The Biblical Narratives of Darren Aronofsky

It’s important to understand the female lead in Mother doesn’t represent the divine feminine or “the great mother,” but rather, she represents the feminine.

It isn’t until the very end of the movie when she is willing to give up the crystal object that she is the divine female.

The crystal object represents the Divine Son who goes on and completes the hero’s journey. He is the main character of the divine story.

The female is deeply attached to her world and her house. She will not go on the hero’s journey and will make a life in her false world. The baby being ripped apart and killed represents destroying this false life in the counterfeit world.

The movie brutally shows the destruction of the female (in order to free the Divine Son) from her perspective. It illustrates the reason for guilt as a result of what the Son of Man does.

Still, it’s a necessary act. The SoM must destroy the female and complete the hero’s journey with the Divine Son. As shown at the end of the film, the real Divine Female will be waiting at the end of the journey for her husband and child.

Both the Mother and Inception movies pair nicely together.

In Inception, Cobb struggles with the reality that the female (Mal) had to be killed and was never going on the journey to the real world. He creates a structure holding memories of her, and he can’t let her go.

The Mother movie can be thought of as the nightmare haunting Cobb through his guilt for killing Mal.

But again, as Mother depicts, the true bride will be waiting at the end in reality.

Thanks for the responses. I saw a clip you shared from The Fountain (haven't seen it) a few days ago, looked it up, saw that it was an Aronofsky film and then came across this analysis.

I wasn't a fan of his. Didn't care for Requiem for a Dream and the first time I saw Mother, I was actually a bit turned off. I also had mixed feeling about The Whale but rewatched it yesterday and saw it in a different light. His other movies were hit or miss for me, but I plan on (re)watching the films he's been involved with.

Inception was good, but Interstellar hit me harder, clearly.

I think I've asked you this before, but have you seen Magnolia or Silence? Would love to read your thoughts on those.

I’ve seen Silence. As someone who has a favorable opinion of Christianity in general, it’s good to be aware of the sacrifices made by the martyrs in spreading it. And the moral dilemmas in the film are interesting to think about.

It’s hard for me to not bring my modernist lens into it, though, where we have the internet and Christianity is so much more accessible.

I think it was a few weeks ago, I saw a report that a western, Christian missionary was killed in Afghanistan, and, while I see the courage, my initial response is, “Why would you do that?”

If someone asked me if Christians should step on the image of Christ and publicly disown Christianity in exchange for their life, from my modernist context, I would say 100% yes. If other people are being tortured over it, then I’m not going to be so nice about the reluctance and hesitating (like the main character does in the film).

However, I’ve only seen the film once and sometimes I miss things in the first viewing. What stood out the most to you?

Re John Allen Chau

None of those people apostatized and were willing to give their lives for what they believed. If the missionary renounces his faith to save lives, what kind of message does that send to others? Are those people already saved? If others suffer due to a personal sacrifice (a "sacrifice" could be both renouncing one's faith or allowing others' deaths.), is it necessarily wrong? I struggled a lot with this movie and decided it's too hypothetical to answer. It depends on the individual. What's right for one person may not be right for another.

Yeah, that’s what I mean when I acknowledged that I can’t completely escape my current context — it’s too hypothetical. It’s almost like the moral dilemma of asking yourself what you would do if you were German in Nazi Germany. It’s too hypothetical; you would no longer be you in a meaningful way.

One thing is worth mentioning: Group identity is to serve the self, not the other way around. This includes the Christian identity.

Now, the self is universal, so this doesn’t mean you should never lay down your life for another — that would obviously conflict with an explicit teaching of Christ.

However, I do mean that you shouldn’t be risking life in service of the abstract Christian group identity. Any belief that leads you toward this outcome should draw serious skepticism.

Ultimately, real conversion happens through the imaginary world between the individual and the Christ within. Social conversion in the physical world isn’t the real. What was happening in the film was life being risked over social conversion in order to serve a socially constructed version of Christ.

The social version of Christ isn’t the real Christ. It can be a bridge to the real Christ, but if there isn’t a bridge, then the social Christ will often begin to serve the enemy and can find subtle ways to be evil within a Christian context (desiring human sacrifice to serve a “Christian” message, etc).

Interesting analogy. Yeah, the historical knowledge we have, along with the fact that we're products of a different place and time, render the question pretty much pointless. Even when it comes to unknown hypotheticals (possible future situations), sometimes they can't be answered.

I value first principles above utilitarianism (and given the situation in Silence, I would say that the priest shouldn't publicly apostatize), but when an individual is faced with real decisions, it can be a bit of a puzzle.