Martha Marcy May Marlene (Sean Durkin, 2011)

[mfunk9786]

I resent few things more than a movie that plays as if the director said on set, “Eh, let’s not do that. That might be too interesting.” Martha Marcy May Marlene is another one of these films that tries to create suspense by revealing its plot through flashbacks piece-by-piece, but it fails at doing so because what is revealed is categorically dull. One can infer from the first few flashbacks that there was a substantial amount of danger around Martha’s association with the farm/cult/fuckery run by John Hawkes, but the film doesn’t seem to think that we can infer anything. Instead, as the utterly underwritten current timeline moves along, we’re given cleverly cut flashback after cleverly cut flashback of Martha’s life in the cult, despite the fact that anyone who’s ever heard of a cult or seen a movie or been exposed to the first act of this film can assume that most of what we see took place. What’s left when the film ends is absolutely no insight into Martha’s psyche, and no resolution to the most interesting plot thread – which director Sean Durkin abandons wholesale in order to end the film with a shot that he finds nifty. Elizabeth Olsen is very good, as is John Hawkes – though in the case of Hawkes, I’m not sure how many times one can praise an actor for what is, in a lot of ways, the same performance he’s given quite a few times before. Unfortunately though, the current-time plot with Martha’s sister and brother-in-law is dull, and the actors portraying them are remarkably wooden, making their characters even more naive and well, stupid – than they already were on the page. The direction ranges from hideous to beautiful – some scenes are shot as if Durkin was trying to replicate a bad DVD transfer of a low-budget Giallo film, while others use light and color to great effect. I have seen Lifetime Original Movies with a sharper eye for both suspense and character psychology.

[willoneill]

Just caught this tonight, and I liked its style and its pacing, but wanted to yell at Sarah Paulson and Hugh Dancy for constantly alternating between being either the world's biggest assholes, or just mind-numbingly stupid. Anyway, on the way home, my fiancee,

Spoiler

a self-proclaimed scholar on matters of serial killers and related topics, insists that the cult in this film is very much inspired by the Manson Family.

Not knowing much about those things myself, does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[zedz]

Yes it is, very pointedly, in terms of the male / female relationships, the character of the leader, and especially the creepy-crawling.

EDIT: which is one problem with mfunk's dismissal above - the filmmakers have gone to considerable trouble to establish that

Spoiler

this isn't just any old cult. The fact that this is overtly a Manson-styled cult, with the possibility of homicidal reprisal which is built into that, is one of the engines of the drama.

[mfunk9786]

I just wasn't shocked by those revelations, to be quite honest. They're sort of telegraphed at the beginning of the film, so the fact that that's what is supposed to bowl us over once it unfolds feels like Durkin just ran out of ideas, or didn't want to take the picture in a particularly interesting direction where there was so much opportunity to do so.

[zedz]

Yeah, but the problem with the argument that

Spoiler

once we know it's a cult, we don't need to see it doing all this stuff, because that's just what cults do, is that it doesn't really hold water, because there's only one particular cult that did the particular things that are done in this film. In most of the high profile cases (Branch Davidians, Jim Jones etc.) they destroy and dominate their own rather than going out and terrorizing / slaughtering random members of the general public. So Durkin needs to establish just what kind of group Martha has escaped in order to generate the story's dramatic tension.

How that dramatic tension is dealt with afterwards is up for debate, but I don't think you can just assume it from the ambiguous connotations of a single word that the film goes out of its way to leave unsaid.

[mfunk9786]

Spoiler

But beyond the murder, we're not given much reason to believe that the cult has murderous intentions beyond scrubbing out someone who witnessed one of their home invasions.

[Brian C]

Spoiler

But beyond the murder, we're not given much reason to believe that the cult has murderous intentions beyond scrubbing out someone who witnessed one of their home invasions.

Spoiler

Patrick shoots one of the other members too, doesn't he? The one that he says is a "freeloader" "without substance"? And he also gives the speech about how killing someone is absolute love. I'd say there's plenty of reasons to believe in their murderous intentions.

