Martha Marcy May Marlene (Sean Durkin, 2011)

[dad1153]

Saw this last night at a packed house (the only theater in NYC still showing it). Tremendous work by Elizabeth Olsen (her big wide eyes do most of the heavy lifting) which actually uses her innate sensuality (which the movie wisely uses to tease in the present-day scenes) to drive home what her character has lost by virtue of how she allowed herself to be manipulated. Olsen nails that evasive inability of sex crime victims to talk about or share their ordeal because to acknowledge that it happened (i.e. if Martha would just say 'I was raped by a cult' to Lucy and her hubby) would make it real again, leaving director Sean Durkin in charge of showing us those traumatic horrors when Martha is alone or thinking/dreaming. I can see all the arguments why someone like mfunk9786 would not like Durkin's flashback technique but I think it serves a dual purpose beyond just showing us explicitly the horrors of being part of a cult. First we need to see/feel what Martha went through to drive home for viewers why she is so traumatized she can't just blurt out to her sister and brother-in-law why she acts the way she does. Plus Durkin can't assume his audience knows important details about how this particular cult works (a key important element to his movie's narrative) and it's better to show it than allow the audience's mind to wonder if this is going the Jim Jones way, the Branch Dividians way, etc. The cult itself is actually pretty small (they're a handful of men and twice as many women with a few babies, as we were shown in the opening) and isolated to Upstate NY. It's Martha's perception of how threatening they are (which Durkin shares with us by showing us her views/fears/POV) that makes them seem like an omniprescent lurking-around-every-corner all-reaching force of evil.

But, by constantly switching between present-day Connecticut and the Upstate NY farm, Durkin also contrasts the lifestyles and people that Martha grew up with (the sister more than the house since Martha didn't grow up there) and sought to escape from, which doesn't flatter the former a whole lot. Granted, Lucy and Ted can't really compare to the cult members; they're both brain-washed by their lifestyles and choices into separate societies/ways of living, but the cultists are at very least

Spoiler

guilty of one murder, assuming it isn't a figment of Martha's imagination (I don't think it is) and keeping mum about it

which makes them a lot worse in my book than asshole rich people. But there's so much both said and unsaid between Martha and Lucy that at times I feel the movie is more about the neglect of one family sending a still-formative-but-stubborn young person like Martha straight into another surrogate famly that just compounds on damage already done. Sarah Paulson deserves credit here for the unthankful role of being the self-centered sister that can't see what is clearly in front of her because she's isolated herself from even being familiar with that kind of distress and human frailty. But can we really blame Lucy for being self-centered when it has brought her a nice rich hubby and lifestyle she is clearly satisfied with (while still holding feelings/affection for her sister)? Hugh Dancy and John Hawke are asked to play stock roles and they do them fine, but Brady Corbet has a trickier role because

Spoiler

(a) it's obvious from a few shots that Marlene actually develops feelings for Watts and (b) his decision to let Martha go at the diner where he catches up with her is either a play for power (he's convinced she'll return to the cult because their mental brainwash has been so effective... the rest of the movie tests out Watt's on-the-spot decision not to drag Martha by force from the diner) or he actually followed Martha and Lucy home to CT (maybe took Lucy's plates) if you're inclined to buy the next-to-last scene when Watts appears to be sitting on the lake as proof the cult has caught up with Martha.

The ending of "Martha Marcy May Marlene" turned the audience I was watching with against the film though (same thing happened when I saw "No Country For Old Man," "Next" and a few others... afterwards talking to people nobody seemed to like it) which is a shame because they were with it almost all the way to the end.

Spoiler

When Martha tells Lucy she'd make a lousy mother the entire theater -all 80+ people in the small Cinema Village 12th st. closet- gasped at once in horror... freaking awesome to know Durkin had all of us by the balls, only for him (according to most people there I talked to afterward) to literally drop the ball(s) in the end. To me it's a perfect you-make-the-call conclusion to this chapter of Martha's life we've been privy to. Is Martha imagining her sister's voice as she's been driven back to the cult farm by Watts? Is she just been taken to a mental institution by Lucy (which begets an entirely different movie's worth of suffering/introspection)? This spooked-of-your-own-shadow feeling is the rest of her life she has to look forward to. But, if she's been driven to an institution to seek help and she actually receives that help, Martha could turn herself into a better person (her running away from the cult after witnessing the murder proves she has a moral backbone that separates her from the other cultists still with Hawke), which actually gives the ending the plausibility of being an uplifting one.

Not a movie I would like to revisit often, but one I'm glad I saw in a theater with an appreciative-until-the-end audience tagging along.

[domino harvey]

When looked at from the right angle, I thought this was a tremendous film.

