Cultureculturemotheraronofskymovies

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 07:31 AM

mother!

Anyone seen the movie "mother!"

It is a weird head trip for sure. I saw it and was unimpressed but not offended in any way. Apparently some so called "Christians" think it is offensive. As someone with a Christian background I'm curious why they think that.

I found the movie tedious but entertaining. The acting was solid.

I don't want to give spoilers here so I don't want to reference the allegory Aronofsky was working from. I would recommend this movie if you like weird head trips but it falls far short of "Great" head trip movies like "Melancholia" and "The Meaning of Life".

For the interested here is the trailer:

28 replies, 1071 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply mother! (Original post)
marmot84 Sep 2017 OP
Gunslinger201 Sep 2017 #1
marmot84 Sep 2017 #2
TM999 Sep 2017 #3
marmot84 Sep 2017 #4
TM999 Sep 2017 #6
marmot84 Sep 2017 #8
TM999 Sep 2017 #14
marmot84 Sep 2017 #17
TM999 Sep 2017 #18
marmot84 Sep 2017 #19
TM999 Sep 2017 #21
marmot84 Sep 2017 #23
TM999 Sep 2017 #27
MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy Sep 2017 #13
TM999 Sep 2017 #15
MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy Sep 2017 #16
TM999 Sep 2017 #20
MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy Sep 2017 #22
TM999 Sep 2017 #24
MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy Sep 2017 #25
TM999 Sep 2017 #26
MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy Sep 2017 #28
bernt-toast Sep 2017 #5
marmot84 Sep 2017 #9
bernt-toast Sep 2017 #10
oflguy Sep 2017 #7
Iron Condor Sep 2017 #11
graham4anything4HC45 Sep 2017 #12

Response to marmot84 (Original post)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 07:48 AM

1. I just heard it sucked

Worst Movie of the Century (so far)

From the idiotic drug-addict hokum Requiem for a Dream to the overrated, overwrought and over-hyped Black Swan, which I called “a lavishly staged Repulsion in toe shoes,” the films of wack job Darren Aronofsky have shown a dark passion for exploring twisted souls in torment. But nothing he’s done before to poison the ozone layer prepared me for mother!, an exercise in torture and hysteria so over the top that I didn’t know whether to scream or laugh out loud. Stealing ideas from Polanski, Fellini and Kubrick, he’s jerrybuilt an absurd Freudian nightmare that is more wet dream than bad dream, with the subtlety of a chainsaw.- Rex Reed

(Ouch!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 08:02 AM

2. I basically agree

I definitely thought Requiem was way over rated. But I loved Black Swam, mostly because of Natalie Portman whom I admire.

You are right. This movie is a twisted absurd "Freudian" nightmare. But, for me at least, it was an entertaining one. As I said in my review, it definitely wasn't a great "twisted nightmare" like Melancholia which I loved and rank among my favorite movies of all time. mother! doesn't make my top 10 but it also doesn't make my bottom 10 either.

For interested readers here is the trailer for Melancholia. I would suggest it is better on the big screen but that is likely not possible now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Original post)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 08:42 AM

3. It mocks Mariology.

In and of itself, that is not 'offensive' per se. I mean Christians are quite used to it for the last fifty years by Hollywood leftists and other 'artists' trying to be 'edgy' (remember Piss Jesus?)

Now, what is offensive is that if someone made an edgy, artsy, disturbing film based on Moses, it would be labeled anti-Semitic and shut down. If someone made a modern retake on the pedophile Mohammad, it would be labeled Islamophobic and shut down.

It is du jour to mock Christianity while the left protects other sacred cows. It doesn't offend me personally, it is just boring and trite. Oh, look, another mockery of Christianity done by Hollywood. Meh, I'll pass. It will be neither edgy or artistic. Lawrence is hardly a 'great' actress and horror porn is so 2005.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 09:34 AM

4. So trying hard to avoid spoiler details...

it is basically a retelling of the classical story of the Bible set in weird modern "artistic" psychological terms. Like it or don't like it, how can you claim it is a "leftists thingy"; whatever that is?

I don't see it as mocking Mariology. Actually, I would say that it was quite true to Mariology which has a big role in the telling of the story and is honored and sympathized with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 12:12 PM

6. No, it is not an artistic retelling

and I find it truly hard to believe that you think it is true to Mariology.

It mocks Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, the Sacred Heart, the Virgin Birth, etc. I don't really remember Mary committing murder do you?

It is specifically blasphemous with its depiction of the Christ child, His murder, and cannibalism. In particular, as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, Jesus did not have his bones broken at the end of the crucifixion which was a common practice. This movie turns that on its head with the broken neck.

