There are a few Jennifer Lawrence stories rattling around the interwebs this week, so let’s get to it. Jennifer is still promoting ‘mother!’ which comes out on Friday. Considering how well horror movies are doing at the box office this year, I think the film will probably make a lot of money, because even if people don’t know what’s happening, they’ll enjoy it as a mindf–k. Of course, I’m sure there are some people – DEPLORABLES – who honestly believe that Jennifer said that Trump controls hurricanes and those people will refuse to see the film. To that, Jennifer wrote a little Facebook post:
My remarks were taken grossly out of context. Obviously I never claimed that President Trump was responsible for these tragic hurricanes. That is a silly and preposterous headline that is unfortunate, because it detracts from the millions of lives that are being impacted by these devastating storms and the recent earthquake. What is really important is focusing on the ways we can help. My heart is with everyone affected and the brave first responders who are working to keep us all safe. Please join me in donating to:
United Way of Houston https://www.unitedwayhouston.org
Save The Children www.savethechildren.org
Americares https://www.americares.org
That’s pretty much the right way to handle it. I would have also said “the people trying to make this into a thing are utter morons,” but whatever. As for ‘mother!’ – people have been talking about whether the Academy would embrace this film as a potential Oscar-bait movie, and whether Jennifer could end up with another Oscar nomination. Vulture did a piece about that, and suggests that the material could be too dark for Academy voters, but here’s what I say: one, Jennifer is a perennial Oscar favorite and the Academy adores her and two, Natalie Portman ended up winning an Oscar for Black Swan, so of course Jennifer has a chance. A good chance.
Meanwhile, Aronofsky and Lawrence chatted with Variety about feminism and such:
Jennifer believes this is a feminist story: “To me, this is incredibly feminist in the way that these Victorian, patriarchal novels show these loving, amazing husbands that are very slowly and delicately taking away their wives’ dignity,” said Lawrence, who was reading “Jane Eyre” during the shoot. “To be a feminist movie, we don’t have to all be women and all be aggressive. Before we knew what feminism was, people were writing these novels that showed women’s strength being drained from them.”
She went through hell working on this movie: “I had trouble calming down and coming back after he called cut. I’ve always been fine snapping out of it, but I’ve never had to go this dark before. I kind of lost control of myself. I tore my diaphragm and popped my chest rib out. I don’t know if I’d ever work with Darren again.”
Aronofsky on the interpretations of the film: “I think what’s exciting about the movie is that it’s open for interpretation. I wrote it in the eighth year of Obama. It’s coming out in the first year of Trump. My intention was very different from where we are now.”
The idea that this is a feminist film… well, I don’t know. Like, I understand the comparison to Jane Eyre, because it’s a book with a female protagonist, written by a woman, in those oppressive Victorian times. But does it make a difference when the female protagonist is written by a man, the story is directed by a man, and the film seems to be about men doing a huge gaslighting campaign on a woman? Hm.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I’m sorry I seem to fail to get how a movie described as “torture porn” and “two hours of gas lighting” is a feminist movie.
The way they made this was not feminist (since the director was all too cool to ignore her obvious injury for a scene) and considering I’ve seen it the ending is misogyny wrapped up in a neat bow.
This movie is so far from feminist but I’m not surprised JLaw is not an intersectional feminist either. Much like her bff amy. And her boyfriend.
I agree 100%. I have seen it too and this film is really misogynist. Jlaw’ character is used and abused and ignored and is literally a vessel. There is no empowerment at any point.
And she needs to stop talking about things she has no fucking clue about like Victorian novels because first the feminist ones were written by women, and second the female protagonists manage to be subversive in a restricted environment.
It’s obvious Jlaw didn’t go to college or read many books, because she can’t see through Aronofsky’s bs and thinks he is a genius. He’s not. He thinks he is and surrounds himself with starlets and sycophants who help him continue the delusion.
Yea he’s defs one of those guys you hate in high school and college that think they are “genius” and no one understands their “high art”. It’s kinda sad that JLaw has been reduced to a sycophant. And soon they will breakup and he will get another young starlet to fluff his massive ego
No douchebag your sh*t just sucks.
Things don’t need to show empowerment to be feminist. A lot of the most powerful feminist books, essays, films etc. simply portray a misogynistic society at its worst, with no escape from the torment.