Spoiler

Those looking for "Cult Revenge" thrills are going to be let down, but this isn't about that as much as its about the threat of that. And as such this is a wonderfully observed portrait of a young woman who has been (irreversibly, the film suggests) damaged by her experiences, with the flashbacks not serving as "backstory" or even an alternating narrative as much as an explanation (almost diagnosis) into her current status. I am in the minority, I see, in preferring the modern-day sequences, but only because I feel this is where the film's whole point lies. Olsen's character has been so thoroughly bruised by her experiences that it has blurred her ability to see proper boundaries in a "civilized" society. I'm shocked no one has mentioned what is to my eyes the key scene of the film, where Olsen hears her sister having sex and crawls into bed with them. The inability to recognize the inappropriateness of her response coupled with the need of immediacy that her commune lifestyle had immersed her in was all at once pathetic and tragic. And note the sister's reaction: not repulsion for the intrusion but for her societal indiscretion: "It's not done, understand that you can't do this sort of thing" (paraphrasing). Note how often the sister and her husband respond to Olsen in terms of how she does or does not fit in with their lifestyle: Seemingly blind to the signs of abuse (those of us who've dealt with abused loved ones are biased, as we recognize the signs immediately, but not everyone is as observant, especially when there's still a lot of underlying anger feeding the at-times willful ignorance of the situation), Olsen is derided as "rude" several times in the film, and it feeds into the very thing the cult exploited in her. As terrified as she is of the cult reclaiming her, her paranoid fantasies (and I do see them as such) near the end strike me as subconscious wish-fulfillment-- she may fear what happens to her should the cult reclaim her, but she also wants to be desired enough to be worth the trouble. And a life lived in those terms is as scary a fate as anything else in the film.

[Brian C]

I think that's a great analysis, domino, and particularly solid insight into the way that the sister and her husband treat Olsen's character.

[mfunk9786]

Yeah, few analyses make me want to go back and revisit a film I disliked - that was an excellent review. The irony isn't lost on me that you contend that the film is all about Martha's psyche, when I said in my review that nothing can be gleaned about it by the end. I stand by my convictions at this point, of course, particularly that the film spent far too much time showing us what we already know (by assumption) about Martha's life in the cult, and taking too little time for current-day character observation - but I'm looking forward to going back at some point and seeing if I can peel away another layer of the onion.

or

Thanks for making me want to watch this film again, jerk

[domino harvey]

Glad to help/harm \:D/

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.

I noticed this too, but remember the above mentioned down-blouse POV is employed while Olsen is alone with her sister's husband. Durkin strongly misdirects the audience to expect Olsen's character to respond sexually towards Dancy, and it's to the film's credit that this never quite materializes (though one wonders if his strong objections to her aren't at some level a refutation of his attraction... after all, why was he crouching near her on the couch near the end?)-- Olsen's character hasn't confused sexuality with a default emotional response, she's associated it wholly with her communal relationships. Any sort of childlike obliviousness to her own erotic effect is unintentional on her part, as in the first swimming scene (which again, as I noted before, is objected to by the sister on the grounds that other people can see her and she can't do it, not that it's wrong or bad). In fact, in her inert current state she desires mere proximity to others far more than any emotional pull close quarters can bring, which is a pretty damning surface-level retention of focal-desires while denying/ignoring (and possibly erasing/replacing) legitimate intimacy.

[Grand Illusion]

I definitely see where you're going with the misdirection regarding the sister's husband. In fact, I did expect something to come of that angle. Or maybe I should say that I expected more to come of it, since I do sense a bit of repression from the husband character.

I also think you're correct in how it's motivated by her experiences in the commune. Since reading reviews though, another shot that someone mentioned was a tracking shot at butt-level when Martha is carrying a glass of water through a hallway. The shot is ostensibly about the glass, but the ass fills the frame. There's no motivation there in regards to other characters.

I really did love the film as a character study and as a thriller, so perhaps I'm merely having a bit of internal backlash, where I feel I may have been manipulated by my lowbrow interests, rather than anything inherent to the workings of the film itself. I could be completely wrong though.

[swo17]

Count me in the plus column for this. I really liked the disorienting effect of the flashback scenes, which often gave the present day scenes a sense of menace or luridness that isn't necessarily there on paper but which certainly presses on Olsen's character's mind. domino made some good points about this, citing the down-blouse shot and especially

Spoiler

the scene where she interrupts her sister's lovemaking.

Hawkes was pitch perfect as well, occasionally terrifying but always with a certain confidence and charm that makes it easy to see how certain people could find him alluring.

As for the criticism that the horrors of the cult were perhaps too textbook, I think the point was more to convey the horror in the present of being unable to perform a simple task like, say, stirring a glass of water, without reliving a parallel disturbing moment from your past.

[zedz]

As for the criticism that the horrors of the cult were perhaps too textbook, I think the point was more to convey the horror in the present of being unable to perform a simple task like, say, stirring a glass of water, without reliving a parallel disturbing moment from your past.

I also think that the menace of the film to a large part depends on signalling to the viewer that this actually is a modern Manson Family (the 'creepy-crawling' scene being the clincher in this regard), not just any old sleazy commune or oddball group of religious isolationists, and Durkin, for understandable reasons, wants to reveal this as obliquely as possible. If the cult didn't exhibit those recognizable characteristics, we could spend the whole film assuming Hawkes is just supposed to be Some Asshole Guy, but not necessarily anybody who poses a real physical threat to Martha now that she's left the cult.