Of course it is leftist. This is what the left has done since the 1960's both inside and outside of church's. Sacred tradition is supplanted and replaced with personal Gnosis, individual interpretation, and 'artistic' license.

But as I said, y'all are free to make it. I just find it particularly interesting how the left refuses to blaspheme any other religions except for Christianity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 03:25 PM

8. So what do you call

transubstantiation other than cannibalism? If you hate the movie then I like it just a little bit more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 01:52 AM

14. You have no real interest in understanding

what transubstantiation is and what it means in the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Catholic Church.

Of you will like it, Marxists are more obsessed with God than anyone I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 06:41 AM

17. Excuse me?

I'm Episcopal and have been confirmed. We accept the Catholic tradition of transubstantiation and call ourselves "catholic" though not Roman Catholic obviously. My dad is a priest in the Episcopal church. I know a little about such things.

You are just attacking me because you don't like my politics. You have no basis to judge me beyond that.

The movie was fiction. Obviously we were seeing the directors reflection on transubstantiation in the midst of his allegory. What is your point beyond attempting to belittle me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:28 AM

18. Good for you.

I was raised Episcopalian, confirmed and went to Seminary. The ECA and the Church of England have been all over the place with regards to Eucharistic theology and other core doctrines for centuries now. There are four common views which have varied through out the history of the Anglican Church as well as across the centuries. They are Corporeal, Pneumatic, Consubstantiation, and Receptionism.

The ECA today adheres to the Consubstantiation and even then often as an historical artifact of the 39 Articles. You can find that in the back of your Book of Common Prayer. It was still there in 1979 but I don't know if they have removed it. Only Anglo-Catholics adhere to the Corporeal which is transubstantiation.

So perhaps you are an Anglo-Catholic who has broken from the ECA and is now in full Communion with Rome. Great, but I doubt you will confirm this.

The director is a Jew. Fiction or not, allegory or not, he has no real concept at all of transubstantiation. To 'reflect' on it is a part of the mockery. Are you up on your Aquinian concepts of person, substance, and accident? Shall we discuss person, soul, and body? Or perhaps the human Jesus and the resurrected 'super-body' of Jesus Christ? If you want to head over to the belief section, sure let's go for it.

But this atheistic cultural Jewish director conflates transubstantiation with cannibalism (a tired anti-Christian attack going back to the catacombs of Rome). There is no 'deep' reflection here on a mystery. It is just a mockery designed to titillate and be 'edgy'. And if you are an Anglo-Catholic and truly include transubstantiation and more importantly believe it, then you have to agree with me. You do not, so hence my 'attacks' on your lack of knowledge between cannibalism and transubstantiation. While yes, I do disagree often with your politics, that is not the basis for my 'attack'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:30 AM

19. You can not know what the director knows

So any views you have after that statement are quite irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:38 AM

21. No, I can not know for sure

but I can look to his other movies, his stated beliefs, his atheism, his political beliefs and the film I actually watched and deduce that yes, he is mocking Christianity and in particular Mariology.

And you want to know why I attack your particular brand of leftism. Because you make an emotional statement and believe that you can therefore dismiss the factual statements of others who disagree with you. That is Marxist ideology through and through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:43 AM

23. Wrong on all counts

as usual

FYI, I'm not emotional about this in ANY way. I'm wondering why you have become so engaged and concerned. Other than your hate for me and my ideas, you seem to be pretty serious about showing that I am wrong while I understand that there is no right or wrong here. Most everything is open to interpretation.

Are you being antisemitic in attacking a Jewish director? It seems to me that by some definitions you are but I'm sure you will deny it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 12:13 PM

27. Your claim is without any evidence.

So I can certainly dismiss it as emotion driven.

As a relativist, yes, you think there is no right or wrong only perspective. I am not one. There is a right answer or a wrong answer. Is the film a mockery. Yes, and I have offered proof. You have claimed it is not and have offered nothing to back up your claims. You went off on one tangent about cannibalism and transubstantiation, claim you understand it, but obviously do not, and that was about it.

Of course, it is not Antisemitism to correctly state that a cultural Jewish, non-religious individual who makes such a movie as this is mocking Christianity.

But as usual, you proved my point. Thanks for playing Marmot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 08:08 PM

13. May a person not mock the religion in which they were reared?

 

I say yes. (I don't really care what you say, but feel free.)

(Andres Serrano was reared a strict Roman Catholic; even if Pisse Christ were what you falsely depict it as being, he is absolutely entitled to comment on the religion that was imposed on him and is still imposed on millions and millions of people, in whatever way he likes.)

In the case of mother!, the filmmaker was reared a "cultural Jew". I'm quite happy to give Jews a pass on mocking Christianity, given that Christians felt perfectly free to both appropriate the Jews' god and scriptures and persecute Jews.

