates and it soon becomes obvious that something is wrong with the water. As he waits, the wellness center decides to take Lockhart on as a patient as well. Immediately, it is plain that Lockhart is not taking to the treatments.

What follows is more or less an ordinary cat and mouse game. Or so we are led to believe until "Wellness" pulls the rag right from under us.

The film is wise enough to realize the small things that make you squirm are more visceral than any abstract fears. Like pulling one's teeth out.

This place performs medical experiments, so when he finds himself in a tank or strapped to a bed, listening to all the doctors speaking German, it is unsettling. (At one point, I can guaranteed piss will trickle down your legs. When it happens, you'll know. It is even worse than the elderly zombies.)

And if you think your grandma is being abused in her nursing home, that is nothing compared to what the staff is up to at this sanitarium. There are some nice nightmarish sequence, even if some are ordinary. There are even a few Vertigo-esque shots thrown in to mount the tension. Much of the imagery is heavy handed. Yes, we get that Lockhart has an aversion to water because he watched his father jump off in a bridge, into a river, in a rainstorm.

So it is understandable that he is wary of water treatments.

Once again, just as we're lulled into a nice, typical suspense tale, Verbinski kicks our legs right out from under us again. He keeps surprising us to the end.

Socially, "Wellness" makes a comment on how we can all be taken in so we do not see what is happening around us. We do not even notice when we start to die. The kind of entrapment Lockhart is supposed to feel is reminiscent of Gordon Peele's film "Get Out" from earlier this year in that it focuses on the notion of the victims being supposedly willing.

I was impressed at how I was taken darker and darker and darker...

"Wellness" is not even close to the same level of excellence of "Get Out", but I can confirm that despite its crude, inelegant end, it is Verbinski's most satisfying film yet.

Except maybe "Rango." I like "Rango."