MovieChat Forums > Mother! (2017) Discussion > Postmodernism: A Case Study of Mother!

Postmodernism: A Case Study of Mother!

posted 4 years ago by Fandango (534)
14 replies | jump to latest

It is interesting to view films today as the product of postmodernist ideology. Perhaps one of the positive aspects of today's films are their subjective nature, which allow for myriad interpretations. There is a Jackson Pollock element seeping into films, with the proliferation of a lacking objective and discernible reality. This is a fascinating phenomenon, which edifies the postmodernist zeitgeist.

Postmodernism, which stood in opposition to The Enlightenment, disregards reason and individualism. Where The Enlightenment sought to bridge the gap of understanding with scientific materialism, Postmodernism eschews these concepts for anti-reason, anti-reality, and subjectivity. This is seen in the firm egalitarianism present today, with its disapproval of commerce and promotion of groupism and community, and it is seen in the art mediums (art, books, film, video games).

These are secular worldviews. Where The Enlightenment failed due to its excessive exuberance and overt concentration on materialism, Postmodernism is failing because its subjectivity has no entropic threshold. This belief in individual freedom of self-expression is why the chaotic element permeates unabated, and is even welcomed. The objective element which existed within the precepts of Enlightenment have been replaced with subjective elements believed in postmodernist thought.

Both of these movements lack the spiritual element. There is no idea of a God or of positive emotions. Positivity is seen as a function of self-fulfillment, which turns into a form of hedonism (e.g., orgasms feel good -> excessive porn use/sex). This concentration on the physical degrades spirituality. Contemporary films present this clearly in their depiction of disarray as the natural state of affairs.

Darren Aronofsky's Mother! is another example of anti-realism permeating the art medium today. Whether we wish to call it subliminal propaganda or benign entertainment is up to you. The film's attribution of destruction is the embodiment of the prevailing liberal zeitgeist. God (masculine element) is the cause of destruction, and Mother (female element), is the cause of love and life and is therefore wholly good. It is a distortion of reality (anti-reality), with no objectivity (everything is subjective, including reality), all domains of the postmodernist mode of thought.

The post below will outline the film's premise and analyze the subtext to explain what is meant by programming and reality subversion.

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

On the surface, Mother! is a religious allegory. Bardem (The Poet) is God; Lawrence is mother nature; The Poet's cabinet is Heaven; Harris and Pfeiffer are Adam & Eve. While God made Eve, he put Adam to sleep, which is why he has no memory (when Mother asks Ed Harris whether or not he's feeling better after he lights a cigarette). The wound on his back implies the removal of Adam's rib to create Eve. The crystal represents pure beauty. As we see the heart in Mother's house, the crystal is symbolic of the crystallization of light, materialism, and love. The shattering of the crystal, symbolizing the destruction of what is good, is the release of sin. We then see Adam & Eve having sex, while God closes off the door to Heaven. The Gleesons are Cain and Abel. The death of Abel leaves an indelible mark in the house (blood on the floor), a scar in nature. We then see the blood as a symbol of Hell in the underworld (blood coming down the walls in the basement). The destruction of the house is the great flood. Here, mother nature shows her wrath, and exiles everyone from the house. God and Mother's sex scene creates Christ. We then see Bardem writing, indicating The New Testament. The man in the beard symbolizes the Catholic Church. The ash we see putting on everyone's forehead indicates the first day of fasting. The death of the child is Christ's crucifixion, the cannibalism is the Sacrament of the Church. The burning and re-creation of nature and the physical completes the circle of life and destruction.

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

It is interesting to note that the circle represents God, the octagons, which are present in the house (door knobs, windows, stairway, tiles) represent the transition from Heaven to Earth. Early Christian churches were built in the shape of octagons, symbolizing the transition into a new life. The circles can be seen as the ideal world embodied as Heaven, and the square as the material world, created from the design (architecture) from the octagon. The order of idea (circle) -> plan/design (octagon) -> square (material manifestation) is the present theme in the film. The Poet's lighter is a symbol of life (Wendehorn), which is seen on his lighter, and the exclamation mark in the title, is likely symbolizing the apocalypse.

The audience views the film, accepts its religious metaphors, and walks away with a distorted conclusion. The issue is that the film presents the viewer with a form of subliminal, postmodernist programming.

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

God in the film is presented as deriving pleasure from human suffering, drawing inspiration from it. He, the Poet, is the creator of suffering. God and Devil, then, are one in the same. After all, God created everything, therefore he created the evil in the world, too. This is marked in the film by Bardem's character saying he values ego. The audience sees that it is because of God that humans act in such a contemptible manner towards nature (Mother). The Poet uses Mother as a means for his work (similar theme in Phantom Thread as well). He allows people, fans of his work or religious adherents, to destroy the nature around them (Mother). All of the evil that slowly accumulates comes as a result of what The Poet (God) writes. We then see that the natural disasters that occur in the film, which are normally attributed to God's wrath, are seen as a result of Mother's wrath. God the Creator is now seen operating under the state of unadulterated vanity, that God needs people to commend and worship him for work. Here, Aronofsky is arguing that the original notion of God as representing love and goodness is false, and that it's Mother that represents love. God has merely appropriated this emotion. God himself does not show love in the film, but he loves when people show him love. The creation of Christ isn't shown as an act of love, but as an act of rape. And so the cycle of life is a product of mother's love (female, positive), and the destruction is a product of God's creative spirit (male, negative).

