Martha Marcy May Marlene

[Boner M]

Trailer (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/marthamarcymaymarlene/)

Posted this in the UFDT but probably worthy of its own thread since it's already becoming one of the year's most acclaimed titles. John Hawkes, god in the making?

[Lazlo]

Yeah, this looks incredible.

[Boner M]

This was stunning. Had a very personal, emotional response that was hard to shake off, and I wasn't alone based on conversations with others afterwards. It transcends its subject matter (backwoods cults) in the sense that it's really about being torn between a false sense of belonging & being completely alien in the place where you should belong. Deftly elliptical narrative and formally exquisite in the chilly Haneke/Kubrick mold, but never slavishly indebted to either. Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes are exceptional. It's been touted as 'this year's Winter's Bone' but I think it'll be more passionately embraced by its supporters. Scarily assured for a debt feature.

[NickGlass]

Scarily assured for a debt feature.

Ha. I think all independent debut films should be called "debt features."

[Dukefrukem]

Looks powerful. But god do I loath dialog that involves "ever get the feeling what you're thinking is a memory or a dream" lines...

[Boner M]

Ha. I think all independent debut films should be called "debt features."
I actually left that unedited cuz it was too perfect.

[DrewG]

Aware I haven't posted in a while but I found this film a bit hard to shake and figured here was as good a place as any to discuss it. So here are some of my thoughts on it.

http://i.imgur.com/16LE6.jpg

There’s something inherently terrifying about the past, whether the memories embedded within it are pleasant or horrifying. The dynamics of the past—some holding onto it, some trying to forget it, some that can’t let it go—are part of what makes the entire experience of remembering so resonant. In Martha Marcy May Marlene, Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) is on the run from her past, a polygamous free love and farming cult in upstate New York led by the two-sided Patrick played by John Hawkes, who recalls his work in last years Winter’s Bone. Martha doesn’t have much of a family, so she spends time adjusting back to reality with her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and her brother-in-law Ted (Hugh Dancy) in their upscale vacation home in Connecticut.

One of the film’s central questions is relayed from Matha to her sister, asking if she ever has trouble telling the difference between a dream and reality. The film’s narrative structure, readily jumping between Martha’s past in the cult and her present attempt to return to normalcy, is a constant reflection of this state of confusion. As Martha attempts to reacquaint herself to a world outside of the cult, there are visual parallels of her strange past. Her jump into a Connecticut lake is drawn back to skinny-dipping off a cliff with the cult. Her mixing of a sedative into a drink so that a new girl in the group can become docile for Patrick’s pleasure is matched with her twirling a spoon in a glass of water at the table in the Connecticut.

Though this back and forth can feel like useless posturing, it’s this slow burn means of informing that helps to understand Martha’s emotional and social distance. Her strange behavior in her new life, jumping in the lake naked or crawling into bed with Lucy and Ted while they make love, becomes a chilling indication of how suppressed her feelings and sense of self have become. Within the cult a sense of caring and love was unquestioned because everyone contributes to the group in some way and many of them share the same rites of passage—rites Martha is convinced are done out of loving care and not sadistic abuse.

Central to the film’s shifting levels of audience sympathy is Olsen’s breakout performance as Martha—yes, the younger and until now essentially unknown sister to Mary Kate and Ashley. Though one can pigeonhole her work as the typical edgy, indie-darling performance with all the rape and nudity trappings, Olsen’s emotive work ensures that it’s much more than merely a daring role and one that may net the newcomer an Oscar nomination. Writer-director Sean Durkin has some trouble finding footing behind piercing silences and scenes where actors chew the scenery in his debut film but gives Olsen plenty to work with as the woman in peril. Within the cult Olsen gives Martha a puppy-eyed sense of curiosity with a sporadic hesitance to accept the group’s ideals. Within her family life, Olsen ratchets up the worry, her face lined with the paranoia of being watched and followed by the group she has abandoned. Because Durkin and the narrative confuse whether her fear is justified or frivolous, Olsen’s performance feels layered in conjunction. Are the noises on the Connecticut roof at night pinecones falling or the rocks the cult used to throw on the roofs of homes before they invaded them?

