“Simultaneously one of the weirdest films I’ve ever seen, while also being possibly one of the best films I’ve seen in 2017…”
Once again, I’ll begin with a TL;DR version of the review, and that about sums up my thoughts for “mother!”. It is genuinely impossible to categorize this film in the traditional sense. When I saw the trailers for it before other movies it looked like it was going to be a horror movie. I could almost guess at the plot that the trailers seemed to suggest, with a happy couple and a husband who seems more interested in a series of very strange guests, plus something to do with the basement… it seemed to me like the plot was going to be a horror movie about a woman who finds out that her husband is a cult leader, or something similar. When it first came out it was obvious that that was NOT the plot based on the response the film got online, with some people praising it and others condemning it as the worst film ever. I therefore went in to it with no idea what to expect, other than knowing it wasn’t going to be what I expected it to be.
My first words after it ended were to turn to my friend and ask “what the hell did we just watch?”, in both a good and bad way, and then we got talking about it… and we talked about it over dinner, and for about an hour afterwards, trying to figure out the symbolism, going on to Google to look at some reviews and tell each other what different parts were meant to symbolise… and honestly I’ve never spent so much time thinking about and talking about a film after seeing it. Does that make it a good film? It certainly makes it thought provoking. Therefore, if you’re looking for a film that may make you think, will undoubtedly confuse the hell out of you, but that has some very interesting imagery and a very bizarre story then this is definitely a film for you. If you’re expecting a traditional Hollywood film then you’ll hate this. This is NOT a traditional Hollywood film… but that’s kind of why I like it, because how often do you see something so completely different?
The Setup
From the very beginning the film is very weird. It begins with a burning woman, engulfed in flames, as the house burns around her, and then a crystal. The crystal is placed on a mantle in a stand and as soon as it is the house begins to “heal”, repairing itself and rebuilding itself in what I first thought was just a cool vision of the house being repaired after being burned down by previous owners. After we see this we see a woman (Jennifer Lawrence) waking up in bed and reaching out to the side of the bed where her husband should be, only he’s not there. She sits up and calls out for him, before she goes looking for him. She eventually finds him, her husband (Javier Bardem), and we find that while she’s clearly a loving housewife, he’s a struggling writer. He’s obviously been a great writer in the past, but he’s got writers block and is unable to come up with his next great work. That’s clearly frustrating him, and he’s distracting himself with anything and everything else, while she seems content on rebuilding the once damaged house, redecorating and painting the walls, and otherwise supporting him as best she can to get him through his writer’s block.
It seems like a story about a loving wife and a somewhat aloof husband, although we see in moments that her husband clearly loves her. Then we get a visitor knocking on the door. The visitor (Ed Harris) is a doctor who’s come to the house thinking it’s a bed and breakfast. The woman clearly doesn’t want him to stay, but without even asking her, her husband invites him to stay in one of their spare rooms, happily agreeing that they’ll make him dinner, that they’ll put him up for the night, and seemingly enjoying having the company. The woman is clearly upset by this, but her husband spends some time with the doctor. While he’s there, however, he’s continuously suffering from coughing fits, and appears that he hasn’t got long to live. That night she sees him bent over the toilet coughing, with her husband angrily slamming the door in her face when she sees this. The next morning, the woman is even more curious about him and looks through his bag. She finds a picture of her husband. Her husband tells her that he knows, that he wasn’t a stranger, that he’s a huge fan and that he’s dying and just wanted to meet him. The woman is very uncertain about this, an uncertainty that only increases when out of nowhere the man’s wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up as well, and is once again invited to stay by the woman’s husband.
The woman is uneasy around her two houseguests, and even more upset by the fact that neither of them seem in any rush to leave, and her husband seems in no rush to kick them out either. He seems to just enjoy having them there, and glad of the distraction from having to focus on his writing. That is until the two houseguests insist on going into his study, where he writes and where the mysterious crystal is sat. She begs them not to touch it, but they do, with the woman accidentally dropping it and smashing it. As soon as the crystal smashes everything seems to go wrong, the peaceful demeanour of her husband changes dramatically, and it’s not long before more people show up, one of them dies quite dramatically after a fight, and the woman’s life is thrown into disarray. But that’s not the end of the story. There are more house guests who show up, a whole second half of the film where the woman becomes pregnant, and so many bizarre and crazy events that it’s almost difficult to follow at times. Still though, it’s a unique film, a unique vision and unlike anything I’ve ever sat through before. It’s impossible for me to say this was a BAD film because it wasn’t. It wasn’t a traditional film at all however, the plot isn’t a traditional plot, the music (or lack thereof) and the camera work is far from ordinary, the setting is far from a standard Hollywood style story, and the ending is thought provoking and explanative, while also being utterly confusing.
