Abstract film making.

Rating: Null/10 (26 December 2017)

Watching this film, I like so many others felt frustrated and lost. I minored in film in college - I was acquainted with film criticism, but still the film left me bewildered. Like one review here I was also reminded of the advice I had read years earlier from Kurt Vonnegut who reminded us that all art however abstract must exist also to entertain an audience. Perhaps that is part of the problem with Mother - the audience that is entertained here must be both a sophisticated moviegoer and well educated in abstract film making. Like the casual viewer of abstract expressionist art who occasionally pronounces "My six-year old daughter could have painted that!" Mother requires a good amount of background in abstract film making to even approach it. I did not give this film a rating solely for that reason. Though I failed to understand it - I also admit that my familiarity with abstract film making is weak at best.
No doubt this film could have been better advertised to emphasize that it was not meant as realism because it never should have been compared to "Requiem for a Dream" which was entirely realistic.
To extend my analogy further even if by comparison you can appreciate early Abstract Expressionism in the form of, for example, Willem De Kooning's "Woman I" it becomes increasingly difficult to appreciate his later works which are entirely devoid of realistic elements. Similarly Arenofsky's efforts with Mother when compared to abstract expressionism resound - it becomes clear to understand why a Director as he/she matures might want to become more abstract. Abstraction allows you to display more ideas simultaneously with greater flexibility and exploration of method. I have no doubt that if I watched this film a few more times I would eventually get some of his major points and come to appreciate his methods but this is not a film for a general audience.