The aforementioned question is one reason the jumping within structure works so well as the film progresses, but also why it begins to drag and lack some cohesiveness. Durkin plays well on audience expectations with shots that disorient sense of time and place but eventually begins inserting needless filler that seems to only serve as a means to show the depravity of the cult without providing any discernable substance for their actions. In other words, Durkin drifts away from the love and love attitude the cult fosters on the surface for weird for the sake being weird motivations underneath. Casting Hawkes as Patrick is inspired as his face recalls Charles Manson—but tying their cult to Manson merely for senseless behavior rings somewhat hollow. If Durkin were trying to draw this parallel more vividly, he could have made these inconsistent acts in the films final quarter feel more meaningful.

Durkin’s lens is in undeniable love with Olsen as Martha: within group shots she is centered, lengthy takes focus on her contemplative face and one close up while she cleans floors plants her cleavage directly in the foreground. Because of the shots close proximity, the question of time and place once again comes into play—though others will see it as one of many visuals that serve as misogynistic objectification’s of Olsen, and both sides are right in some measure. Despite two vastly different environments, the backwoods and farmland of central/upstate New York versus the posh waterfront digs of Connecticut, Durkin has a flair that draws them together and apart.

Both have openness to them, but in different ways. In New York the cult’s togetherness is surrounded by desolate woods, yet the initial step for Martha towards freedom is eating at a diner in the connected town, one where the group sells items to get by. When Martha strips on the lake in Connecticut, Lucy warns of peeping neighbors on houses that surround the water. There’s something strange about how civilization feels so close to Martha in New York yet so far in the supposed comfort of civilized Connecticut. When Martha and Ted sprawl over the necessities of material life and making a living for yourself, the disconnect between the two halves of Martha’s life truly comes forward, one that’s aided by Durkin’s consistent styling between two different places—places that are more divided by emotion for Martha than they are by distance and resources.

The relevance of the grim and dark foundations for Martha’s displacement in Martha Marcy May Marlene will vary widely from viewer to viewer. For everyone unnerved by Olsen’s depiction of the girl desperately searching for a place to call home and people to call family, others will be turned off by the film’s languid pacing and incessant attempts to rationalize Martha’s state through more and more sinister means. I grappled with the film’s strengths and weaknesses in varying degrees but found myself coming back to the question of how we deal with our past and the fog that clouds our distinction between dreams and reality. Even if Durkin lays Martha’s trauma on thick, Olsen gives the character the dimensions needed to ensure the film stays relevant, its subtle effectiveness lingering on long after the haunting final frames have flickered. But then that scary question echoes again—what’s real and what isn’t in Martha Marcy May Marlene anyway?

[Boner M]

Psst. (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=3513&highlight=martha+marcy)

[DrewG]

Psst. (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=3513&highlight=martha+marcy)

</3

Apologies. :cry:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, I loved this too. More movies should be as quietly harrowing, and I was seriously impressed by Elizabeth Olsen - an Oscar nomination seems in the works (deservedly).

I did think the ending was a little too cute for its own good though, and the Haneke feel of it all seemed a little pervasive. Durkin needs his own voice.

Probably my 2nd/3rd favorite of the year (behind Tree of Life and maybe Melancholia)

[NickGlass]

I did think the ending was a little too cute for its own good though, and the Haneke feel of it all seemed a little pervasive. Durkin needs his own voice.


Please define the word "cute" for me and how it applies to the ending. Like, cheeky?

Nonetheless, I also found the film--if flawed--quite an impressive debut. Nearly all the techniques (match-cuts, flashbacks, etc.) are used to their utmost effect, creating a fluid and layered portrait of a wandering mind; they don't feel like setups for heavy-handed juxtaposition or narrative short-cuts.

[number8]

I'm fine with the way it turns out, but I couldn't help imagining a different movie where:

It ends with her running away from her sister's home, calling for Patrick to come pick her up, creating an oroboro and making it ambiguous as to which story is the flashback.

[Ivan Drago]

Comes to me November 11th. The more I read about this movie, the more excited I get for it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Please define the word "cute" for me and how it applies to the ending. Like, cheeky?

Nonetheless, I also found the film--if flawed--quite an impressive debut. Nearly all the techniques (match-cuts, flashbacks, etc.) are used to their utmost effect, creating a fluid and layered portrait of a wandering mind; they don't feel like setups for heavy-handed juxtaposition or narrative short-cuts.

Yeah, I guess cheeky.