The Delivery
I’m going to try and talk about the delivery of this film without spoilers, but it may just be spoiler-lite rather than spoiler free, because it’s going to be really hard to do it without giving anyway stuff. That may not be a bad thing however, considering it’ll help you decide if you even WANT to watch the film, as it’s not possible to explain the film WITHOUT giving you spoilers, I don’t think. So, I’ll begin by saying that the direction of this film is unlike anything I’ve seen before. I don’t know how they did the camera work, but it’s truly interesting to see. It’s not quite “shaky cam” handheld footage, but there are parts of it that feel like it is. The whole movie, after all, focuses on the singular title character of “mother”, played by Jennifer Lawrence, and the film mostly just follows her from room to room, up and around the house, and we get to see and experience everything that she sees and experiences. Therefore, the film doesn’t have any long, flowing landscape shots or jump-cut action sequences or anything like that. In fact, I realised after talking about the film for a while, I’m pretty sure Jennifer Lawrence’s character never actually goes outside the entire film! There are views of the scene outside, from the beautiful, scenic shot of the house at one stage early on to views of people coming toward the house at different times, but Jennifer’s Lawrence’s character spends the entire film inside the house from what I can recall, and it’s a pretty cramped space, which I think is why the camera work has to be the way it is.
Then there’s the score. The more I think about it the more I think that there is no music in this film. There may be, at some moments, but it’s certainly not “scored” in the traditional sense that movies normally are. There’s no dramatic music at dramatic moments, or loving music to tell you how to feel in the loving moments. If there is then it’s far subtler than in normal Hollywood films. Instead there’s a lot more emphasis on the sounds inside the house, the footsteps, the slamming of doors, and everything else of that nature. This gives the film a very different feel while you’re watching it, and one that I honestly enjoyed. I’m so used to films with music throughout that dictates how you feel at all moments. There’s a movie I watched recently that had ‘romantic’ music during what I think was a very unromantic moment, which obviously helps the audience feel like this moment is a good thing, a love scene (even if I wholly disagree with that movie’s vision of ‘love’), and I don’t recall anything like that in “mother!”. There’s no music dictating how you feel throughout, and instead it’s just left down to you to interpret all the different things you’re seeing, some of which are insanely confusing and that we spent hours afterwards discussing the meaning of.
That’s one thing about this film though. There is so much in it that’s obviously meant to be interpreted, and that you’ve got to put thought into what it is and what it represents. The film does NOT spell it out for you in any way, shape or form. This isn’t the kind of film where the writer and the director take you on a journey and spell out every moment with tons of on-screen text for you to read or tons of exposition that comes from other characters to spell it out for you. Instead you just see things and events occur with absolutely no explanation whatsoever, to the point that I joked afterwards that one thing that would help the film is if they handed out an “idiots guide” after it just to explain what each of the different things symbolised. I will tell you, with trying not to spoil it, that once you figure out a few of them you can mostly put together the rest. Once you figure out what the film is ACTUALLY about, which we did discuss for a while until we came to realise, then it becomes a lot easier to understand what each of the characters represented in that grander theme, why each of the characters acted as they did, and indeed what the overall movie is about. And if you can’t figure that out, have a quick Google and you’ll quickly see. I’ll try not to spoil it here, although I may end up writing a much more detailed spoiler-filled version of this with my analysis of the movie.
