Aronofsky's answer: an allegorical tale about climate change.
The real answer: a metaphor for the artistic process, from inception to creation to the public's response.
I don't know why the director just straight-up lied about the meaning behind the film. The metaphor is so obvious.
>i know more than the director
You claim your post is about this movie but its obviously about you coming out as trans. I dont know why you'd lie about it
Boilerplate Gnostic creation myth through a few hazy Kabbala lenses (Aster is israeli after all).
Climate is the human terrain, 'gentiles'
The real answer: Aronofsky talks like a Bronx cabbie because he has the intellectual capacity and character of a Bronx cabbie.
The director came out and revealed what it is to ensure there's no mystery or interpretation. Im paraphrasing but he essentially said how It's an allegory for mother nature and how humans are destructive, Jennifer Lawrence being the beautiful mother nature, her giving life to Jesus (the baby) and all the destructive bad humans who come into her domain, her house, and destroy everything. It's dumb as hell, it's on the nose, and it's just bad. McDonald's Althouse at best. Snyder would've done something deeper than this
I liked it 2bh
though I'm a sucker for wacky surrealist nonsense (too many /x/ horror streams during my depressed NEET phases) so was prob going to like it anyway no matter what
I can understand it NOT needing to be a presumably high budget peak JLaw flick tho
Coin-Flipman is God, Blonde Butthole is Mother-Nature, the house is Earth and the people are humanity.
Basically what the Black Swan man is saying is that God is an aloof dick who humans (crude and destructive by nature) fanboy for while ignoring or denigrating the Earth and Nature. Eventually she just fukkin dies, everyone dies, God says “lol” and makes a new planet
Neat concept on paper, utterly pretentious in execution.
This may be true, but it doesn't make much sense given the foolishness of the Creator. He suffers from anxiety about not having any ideas, then he creates something which satisfies his massive ego, then he goes down with the ship. This is supposed to be an accurate representation of the supreme consciousness, the source of all existence? Give me a break. It just doesn't work.
It works better as just a metaphor about the artistic process.
>It just doesn't work
It works if its a criticism of god
Or if you realize not everything is gonna a "faithful adaption" or whatever it is you wanted
Whenever you have moments like this just remember what your doctor said when he diagnosed you with autism
If you're going to create some grand allegory about God/nature/humankind and how they relate to each other, I would prefer it to not be a moronic take. That's all.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Inaccurate != moronic
And that wasn't your original claim
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'd say it's a bit more than inaccurate. It's downright idiotic to think the self-created source of all existence would be anything less than perfect. Of course the Old Testament portrays God as anthropomorphic and flawed, but it's a bit different when it's a film that's attempting to outline God's one-but-many nature by metaphorically examining each main division.
What wasn't my original claim? The fact that it's not really a film about climate change? I still stand by that one. If climate change factored into it, it's only a small piece of the puzzle.
I agree him being neurotic and anxious isn’t a very good representation of the creator, but when it’s not shocking in 2023 to have someone say “God bad” or “God stupid” in a film
u know, the thing.
also trailer dimestore JLaw hotter JLaw, just saying.
I'm gettin' the fever
I died laughing watching this movie. I thought the scenario was funny and loved how it escalated.
It wasn't supposed to be a comedy, chud
+1
Such a self important pretentious movie, but it sort of collapsed into itself as the travails of someone who cant handle a good house party
The first half of the movie is genuinely funny and I don't think it's unintentional
Don't know about you, but I watched her butthole
You and I both
Aronofsky's answer: an allegorical tale about climate change.
The real answer: a metaphor for the artistic process, from inception to creation to the public's response.
I don't know why the director just straight-up lied about the meaning behind the film. The metaphor is so obvious.
Aronofsky said climate change? what a moron
>i know more than the director
You claim your post is about this movie but its obviously about you coming out as trans. I dont know why you'd lie about it
To be fair, Aronofsky is moronic.
If a moron tells you he shit his pants are you gonna believe or make up some shit about him being a genius?
>You claim your post is about this movie but its obviously about you coming out as trans
I lol'd
I'm not saying I know more than the director. I'm saying I think he knows what I know, but for some stupid fricking reason he decided to lie about it.
>I think
You clearly don't
Boilerplate Gnostic creation myth through a few hazy Kabbala lenses (Aster is israeli after all).
Climate is the human terrain, 'gentiles'
The real answer: Aronofsky talks like a Bronx cabbie because he has the intellectual capacity and character of a Bronx cabbie.
Its about God.
Really bad biblical allegory
Yeah isn't how satan hated that God created humans and invited them to the party etc etc or so I heard I haven't watched it and don't plan to
The director came out and revealed what it is to ensure there's no mystery or interpretation. Im paraphrasing but he essentially said how It's an allegory for mother nature and how humans are destructive, Jennifer Lawrence being the beautiful mother nature, her giving life to Jesus (the baby) and all the destructive bad humans who come into her domain, her house, and destroy everything. It's dumb as hell, it's on the nose, and it's just bad. McDonald's Althouse at best. Snyder would've done something deeper than this
Oh I thought it was his take on illegal immigration
A metaphor about God and heaven or something
A metaphor about browneye induced fever
I liked it 2bh
though I'm a sucker for wacky surrealist nonsense (too many /x/ horror streams during my depressed NEET phases) so was prob going to like it anyway no matter what
I can understand it NOT needing to be a presumably high budget peak JLaw flick tho
Coin-Flipman is God, Blonde Butthole is Mother-Nature, the house is Earth and the people are humanity.
Basically what the Black Swan man is saying is that God is an aloof dick who humans (crude and destructive by nature) fanboy for while ignoring or denigrating the Earth and Nature. Eventually she just fukkin dies, everyone dies, God says “lol” and makes a new planet
Neat concept on paper, utterly pretentious in execution.
This may be true, but it doesn't make much sense given the foolishness of the Creator. He suffers from anxiety about not having any ideas, then he creates something which satisfies his massive ego, then he goes down with the ship. This is supposed to be an accurate representation of the supreme consciousness, the source of all existence? Give me a break. It just doesn't work.
It works better as just a metaphor about the artistic process.
>It just doesn't work
It works if its a criticism of god
Or if you realize not everything is gonna a "faithful adaption" or whatever it is you wanted
Whenever you have moments like this just remember what your doctor said when he diagnosed you with autism
>It works if its a criticism of god
Yes, which is why I said "this may be true". I'm saying it doesn't work from a theological standpoint.
Speaking of autism...
>theological standpoint
This isn't a documentary or a church movie, autist
If you're going to create some grand allegory about God/nature/humankind and how they relate to each other, I would prefer it to not be a moronic take. That's all.
Inaccurate != moronic
And that wasn't your original claim
I'd say it's a bit more than inaccurate. It's downright idiotic to think the self-created source of all existence would be anything less than perfect. Of course the Old Testament portrays God as anthropomorphic and flawed, but it's a bit different when it's a film that's attempting to outline God's one-but-many nature by metaphorically examining each main division.
What wasn't my original claim? The fact that it's not really a film about climate change? I still stand by that one. If climate change factored into it, it's only a small piece of the puzzle.
I give up, you win
Congratulations 🙂
I agree him being neurotic and anxious isn’t a very good representation of the creator, but when it’s not shocking in 2023 to have someone say “God bad” or “God stupid” in a film
>but when it’s not shocking in 2023 to have someone say “God bad” or “God stupid” in a film
Yes, especially given Aronofsky's... genetics.
pretentious schlock that wraps around to being entertaining
psychosis
i like it a lot