Oh no….did he convince Jlaw to read Jane Eyre under the pretense that his movie was similar? Because THAT would be gaslighting….
“It’s obvious Jlaw didn’t go to college or read many books, because she can’t see through Aronofsky’s bs and thinks he is a genius. He’s not. He thinks he is and surrounds himself with starlets and sycophants who help him continue the delusion.”
This so much. I don’t pretend to be an extremely intelligent person, but I am college educated. It is entirely possible that Darren has a genius for filmmaking, but the arrogant self-satisfied presentation is such a turn off. I feel an eagerness and excitement to share and express your beliefs is so much more appealing. Lin Manuel Miranda comes to mind as an excellent example.
The character is symbolic for Mother Nature she is supposed to be abused… I think the abuse is meant to horrify us drawing parallels with nature and hopefully having people care more by seeing it as different light
I’m reading a lot of people here suggesting J-Law is too ill-educated to see that this film is an exercise in misogyny by a douchebag director. And yet I’m also reading lots of glowing reviews by top critics – male and female – who are acclaiming the film as a feminist parable. I haven’t seen this film yet, but I’ve read plenty of analysis about it, including fairly detailed overviews of the plot. And it seems to me (from what I’ve read) that it’s an entirely fair interpretation to view the film through a feminist lens – and the idea that Lawrence is too thick to work out what is going on seems, well, more than a little sexist to me…
Jane Eyre? Is she kidding?
Jane Eyre starts out with a powerless orphan whose boss falls in love with her, and proposes. Then she finds out he’s already married and he insists she can be his mistress and nobody ever need know as he is stinking rich and they can move overseas. So she leaves him, with nothing but a few items of clothing, and builds a completely new life for herself, working as a teacher in a school. She only returns after he has suffered a dreadful accident from a fire that killed his wife. She returns to a man so wholly weakened that he is utterly dependent upon her, and who needs her far, far more than she does him. He could not be more humbled, and it couldn’t be more clearly demonstrated that she has no need of him; the boot is on the other foot. How has that anything to do with Mother!?
Think she has Jane Eyre and Ibsen’s A Doll’s House confused.
I agree with all of you here, but let me just point out that Aronofsky has managed to manipulate and become romantically involved with other beautiful women who are much more educated and smarter than JLaw, who isn’t a total dummy either. Rachel Weisz anyone? She’s uniquely beautiful, articulate, and Cambridge educated. Some women have horrible taste in men regardless of their intelligence.
Like he does to her movie character, Aronofsky will just rip her heart out and generate a new starlet girlfriend to destroy. After he’s used her up, of course.
@jbaptista:
“the idea that Lawrence is too thick to work out what is going on seems, well, more than a little sexist to me…”
100%.
Also, as someone in a PhD program who was raised by a mom without a high school degree, I am so appalled by the use of not-college-educated as an insult, or the idea that someone without a college education is incapable of intelligence or analysis. You may not agree with her, but the condescending tenor of these comments makes me lose all respect for them.
I read the plot, including spoilers. It made me think about Von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’, very depressing.
It’s also clear the kind of dynamic Lawrence and Aronofsky have and they’re a good example of a May-December romance gone wrong. I do hope she doesn’t get pregnant because she deserves better. I think she’s smart and she doesn’t need a BF like DA to teach her, she needs to learn and explore on her own terms with her own intellect. It’s OK not to understand certain messages and meanings, it’s not OK to be influenced by a man like DA who’s teaching her the wrong things.
Where, on imdb? Would like to read.
Oh no I still have scars from “AntiChrist” so this movie will be a hard pass for me.
@Kitten
Have you watched the Idiots by LVTrier? I watched it when I was about 18 and it really left a mark. I hated it. Strangely enough I now like the idea and remember it quite well [people in a community living like “idiots”, mentally disabled people, or little kids, and ignoring rules of society until they had to do it in front of their families]. I don’t think the title is meant to be abusive bit a reference to Dostoyevski (whose Idiot was Jesus).
@Alix:
There are several pieces who tell you what literally happens step by step although there are 2 main interpretations. One has been mentioned here, Jlaw is Mother Earth (and Bardem is God). Lots of biblical allegory. The other theory is that it’s about the trappings of fame.
