Director, Darren Aronofsky, is vocal about his ambitions to elicit great emotion from his audiences. Whether to good or bad effect, his films debate ego’s contribution to creativity; continuously placing the audience in provoking positions, he questions through excess, how much is too much? And whether our reliance on convention dictates taste or erodes it.

Mother! is no exception. Starring Jennifer Lawrence as an overlooked, underappreciated housewife, Mother! portrays what it is like to be an extra within your own film, metaphoric no doubt to domestic slavery felt by women within their own homes. Dictated by the love for her famous and agitated poet husband, Javier Bardem, Lawrence justifies submission through love’s supposed selflessness. Exploring the traditional arc of a relationship breakdown, the magnitude of emotional erosion that surrounds us is transmitted to the audience. Merging cinematic and genre elements together in an attention grabbing portrayal of the combustion of humanity, it is impossible, due to Aronofsky’s sheer desire for reaction, not to be entertained. However, focusing on his desire to provoke overlooks the sincerity of narrative. Ironically, framing him as the director with Bardem’s self-absorption as a poet, meta-theatrically sacrificing his integrity as a director for the gluttony of his cinema.

Thematic and allegorical messages are explored through Aronofsky’s demand for connectivity, consequentially demonstrating how everything is lost. What we think is solid can be destroyed, our sense of security is an illusion. Released the same week Hurricane Irma hit the coast of America, and the worst recorded fire season in British Columbia, gave Mother! an eerie edge of synchronicity. Cemented by Lawrence’s fabulous, fraught performance, the film prophesizes hardship, making it an ode to mankind our self-destruction, and the destruction we impose on Mother! nature herself.

Word Count: 289

Sources

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2225369/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000849/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Alexandra Heller-Nicholas guided us through Monday’s class today. Alex is an Australian film critic, broadcaster and writer, and her cross media knowledge was an interesting and insightful view into the Australian media industry. Starting the class by introducing herself, she successfully compartmentalised the aspects, responsibilities, and privileges of criticism that I previously hadn’t thought of. One topic that resonated strongly with me was the idea of privilege, as she stated ‘that a single mother working two jobs, wouldn’t have the luxury of watching two feature lengths films that I do each week’. This got me thinking about the true inclusion of criticism, and how in our day and age, where ‘everyone’s a critic’ that might not be such a bad thing. One thing I have been tackling with quite personally this semester is the differentiation between high and low culture, and how does one voice and opinion get credentialed over another. Alex investigated this with the class, modestly stating how she still doesn’t understand what determines her right of say over some else’s art.

Applying this questioning to my own skepticisms, specifically in relation to the investigations I have conducted PB3, I have decided that cultural criticism is my most interested format. Conducting investigations about the content’s relationship with context as oppose to the value of content itself.

This week in Everyone’s A Critic, acclaimed writer Yossi Klein met and spoke to the class about his experience as a professional writer. Currently the chief editor of Bread, Wine and Thou as well as having previously published fiction and poetry, listening to Yossi was extremely informative and inspiring. In a world that is continuously focused on including everyone, it at times can either feel like you’ve already been forgotten or have nothing of worth to say. Yossi however, disputed this idealism, passionately affirming that ‘everyone has a story to tell, you just have to know how to tell it’. I always find it interesting listening to professional creatives, as their application of work ethic onto something that I’ve been taught either comes naturally or doesn’t, always makes me reframe my interpretation of art and the artist’s experience. Yossi was a really interesting guest to listen too, as his ability to speak clearly and on a multitude of subjects is I have no doubt consequential to him making a living off using his voice. Raising some provoking ideas regarding Indigenous Australians and our contribution to their conversation, reaffirmed a sense of credibility within my own writing. As these days we are surrounded by the internet, and therefore a multitude of critics, it can at times feel daunting to use your own voice in case it offends some one else’s. Also, trying to manouver around the ethics of who’s right to the conversaiton is it anyway? These reasons are what stop me from focuing and publishing my writing, as my fear of criticism that I did not know even existed within my own critiques, seem inevitable these days. However, Yossi confirmed a sense of duty within myself, making me realise that everyone is allowed to contribute to the conversation, as long as you’re bettering it.

Wednesday’s In Class Exercise

I woke up late this morning – as usual. I had no clean clothes and the fridge was next to bare. Traffic heaved unbearably through the city scape, achieving fleeting moments of exuberant movement before collapsing once again onto itself like an insufferable dying bug. At work I went to my desk and there was a note to go and see the boss. I waited outsider her offie for a while before she called me in. I couldn’t figure out why she wanted to see me. I went inside and sat down. She handed me an envelope with manicured claws. The artificial pink tips of her fingers laughing mockingly at the exposed rawness of my own. Whilst telling me that my services were longer needed, I imagined her in her turbulent teen years, understanding that her current conviction was at fault to an education who encouraged her to talk as oppose to listen. In her conclusion, she stated that I was then ‘free’ to go, in an attempt to deceive my recent unemployment as liberation rather then defeat. I got my belongings from my desk and left. The drive home was quick. I am now unemployed.

I found this exercise so much fun. I love getting the chance to write. I find that in university I am not pushed outside of the boundaries of my degree enough, which although makes complete sense (considering I am studying Media and not Creative Writing), can sometimes find a bit limiting. Having a task set for you to write within the confines of, I also find makes the writing process a lot easier and more rewarding, as it allows me to become creative within the format of a traditional structure.

