Red Sparrow

Jennifer Lawrence is back again in another role in which Hollywood objectifies women. Lawrence seems to have accepted her fate as an actress: she is a woman who is asked to give and give and give until she can’t do it anymore. The trailer shows her sitting on a bed in a night red dress with a drink on her hand. She is obviously waiting for a man. We don’t see him. We only see him placing a mobile phone and money clip on the bedside table. His next move is an order: “Take off your dress”.

Well, that is hardly acceptable nowadays, and so the trailer quickly notes she is in control. Lawrence is a young officer trained to seduce and manipulate. Her trainer is Charlotte Rampling, We hear the Australian actor Joel Edgerton (from Jeff Nichols’s Loving, 2017) say in the voice-over: “she uses her body” in order to attract men and kill them. She is what they call a Sparrow, or a spy. And indeed we realise that from the first clip that she is probably feigning her vulnerability. Next, she kills and puts on a wig in order to flee the crime scene (by the way, speculation around the natural colour of her hair is a recurrent topic on the internet; the wig is certain to stoke this profound and colourful discussion).

But the story is seen from the perspective of Joel Edgerton’s character, who happens to be a CIA spy. Hence, the audience tends to agree with him and be on his side. He is the right guy. And Lawrence chose the wrong side, as she is Russian. This highly Manichaean spy tale promises to show breathtaking Jennifer Lawrence mastering what she does best: an uncensored inability to be a cheat.

Despite sharing the surname with the sexy actor in red, the director Francis Lawrence is not related to her!

Red Sparrow will be released theatrically in early March.

mother!

His house burned up in a fire. Then he (Javier Bardem) found her (Jennifer Lawrence) and as he began to rebuild his life, so she began to rebuild the house. Her work is well on its way to completion. Outside the house lie tranquil, golden fields. He is an acclaimed poet and hasn’t written anything for a long time. The couple live in an hermetic bubble. At least she does.

That all changes when a stranger (Ed Harris) turns up and bonds with him. Suddenly she feels excluded. More new characters are soon to arrive – first the stranger’s attractive wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) then their two argumentative adult sons (real life siblings Domhnall and Brian Gleeson) then funeral guests.

He becomes increasingly obsessive recalling the writer in The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980). As he overrides her wishes she becomes increasingly isolated recalling paranoia from Repulsion and Rosemary’s Baby (both by Roman Polanski, 1965 and 1968 respectively). By the end, the house has been overrun by party-goers and riotous crowds behaving like the group elements from the highly controversial The Devils (Ken Russell, 1971). From the moment Ed Harris first appeared, this was obviously going to end badly.

The narrative is presented throughout in often lengthy takes from her point of view, either directly owing much to subjective camera experiment Lady In The Lake (Robert Montgomery, 1947) or through shots of her acting within/reacting to the situation as it unfolds around her. There’s something of Hitchcock here too in the way the film constantly tortures its female lead.

Leaving aside the rather too neat book ending which sidesteps the need for backstory by some sleight of hand which doesn’t work too well, the film divides neatly into three acts which could be labelled: home building, pregnancy, motherhood. Yet each section follows roughly the same path: her idyllic existence is upset as more and more people arrive and she becomes more and more agitated.

It’s a film which might be viewed differently by men and women – and by introverts and extroverts. But as it builds, you wonder whether piling more and more outsiders onto the couple’s private world can really sustain the proceedings and, sure enough, although the film starts off very well, at some point as the numbers mount it gets rather tedious. Much of the time you can’t help feeling that the writer-director could have done more with less and done it quicker.

I’m all for Aronofsky being given the chance to make the movies he wants. When he’s good, as in Pi (1998), The Wrestler (2008), Black Swan (2010), he’s very good. He can even be good when derivative, Black Swan being in all but name a remake with ballerinas of anime epic Perfect Blue (Satoshi Kon, 1997) to which film Aronofsky owned the rights. (Perfect Blue is due for rerelease in cinemas on 31st October, so you’ll have the chance to judge for yourself then.)

So I don’t complain that mother! is derivative, only that it’s overly self-indulgent. Performances, production value and everything else here are top notch. It’s an interesting experiment and while I defend the director’s right to make it, I’m not especially enthusiastic about the end result.

mother! premiered at the 74th Venice International Film Festival and is out in the UK on Friday, September 15th.