I liked reading this one:
https://www.bustle.com/p/the-meaning-of-the-mother-ending-is-seriously-messed-up-you-guys-2347083
But you can type in ‘Mother! ending’ or spoilers and most articles seem to give away the plot as it’s impossible to write about it without doing so…
@kitten and slowsnow
Nothing is more traumatizing than a Von Trier film and I must be crazy because I watched most of his work. Breaking the Waves broke me spiritually and emotionally :D, I cried on and off for about 3 days. I still don’t know what I should be thinking when I watch a VT film, the point always eludes me tbh but it is good for discussion. I imagine DA’s work is similar but I cannot get into him for some reason. Must be the Depp scarves!
Any actress today is going to claim that her movie is feminist, whether she really believes it or not.
then she deserves the backlash she gets for the false claim. we don’t need faxu feminists in the movement
@ Nicole- we need empathy and sympathy, not policing, clapbacks, and ridiculously high standards for women who are willing to take on the name and write their thoughts on the subject.
Saying the movie is a feminist story is the new sell package. Like how the voice would go ‘The best action movie of 2002’
Spot on, @Nicole.
*standing ovation for nicole* thank you! not interested in seeing this shite masqurading as “2deep4u art” either.
Feminist? Uh, no. And I agree with Nicole that the film’s main problem is Aranofsky.
When I first saw the exclamation mark in the title of “Mother!” the word that immediately came to mind was “amateurish” and the second was “excessive.” Most of us who write for a living consider that particular punctuation mark to be best used sparingly, like garlic in a stew — with the overuse of it seen as the mark of an amateur. Putting it in the movie’s title really seems an exercise in self-indulgence — as well as an indication that a better title than “Mother” (without the exclamation mark to amp it up) could have been found. Gotta say, I honestly enjoyed watching both Bardem and Lawrence, but I think the movie ultimately fails as a serious work because the writing and directing go so far over the top that it misses its mark by quite a lot.
The story is one of an authorial ego gone bonkers (the Bardem character) to a point where his wife’s real and vital needs become invisible to him — and unfortunately, Aranofsky’s own ego seems to parallel that of Bardem’s unnamed character in the film. Not that there aren’t some pretty good scenes and even some real suspensefulness at times, but by the end, it was just over-the-top silly. In fact, some of the “scarier” scenes went so far over the top that they made people in the theater laugh.
On a personal note (and to defend the film’s premise), for several years I dated another poet far better known than I am — and his ego was very like that of the Bardem character. He was (omg) so attractive, brilliant, sexual, charming, funny, and romantic — but his need for adulation was absolutely rampant. Once, when I was in London with him at a venue where he gave a reading and neither of us knew anyone, after his reading naturally he spent time with audience members who came up to chat with him — that’s to be expected. What wasn’t expected, though, was that after an hour, when all the audience members but one had drifted away, I still stood to one side in plain sight while he schmoozed with ONE remaining audience member for yet ANOTHER hour and fifteen minutes — yep, another 75 minutes — never once bothering to introduce me, acknowledge me, or include me in a single exchange. I felt so silly and useless standing there, but there was really nowhere for me to go (we hadn’t checked into the hotel yet and the reservation was in his name as the visiting poet), and anyway I didn’t want to seem a poor sport.
As I watched the movie tonight, I kept thinking of my former lover as I watched the Bardem character’s ego go more and more rampant and Lawrence’s character become more and more marginalized. And that’s why I can’t call the film a failure — it was an idea grounded in reality; the actors were terrific; the setting was perfect — but without Aranofsky’s authorial/directorial excesses, it could have been a very good — possibly even great — film rather than a campy caricature of a writer whose outsized ego causes scenes of operatic style and proportion but with little grounding in reality.
Was your former relationship also ripe with allegories to the Bible? Otherwise, I think you are taking this a little too personally.
I started watching that Variety video and I had to stop almost at the beginning because my eyes rolled almost all the way over at Darren’s auter persona.You can tell he cares so much about what people think but wraps himself in scarves and nearly clear sunglasses so he looks like he doesn’t.
Jennifer making heart eyes at him while he says words is just icing on the cake.
They essentially personify the movie…it’s quite disturbing to think about.
I won’t say how because it’s spoilery but her character also fawns over her older “auteur” husband.
