I Have Questions. 
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILER DISCUSSION.

"mother!" is directed and written by Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan, Requiem for a Dream) and stars Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games, Silver Linings Playbook), Javier Bardem (Skyfall, Pirates of the Caribbean 5), Ed Harris (The Truman Show, Apollo 13), Michelle Pfeiffer (Batman Returns, Hairspray) and Domhnall Gleeson (Ex Machina, American Made). "A couple's relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence". It could be argued that Darren Aronofsky is yet to make a bad film. Will "mother!" continue his hot streak or is it his first major misfire?

This film is going to be controversial. Some will hate it. Some won't get it. But some, and I fall into this group, will adore the film and appreciate it as the masterpiece it is. I agree with the criticism that the film is a mess. However, I'd like to counter that critique and say that "mother!" is a perfectly orchestrated mess. It's clear that Aronofsky knows exactly where he is taking it and regardless of how crazy and absurd it becomes, there's a underlying sense of control that everything is happening for a reason. "mother!" is the highest of high-brow horror films. It's not going to appeal to the mainstream but don't dismiss it as this is one of the most intellectual, sophisticated and disturbing films I have ever seen. It's nothing short of genius. 

The star of "mother!" is Jennifer Lawrence. It's one of those films where everything relies on the leads performance- if she was bad, my thoughts towards the entire film would be different. However, this is Jennifer Lawrence. One of my favourite actresses who always delivers, even if the film around her is awful. She's done horror before (see "The House at the End of the Street") and it's not gone down too well. However, "House.." was much more low-brow, "Mother!" is far superior. If I'm being honest, I wasn't too sure on Lawrence's performance during many moments of the film. I just thought her line delivery was a little off at times. However, it all clicked as things became open for interpretation. I believe that Lawrence's character was suffering with a mental health condition- I'm not sure on the specific one but she definitely showed symptoms of OCD, panic attacks and anxiety. This would explain why Lawrence's character seemed so uneasy, confused and wary in most scenes- it wasn't because Lawrence was doing a bad job delivering the lines, it was because the character was uncomfortable and distressed by what was going on. There's a level of nuance to Lawrence's performance that I think is commendable. What's even more amazing is that I think her performance would work with any interpretation of the film. I'm unsure as to whether this will get her a second Oscar win or even a nomination but I definitely was impressed and wouldn't be upset if she did. This film proves how skilled and talented Lawrence is. Many call her Oscar win a fluke and undeserved but she proves them all wrong with yet another superb performance. 

Another con I would of had towards Lawrence's performance prior to working the film out was that there wasn't that chemistry between her and Javier Bardem. The film is quite self-aware with the fact that they are a very unconventional couple. However, the 'love' does feel extremely one-sided. Lawrence seems attached to Bardem and conveys lots of love and passion. Bardem on the other hand? He's not conveying any sort of romance at all. Then it becomes clear in the final act of the film. Bardem's character loves having somebody there that is so strongly attached and in love with him. He needs that in his life to function. However, he makes no conscious effort to express love back. Bardem's character is very interesting and I ended up believing he was some sort of cult leader or at least 'the face' of a cult. It's definitely something I would have to work out from further re-watches and analysis to be more confident describing his performance. The most important thing to remember about anything throughout "mother!" is that nothing is as it seems and there is always more than meets the eye. As for Harris, Pfeiffer and Gleeson? Their roles are actually much smaller than I was expecting. However, there is still some interesting stuff going on. In summary though, Pfeiffer gives a great death stare and Gleeson is a haunting psychopath. 

The first hour or so of "mother!" is a slow burn. I don't mind films that choose this style of pacing but what I always want is a strong pay-off to make the waiting worth it. "mother!" definitely ticks that box but more on that later. What I liked about the films first act is that there was a sense of mystery and intrigue that was building. It wasn't just like watching everyday life and then BAM something interesting happens, there were little hints that continued to build and become more prominent until the big finish. The hints of craziness in the first act are almost always stopped by Lawrence's character drinking a yellow coloured medicine that shimmers and shines as if it a potion of some sort. This is what lead me down the mental health path. Lawrence sees the medicine as a literal magic potion that will make her feel better. I thought this was a nice touch and was something that had a hidden meaning/layer. The arrival of 'Man' (Harris) and 'Woman' (Pfeiffer) was mysterious and peculiar. What was even more puzzling though was as soon as the family (they are joined by their sons later on) have a big climactic drama, they are never seen or heard of again. This also made me believe that Lawrence's character could be suffering with schizophrenia. To some, "mother!" may play like watching the downfall of a mentally ill woman. Almost like the play "Yerma". There are also hints of the desire for children throughout the first half but that need is fulfilled later on. The first half concludes with a bizarre 'wake'-style get together. This involved many more visitors arriving at the house and disturbing the piece of the lead character. Her anxiety is triggered. 

