Movies in mind: ‘Mother!’: a maelstrom that reveals much about humankind

This is not a film for the ‘feeble-minded’. Indeed, its trailer depicts it as a horror flick. On reflection, however, ‘Mother!’ appears to belong more to a ‘Hitchcockian’ genre—with its discomforting suspense, and its rather shocking, but nonetheless intriguing ending. From psychodynamic, literary, religious and even political perspectives, this film has so many interwoven themes that one cannot help but walk away with a multitude of conflicting musings, questions and emotions. I myself had to watch this film twice just to make sense of my own reaction to it: a testament to its sheer tortuosity.

Its beginning is nicely serene: a newly married couple beginning their new-found life in their country home. He is an older writer. She is much younger, supportive of his work, but equally invested in renovating their home (after a fire had all but destroyed it). Then arrive iterations of visitors—at first a man, accompanied later by his wife and subsequently their adult offspring. Arguments ensue, and tempers flare.

As the plot unfolds (and accelerates), one can see various metaphors emerge. The events begin to feel increasingly surreal. Is the house now a ‘character’ that ‘speaks’ to her? What is the symbolism of their newborn son? And what of the original houseguests and their allegorical significance? To those familiar with Hinduism, Christianity or ‘new age’ spirituality, the above events, intertwined as they are, seem to collectively impart an ‘otherworldly’, almost celestial quality to this movie. This further adds to its cinematic power. As a result, it becomes easy to identify with the central protagonist (mother), who, in clinging to her fragile sense of sanity, has real difficulties in grasping all the ‘realities’ that unfold inexorably around her.

The movie was similarly captivating from a psychological vantage point. There were obvious motifs such as boundary transgressions, narcissism’s prominence in contemporary society (Lasch, 1980), the relationship between sex and creativity (Oliva, 2011), ‘give and take’ in relationships (and what they can figuratively and literally mean), victimization and the malignant consequences of charismatic leadership and cult followings (Popper, 2001). But then, there was more: its poignant depiction of motherhood, its alterations of time perception and the fluid relationship of destruction to creation and eternity. By the end, I literally found myself in awe—akin to the surreal but nonetheless wunderbar experience of a Salvador Dali painting.

To elaborate more would spoil this all-absorbing celluloid journey. Even so, this movie is not likely to have mass appeal. It can be both intense and polarizing, with a tendency to center on turmoil. It is also (in parts) ego-dystonic, even macabre. But to dwell on that would unfairly devalue its depth, both as cinematic art form and as philosophical fable. Some will certainly find this film irritating and overwhelming and others fascinating. Perhaps this says as much about the contradictions and ambiguities inherent to human existence (and our varied acceptance of these) as it does about the screenplay itself.