The Death-Driven Eco-Ethics of David Lowery’s The Green Knight (2021) and Darren Aronofsky’s mother! (2017)

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes1 Leo Bersani posed a similar question: “is it possible to invent ‘new relational modes’ [Foucault’s phrase] while taking into account the intractability of the death drive?” (Bersani Citation2010, 134).2 For a Lowery film that features a great many long takes, see A Ghost Story (2017).3 Ecocentrism values the entire ecosphere, not just what humans deem worthy. The Green Knight’s ecocentrism extends to its extra-textual commitments: “no leather used in this production; all clothes were vegan” (Griffin Citation2021).4 I have in mind here what Elizabeth Freeman calls “chrononormativity”—the structured clock-time according to which humans are directed so as to ensure “maximum productivity” (Freeman Citation2010, 3).5 Lowery has critiqued deforestation in his filmmaking since at least the time of the film Pete’s Dragon (2016).6 See Murphy, Castration Desire: Less Is More in Global Anglophone Fiction (Murphy Citation2023).7 Sarabeth Rambold pointed out to me that this casting seems like part of a trend wherein major symbols in British culture are recast as people of color, for example: Dev Patel as Gawain and David Copperfield (2019), Nikki Amuka-Bird as Lady Russell, Henry Golding as William Elliot, and many more casting choices in Persuasion (2022), not to mention Bridgerton totally reimagining racial hierarchy in Regency-era London. Such casting would be consistent with Lowery’s anticolonial politics in The Green Knight.8 Reviewing the Ultra HD disc version, Al Griffin relays, “The Green Knight was shot digitally in large format using the Arri Alexa 65 camera and mastered at 4K resolution. Consequently, its images are at once panoramic and crisp. Landscapes brim with fine natural detail, and so do the intricate period-inspired costumes. Shots in Arthur’s court and in dark castles use a combination of natural and candle light and Dolby Vision high dynamic range ensures that blacks in these scenes are solid and deep, while flames and occasional shafts of sunlight impart a powerful sense of contrast” (2021).9 Cocooning is a social science concept that refers to the growing tendency of people to spend more time inside their homes, given the technological advancements that make leaving the domestic sphere seemingly less necessary (Mulligan Citation2018, 37-8).10 The “metabolic rift” is Marx’s terms for the separation of human populations from the land on which they grow their food.11 Jessica Kiang similarly understands mother! as “a portrait of the trophy wife of a Great Man from the point of view of the trophy” (Kiang Citation2017).12 For another source that reads mother! as ecofeminist, see Hauke (Citation2020). Hódosy similarly sees mother! as “representing an ecofeminist indictment of the effects of the Judeo-Christian tradition” (Hódosy Citation2023, 80-81).13 In her review for Bitch Media, Dahlia Balcazar also observes, “Mother! is a very, very long metaphor in which Mother’s character represents Mother Nature” (2017). Anne Thompson makes a similar point (Thompson Citation2017).14 As regards a fuller definition of ecofeminism (much of which is beyond the scope of this particular essay), I join Greta Gaard in affirming, “there is no lack of eco-justice issues to interrogate, theorize, organize around, and transform using the analyses of an ecological feminism: Global gender justice; climate justice; sustainable agriculture; healthy and affordable housing; universal and reliable health care, particularly maternal and infant health care; safe, reliable, and free or low-cost reproductive technologies; food security; sexual self-determination; energy justice; interspecies justice; ecological, diverse, and inclusive educational curricula; religious freedom from fundamentalisms; indigenous rights; the production and disposal of hazardous wastes; and more. An intersectional ecological-feminist approach frames these issues in such a way that people can recognize common cause across the boundaries of race, class, gender, sexuality, species, age, ability, nation—and affords a basis for engaged theory, education, and activism” (Gaard Citation2011, 44). As Gaard succinctly puts it in another essay, “intersectional analysis of nature, gender, race, class, species, and sexuality is not confined to an essentialist definition of feminism or ecofeminism” (Gaard Citation2010, 659).15 Owen Gleiberman likewise observes, “The place sits in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by nothing but grass and trees and wind, like a wooden octagonal country castle: no road, no driveway, no cell-phone service” (Gleiberman Citation2017).16 Aronofsky’s follow-up feature The Whale (2022) likewise unfolds within a single domestic setting. But unlike mother!, the bottle-function of The Whale seems ultimately to produce a positive outcome for the principal characters.17 It first occurred to me to think of mother! As a “bottle” while listening to the Why Theory podcast episode from May 28, 2023. From there, I read host Ryan Engley’s Academia.edu paper on the topic, which had occasioned the podcast episode (Engley Citation2023). Engley’s discussion analogizing Hegel’s spirit to the bottle episode is outside the focus of my article, but his essay introduced me to the Nannicelli piece, which I would have never otherwise thought to search for (Engley and McGowan Citation2023).18 For Crosby, similarly, this scene “allegorises the vicious child-devouring abuse of ecological degradation” (2021, 459).19 See Edelman’s No Future (2004).20 For Aronofsky films concerned with heartaches stemming from literal marriages, see Requiem for a Dream (2000), The Fountain (2006), and The Whale (2022).21 Hauke avers: “she is never allowed to break out of her prison” (2020, 3).22 Reviewer Bryan Bishop calls mother! “a psychological horror film” Bishop (Citation2017), whereas Jessica Wong (Citation2017) and J.R. Kinnard use the term “psychological thriller.”23 Similar to Ingram, Cajetan Iheka does “not distinguish between commercial and independent or between fictional and documentary films” in his understanding of ecocinema (Iheka Citation2023, 87). See also the Introduction of the first volume of Ecocinema Theory and Practice (where Ingram’s work appears), in which Stephen Rust and Salma Monani aver, “eco-film criticism’s purview is expansive” (Rust and Monani Citation2012, 8). Note, too, Anne Thompson’s IndieWire interview with Aronofsky in which she imparts that he “wants to make movies outside the confines of genre definitions” (Thompson Citation2017); Steven Zeitchik relays something similar (Zeitchik Citation2017).24 “Wicked problem” refers to complex problems that have no single, complete or trial-and-error solutions, and which may emerge as symptoms of other complex problems (Mulligan Citation2018, 51).Additional informationNotes on contributorsRobinson MurphyRobinson Murphy is on faculty in the Environmental Studies program at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. He has a PhD in English from the University of Notre Dame. His book Castration Desire: Less Is More in Global Anglophone Fiction is forthcoming from Bloomsbury.