A controversial masterpiece doomed to be under-appreciated

Rating: 9/10 (5 October 2017)

Aronofsky's always been dark. There's no doubt about it. I think his "lighter" film would be "The Fountain", but if you think about "Requiem for a Dream", "The Wrestler", "Black Swan" or even "Pi"... the tone of this new film shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone.
Yes, it is true that this film is the darkest one, specially because of the graphic violence of the third act, but that didn't spoil the film for me.
I think as viewers, we're supposed to engage with films, but also distance ourselves from them far enough to appreciate their value. I cannot sit here and tell you that I ENJOYED the film, because that would be a lie, or it would make me mentally unstable. I did enjoy the first two acts of the film, the deliciousness of the slow-burn psychological thriller that constitutes the first two thirds of the story. But I can't grasp a person who could say they enjoyed the third act, because it is there to be appreciated, to send a brutal message, "like a missile into a wall" (in the director's words), but it's not there to be enjoyed, I don't think.
In any case, a film that is capable of making you squirm in your chair, and feel physically ill while watching it, is something special. Simply because it is not an easy task to achieve that visceral reaction in an audience, and it is even harder to do it with meaning, with a purpose. As Harvey Weinstein said in an interview while talking about "Nosferatu": "it is too scary to look at, but too fascinating to look away from." (Actually the cinema I watched "mother!" at was full, and lots of people were complaining out-loud during the screening about how bad the film was, but NOT ONE OF THEM walked out of the theater before the ending... just something to think about.)
Aronofsky asks as much of his audience, as we ask of our filmmakers. I'm not talking about the audience that wants to be entertained without having to think or question themselves, I'm talking about a mature audience, the ones that challenge themselves to think outside the box, to be better than the average person who sits numbingly waiting to be entertained like a dictator would ask of a buffoon. This audience, who is constantly begging for better content, for bolder narratives, and directors who take risks, is the audience who should not only appreciate this film, but has the responsibility to at least analyze it long enough to give it the valued criticism it deserves from us.
We, as an audience, are equally responsible for the risks the filmmakers take, and for the quality of their work. If we restrain ourselves from appreciating a work of art, simply because it made us feel uncomfortable, we do not deserve the level of storytelling this helmer is offering us.
When you watch this film (if you haven't already, or even if you're watching it again), think not of how disgusting it is to experience the difficult and violent scenes, but rather think about what they mean in the context of the story, what they mean to the characters in the story, and maybe you'll get to appreciate it in the level it deserves to be appreciated.
After you do, ask yourself (as I did a day after I watched it for the first time): did I enjoy this? (Hell no!). Do I think it's a good film? (An absolute gem.)