[LQ]

Spoiler

Patrick shoots one of the other members too, doesn't he? The one that he says is a "freeloader" "without substance"? And he also gives the speech about how killing someone is absolute love. I'd say there's plenty of reasons to believe in their murderous intentions.

Spoiler

Just thought I'd clarify that he doesn't shoot that man; when Martha hesitates to shoot into the mewling sack that Patrick brought, he suggests that she shoot that member instead because he's a freeloader & a waste of space. It was the sack of cats that got the eventual bullet (off-screen, thankfully).

[Brian C]

Hmm, I'll need to watch that again. I thought:

Spoiler

1) Cat 1 gets shot by (Zoe?).
2) Cat 2 gets shot by the freeloader (Max?).
3) Patrick asks him why he did that, and explains that one can was sick, and the other was healthy, and Zoe knew the difference.
4) Then as Max is leaving, and we see Patrick point the gun at him and pull the trigger, presumably shooting him in the back.

Am I really imagining #4?

Spoiler

Either way, the wanton cruelty to the cats and/or the idea of shooting Max, seemingly offered seriously, I think establishes or at least foreshadows the murderous intentions that mfunk was talking about.

[LQ]

I'm pretty certain that you're imagining it, Brian. Otherwise,

Spoiler

Why would Martha have stuck around after that, if it was the murder of a stranger that finally made her flee?

I probably won't be watching again to confirm, though. I found the movie to be empty and surprisingly predictable. Durkin didn't do nearly enough with material so potentially rich; he merely presented the events blankly using oh-so-hip fractured timelines, and then made an indulgent grab at ambiguity when there was absolutely nothing worth being ambiguous about.
Olsen was brilliant, and I enjoyed her performance within the film, but the actors playing her sister and brother-in-law at the lakehouse were so terribly wooden that it chipped away even at my engagement with Martha.

[zedz]

I'm pretty certain that you're imagining it, Brian. Otherwise,

Spoiler

Why would Martha have stuck around after that, if it was the murder of a stranger that finally made her flee?

Um, because that's the nature of

Spoiler

cults? Members are sapped of their volition, outrageous behaviours become normalised, and members feel like they can't escape. I don't think the film implies that it was any particular 'tipping-point' that forced Martha to flee, just an accumulation of bad stuff, a remaining glimmer of volition and a fleeting opportunity.

And my argument was more about the film needing to establish that the group she's involved in really is the Manson family (or a lightly fictionalized version of it), which doesn't really happen until the creepy-crawling scene. You can't count on the audience making that leap as soon as one guy picks up an acoustic guitar - and if the audience is making those kind of assumptions, they're idiots. Though it would turn A Mighty Wind into a very different film.

I do agree about the performances of the sister and brother-in-law being the film's weak links, but they weren't enough to turn me against the rest of the film.

[LQ]

Spoiler

I don't think the film implies that it was any particular 'tipping-point' that forced Marcy to flee, just an accumulation of bad stuff, a remaining glimmer of volition and a fleeting opportunity.

Spoiler

I trusted my memory enough to post with authority about the particulars of the cat scene, but I feel less sure about arguing with you on this front - however, I think I remember that the film was pretty clear about making the home invasion killing the tipping point that set her reeling enough that she had to leave. I'm sure post-murder she was able to see all the other things (assisted rape, for example) in a different light, but its only after the murder do we see her wavering, questioning, and ultimately deciding to leave.

Spoiler

And my argument was more about the film needing to establish that the group she's involved in really is the Manson family (or a lightly fictionalized version of it), which doesn't really happen until the creepy-crawling scene. You can't count on the audience making that leap as soon as one guy picks up an acoustic guitar - and if the audience is making those kind of assumptions, they're idiots. Though it would turn A Mighty Wind into a very different film.