(Not that I'm persuaded that this movie is mockery; you seem well enough acquainted with it that you must have seen it already.... or perhaps you're just quoting the Catholic Defense League memos ...)

Generally speaking, it is at best bad manners to mock other people's religion, or to act as if it is any of one's business at all, and is often, worse, a blatant effort to generate contempt and hatred for the people in question.

It is really unsurprising that the most mocked religion in the west is Christianity, since it is Christians who long held sway in the west, and still do to varying degrees.

If people of any religion would keep their religion private and not constantly inject it into the public discourse and attempt to have public policy made in the image of their particular religion, I daresay we would see considerably less mockery.

And if adherents of Christianity, or any other religion, would make more of a point of dissociating themselves from the worst examples of its followers in that regard, it would be easier for the rest of us to make that distinction as well.

I have no problem making it myself -- there are many decent, honourable Christians (from all sects) and there are sects that avoid minding other people's business. If someone wants to believe in a trisected supernatural being, or elephant gods, or weird and wonderful afterlives, while feeding the hungry and housing the homeless and urging public policy to that end if they choose, whatever their inner reasons may be, they will get no negative comment from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 03:53 AM

15. It is this sort of typical Ivy

response that makes it so unpleasant and difficult to discuss anything with you.

1) You always argue with someone about what you think they said as opposed to what they really said. Please quote where I said anyone could not mock Christianity with any qualifiers. I simply stated it was a mockery, folks are free to do so, and I find it interesting how modern atheist leftists are the ones who most often do so.

2) You allow your own personal childhood experiences to emotional color every thing you think or critique about Christianity. You never once consider that it might simply be your own projections.

Serrano's art is political, lurid, and often a mockery. I don't give two shits if he was raised Catholic or not. And this childish 'imposed' upon argument only works for kids like you who had the misfortune of growing up under some extremist & fundamentalist authoritarianism masquerading as Christianity.

And yet again, you display your gross ignorance. Christians did not 'appropriate' the Jewish God. The Messiah came. They denied it. They turned him over to Rome to be executed. Most of the early Christians were Jews, but after the fall of Jerusalem and their scatter, the Gentiles converted in far greater numbers making it the religion it would ultimately become.

And no, Christians did not persecute Jews. Like all atheists, you argue from particulars to the general and always by emotion, not logic.

Thankfully Christianity is still the dominant Western religion. You can thank your entire modern secular existence on what it has provided over the centuries from science to art to philosophy to economics.

Spare me I respect certain sects arguments, because the reality is you only 'respect' those that don't challenge your sacred leftist cows. If they do, well then they are bad, bad, bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 04:08 AM

16. And you just play let's pretend.

 

"2) You allow your own personal childhood experiences to emotional color every thing you think or critique about Christianity. You never once consider that it might simply be your own projections."

Whatever you think / claim / imagine you are talking about, it's your own invention.

I find it quite impossible to discuss anything with anyone who makes shit up and pretends I said it.


"And this childish 'imposed' upon argument only works for kids like you who had the misfortune of growing up under some extremist & fundamentalist authoritarianism masquerading as Christianity."

See? Pure fabricated bullshit.

I actually grew up in one of the most theologically and socially liberal churches on the face of the earth. I harbor not the least ill will toward it, and I admire most of what it and its adherents do. I credit that denomination (and my family, many of whom belonged to it) for its influence on my worldview and values. I would also note that ecumenism was one of its focuses when I was growing up.

(Obviously, I do not respect individuals or sects of any religion who do not preach and act according to the golden rule. You're right, there.)

So: Make shit up, use it to attack the speaker, ignore what the speaker said.

In particular, accuse all atheists of being non-believers solely as a result of being bitten by a nun or abused by a minister in their youth.

Your work here appears to be done.


Oh, btw:

"You can thank your entire modern secular existence on what it has provided over the centuries from science to art to philosophy to economics."

More bullshit. I think you may have heard of Jews, even if you're not really up on what other non-Christian individuals and societies have contributed to humanity.

But while I'm thanking the Christian church for all these wondrous things, I'll also have to thank it for all its repressive, backward, anti-science and anti-human contributions, I do believe. And you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:36 AM

20. Darling, then you are the liar

because you have made many claims in the past about your faulty Christian education and the numerous reasons why you as a feminist had to escape it.

Were those true or not?

We don't call Western culture Jewdom, we call it Christendom.

I also encourage you to read Bearing False Witness by Stark. Hell read all of his books. The Church was neither repressive, backwards, anti-science or anti-human. The Church brought about 'liberalism', provided secular stability when Rome fell (universities began in monasteries), is neither forward nor backwards but is rather transitive and transformative, extremely pro-science (from Bacon to Mendel to da Vinci to Pascal to Fabricius to Fibonacci to Pasteur to Muller), and Catholic social teachings are the very foundation of humanism.