This week I was really excited to hear Simran and Philippa speak about being professional critics. Over the course of this semester, as well as the last decade of my life, I have valued cultural criticism and its contextualised perspective of now. Understanding that academia is a niche, I admired how Film and Television exposed and educated audiences about things exterior to their own reality. Sitting in front of programs such as Australian Story and Meet the Press, I experienced from a young age TV’s ability to transition the unseen, to understanding, and then empathy, without the audience even being aware of it. My study and love for film and television therefore, has grown into my career choice, as the medium’s ability to educate and empathise with characters outside our realm of reality is a significant step forward in humanitarian progression and understanding. Needless to say then, I was excited to hear professionals speak about their own understandings and lessons learnt within an industry I am hoping to enter into.

However, I never made into class due to an incident that happened whilst walking into university. Standing at the lights, waiting to cross the road, I was sexually harassed by a group of male students (not from my course, but I assumed were students as they were carrying study bags and about to enter into the RMIT Building 9 area). Shocked by my publicly overt sexualisation, by and in front of members of a community whom are suppose to support growth as oppose to challenge it, I continued into campus before realising that I was upset enough to leave.

Hating myself whilst doing so, I reflected upon how disrupted my day had now become due to an external influencers impact on myself. Their critique of my body – whether it was a misguided or not – made me uncomfortable within both my internal and external prisms. Although I am my own ultimate critic, and only I hold the ability to determine my own text, the influence of other’s criticism at times out weighs the one we know to be true. In this instant, the dominating nature of a pack of men against the singular of myself, left me without comfort or control over my own judgement and responsibilities. Further, aware of the fact that I had made a conscious decision to excuse myself and suffer academic consequences that were to solely reflect on me, as oppose to those who inflicted my leaving, made me think further about the ethical and moral responsibilities of criticism within our context. The individuals who I had just come across where not established critics, they did not have credentialed expertise that allowed them to reduce my role – as their audience or object – to nothing. Yet, through social transaction they were able to dominate my presence to the point of my withdrawal.

I warmed to television and cinema culture from a young age due to its abilities to surpass the traditional institutions of education. But, what we see on screens critiques the audience just as much as we critique the text. Even though the role of the critic might be changing, the microphones that are being distributed at times are not, and too often we become subjects of subconscious bias. I should have been able to dismiss those comments, and know that my sense of self is more affirmed then any other persons critique of me. However, due to the system of critique in which we live, others feel a right to subject other to imposing ideas that consequently retract oneself on receival. The role of the critic is changing, and it is making indeed, everyone a critic. However, just because everyone is given a voice doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is given a stage.

This can even be explored in the example of the plebiscite, where everyone’s right to a say is potentially damaging as oppose to empowering, as individuals are placed in a position of power over an issue that could potentially have no relation to them, and therefore understanding. What, and who are the critics.

** Content Note: I did not publish this article as means to seek council or progress the matter explained in any way.

In Wednesdays’s class this week we watched Laura Gabbert’s City of Gold (2015), a profile of internationally renowned, Pulitzer Prize-winning food critic Jonathan Gold. City Of Gold was an interesting and beneficial film to watch, as its observation of food criticism as well as the emphasis of Gold’s critic personality, presented new ideas to me about how we view not only culture, but its criticisms.

One of the most emphasised points of City Of Gold, was how Gold’s critiques on food infuses aspects of the dish’s physicality and material traits with the people and culture whom surround it. It was interesting to hear how by doing so, Gold, as a food critic, became renowned criticisms credentialed the imperative and historical nature of a dish’s context. Gold’s acknowledgement of food as a demonstration of culture and presentation of society’s different and similar ideologies was interesting as it challenged my ideas about the importance of food and its contribution to culture. On having this epiphany however, I asked myself why do I and Gabbert find this notion so dumbfounding. Why is Gold so highly thought of as a food critic for making this affiliation, when of course food is apart of culture, and a critic’s purpose to critique so.

Thus, City of Gold presented to me the unconscious bias I hold towards criticisms, and how I have preconceived ideas of the value of work presented in each cultural category. When critiquing art, I connote high cultural aspects to the reviewer, and would not be surprised to read sweeping comments about how a particular artwork shapes and demonstrates ideological patterns within our past and future history. However, the same conception is not applied when reading critiques about food. Exposing my categorisation of high and low cultural aspects to a society, which is not fair, nor an actual representation to the melting pot of culture itself.

This week our first Project Brief was due, which was a formulation of different criticisms about a singular text, and the significance of each criticism. The text I chose was Blue Is The Warmest Colour, as the controversy that surrounds the text; sexuality, internationalism, independence, would highlight the diversity of criticism in general. As the film’s nationality is French, I included both a French and American critique of the film in hope that the contrast in pieces would highlight the contradictions in cultures. Aware of the subjective nature of criticism itself, my PB1 attempted to investigate the nature of perspective and provoke audience relations to the critic.

As last week emphasised the importance of establishing an original personality as a critic, I decided this week to investigate some already existing personalities present within contemporary criticism. Fitting to discussions had in class about the relationship between producer and content, and how at times this relationship has a negative effect on the authenticity of a work, I was amazed at some of the content I found on high commercial platforms such as the New York Times.

Under the impression that such influential magazines would attempt to produce media that was contextually fitting to our age and its progression, the piece The Trouble with Blue is the Warmest Colour by Manohla Dargis. Initially when reading her criticism, I assumed due to the reductive language that the piece of written by a man. When finding out that the piece was written by a woman however, it made me guess by presumed misogony, however I reinstalled my initial belief of the piece as 50%+ of white women voted for Trump and feminism is still thought of as a dirty word. I thought this piece was interesting, and should be included as the female writer factor could have possibly been used as an effect for the NYT, as it pushes audience considerations of stereotypes and tropes.

Thus, PB1 and this week in general has been an interesting investigation into the nature of criticism and our interpretation and expectations of such as the audience. From class discussion, I am starting to think deeper about the relationships present behind each piece, using my detective skills to further define what it means to be a critic today.