Page - 119 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 04/01

Review: Mother! | 119www.jrfm.eu 2018, 4/1, 117–120 namely, for its love. The whole process begins again as God smiles with joy. The film’s departures from the biblical narrative are important. It depicts God nei- ther as the loving and omnipotent creator God of the Hebrew Bible, nor as the New Testament “Abba” of Christ. Rather, Mother! allegorically portrays God as a megalomaniacal creator who does not truly love his creation, but simply loves that his creation loves him (see Lawrence literally giving him her heart). God’s creative endeavors come at a cost: nature/the planet/Mother Earth must bear the burden of God’s narcissistic thirst for worship. So what are these deviations from the biblical narrative? Criticisms, perhaps? If so, what is being criticized? Abrahamic religion? Or is it, more broadly, a com- mentary on humanity’s disdain for the planet/women? At this point the film’s ambiguities become more apparent. Aronofsky has referred to the film as a “cautionary tale” that uses biblical narrative to illustrate the history of human- ity’s mistreatment of the earth.1 But if the biblical narrative is supposed to be the pretext for illustrating human history as a whole, Aronofsky’s portrayal of the God–Nature relationship and his shocking parody of the Eucharist distract from his purpose. Rather than making a broad statement about humanity’s destruction of the environment, Aronofsky’s critical attention seems to home in on something sinister and inherently ecocidal implicit in the logic of Judeo- Christian religion. Perhaps it is anthropocentrism. Or, perhaps it is an ethic of forgiveness that effectively functions as a blank check for environmental ex- ploitation. In any case, Aronofsky asks us to sympathize with Lawrence/Mother Earth who just wants to be alone with her husband, and, thanks to her stunning performance, I did. But allegorically, Aronofsky asks us to see the God of the He- brew and Christian Scriptures as an impotent narcissist who values praise more than the well-being of creation, who instrumentalizes nature and history for his own creative compulsions. Finally, Aronofsky asks us to see humanity as a tragic aberration that destroys the pristine relationship between God and Nature. Aside from the narrative confusions inherent in the jumbled blend of surreal domestic drama and deranged biblical recital, the film’s greatest flaw is its hap- hazard aesthetic. Take, for example, the opening sequence. The film begins with a close-up shot of a woman wearing a defiant expression, engulfed in flames. As her hair and skin burn away, she closes her eyes. A tear falls. The sound of flames grows increasingly intense. There is a sudden cut to a silent, black screen. The title appears in white cursive font with Ralph Steadmanesque ink splattering. The exclamation point is then scrawled out and remains visible as the rest of the title fades. The title sequence prefigures a recurring problem in the film: there is a juxtaposition of disparate elements that aims to manifest the surreal perplex- ity of a dream but ends up coming across as confused and out of place. The film 1 Aronofsky 2017a.