I just feel like these fake-out 'what happens now?' endings are getting a little contrived. They seem to be popping up all over the place nowadays as a cheap way of manufacturing some sort of discussion and false sense of originality in not tying up loose ends (which is fine at times, and the film was good enough to warrant it, but it still felt a little cloying in an otherwise sincere and disturbing film). I don't really have an airtight analysis or defense for you, it was just my gut feeling at the time. I agree on the sense of rhythm that the editing accomplishes though. A very fluid film.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm fine with the way it turns out, but I couldn't help imagining a different movie where:

It ends with her running away from her sister's home, calling for Patrick to come pick her up, creating an oroboro and making it ambiguous as to which story is the flashback.

That actually would have been awesome.

[Boner M]

I didn't think the ending was cute or cheap, mostly because it seems pretty clear that she's doomed whether or not Hawkes & co. catch up to her. Actually it's probably the best hard cut-to-black in recent memory.

I also like that there's no backstory for her prior to her induction into the cult, implicitly establishing it as the place of her true self-definition.

[eternity]

It's Dogtooth and Winter's Bone rolled into one, but I liked it a lot, even though I found a lot of the foley sound work distracting.

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's Dogtooth and Winter's Bone rolled into one, but I liked it a lot, even though I found a lot of the foley sound work distracting.

Can you elaborate? I do remember one scene in particular where I had a hard time understanding the dialogue but I'm not certain if there was any foley work in the background.

[eternity]

Can you elaborate? I do remember one scene in particular where I had a hard time understanding the dialogue but I'm not certain if there was any foley work in the background.
Especially in the first act, the foley work was exaggerated to the point of being distracting. Very tiny sounds like a glass being set on a table hit with a thud. It was obvious that they were added in later and not picked up on sound.

[Pop Trash]

I'd like to say if you fans of MMMM/Take Shelter haven't seen motherfuckin' SAFE by Todd Haynes yet. DO IT!

[Briare]

The majority of the film, following Martha at her sisters' cottage is by far the better part of the movie, the sociological implications of being in a cult environment and then reverting back to the norms of society is a really good idea and I thought it was executed very well, highlighted in certain scenes, such as the one where Olsen and her sisters' husband have a brief arguement over money and the proper way to "live", implying she s still clinging to the "ideas" fed to her by cult leader John Hawkes. However, the cult portions of the film really bothered me in that they really aren't consistent with anything I know about cults, they seemed very phony and it becomes even more obviously so when Hawkes essentially becomes Charlie Manson- literally, repeating Manson trial testimony essentially word for word in more than one scene and espousing Manson's most basic philosophy throughout- ego death, "no sense makes sense", "death is beautiful" etc. It seemed to me that the author wanted to create a Mansonesque character, since like the Family then, this one doesn't really revolve around religion but around self sustainability, music, communal living, constant fucking, etc but the Hawkes character, unlike Manson or any of those like him lacked charisma and was almost ferally cruel to his followers and this really bugged me for some reason.

When the murder happens toward the end, Hawkes' presence pretty much killed it for me. A cult leader has others do his dirty work and is usually never present at these events so as to distance himself from the crime were his followers caught, there also seems to be nothing in the way of mitigating circumstances that lead to murder, even the Manson Family did it for either drug money or to fulfill an apocalyptic vision, depending how you see it

This is probably going to seem pretty trivial to a lot of you but it bothered me how amateurishly written all of this was, the cult stuff just wasn't realistically culty enough. Perhaps it was the pillaging of Uncle Chuck's book of tricks but totally betraying why someone like him thought and acted that way, I thought if the film had been a little better researched it could've been excellent and in fact I actually found the screenplay to be pretty lazy in a lot of places, though I actually liked the ending a lot, cheeky or not.

I place all of the blame on the script and not on Hawkes' performance, he was his usual brilliant self. Olsen is pretty good too, though I found the film built around her to be pretty disappointing. I don't really understand the comparisons to Winter's Bone at all, shoot me but I much preferred that to this and Olsen is no Jennifer Lawrence and Jon Hawkes was a little more sharply menacing as the meth snorting Teardrop than he was as this supposedly psychotic hippie kill cult leader.

