Mother of Tears

Mother of Tears ***

by Fernando F. Croce on June 4, 2008   Jump to Comments (1) or Add Your Own


Coming after a couple of slack efforts sadly reminiscent of Hitchcock's tepid final years, Mother of Tears feels like Dario Argento's Frenzy, a burst of late-career vigor that allows the horror auteur to address old themes and run them to delirious limits. Dense and oneiric, it is palpably the work of a decadent poet who couldn't resist calling out the psycho monkeys and spilling innards on the floor before the 10-minute mark. This spurt of horrific violence is only the prelude to a wave of grotesqueries—a church's courtyard full of creatures wailing for exorcism, mothers devouring their young when not throwing them off bridges—that hits Rome in tandem with the opening of a freshly excavated urn. "We're supposed to believe in what we see, what we touch," says Museum of Ancient Art curator Sarah Mandy (Asia Argento), and one can't help smiling at the director's in-joke of casting his own daughter, one of modern cinema's great unbalancing forces, as the pragmatic, still center of a canvas of otherworldly horrors.

Still, Argento's goal isn't parody but summarization, a work that builds on the visions of Suspiria and Inferno while crafting its own distinct dark-fairy-tale landscape. The final chapter's place in the maestro's Three Mothers trilogy is explicated by Argento veteran Udo Kier as a nerve-wrecked priest, summing up the previous installments while warning of the "new age of witches" precipitated by the arrival of Mater Lacrimarum (Moran Atias), "the most cruel and beautiful of the three." Sarah is in no time being stalked by agents from the witch's black-magic sect, awakening to her strange powers and sorting through the picture's heady brew of symbols and images. The story proceeds as a continuous enlarging of her world: Portals and corridors proliferate, and a bit of makeup powder is enough to reveal an invisible dimension of wandering souls which includes the heroine's late mother (Daria Nicolodi).

Whether in giallo narratives or supernatural bonanzas, order in Argento's cosmos is a thin skin stretched over a mass of disorder, conflict and dread. Seeing and deciphering have always been consistent motifs, and it's no surprise that the films often traffic in violence to the eye. (Along with other sorts of invasion: Mother of Tears offers the most extreme dash of vaginal brutality since Lucio Fulci's The New York Ripper.) "There's nothing wrong with your mind. It's the world that's gone crazy," Sarah is told. To judge from her ability to disappear and the fantasies churning within her, however, it's safe to assume that the world is as much an extension of the heroine's mind as it is a looming threat to it. In that sense, Mother of Tears bleeds fascinatingly not just into the earlier Mother films, but as well into Argento's truly disturbing The Stendhal Syndrome, which also featured Asia in a portrait of a searcher suspended between reality and nightmare, illumination and insanity.

Argento shuttles so deftly between analog gore and CGI artifice that it's a letdown when Sarah's evocative walk into a mausoleum-of-the-mind past a beastly cavalcade out of Borsch leads to the anticlimactic unveiling of Mater Lacrimarum as a nondescript supermodel-succubus. (The villainess's singsong query of "Who wants to eat the girl?" reverberates deliciously within the picture's fusion of the mystical and the carnal though.) All the same, it's a teasing, energized gothic reverie that refers to Suspiria's glories without cheapening them and, in the debased age of Eli Roth, shows that through Argento's prowling camera the macabre can still be bloody lyrical.


  • Director(s): Dario Argento
  • Screenplay: Jace Anderson, Dario Argento, Walter Fasano, Adam Gierasch, Simona Simonetti
  • Cast: Asia Argento, Cristian Solimeno, Adam James, Moran Atias, Valeria Cavalli, Philippe Leroy, Daria Nicolodi, Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni, Udo Kier, Robert Madison, Jun Ichikawa
  • Distributor: Myriad Pictures and The Weinstein Company
  • Runtime: 98 min.
  • Rating: R
  • Year: 2007


Comments

No-Personality on November 2, 2010, 06:06 AM

I have to come in somewhere between Gonzalez and Croce on this one. I've watched this...3 times to date, I believe. Because I want to get as clear a picture of what was going on with the movie as I can. The one thing I think both reviewers had in common was that they found the film to be powerful...I didn't. That's not a strike against what Argento tried to do. He did as much or more as anyone making this movie could have done. He followed the trend. If anything, with a little more color than some hack like Alexandre Aja would have given it. But...who takes this stuff seriously? Was there anything in this movie that was serious enough to be the slightest bit afraid of? It was funny some times (the "scary" witches standing around staring "menacingly" and sticking their tongues out at people, the baby toss, all the CGI, the ghost vision of Nicolodi). And it was boring the rest of the way. There was no life to it- it was a lot like Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, especially with the random sequences of people bouncing on top of each other in the streets...Oh, I'm sorry; they were supposed to be "brutally attacking" one another. Not that that's something I want to see anyway; it's usually better to suggest and not show mass-hysterical violence (thanks a LOT, Carpenter).

So, forget almost all of it. I mean, yeah I saw the uncut version but was that vaginal mutilation scene really that extreme? Again, not that I want to see it happen, but, it was so flat. The most important thing is that you either are riveted to the screen or torn apart inside because you feel for the character...Who could feel either? It's that flat. But...this is still a better movie than a whole fleet of Haute Tension-like piles of garbage put together. I laughed quite a few times and I never fell asleep. Altogether about as strong, or weak, as Jenifer and Pelts. I do think one thing about this lame, dusty historical/religious blah (with all his amazing achievements, could a guy like Argento really think the way to revitalize a ground-breaking horror career is make his own Omen IV: The Awakening or The Seventh Sign?) is extraordinarily funny...The witches have the most amusing costumes, are silly, and wear all that flashy makeup. They are intended to be the real monsters in this movie...And yet, they don't really kill anyone. They make other people do it for them. Reminds me of what John Landis said about the werewolves in classic horror: they have those scary teeth and sharp claws, and instead of using them, they run around strangling people.

Add Your Own

Login to post comment

or Create an Account



Giveaway

Hell on Wheels: The Complete First Season Blu-ray
Newsletter