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

On top of the film's anti-religion theme, there is the popular feminist theme as well. The yellow powder may be referring to The Yellow Wallpaper, by Charlotte Perkins. In the book, the main character is in a room with yellow wallpaper. Beyond the wallpaper, she sees a woman that she wants to set free. This is alluded in the film by Lawrence's character painting the walls, adding the yellow powder to the paint. The audience can then infer that Lawrence is attempting to break free from the chains of traditionalism. The yellow powder symbolizes the need to swallow the female instinct for freedom or supposed injustices by the hands of men (God, Bardem), to keep her tethered to the home (housewife, traditionalism, beauty, femininity). She discards the yellow powder after the birth of her son, because she believes she will no longer need to swallow her pride.

[–] Burgershmurger (1268) 6 months ago

If you're a pagan or atheist you might see things that way.

[–] McQualude (4231) 4 years ago

You put more work into this review than Aronofsky put into his screenplay but I admit to being mostly ignorant of how postmodernism ties into art which by nature is subjective. It seems to me that conservative academics try very hard to tie anything they perceive as irreverent or subversive to postmodernism. I'm not saying you're wrong and perhaps if I understood the subject as well as you, I might even agree, but the link seems tenuous. And I'm no fan of postmodernism which is often produces strife where none existed although I'm sure proponents would say it only exposes strife that was long hidden.

[–] Fandango (534) 4 years ago

Thank you for the kind words.

I admit that this thread may come off as redundant verbal diarrhea. Sometimes I have to get a lot of points across and I forget to polish the text, which may detract from its overall impact.

Although lately most of my comments have been written through the lens of postmodernism, I do not wish to label myself as a rabid adherent to rigid structure or traditionalism. I only wish to outline certain observable trends and see what others have to say on the matter.

If we believe that postmodernism is contributing to our present moral decay, then we could contend that a similar ire could be aimed at the traditional and modern movements of the past, whose notions of objectivity primarily served the ruling class, as they had access to the resources, education, and free-time required to explore high art.

While the eschewal of structure can be seen as virtuous, particularly as it strives to eliminate antiquated and suffocating traditions, the issue is that it creates the modern-day schizophrenic, who now has no path or trajectory, and therefore no identity. His or her identity is now assumed through culture, art, and consumer goods. What we see is the logical conclusion to such a framework, which has invariably lent itself to hedonism. By all measures, it can be argued we are seeing Albert Camus' absurdist reality, wherein he writes, "the literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.” Of course such a heuristic promotes drug culture, vapidity, spiritual vacuity, and endlessly deranging narcissism.

While postmodernism may have exposed the pitfalls of prior movements, it has also affirmed itself as a nonviable alternative.

Where we go from here? I have no idea.

[–] McQualude (4231) 3 years ago

Steve Martin says that philosophy screws you up for the rest of your life and I agree, which is why I never studied it. I wanted to, I still want to, but my firm belief is that philosophy has 2 purposes: teach the structure of argument and create pseudointellectuals. I haven't studied postmodernism but from what I know, I believe it comes from a desire to know "truth." The problem with "truth" is that everyone shades it with their own expectations and values, and empty people are filled with the truth of others. Every year, thousands of empty vessels are filled with the truth of others, in college, in church, or via propaganda like the EIB network. There is only one truth ... watch a nature video and you'll find it. Watch a lizard run for its life amongst a nightmare of snakes. ... a chicken swallow a mouse whole. ... hyenas take down an antelope and eat it ass end first while it's still alive. ...a lioness eating a newborn antelope. ... a mother cat adopting an abandoned opossum joey. ... the annihilation of New World natives by Europeans. That's truth and why I studied biology and not philosophy. Modernism had a purpose, to strengthen societies and protect against the latter example and against the division we face today which could one day be our undoing. The takeaway from the Columbian Exchange (and nature) is not that everyone's truth has value, the lesson is don't be so weak that others can take what you have.

[–] chubacheeba (58) 3 years ago

Postmodernism is a movement within art and architecture and was a reaction to modernism. Modernism searched for absolutes, the perfect form, colour etc. Modernism searched for objective truths. Where as post modernism reacted to this and rather searched for subjective truths, meta narratives etc.

What postmodernism is not about is moden day consumer culture. Witch seems to be the culprit of your displeasure with this current age.

Lastly. Albert Camus is a postmodernist writer and thinker.

[–] Fandango (534) 3 years ago

Postmodernism is a movement within art and architecture and was a reaction to modernism. Modernism searched for absolutes, the perfect form, colour etc. Modernism searched for objective truths. Where as post modernism reacted to this and rather searched for subjective truths, meta narratives etc.

You are absolutely correct!

What postmodernism is not about is moden day consumer culture. Witch seems to be the culprit of your displeasure with this current age.

Indeed. It is important here to distinguish between capitalism and what Fabian Scheidler refers to in, "The End of the Megamachine regarding the dissolution of truth or rationality. The former is a socio-economic system, whereas the latter is rooted in postmodern philosophy.

Lastly. Albert Camus is a postmodernist writer and thinker.

Yes! This was precisely why I thought it was apt to refer to his stance on absurdism, as I believe it aligns perfectly with today's age of "reason."

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Sod off, ya bloody wanker!

[–] actionkamen (23176) 2 years ago

Lol

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 2 years ago

Postmodernism is the biggest academic fraud of the modern era.

[–] WilloughbyStain (194) 2 years ago

Interesting stuff.

The only thing I don't quite get is how postmodernism can really "disregard individualism" when it is also upending standards of taste (as per David Hume etc) and instilling subjectivity with "no entropic threshold". By putting subjectivity on a pedestal and in part trying to eliminate or ignore the boundary between high and low culture, isn't it elevating individuality above all else? Or am I misunderstanding the definition of "individualism" here?