Plot devices, all

Rating: Null/10 (10 October 2017)

Extra spoiler warning â€“ the following is intended ONLY for those who have watched the movie!!!
While there are interpretations galore (among which are psychological, biblical and theatrical), everything bazaar, puzzling, exasperating etc are not plot twists, and not even red herrings. They are there simply for one reason, as plot devices to propel the movie towards the conclusion: confirmation of one main theme that has always been there, right from the beginning and throughout the movie. Even the two top-notch actors Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer, who have been enticed by director Darren Aronofsky to join this project, are playing roles that are merely inconsequential plot devices, their superb acting notwithstanding.
The movie opens with a prologue: a horrifying fire that burns down a beautiful house in the middle of nowhere (which has a full-circle, echoing closure at the end), a plot device. Next comes an outwardly idyllic existence of a couple living in this partially restored house. Jennifer Lawrence's (I'll use the actors' name as the characters have no name) focus is the ongoing restoration work (currently painting) so that her poet husband Javier Bardem can continue to tap his inspiration juice in the "paradise" that she is trying to create. Two things seem to be bothering them. Lurking in the background, they are childless (not sure whose fault and how much that really bothers them). More conspicuous is his constipation, figuratively speaking, with reference to his poetic creativity. Still plot devices, although getting a little warmer.
Next comes the unannounced visit of a couple (Harris and Pfeiffer), stranded travellers that Lawrence sees as an unwelcome intrusion to their privacy. Bardem, however, welcomes them to stay, particularly when Harris turns out to be a huge admirer of his work. It looks for a moment that there is a significant story developing. But when the two sons arrive with an ensuing family feud ending up with one of them being killed, it gradually becomes apparent that these four are just, yes, plot devices.
This leads to the first of the two set pieces (if I can call them that), a vivid, annoying, irritating an ultimately exasperating "invasion" of their house. This first one is Bardem generously making the house available for the mourning gathering of the dead man's family and friends. What this brings out is Lawrence's helpless resentment that whatever she does is not good enough for him (despite his apparently sincere claim that she is his true muse), a man who feeds on the admiration of his fans.
The fight of the couple, however, leads to aroused intimacy and her pregnancy. But again, apologies for sounding like a broken record, this is mere plot device. The happy event clears the block of his inspirational juice, eventually triggering the second set piece that is outlandishly huge and maddeningly surreal, as if Aronofsky had gone out of his mind himself and completely lost control. But no. The director is firm on his course of bringing out the only main theme of this movie. The muse may have sacrificed everything for the artist. Unfortunately, the artist lives only for the devotion and admiration of his fans. Nothing else matters to him.
As I mentioned, the movie has perfect closure which clarifies the mystifying prologue, with an added message: what you have witnessed will go on and on, again and again.