As usual, your incredibly ignorant personal biases cloud your mind to the historical reality that you refuse to accept emotion. So yes, whether you lied or not about your past, my assessment of you as being emotional biased and therefore incapable of seeing fact independent of your emotional states still very much stands.

Want to go for round two councilor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:42 AM

22. "then you are the liar"

 

Your post is one big lie.

"because you have made many claims in the past about your faulty Christian education and the numerous reasons why you as a feminist had to escape it."

How many people am I the sock for now? I appear to have multiple very conflicting personalities.

I have never said any such thing, just so you're clear.

My former church began ordaining women close to a century ago, just to help you out some more.

Your new-found one is a figment of your imagination.

In case you actually failed to get it: I refer you, again, for starters, to the various posts in this vicinity about all the Jewish Nobel Prize winners. Christians have not fared well in those sweepstakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 11:53 AM

24. Ivy, darling,

your very existence here is a lie. You are a sock. Everyone gets it. You can continue to play games but you reveal yourself constantly for who you are. Period.

No, actually your long diatribe mentioned nothing about Nobel Prize winners or Jews winning it. So as usual, once your ass has been handed to you, you move the goal posts.

But let me hand you your ass yet again. 22.4% of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Jews, and Christians have won 78.3% of all Nobel Prizes. So yes, yet again, Ivy dear, you are not just wrong, but very and most certainly wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 11:57 AM

25. So you admit you lied.

 

Good show. Don't forget to tell that priest.

Christian:Jewish ratio of Nobel winners = 78:22. Hm. Good reflection of the population, amirite?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 12:03 PM

26. Again, a deflection from the truth

to bolster your lies.

Well, if Jews were so damned special as you attribute them to be, why is their ratio still so incredibly low?

Of course it is all silliness because, your premise is bullshit to begin with. The Nobel Prize is 100 years old or so. You are trying to take a 'ratio' argument to dispel the reality of over 2000 years of Christendom and its contributions to and foundation of our Western culture.

Nice try councilor but once more you are rightfully smacked down for the specious and flawed arguments that inevitably always fail.

Want to try a third one? I have some free time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 12:26 PM

28. Yes, Jews contributed nothing much to "western" civilization.

 

Okay dokey, if you say so.


The lie you have tacitly admitted was about myself. Your apology is accepted.

I do seem to acquire mythical status, I must say. I guess I am all things to all people. That may make me a god ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Original post)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 10:02 AM

5. I just read a bunch of viewer reviews and the story line. Think I'll pass.

45%of google viewers don't hate it.

Not sure why you're holding back on the allegory; the director himself pre-announced it, and one of the biggest complaints is how he hammers it into your head and over again for 2 hours straight. Most people write they got in the first 5 minutes and everything else was overkill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bernt-toast (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 03:28 PM

9. I don't think it would be possible to "get it" after 5 minutes

based on the discussion of the allegory that I saw. But then, if you don't grasp the allegory at all then it will seem like a bunch of disconnected weirdness. If this bothers you and you don't like looking at Jennifer Lawrence then don't see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 04:00 PM

10. Maybe the viewers that got it that fast had read the director's statement...

Or maybe they only thought they got it

I just know after reading through viewers reviews at one of the movie sites and the story line at a couple sites, I had no interest in spending either the time or money on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Original post)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 12:25 PM

7. Unless it's comedy, non-fiction is a waste of time

The truth is far stranger and entertaining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Original post)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 06:25 PM

11. .....





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Original post)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 06:32 PM

12. Judging by the outroar by the trump voters, it must be the greatest movie of the year

the phony negative comments on rotten tomatoes is a bot campaign much like 90% of the anti-Hillary
comments were in the 2016 election everywhere. Fake news from people who didn't see the film itself.

Probably one can trace it all back to Roger Stone or Sinclair or Steve Bannon or Breitbart or Hobby Lobby (did Hobby Lobby ever return the Holocaust artifacts they were illegally holding? My grandmother until they day she died wondered what happened to some of the art they were forced to give up)

When I see it I shall write a post on it.

but when another thread mentioned it was "the worst movie of all time" I should have known

Most critics love the movie. A major divide hasn't happened in years
so I now realize that the Rotten Tomatoes and other media site haters(I mean bots) were a coordinated hit job on the film.(and I seriously doubt
any of those Rotten Tomatoes site hate haters actually saw the film itself.

I can understand though, that donald trump wouldn't like Jennifer Lawrence or Javier Bardem

that's my opinion


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Cultureculturemotheraronofskymovies