[Spinal]

A notable debut film with plenty to like. But, for me, not a wholly fulfilling one. Durkin's conceit is a good one, attempting to convey a troubled mind that is caught between two modes of existence. I liked his ability to create tension and his comfort with sexuality. Unfortunately, much of the film doesn't ring true for me and I think it's writing dialogue that is Durkin's biggest weakness. Durkin has the basics down - how cult leaders ensnare, isolate and abuse - but his subject seems under-researched. The film offers few psychological insights and few compelling questions to ponder once the film is over. The pseduo-philosophizing of the cult members is never really convincingly seductive, and the strained relationship with Martha's sister is never convincingly loving. Still, for every uninspired exchange, there is a directorial decision or a scene from the (mostly) excellent cast that keeps the momentum going.

***

[Spinal]

Ebert explains the film's title in the first lines of his review. What kind of jerk move is that?

[TGM]

Ebert explains the film's title in the first lines of his review. What kind of jerk move is that?

Well, Ebert is a bit of an ass...

Edit: Just took a look at it myself, and yeah, that's pretty obnoxious that he did that.

[Lucky]

I barely know a thing about this movie, but when I saw the title after seeing the trailer I thought that she had multiple-personality disorder. Just a guess.

[Spinal]

Well, Ebert is a bit of an ass...

Edit: Just took a look at it myself, and yeah, that's pretty obnoxious that he did that.

A.O. Scott's review spells it out too. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but I think that viewers should be allowed to make that discovery for themselves. It's really not necessary to put that in a review.

[TGM]

I barely know a thing about this movie, but when I saw the title after seeing the trailer I thought that she had multiple-personality disorder. Just a guess.

I actually came to a similar conclusion from the trailer I originally saw.

[eternity]

It's really cool to discover what the title means for yourself. It's not that important, but it's revealed in a very interesting way that benefits from not knowing.

[Bosco B Thug]

I really hate this film's title, it's optically confusing and hard to commit to memory. Had to be said, someone else out there must be thinking it.

[Wryan]

A notable debut film with plenty to like. But, for me, not a wholly fulfilling one. Durkin's conceit is a good one, attempting to convey a troubled mind that is caught between two modes of existence. I liked his ability to create tension and his comfort with sexuality. Unfortunately, much of the film doesn't ring true for me and I think it's writing dialogue that is Durkin's biggest weakness. Durkin has the basics down - how cult leaders ensnare, isolate and abuse - but his subject seems under-researched. The film offers few psychological insights and few compelling questions to ponder once the film is over. The pseudo-philosophizing of the cult members is never really convincingly seductive, and the strained relationship with Martha's sister is never convincingly loving. Still, for every uninspired exchange, there is a directorial decision or a scene from the (mostly) excellent cast that keeps the momentum going.

***

Seriously, almost my exact thoughts.

I liked the acting a lot but didn't really find MMMM that powerful over all.

EDIT: Ebert is the mainstream of reviewing. Probably just felt it would help illuminate the admittedly unwieldy title. I didn't even pick up the "Marlene" part, possibly because some of the dialogue was awfully hard to hear at times. Not really much of a spoiler.

[Ezee E]

Trying to decide if I like this movie or not.

Dealing with life away from the cult is very much more interesting then her life in the cult, even though I thought the sister was an awful actress. What I did like was the almost cult-like influence that the sister/husband had over Martha, insisting her to return to normal, with their idea of normal. Paired with Martha's damaged psyche (which appears to stem from before her time with the cult) and there's already some good stuff. An excellent scene is at the party when Martha recognizes (or at least believes to) the bartender. Scary scene.

However, within the cult, everything seems to be kind of expected. There's a lot of movies where women wake up to a man fucking them. Is this possibly realistic without the aid of drugs? And the cult itself seems to be what one would expect. The men not named Hawkes are all thuggish followers when it's all said and done, and the women are all pretty brainless/damaged. The only scene that worked for me was when they were shooting guns. I felt the one scene of murder to actually be forced.

EDIT: Regarding the cult that is formed. Maybe those are the types that are easy to recruit when it's all said and done?

So I'm split. I think Durkin & Co's strong use of camerawork, both allowing the actors to act, and look compelling at the same time will push it over for me. The final shot also shows just how damaged Martha is, as any coincidence certainly makes her terrified. And I find no real way to end the movie otherwise.

Alright, I like it.

[Derek]

There's a lot of movies where women wake up to a man fucking them.

There are?


Is this possibly realistic without the aid of drugs?

Probably not, which is why the film shows them being drugged just before that...

