Salinger's terrible dream. Review of the film ”Mom!”
Darren Aronofsky is almost 50. He has reached the age when man has already cognized himself and began to be. Being did not strongly resist, and Aronofsky, putting it on the shelves, made the film "Mom!" The novelty from the creator of the Oscar-winning "Black Swan" and the iconic film of the Pepsi generation "Requiem for a Dream" made film critics measure their IQ. Meanwhile, the viewers, who followed the trailer, which promised a latent drama with a tackle to Hitchcock, scratched their heads in bewilderment from what was happening on the screen.The picture opens with an idyllic landscape, in the center of which two are placed. He (Javier Bardem) is a poet, she (the same "mother" performed by Jennifer Lawrence) is the poet's wife. However, to which genre the literary works of the protagonist belong is not completely clear. From the attendance passwords that the director throws at us in the first frames, we know that he is the author of some significant work, who is in a situation traditional for a creative person, codenamed “genre crisis”. He doesn't write. And he is hurt and suffering from this. Bardem managed to convey almost comically the expression on the face of a genius in depression, a kind of mixture of dissatisfaction with himself and hidden contempt for others who cannot comprehend the torment of creativity. The wife clucks around the genius to the best of her ability, but does not do it with the ponderousness of a spouse with thirty years of experience, but at ease and confidentially. She seems to cover her chilled shoulders with a blanket - she feeds, gets lost in the folds of the house when her husband needs privacy, and constantly peers into his face, trying to catch signals and predict desires. From all the symptoms, it is clear that the young wife has a severe form of love, bordering on worship.  Meanwhile, in Aronofsky, every frame is a canvas of the Renaissance, where signs of reality, such as the ornate architecture of the house, the moderately frank clothes of a woman, any bowl-spoon on a massive kitchen table, are overly ideal. Darren seems to be filming heaven a minute before the Fall. And wormholes are already showing through the serenity of the story. Well, he succeeded in what many directors yearn to achieve but miss - to create the notorious Hitchcock suspense. Suspense in its purest form, almost academic, when it becomes eerie due to hints. The conductor of fear for the viewer is the heroine Lawrence. As a resonator, it absorbs all the cacophony of what is happening and gives out one long, disturbing look that pierces the entire canvas of the film. The director's favorite style of shooting also plays into the hands when the camera performs dizzying fouettes around the character. The same technique in "Black Swan" transformed Natalie Portman almost into Ulanova and swirled in the dance so that the feathers flew to the sides. But if in the drama about a workaholic ballerina emphasis was placed on plasticity, which created the necessary degree in the frame, then in "mom!" this degree is hidden in the gaze. That's why there are so many close-ups of the heroine. Not surprising,  The flywheel of action spins with the arrival of uninvited guests. They, one by one, enter the house created and protected by the poet's wife, with which the heroine has an almost maternal relationship. She recreates it bit by bit after the fire, runs around with a trowel, fixes the plumbing and, putting her hands on the plastered walls, listens to the life trembling inside him, resurrected from the ashes. And the breeding strangers who stubbornly climb through all the doors, windows, vents, scare the little introverted girl inside our "mother". The poet, on the other hand, is glad of the guests, he has withered away from annoying love, demands new faces, emotions and people, that only fruitful food for inspiration, by digesting which, you can create something worthwhile. To retell the plot further is not only pointless, but also criminal in relation to the film itself. Because this picture is an unconditional creative act. At some point it seems that Aronofsky went out to drink coffee, and in his place, amid the general hubbub and hooting of the film crew, sat Terry Gilliam, who took von Trier's friend with him. And everything that happens on the screen can be dubbed "Salinger's nightmare", who, as you know, fled from his admirers into the Cornish jungle. But no, this is the same Darren Aronofsky, only matured. And it's not about his directing abilities, in this hypostasis he has long been favored and successful. He, like a Dante hero, “having passed half of his earthly life ... found himself in a gloomy forest,” only of his own free will and taking us, the audience, there.  Aronofsky, of course, made a horror film, but to call a film exclusively a horror film means to transfer it from a multidimensional image to a flat one. The most obvious leitmotif is biblical. It can be seen that the filming of "Noah" was not in vain and infected the director with love for epochal meanings and dilemmas of a universal scale. Even without studying the materiel, you can guess the references to the Book of Books, they are so transparent. And the plot itself, which seems to break in half in the middle and from reality turns into a restless sleep, turns into a puzzle. Both the first pastoral part and the second feverish part turn out to be tightly stitched together, the phrases of the heroes echo and the opponents become a reflection of each other. It's somehow embarrassing to pull a piece out of the resulting film strip and talk separately about the performers, but it's impossible not to be glad for Michelle Pfeiffer. The film required an actress who would be the equivalent of fresh and clean Lawrence. And her role - impudent, flirtatiously licentious and even, it seems, witch-like evil guest, she plays brilliantly. It is with this character that our quiet wife develops tension, which after the final scene puts an equal sign between them. Making them both mothers, able to accommodate the entire dualistic philosophy - to be defenseless and at the same time violent, selfish and selfless, tyrants and victims, ignore the slightest requests and be able to give themselves to infinity.  The most important question is the grievance of the film, both critics and viewers: for whom did Darren Aronofsky shoot it? The answer is simple, but for many it is hard to digest: he took it off for himself. This is his manifesto. He outlined and illustrated the main questions and contradictions, fears and doubts that sound from the mouth of mankind: religious (Sin and Forgiveness), gender (Man and Woman), secular (Creator and Muse). He did not forget about the problems of ecology, migration and missile potential of the DPRK. Aronofsky's painting turned out like a classic from USA writers and French novelists a la Zola or Celine, when it is disgusting, wet, turned inside out. And from every page the author pokes you in the face and demands: “Think! Empathize! ”, But you do not want, you want love for the sea. How can you like that?  But seriously, there are people who take care of themselves, avert their eyes from such creations, close books, turn off films. Perceiving movies solely as entertainment with a persistent popcorn flavor. They are so comfortable and blissful. But cinema is still art. And art is not an adaptation of the Hulk comics, no matter how cute Bruce Banner is played by Mark Ruffalo. It can be uncomfortable, self-centered, caricatured, and backhand. At the same time, Aronofsky himself doubts his audience, either urging them to go to the cinema with a minimum of information, then leaving tips to their users on Instagram: a nursery rhyme about a girl who loved a boy more than herself, or a drawing from a book about witchcraft dating from the 15th century, where a person of misty gender writhes as the flames engulf him.  Aronofsky, no less and no less, filmed a parable, perhaps too aggressive and exhausting, during which the spectator sitting in the hall seems to be cut into pieces. And if catharsis happens, then, having sewed yourself again, you can find a new flap, and if it does not happen, then inside there will be an insult to the director, who for some reason showed me all this. So whether or not to watch a film is almost a Hamlet question. The Topic of Article: Salinger's terrible dream. Review of the film ”Mom!”. |