Spoiler

I knew exactly when the pivotal cat scene rolled 'round that Durkin was going to take this cult to a murderous end, and it appears that others in this thread (well, Brian) did too. I understand your argument, but I feel that the film would've benefited from being a bit more ambiguous. For all its coy and elliptical editing, the cult plotline is blunt and (for me, at least) predictable.

[zedz]

Of course, for all I know everybody reading this is already well aware of what this film is about, but all those black boxes are nevertheless striking!

[mfunk9786]

Spoiler

I feel like the most interesting element of the film was the pursuit and attempted reclamation of Martha, and obviously Durkin did too, or he wouldn't have ended the film on the note he ended it on. But I feel it's an absolute cop-out not to see that plot thread through, and it leaves the rest of the film feeling hollow.

[zedz]

Spoiler

I feel like the most interesting element of the film was the pursuit and attempted reclamation of Martha, and obviously Durkin did too, or he wouldn't have ended the film on the note he ended it on. But I feel it's an absolute cop-out not to see that plot thread through, and it leaves the rest of the film feeling hollow.

Spoiler

Well, my reading of that is that we never know for certain whether or not the cult really have tracked down Martha, or whether she's just paranoid - which would be completely understandable. I liked that ambiguity and for me that was the point of the film: whatever Martha does and wherever she goes, she's never going to be able to escape.

[rs98762001]

Zedz is spot on with this. The ending is far from a cop out. In fact, whether the cult is actually after Martha or not is besides the point. The film is almost entirely subjective, shown through her eyes. Once she's been through this experience, she'll be seeing and hearing threats everywhere, whether they do or don't exist, and the last shot is a perfect visual representation of this. Having done substantial research on the subject of ex-cult members, it's a detail that rang completely true. A solid, assured, and mostly understated debut from Durkin.

[mfunk9786]

Funny that someone can look at this thread and still not spoilertag

[Brian C]

I'm pretty certain that you're imagining it, Brian. Otherwise,

Spoiler

Why would Martha have stuck around after that, if it was the murder of a stranger that finally made her flee?

Spoiler

Well, like zedz I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the murder of the stranger was the primary cause for her leaving. But, even if it was, I don't think the shooting of Max would be inconsistent with this view anyway.

Patrick's logic in the cat scene obviously has some pull on her. He calls her "a teacher and a leader", which is clearly flattering to her on some level, because she repeats it later out of frustration with her sister. But being a teacher and a leader in this context means exercising Godlike powers of judgment over the weak and the helpless, which is then conflated by Patrick to include the unworthy when he discusses Max. I don't think it's far-fetched to wonder if, in that moment, she believed Patrick re: Max's unworthiness, and wouldn't have been affected in the same way that the unexpected, shocking murder of a total stranger would later on.

But on the contrary, perhaps she wasn't as disturbed by the stranger's death as we think, and she's disturbed by the memory not because of a guilty conscience, but simply because she knows what they are and what that might mean for her own safety. One other element that I haven't seen discussed, and fits in context here, is the passing remark to the new recruit that Patrick only fathers boys. Obviously this has very disturbing implications, and it's hard to believe that Martha wouldn't have had to reconcile herself to infanticide in order to stay with the group for two years. Unless, I guess, by some coincidence all the babies that were born in that time (it seems like there must have been several) actually were boys.

But I guess if no one else saw Max get shot I'll give up the ghost on this one. I swear I remember it, but maybe I just remember thinking it was going to happen and then forgot that it didn't. Or maybe someone started talking behind me and I was distracted enough to misinterpret a brief insert shot of the gun. Who knows. But I'm really the only one that remembers it this way?