Oh yay!Another film where a young girl is amazed by a much older,vitriolic man.Woody Allen must be giddy with anticipation to watch this one.
The goddamn revolution can’t come soon enough.
The worship of the auteur and the demands of egocentric males is exactly what the film is attacking!!! Aronofsky isn’t showing it with approval – quite the contrary.
That’s not what I got and it’s not what countless critics and audience members got. I get it you like the movie and think it’s an attack on misogyny. You sound desperate for people to get it much like the genius director. I understand the movie perfectly and it still fails on multiple levels.
Past context and how this movie was made tells me Darren is about as feminist as trump is.
LuckyZeGrand: THIS.
You all really missed the point of the character age difference…
Does anyone have a link to the variety interview? I just googled but can’t find it.
Found it on youtube. I thought the body language was interesting…her looking fixedly at him while he spoke, while he didn’t engage with what she was saying.
I think Jen needs to go to college, meet a few w@nker professors and get it out of her system.
“Incredibly” annoying.
I agree with her. People are talking about the film being mysogynistic, like it’s some kind of accident that hatred of women runs through the film, or like that’s presented as a positive thing.
It’s an uncomfortable, harrowing, upsetting film to watch, but that’s the point, and I very much appreciated the film for really capturing the horror of what it shows (really trying to avoid spoilers, so sorry this is so vague sounding).
I don’t think it will make a ton of money at the box office. It’s not really a ‘horror’ horror movie, and it’s not nearly as accessible as Black Swan.
Woke~ misogyny is still misogyny. You don’t get bonus points for saying bad boy after an hour and half of getting off on a woman being abused.
Women have been abused I don’t understand why telling their stories is a bad thing. It is showing us that the abuse is horrible not normalizing it
“it’s not nearly as accessible as Black Swan.”
Black Swan was accessible?
Compared to mother!, Black Swan is a movie for children. Darren knows ot will never make the huge money Black Swan did.
Why do movies always have to have some deeper meaning. Why can’t a movie be made just to entertain the audience? Every film that comes out now has to have some political or social meaning. I would respect Jennifer more if she just said that she did the movie because it was a good script that she thought would translate well to the screen and give her a chance to work with a director she has never worked with before.
This is a movie about Mother Earth I believe. Mother as in earth, Him as in God. Man as Adam, the Wife is Eve etc. Mankind basically came to earth and just do what we do. Being disrespectful towards her, we kill each other, torture and destruct the mother earth and many other terrible things. Horrible isn’t it?
I can’t tell whether this is a joke at this point!
The movie is a blend of 2 allegories, that is 1 of them.
@Sarah L,
I can’t understand your comment: everything we do has a meaning. Even Transformers portrays women in a specific way and how we view technology – even if it’s basic, meaning is everywhere. Whether the author wanted it consciously there or not.
Or do you go to the movies to look at pretty colours in motion?
I meant when the lead actors go out there and give interviews and say things to create deep meaning in a movie, when its just not there. Of course movies have meaning and are trying to say something to the audience, but when you hear the stars saying their latest romantic comedy is going to reinvent feminism ect ect, I just roll my eyes.
FYI – I’m planning on seeing this movie when it comes out here in the UK, and I will form my own opinion on what it means to me…….and I will also enjoy the pretty colours and admire Michelle Pfeiffer’s on point blonde highlights.
@ Slowsnow-took the words right out of my mouth lol.
@Sarah L
I think I got what you meant but apparently this is a deeply-meaningful-film where there are lots-of-deep-interpretations. So I found it funny that of all films, you choose this one to mock a feminist (or interpretative) approach. It’s not Trainwreck! And yet even Trainwreck, as bad as it is, fought a compulsory idea of the woman as a pure, untouched, pristine, diaphanous being. I get where you’re coming from but I guess that what I find bizarre is this need of wanting to stop a conversation about a piece of art, good or bad, just because it might go a bit far. To me, that’s part of the fun. As are Michelle Pfeiffer’s on point blonde highlights 😉
There are countless movies put out every month like that. We’re getting into awards season so the deeper movies are now starting to be released as well. You don’t have to watch them.
There are tons of movies that are just blanket entertainment. Stupid comedies, romantic comedies, kid movies. You can read subtext in anything, of course, but there are definitely things that feel less thinky.
