• Aronofsky’s mother! Is ambitious in its themes and the storytelling allegory– it’s not quite matched by the aesthetic greatness that he (aronofksy) is clearly capable of and are abound in requiem for a dream or black swan
  • The allegory is definitely that Bardem is God (a complicated and selfish one) and Lawrence is his mother earth and everything springs from there (his poem is eden), the gleeson brothers are cain and able, etc.
  • The glass/diamond object similar to david lynch’s box in Mulholland drive– just one of the many comparisons and influences though this is clearly aronofsky’s work and it’s not thievery by any means —clearly he borrows from Polanski (replulsion and a little from rosemary’s baby) but he also borrows from Bunuel with the exterminating angel and a little from dreyer and lars von trier (the danes!) with how he shoots his sacrificial lambs (breaking the waves, dancer and especially the close-ups of lawrence’s face in joan of arc)
  • I do think it’s more of an achievement for Lawrence than aronofsky—she’s wonderful here—pfieffer also comes away very well in her role
  • Stylistically the camera does sit on her shoulder which I love and this lends itself to the great performance from lawrence but the editing and music are not superb (like so many of his other works)- the mise-en-scene is consistently lit and it is a well-crafted film but not transcendent (or even on par with like the beguiled earlier this year from sofia coppola. The camera movements are not significant
  • Not 100% sure on the gold color palette meaning—not sure on the lighter either
  • I have also read a few critics talk about how the film is aronofsky’s version of his celebrity—a film of self examination and there’s writers block and how he was dating rachel weitz (actually the battered woman at the beginning looks like her a little) and his new girlfriend in Lawrence. This makes him bardem and this isn’t flattering but is an interesting read. You could see the same thing in black swan with the vincent cassel character as a vessel for aronofsky trying to get a risky performance out of his actor
  • No score but we have a small version of his trademark elevated diegetic sound
  • The execution of the allegory isn’t perfect nor is the narrative ridiculously engaging like a Mulholland drive
  • Certainly not the achievement of mise-en-scene that the fountain is
  • Ambitious in thematic grandeur but not visual stylization
  • Lawrence as passive caretaker mostly
  • “I’ll get to work on the apocalypse” and the believers eating the body of the baby (Christ)- the film is very easy to follow once you get the allegory
  • It sounds like I’m down on the film in general but that’s only because I expect a lot from aronofsky and I think we clearly have the second worst film here from him (after noah) so we’re in back to back worst films territory (though not descending)- I do admire the performance of lawrence and arnofsky gets credit here (burnstyn, Rourke and others have done amazing work with him) and the ambition of the ideas
  • Recommend/ HR border- leaning towards recommend right now