[swo17]

Perhaps even scarier though is

Spoiler

that Martha can't seem to distinguish at this point between members of the cult and random strangers--the bartender, the guy at the lake, and the guy who gets in the way of the car in the last scene could be cult members (or more likely aren't) but to her, they could all represent the very real threat you bring up. And yet, with the last two of these men, she seems to respond with a sort of disturbing calmness.

[Roger Ryan]

A superb film about identity (the title alludes to this) and the desire to find meaning in one's life.

Spoiler

Olsen's character is clearly damaged, but her viewpoint is not completely deranged. She rejects the affluence that her sister and brother-in-law never question (not dissimilar to Kirsten Dunst's character in MELANCHOLIA) and her desire to find something more meaningful is probably what drove her to the cult. Despite the cult's attempts to destroy her individuality (note that her name is changed twice by Patrick in an attempt to shift her identity), Martha is strong enough to recognize that the cult is dangerous and she needs to escape. It is only after realizing how conditional her sister's support is that she begins to question her choices and the panic sets in. Martha tells the sister that she will be a "bad mother" because Martha desperately needs her sister to be a good mother to her, but feels no connection to the sister. At the film's end, you can see it in Martha's eyes that while she has agreed to be institutionalized, the potential for Patrick to intervene is thrilling to her. She knows that the sister and brother-in-law are in danger, but doesn't care. The illusory support of the cult may have an edge over the hollowness of the real world.

As to the target practice scene in the woods, Patrick indeed fires the gun in the direction of the "loafer", but it's ambiguous as to whether the "loafer" was still in the line of fire. In effect, it confirms how Patrick strives to erase identity ("you're only a picture on my wall") and replace it with pure functionality.

[HistoryProf]

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.

Just to clarify this since I just watched MMMM today:

Spoiler

Max does turn and walk away after shooting the "wrong" cat and then Patrick returns to the shooting lesson with Martha and says something like "okay set them up" referring to the bottles and gives her instructions on squeezing the trigger - but it's clearly at the bottles and not Max.

Spoiler

Despite the cult's attempts to destroy her individuality (note that her name is changed twice by Patrick in an attempt to shift her identity),

I think you missed the point of "Marlene" here.

Spoiler

When she calls the cult house the woman who answers also says she's Marlene Lewis - when Martha answers the phone she uses Marlene Lewis as well, who is their "cousin." I took it as their standard phone answering protocol for anyone who calls in case it's family or someone looking for any of the women.

[Roger Ryan]

Spoiler

Despite the cult's attempts to destroy her individuality (note that her name is changed twice by Patrick in an attempt to shift her identity),

I think you missed the point of "Marlene" here.

Spoiler

When she calls the cult house the woman who answers also says she's Marlene Lewis - when Martha answers the phone she uses Marlene Lewis as well, who is their "cousin." I took it as their standard phone answering protocol for anyone who calls in case it's family or someone looking for any of the women.

You're right - I did miss that connection upon first viewing ("Michael" seems to be the name the men use). I stand by my interpretation for the rest of the film which, admittedly, can be read in several ways.

[warren oates]

Spoiler

Despite the cult's attempts to destroy her individuality (note that her name is changed twice by Patrick in an attempt to shift her identity),

I think you missed the point of "Marlene" here.

Spoiler

When she calls the cult house the woman who answers also says she's Marlene Lewis - when Martha answers the phone she uses Marlene Lewis as well, who is their "cousin." I took it as their standard phone answering protocol for anyone who calls in case it's family or someone looking for any of the women.

You're right - I did miss that connection upon first viewing ("Michael" seems to be the name the men use). I stand by my interpretation for the rest of the film which, admittedly, can be read in several ways.

Spoiler

The generic cult phone answering names are visible on a wall next to the cult's single landline in one flashback shot near the end. Right next to the phone are strict phone answering instructions scrawled on the wall and the names Michael Lewis and Marlene Lewis.

Caught this on Blu-ray over the weekend and like a lot of others I'm a big fan of this film. And unexpectedly so. I'd seen Afterschool by another member of this same group and felt that the film while interesting was still a bit amateurish. MMMM on the other hand strikes me as coming out of a similarly European sensibility -- Antonioni and Haneke especially -- but a much more fully realized vision out of the box. I admire how much patience the film has with mysteries large and small. So many curious details of Martha's behavior in the present don't pay off until much later. A careful viewer can piece together a mosaic of what happened and how it's affecting her in the present day but I can also see why this film's Amer-Indie audience might have been disappointed. It's frankly probably a bit too subtle patient slow and well-made to satisfy a more mainstream audience, which is I suppose what lead to the somewhat mixed reviews that made me miss this in the theater.

I've been interested in

Spoiler

cults for a while. Reading books like Cults In Our Midst, etc. And I have to say that the writer/director has really done his research. He's created something that's authentic and just abstract enough to perfectly fit his approach to the story and his aesthetic of the film.