The beautiful thing about movies, is that we can have dark scary think pieces, cheap physical comedies, superheroes, historical recreations, or blatant fire explosion noise pr0n because there will be someone to see it, and someone who yearns to make it. Besides, if everything were the same, life would suck and be boring 😊
She looks so much like Amy Schumer in these pics?!?!?!!
JLaw would literally die if she knew that, haha
Sad to say this but she is on her way to looking like Amy in another 5-10 years. JLaw is still young and her face is already warping into I don’t know what. I’m not sure if it is injectables she’s putting into her face or if this is just part of her natural aging process. She’s lost weight since she became famous, so I don’t think we can explain weight gain for whatever is happening to her face.
Totally agree, and the changes to her face stood out as kind of shocking as I watched this movie. It’s true, she’s definitely lost quite a bit of weight overall (body-wise), but her face is way too smooth and plumped up to be natural.
Yes, I see it too. Quite unfortunate for her.
Does she even like him? Or just respect him?
And if there was deeper symbolism or allegory beyond – older man gaslights woman – fine, maybe it’s feminist. But I have severe doubts a director who made his film in such a way has produced some sort of feminist masterpiece.
Read a spoiler synopsis: the film sounds pretentious. And pseudo-feminIst. And dumb.
I have no trust that a man who would date his decades younger employee has a strong enough grasp of the nuances of feminism to do this idea justice.
mmm…friends and colleagues who saw it at TIFF, whose judgment I trust and often coincide with mine, have told me is a pretentious piece of crap coming from an Aronofsky believing his own hype as an arty filmmaker. At some point most talented filmmakers fall in this trap of believing any fart coming from themselves is gold.
so right – he is at defcon fart sniff. despite his talent the guy is a sadist and uses being a director to express it. tale as old as time. he might be good – but he’ll never be kubrick so he should lay off pushing actors to hurt themselves. he tortures the actors on every film he’s done and admits to it freely in interviews where he jerks himself off. he did it to jennifer connlley and ellen burstyn in requiem for a dream. he did to natalie portman and mila kunis in black swan. he did to the entire cast on noah. he did it to jennifer lawrence. he’ll do it on the next one too.
“defcon fart sniff” — I almost spit out my oatmeal!!
There were feminist ideas before the Victorian age.
I’ve seen it, and it absolutely is 100% a feminist film: it’s a head-on, urgent assault on misogyny, and I think people who don’t get that are confusing a depiction of misogyny with being misogynist.
The film is going to flop at the box office: some of it is so grotesque and over the top as to be unwatchable. But it’s a tremendous piece of film-making, as the rave reviews it’s received suggest – and I suspect in ten years people will regard it as a minor masterpiece. (The accusations of pretentiousness are the usual stuff thrown at any director trying to do something difficult…)
“I think people who don’t get that are confusing a depiction of misogyny with being misogynist.”
Bingo!
Cecilia…. No, just no. Those who dislike this film are not confusing depictions of misogyny with being misogynistic.
The people saying this film is misogynistic are simply saying that the depiction of misogyny is done in a way that seems to use that misogyny for entertainment/glorification, thereby nullifying any feminist message.
That’s a valid feminist point and it is anti-feminist of you to insist people interpret the film as you do. Frankly, it’s art, and both views can.co-exist.
So it’s ‘anti-feminist’ for Cecilia to argue that the film can be interpreted as anti-misogyny, and any attempt to show misogyny on screen means a film is automatically misogynist? I’m not getting that argument at all. By that logic, no film-maker could do what Aronofsky is apparently trying to do – attach misogyny by showing its true face.
@Rapunzel, point well put!
@Rapunzel Have you personally seen the movie or have you just read reviews? I didn’t feel like the violence was being glorified, at least not specifically to women. Look at what human beings have done to the earth. Is that a glorification? Or is that actually what has happened?
The budget was only $30 million. I think J Law has enough star power to double that when all is said and done. The misleading marketing is going to hurt its word of mouth though.
The film might have a good opening weekend and then it’s going to fall off a cliff. Even critics who loved it agree the advertising is pretty misleading.
Wasn’t a fan of Black Swan but it’s at 87% on rotten tomatoes years later. This one is at 75% opening weekend. That’s a very mixed response. My guess is unless a lot of stuff underperforms it is out of the race.
I haven’t seen it, but all the reviews say her only crime is existing: as she’s a doting wife.