One thing I think that is worth talking about with this movie is that while the symbolism obviously represents one plot, and that’s undoubtedly the director’s intent, it’s done in such a non-traditional way that I can’t help but wonder if the movie has more to say than just a retelling of a very classic story. One thing that I couldn’t let go of after the movie, and still can’t let go of now, is the fact that this film felt so much like the different kinds of love. It’s so obvious how different the two main characters are, and Jennifer Lawrence’s character is clearly fully in love with her husband, she wants to spend time with him, she’s perfectly content being in their house and it just being the two of them together, whereas Javier Bardem’s character – a writer, an artist – seems like he needs so much more. It seems to me that while she’s in love with him and wants it to be just the two of them, he wants to share his love with more people, he wants to be admired by his fans and by the world, and he seems unhappy with the idea of it just being the two of them. He wants to be surrounded by people, to be involved in the world, whereas she wants to be hidden away from it. Part of me wonders if this is meant to be the case, and if it’s meant to be a vision of a woman’s love versus a man’s love. The man wants to share himself with the world, whereas the woman only wants to have him and her alone. Was that intended, or did I just read more into it than there was meant to be? Because if that was intended then honestly, it’s one of my favourite things in the film.
Another thing that’s worth pointing out about the film is that, as you’ve probably noticed throughout this blog, there are no character names. The film is utterly unique in that sense, because throughout the entire film nobody is actually given a name. No character refers to another character by name, there is no text on screen or in photos that tells us who the characters are or what their names are, instead we just see them and, when they’re not directly talking to each other, they refer to each other only by titles. The main character calls out “baby?” when she’s looking for her husband at one stage. Michelle Pfeiffer’s character refers to her husband as her husband at one stage, I believe. Jennifer Lawrence just refers to their guests as “him” and “her”, and I think at one stage the man is labelled as “the doctor”, but nothing more. None of them have names, not even when more people are involved, and that’s another aspect of the film that I’ve never seen before. It completely works in this film though, because if they gave the character’s names it would dramatically lessen the impact of the film in so many ways. Plus, honestly, there’s no need for names here. Forcing names onto these characters would seem weird, especially when you think about the movie afterwards.
The Verdict
If you want to know more about the way I rate films, check out my new post explaining exactly that. That can be found by clicking here: The Verdict: Ranking Systems
Now, my ranking system is meant for traditional films, and this film is so far from traditional that it’s so difficult to put it within a normal system. I’m going to put it as “Good”, mostly because while it is a good film, and part of me wants to give it higher, it’s also so subjective that I think it’s impossible to really tell someone this film is “very good” or even “great” because when they see it there’s a very good chance that they’ll think completely differently. I saw this film with my Odeon Limitless pass, and if I’d paid full price for it on opening night I may feel differently about it, but all I will say about this film in terms of what it’s worth paying to see it is that it’s an experience. It’s a viewing experience that you won’t get again this year, and may not get again for a long time from a Hollywood film. It’s as much a piece of art, meant to be interpreted, as it is a traditional film, and so if you want to take the risk of seeing it and knowing you may be disappointed, but you may also be thinking about it and looking for what it means and trying to think what each thing represented then it’s worth paying for. Otherwise, if you want guaranteed and traditional entertainment for your money, I’d recommend finding a way to watch it for free (Netflix for sure).
Rating:
Good
Watch It On Rental/Watch It On Netflix
If you watch this film and want to discuss it, or you watched this film and want an explanation of what in the unholy hell you just saw, then have a look on the blog and see if I’ve posted another entry about the film in a more spoiler-filled way. All I will say is that there’s so much to see with the film, and I’d recommend that everyone watch it if only to know that you hate it or love it. It’s entirely possible that the person next to you may have an entirely different response to you. I could see this being as divisive amongst viewers as it’s been amongst critics, where some have rated it 5/5 and some have given it 0/5. It’s an experience that I went in fully not expecting in the least, but I’m very glad I did watch it upon reflection. And as I said, you won’t get another film like this in 2017 for sure, and maybe not again for a long, long time.
If you’ve seen it, let me know your thoughts. I’d love to discuss it with people who loved or hated it. Get hold of on Twitter (@AlexisEbdon) or on Facebook (Facebook.com/ajebdon) and tell me what you thought, tell me if you’d like to see me discuss the imagery and the “meaning” of the film, or if you’ve not seen it tell me why, and maybe I can convince you to give it a go on Netflix in the future.