[Foam]

I wasn't expecting much of this but thought it was great. It's sort of a reversal/implosion of Haynes' Safe and for me potentially the first true heir to its throne. A quick Google search reveals I'm not the first to draw this connection, but Scott's seeming disinterest in the politics of both films I think leads to a misreading and undue dismissal. With reference to mfunk and LQ, the film is going to seem hollow if you see the flashback structure as merely a trick to create shock and suspense rather than as a way to hint at the sense of experiential confusion Martha is in (if not to put us into the same confused space--on the contrary, the film seems to invite a certain ironic distance). With reference to Scott, the film is also going to seem hollow if you see this "psychological case study" as an end in itself rather than as a springboard for the politically oriented juxtapositions, contrasts, and equivalencies Durkin makes between its two locations. I'll need to see the film again to come to terms with exactly what it's doing and decide whether it's, to use Scott's distinctions, probing or evasive... but at the very least I think tapping into this structure of equivalency can help to explain some of the objections raised above (such as why Lucy and Ted seem to have unpredictable changes of heart--it mirrors the same emotional schizophrenia found in the family). Also, the film and its soundtrack are just gorgeous.

[Keyrek]

Spoiler

But I guess if no one else saw Max get shot I'll give up the ghost on this one. I swear I remember it, but maybe I just remember thinking it was going to happen and then forgot that it didn't. Or maybe someone started talking behind me and I was distracted enough to misinterpret a brief insert shot of the gun. Who knows. But I'm really the only one that remembers it this way?

Spoiler

The scene as I remember it is that after Patrick berates Max for shooting the cat, Max turns his back to the audience and walks away. Then I guess Patrick embraces Martha or Zoe(?) while she's holding the gun, pointing it audience-right. Then the gun is fired, the gunshot marking the transition to the next scene. So, they're either shooting at Max or shooting at another bottle or maybe even just shooting for shooting's sake, I don't really know, it's ambiguous to me.

[Lemmy Caution]

Spoiler

I was going to watch this film, but I blacked out instead

[LQ]

Spoiler

Patrick's logic in the cat scene obviously has some pull on her. He calls her "a teacher and a leader", which is clearly flattering to her on some level, because she repeats it later out of frustration with her sister. But being a teacher and a leader in this context means exercising Godlike powers of judgment over the weak and the helpless, which is then conflated by Patrick to include the unworthy when he discusses Max. I don't think it's far-fetched to wonder if, in that moment, she believed Patrick re: Max's unworthiness, and wouldn't have been affected in the same way that the unexpected, shocking murder of a total stranger would later on.

Spoiler

You & zedz are right, I made a misstep when I suggested that she naturally wouldn't have stuck around had Max been shot in front of her. You make a good case for how someone in that position could've probably accepted Patrick's 'persuasive' justification for that murder.

[Brian C]

That's cool. In other news, the movie seems to have mostly exited Chicago area theaters, so even though I'm eager to see it again, I'll have to wait for the Blu-ray.

[Grand Illusion]

The film really worked for me. Ending included. There was a palpable sense of dread throughout, and I thought the performances were all riveting. When I just want to see more of the characters and their interactions, the film has won me over. I thought as a well-told story and character piece, it was fantastic.

I think perhaps more than the narrative turns towards the end of the film, the most interesting thing about the film is how overtly it sexualizes Elizabeth Olsen. There were certain moments, the scene where she is scrubbing the floor in particular, where I became less immersed in the story and more distracted by/focused on (?) Elizabeth Olsen's sexuality, and not necessarily that of the character. It's a rich subject when the two merge and when they are distinct, when a filmmaker should utilize the inherent eroticism of an actress even when such a tactic might further distance the viewer from the story or character being portrayed. Perhaps it's sticking out to me because, unlike, say, a Bertolucci, I wasn't necessarily expecting it from this film going in.

[Lemmy Caution]

I had a similar experience with Jessica Chastain in Tree of Life.
It was a bit distracting, as I found myself contemplating the actress and not the character or the film. Still it was enjoyable. Not too unusual for me, as I sometimes mentally take a step back when watching a film and re-write dialogue, decide to ignore a scene or sub-plot, or change a character's role or scenes. But I don't admit this in public.

Still haven't seen 4M's.