And if the allegory theory is true and she symbolized mother earth and the house is Eden, then it’s not at all feminist, and she missed the plot.
I still hate Jane Eyre with a passion. I swear Twilight was just a modernization: naive plain Jane meets brooding stranger who is awful to her and has a dark secret. Of course, she finds out he’s cold/awful because he “loves” her (circle of abuse, ah hem). She finds out his dark secret, pulls away and meets good/honest man. But runs from him, back to the brooding man who lied to her (aka kept wife locked in the attic/200 year old vampire digging a 16yo – James Woods style). It’s books on what not to do if you respect yourself.
Oh God, that is SO not what Jane Eyre is about. It’s about actions and consequence and how much we hurt ourselves when we act against our best interests in favor of what is socially correct. Jane is a total badass unlime the bobble-headed Lizzie Bennett lol.
Don’t go for Lizzie!! I think she was pretty badass to turn down 2 marriage proposals in quick succession, given her family situation.
To clarify, I think Lizzie comes across as silly and reactionary compared to the serious, highly intelligent Jane. Opinions and all 🙂
It slightly worries me the amount of literal interpretations I read here on this site sometimes. Agreed with @Enough Already, Jane Eyre is so much more than the tale of Plain Jane. It’s, for instance, the story of how a woman with brains without money (or even with money) has no place in this society, of how marriages are eaten away by convention. It even portrays an unconventional man and a disturbed mind (the mentally disturbed woman/wife) who also has no place in society (we very well know that feminine mental disturbances have been treated with severe disdain up until recently). There is a lot to Jane Eyre and it is a book I read quite late and feel like reading again. It’s the I Love Dick of Victorian times!
Edit: I am not talking about mother! that I haven’t watched.
Thank you, Enough Already and Slowsnow! How someone can get just that basic narrative from Jane Eyre, is hard to compute.
I love Jane Eyre (I’m a Bronte reader, never Austen) and to be fair, the wife in the attic was more dangerous than just having a “feminine mental disturbance”.
She was married off to Rochester because her family knew she was going to be uncontrollable, and she set the house on fire more than once and tried to kill her brother when he visited. Rochester was trapped by this marriage – he didn’t just want Jane as a mistress for the fun of it.
My favorite film adaptation of it is the one with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine (and a child Elizabeth Taylor).
You haven’t read Jane Eyre have you. This is all so wrong.
Diane and slowsnow,
You’ve restored my faith in humanity. I’ve read Jane Eyre every other year since I was 15 and every time I’m amazed at how amazing and empowering it is. When I see other women denigrate Jane/Rochester in favor of Elizabeth/Darcy and Catherine/Heathcliffe it makes me die a little inside. When I read Jane’s narrative about knowing that she, despite what she is not or does not have, is more than enough and not worth teading for anything it brings tears to my eyes and I wish everyone could read it.
That is so, so not the story of Jane Eyre. The “good honest man” is shown as cold, utterly without interest in loving Jane, yet still would have expected to sleep with her. It was a solely transactional marriage he offered; it’s even spelled out that he’s got stronger feelings for another woman!
Jane refuses to be cowed by the “tall dark and handsome” man. She walks away. She returns when he is both utterly humbled, and single. She has a strong sense of who she is, and she won’t surrender it to or for anyone. She has absolute integrity and strength of character, and lives her life accordingly. The novel shows what unhappiness awaits those who live by other people’s expectations.
There are other interpretations; one is that the mad woman in the attic represents Jane’s suppressed sexuality, and that it’s an allegory for Victorian attitudes to women’s sexuality.
Twilight horrified me when I read it, which I did because I read all the books that go into my kids’ shelves. It, and the What Katy Did series, are the only ones I wouldn’t keep. Jane Eyre, on the other hand, is a genuine feminist classic.
I find ludricous that Daren created an allegorical movie and rush to explain it so people would not classify it as pointless torture porn – like the movie doesn’t speak for itself and he doesn’t have the balls to let people interpret
He’s is controlling and pretentious.
Indeed! Also hes not the first director to pull this excuse when people rightly question extreme dipictions of violence against women in their films.
i have been watching interviews with him and i can see why rachel weisz left him for daniel craig. i presume she was utterly exhausted and just wanted to get screwed by a hot dumb dumb who wouldn’t want to disect his greatness before, during and after.