The fact that none of the characters seen in the first half are never seen or mentioned again is what makes "mother!" seem like a mess. It's just chunks of a big puzzle that don't really mesh together. However, if these characters are just hallucinations inside Lawrence's head, that makes sense and turns a mess into an organised mess. My case is supported by the film very clearly being from Lawrence's perspective. There isn't a scene without her. If she leaves a room, we leave the room. The audience feel the confusion and shock that she does. So if she sees hallucinations, surely we would to? This unique stylistic choice really adds to the layers of the film and is the main reason for why the true meaning is such a mystery. We don't know the full story. We never see Bardem talk to Harris alone. They are evidently having private conversations that we do not know about or get to hear. Before I delve into the second half of the film which is incredibly interesting, I'm going to address audience expectations. This has been sold as a horror film so I'm sorry to say, it's going to disappoint the mainstream. I would definitely agree that it fits into the genre but it just doesn't have enough cheap jump scares or a fast enough pace for the mainstream to get on board. There were definitely a few jumpy moments- when a bloody Gleeson turns up behind Lawrence is one moment in particular and there is certainly some horrific and gory imagery. However, I think this is going to be a little too ambitious and intellectual for the mundane horror fan. 

Let's talk about that wild, crazy, shocking, disturbing and horrific second act. It all almost comes out of no where. A sense of equilibrium seems to have been restored- Lawrence is pregnant with a child and Bardem finally gets back to working and ends up writing a best-selling poem. That's when bad things start to happen. Is the film trying to tell us that happiness is never permanent? Or with it being from Lawrence's perspective, is it showing a side to success that doesn't really get highlighted- the feeling of when your success is overshadowed by another?- Bardem's poem gets far more attention than Lawrence's pregnancy...even Bardem doesn't care that much. Then it slowly (but also very quickly) gets crazier and crazier. Bardem has masses of fans storming through the house wanting a piece of him to take home. Is this commentary on fan culture? Then there's some really horrific imagery that almost resembles many major issues in the world today. Terrorism. Immigration. War. Being a minority. This couple's house transforms into a representation of today's world and what it's like to be a human. It's hell- a cruel world out there. The couple finally find a room of safety for Lawrence to give birth. However, Bardem takes the baby as she falls asleep. She awakes and finds that the baby is being used almost as a sacrifice. Is this now some commentary on religion? There is some really heart-breaking and horrific imagery involving the baby's death. It was truly disturbing. Lawrence then gets battered and bruised in a really intense scene. Throughout this, she is body-shamed and some horrendous names are thrown here way. This seemed self-aware as Lawrence herself has gained some internet trolls in recent years and has probably been called lots of those names but it was also so poignant as so many women are body-shamed, sexually harassed and insulted too often. Lawrence then goes on a brief killing rampage before going to the cellar and setting alight to the entire house. She's dead....nope, Bardem seems to be almost a god-like figure and rips her heart out which turns into the diamond that he used to restore life into the house at the beginning of the film. A new cycle then begins with another blonde lover for Bardem. This is some Inception crazy stuff. 

My interpretation of the whole thing is that it's partially a look at mental health. I definitely believe Lawrence's character suffers from schizophrenia. I also believes she shows signs of OCD and anxiety. Having a baby is very important to her and for a very brief moment, everything is right in the world when she finds out she is pregnant. The moment Lawrence gives birth is touching. She has a really impressive scene where Bardem tries to hold the baby and Lawrence demands "No. I am his mother". She finally stands up to him. Even though Lawrence's time with the baby is only brief. The film has done a good enough job developing her desire and relationship with the idea of a baby so when the baby is taken from her. Her world truly does shatter and crumble. Lawrence's character only has three things she loves. 1. The house she spends her entire time decorating. 2. The thought of and the actual baby. 3. Her husband but she soon becomes cautious of him. All 3 of those things are taken from her. I'm sure I can develop a more substantial and thorough interpretation after further viewings and analysis but for now, I think the mental health route definitely plays a part. What I love about this film is it truly is one you could study and re-watch over and over and probably find something new.  I'm a film student at university so I really appreciate clever film-making and I would love to get the chance to actually analyse, pick apart and find out the true meaning behind this film.

So that's my complicated interpretation of "mother!" but I also got hints of other layers and possible meanings. This is why I really love the film. Some will get frustrated as there isn't one simple answer but for someone who gets a kick out of analysing films, "mother!" is pretty perfect. "mother!" could be a look into:

• The struggles of being a woman
• An intense and metaphorical representation of what it means to love somebody and the heart-break it can cause. For example, the feeling of giving your all just to be rejected, 
• A religious meaning. Some have said the film is about 'mother earth' with Bardem representing 'God'. This meaning is actually quite interesting and one I would like to look further into. This is Aronofsky's viewpoint, although its quite cynical, of how humans treat and ruin the world. 
• A political meaning. It's becoming more and more common for films to have a political agenda. Is there one hidden within "mother!"?