[Raiders]

Really sad I missed this in theaters (it's gone from everywhere around here).

Not releasing to DVD until Feb. 21. So, unless this becomes available by "trustworthy shady" means before then (KG), this will be my one large blind spot when doing the awards ballot.

[Ezee E]

Probably not, which is why the film shows them being drugged just before that...

Looked to verify. Sorry, wrong.

[Raiders]

Durkin can shoot the hell out of a scene, but at the end I was very saddened by the way this film seemed to be so content to simply make silly parallels and play temporal guessing games with the viewer. So much of the film seems so tied to its structure that Durkin doesn't really sell either past or present with any real conviction. We get a lot of assembly line filmmaking; austere emotionality, sexually violent cults, and the requisite indie ending. I think number8's wishful-thinking ending, and the plausibility of it, speaks to the way the film focuses too much of its attention on the temporality and the equality of the two timelines without really investing in the characters themselves. In particular are the two men within each period; Dancy is rather charmless and forgetful, overshadowed by Hawkes which is easy to imagine given the latter's wealth of menacing charisma. But the film lets him down, surrounding him with Cult 101 and adds a feeling of lack of cohesiveness within that period's storyline, culminating with an act of violence that feels less organic and more tacked on to complete the storyline. The film forgets to really give any backstory or any real sense of the overwhelming seductiveness that draws one into a cult, or fails to at least give us any sense why Olsen's character would join. I left the film without any lingering thoughts or emotions, acknowledging the directorial talent without feeling any affinity for it.

[number8]

Looked to verify. Sorry, wrong.

Wait, what are you talking about? They did drug the women. That even becomes an important character point when Marcy in turn helps drug the newcomers.

[Mr. McGibblets]

My problem with this movie is that we always see the cult through the eyes of a distant observer and get no idea of what Martha saw in it. There's not one second when the cult seems appealing, we get no feeling that might lure one in. The songs they sing together seem creepy, the renaming bit is clearly a trick to depersonalize the young women. Any charm Hawkes displays is always played at a distance and the audience feels that it's false charm and should be easily seen through.

The singular tone and outside viewpoint throughout all of these scenes also makes it hard to identify what Martha's feelings towards the cult are at any point. We don't get a feeling of her growing towards them or of her growing away from them.

For example, when she is told that her rape is a beautiful thing, she seems wary and not believing; the tone of the scene is bleak and negative. Yet shortly afterwards, she is happily leading another initiate to the same fate as though she fully buys in.

[Raiders]

My problem with this movie is that we always see the cult through the eyes of a distant observer and get no idea of what Martha saw in it. There's not one second when the cult seems appealing, we get no feeling that might lure one in. The songs they sing together seem creepy, the renaming bit is clearly a trick to depersonalize the young women. Any charm Hawkes displays is always played at a distance and the audience feels that it's false charm and should be easily seen through.

The singular tone and outside viewpoint throughout all of these scenes also makes it hard to identify what Martha's feelings towards the cult are at any point. We don't get a feeling of her growing towards them or of her growing away from them.

For example, when she is told that her rape is a beautiful thing, she seems wary and not believing; the tone of the scene is bleak and negative. Yet shortly afterwards, she is happily leading another initiate to the same fate as though she fully buys in.

Yeah, I glossed over this with only a couple words, but this is what I mean. The film fails to effectively establish the cult or its seductiveness and winds up being extremely cliche and rote with its depictions. I understand Boner (and others) when they like the fact that the film uses her time with the cult as the film's "birth" so to speak, but it really makes the film boil down to the back-and-forth parallels and temporal shifts which quickly became tiresome for me.

[Derek]

Looked to verify. Sorry, wrong.

Nope, not wrong, sorry, bye.

[Ezee E]

Nope, not wrong, sorry, bye.
Definitely not in the context of the movie. But number8's post definitely puts it all in context now. Add this with Raiders and McGibblets' criticisms and it only adds to why I didn't care for the movie when it was within the cult though.

With a few weeks past since I've seen the movie, I still appreciate it. Definitely looking forward to what Durkin will do next.

[Derek]

Definitely not in the context of the movie. But number8's post definitely puts it all in context now.

What did you think was in the drink they were given? Why else would Marcy have awoken in the middle of being raped and clearly be so out of it? I dunno - didn't seem unclear at all to me.