Bright spot in a thread about torture porn – thanks!
This made me chuckle thanks Lizzie, totally with Rachel on that one!
Oh lord I love this comment because it’s so true! Perfect.
Sure, Jan.
I am am sick and tired of man acting like their misogyny doesn’t count because they are ~in the know~. You are just not smart enough to see the genius! of men ~reclaiming misogyny~ by being actively misogynistic. It’s *so* empowering, omg. Please, woman, let me mansplain to you what abuse of women really is and what it ~really means~ when I, a male artistE, do it.
Exactly. +1
Again, another fab post! +1000
What words that are written in op-ed’s and on her FB page and what she says in interviews tell me that she is not writing those op-ed’s and messages on FB.
I’m surprised this movie is getting such good reviews… I haven’t seen it so I can’t judge but the fact that Aronofsky and Lawrence revealed the meaning behind this movie (mother nature etc.) and on every step emphasized what a hardship it was to make it threw me off. Respect your audience. Give them time to figure it out. Also, your job is not that hard whatever the circumstances.
I agree. And the quantity of make up is so visible, here. I know actresses have to wear tons of make-up for reasons linked to the flashlights and pictures, but still it seems sooo much this time, she looks like a doll. I love the hairdo, though. Do not like her boyfriend, but I will go to see the movie, I am curious about it, plus I love Bardem and Pfeiffer.
The Mother Nature and Bible connections are not subtle. They’re not giving anything away by talking about that. What you’re meant to take from it is ambiguous, and they’re not providing any answers there.
Her styling in these photos is very Renee Zellweger-esque! She should not do a winged eyeline. Does nothing for her eyes.
I second that!
She looks like a doll, in a bad way.
Yes to the Zellweger comparison. Not a good look for JL.
How novel: overrated older director bangs much younger actress then tortures her in front of the camera. Much younger actress complies because she’s been bamboozled into believing it is “art”.
I signed up to comment after years of reading just to say: you nailed it.
I can’t stand Aronofsky’s directing style. He clearly thinks he’s a genius. I think he’s all over the place and never seems to know where he’s going with the story.
I watched an early premiere of this with my girlfriend. Last thirty minute of the movie, I covered my mouth so people will not hear my hysterical laughter , until I hear the husband in the couple in the seat next to us go “What the actual f**k are we watching?” and she said “I don’t know..” , that had most of the theatre and me snickering because those were my exact thoughts.
Torture Porn yes, feminist no, not only no but hell no! Bless her heart!!
Is she pregnant?? Because she is puffy and her face looks completely different. I wouldn’t be surprised her boyfriend has a pattern…
probably just bloat from all her drinking!
And what’s with the top pose, leaning over with hands on her hips? I’m trying to place what it reminds me of – something from a 1950s movie poster like Kiss me Kate …
I have been asking the same question…
So feminist to cast a 27 year old to play the wife of a 48 year old! What a message of hope and inspiration to young women!
From what I’ve read, that’s addressed head-on in the film – from an explicitly feminist perspective.
I’ve seen the movie. It doesn’t.
I heard it’s supposed to be similar to Rosemary’s baby? As far as the plot line goes.
I personally get what she’s trying to say. Of course this isn’t by all means feminist for a woman to be abused and told how to live her life, but this is what feminism stems from and I think that’s what she was trying to say. Because shit like this actually happens that’s why we need feminism. This movie is an extreme way of showing us why it needs to exist. I get it, sort of lol.
It anyone really wants to watch a pro-woman, feminist horror film, The Witch is no doubt one of the best ones out there representing it. Rarely hear anything about it though, think the feminist elements are bit harder to pick up on, a bit more hidden.
Kaiser you hit the nail on the coffin….. “But does it make a difference when the female protagonist is written by a man, the story is directed by a man, and the film seems to be about men doing a huge gaslighting campaign on a woman? ”
GASLIGHT the horror story….
I don’t understand the rumours that he tortures his actors. Haven’t heard this before. Also, arn’t they all adults that have the ability to say no if something goes too far. Haven’t see this movie but I kinda believe it could be mysoginistic. I think the only reason Black Swan was a feminist movie was because of Portman’s insistence on giving Nina agency.
There is a video of him on youtube somewhere where he walks up to Mickey Rourke , filming the Wrestler, and b*tch slaps square in the face and walks away. He seems to be an as* on set.
Google it. Emma Watson and Natalie Portman have both spoken about what he did to them.
Emma Watson only complained that he banned disposable water bottles. Rather than buy a non-disposable water bottle, she drank stagnant water she’d left in her trailer, and made herself sick.
I really don’t think his eco-friendly edicts were part of some sort of plan to make her do that.
Sorry, but I doubt this movie will get any love from the Academy in a few months–that includes JLaw. Yes, they like her but from what I know this movie is too weird and polarizing to be remembered in what, 4 months time amongst more Oscar-baity films and performances.
And let’s be honest, Natalie Portman got her Oscar because her and DA convinced voters that she did most of the dancing herself.
I feel like Jennifer had an air of desperation about her trying to push themes of this movies. Early reviews pointed out the creepy parallels between the story and Jen and Darren’s dating life, how it was a story about an artist who destroys his muse for his own benefit. It didn’t help that both of them told a similar story of Jen being hurt on set and Darren using her real life pain for a scene in the movie instead of getting her the necessary medical attention.
So I feel like she was desperate to change the story. She pushed that it was about mother nature except when you watch the film the ending negates that. She tried to push it’s a feminist story when it’s clearly just the opposite. The real world isn’t controlled by your publicist honey, you can’t repeat the same lines and expect the general public to fall for it when this movie is so extreme in visuals.
Good luck to her. The Christians bloggers are already mad, if more people talk about her supposed feminism, she’s in trouble.
Interesting point: all the female critics I read liked the movie. It won’t make a lot of movie, it’s too gore and experimental. Requiem For a Dream but 10x harder to watch.
I have watched this puke-tastic of a movie. The director was creepy/obsessed with boobs & vagina imageries.
Interesting, I read a review that stated that as well, with the bleeding vagina in the floor etc. I studied film at university and I think most people who know a few of those kinds of films recognise the imagery he’s using from older (and better more original) movies. Basically he’s ripping off art movies that were weird to begin with, but at least they were first with the concept. Doesn’t sound like he’s an auteur to me, sounds like he’s a wind bag who went to art school and ripped off a lot of concepts.
Her act gets tired after a while.
I’m going for the actress in Baby Cake$ for the Oscar and I don’t even remember her name.
it is a HORROR movie people, but it has a layered meaning, an Allegory. How can people get so upset over an HORROR movie that actually has significant meaning? This movie will be a CULT Classic within a year or so.
I saw the movie and then watched the panel discussion with the cast at the Venice Film Festival on YouTube. They talk about the main allegories being biblical and Mother Nature (and DA specifically refers to women and nature). DA talks about how the film is purposely left open to interpretation of course, but he specifically says the fame theme some are highlighting wasn’t his intention. When a reporter asked about the movie’s references to a patriarchal society, etc., DA has to ask her to repeat her question about three times (didn’t hear the word “patriarchal”), and then when J-Law finally explains that the reporter said “patriarchal”, DA says that a feminist/patriarchal angle was not his intention but rather a broader angle about humans’ insatiable consumption demands in general and the toll they take. I thought it was strange that he dismissed the patriarchy angle outright – especially since J-Law seems to be spouting it – but take that as you will.
Well, that idea ties into the nature of art being in the eye of the beholder. As a man, the patriarchy is something he can’t view objectively because he’s part of it, but a woman watching it might see the parallel in how female bodies and lives are also made into commodities that can be consumed. The gendered reading comes from the fact that even Lawrence, a white woman in a relatively unique position of social power, can’t escape the elements conferred to her by her gender. There’s a constant fight between what the creator intends and what the audience interprets, and how much of that is conscious direction or indirectly contributed by our unconscious bias.
I read through a synopsis of it. I wouldn’t call it anti-feminist, per se, and it’s certainly open to interpretation, but I have mixed feelings about calling it necessary empowering. Woman as Atlas creating and carrying the world on her shoulders isn’t a new theme (though certainly better than women as an unseen force), but I don’t know if a woman’s role feels strengthened if she has the burden but not the autonomy to be the architect.
Well I saw it today and JL pulled off acting, as did all the actors but the story plot doesn’t go down as well as some of the better review suggest.