[Pop Trash]

I feel like the temporal back-and-forth was there to put you into Martha's confused mind state. It's one of those form-function things similar to the messiness of Margaret where the form of the film somehow works as a function of who the character is and where she is in her life. I don't feel like it's the same as some sort of schematic Babel/Crash type of deal where the narrative is cut-up to give you a narrative string pulling or connect-the-dots. As far as the "why would she join this cult?" the short answer is she's like -what- 19 or something? Younger? Bingo. There's your answer. The only criticism I would agree with is the push to make the cult [SPOILER] violent at the end.

[transmogrifier]

What did you think was in the drink they were given? Why else would Marcy have awoken in the middle of being raped and clearly be so out of it? I dunno - didn't seem unclear at all to me.

Me neither. Thought it was pretty obvious, actually.

[number8]

It couldn't have been ambiguous. You see her in the kitchen crushing a roofie and putting it in the drink right before she takes it to the new girl.

[Qrazy]

I'm fine with the way it turns out, but I couldn't help imagining a different movie where:

It ends with her running away from her sister's home, calling for Patrick to come pick her up, creating an oroboro and making it ambiguous as to which story is the flashback.

That wouldn't have made any sense given the information we're given in the scenes featuring her sister.

[Qrazy]

It couldn't have been ambiguous. You see her in the kitchen crushing a roofie and putting it in the drink right before she takes it to the new girl.

This.

[Qrazy]

Anyway I agree with many people's criticisms about the ending and the uneven treatment of the cult. I think the film could have actually been a little longer to flesh these issues out to be honest. I did like however the way in which cult characters employed rhetoric to generate control. "I'm worried about you." Good stuff.

Also I don't think anyone in the thread has really touched in depth upon the film's sexual politics. This film is tangentially about cults. At it's core it's a film about male dominance and the male gaze. The men in the film in both timelines are the ones with the money, the objects and the power. At the beginning of the film we move from a cult member taking the rest of Martha's meal and finishing it, to her sister's husband taking a sip of his wife's wine. In the earlier timeline this dynamic appears more ominous while in the latter timeline it seems more commonplace and acceptable, but in both the man is the one taking what he desires. The importance of food/drink (sustenance) and to a lesser extent shelter in relation to sexual dynamics is I think the key to unlocking the film.

Later on Martha's sister leaves for a day and she is left alone with the husband. He offers her a beer and then another. Is this just to be kind and giving or does he have an ulterior motive? Is it necessary for him to be so close to her while teaching her to drive the boat? It is not surprising that she can not shake her fears of her past life because the life she has moved into (or returned to in a certain sense) still retains the sexually dominant overtones of the old life. When she wakes up to the husband's touch (before she kicks him down the stairs) she's not just confused because she is experiencing mental issues, she is shaken because there is a real, problematic and nearly universal phenomenon occurring here.

The husband is not the same type of man as the cult leader. He seems like a much more genteel individual, but he does have the standard masculine impulses. He would not act upon them in as manipulative a manner, but the core impulse is there. The desire is there. And if we're being honest have any of you been attracted to a significant others sibling before? It's something we bury and try to discard but it's often there nonetheless.

I believe the husband's desire to get Martha away from them is more than just the inconvenience of having her impinge upon their life. He is somewhat attracted to her and this attraction makes him uncomfortable. Further evidence of this is given in the content of the dialogue between Martha and her sister. How good the sister's dress looks on her, how beautiful she looks after the sister has applied make up or when she's taking a photo of her. How she can not swim naked or come into their room when they're having sex. Yes this behaviour is odd, but more than that it threatens the relationship of the husband and wife. It is not that the director's camera is in love with Elizabeth, he focuses upon her breasts in the scene where she's cleaning (and a number of other times) or upon the sister's ass as she walks away in order to indict the male audience (in typical Haneke fashion but less directly and obnoxiously than Haneke typically does hah). We are seeing Martha's breasts as she cleans because it creates a sexual arousal in the male audience mimicking the arousal for the husband.

Back to food, the women can not eat until the men in the cult eat. Similarly the husband draws Martha's attention to the fact that he is paying for the food she is eating. In both cases the men are in control of sustenance for the women. This I think is one of the things that sparks Martha's anger. She has run away from the cult but she is still powerless. She has no money of her own, no career to speak of or plan for what to do with herself. She still has no control over her own life. This makes her angry and she lashes out. It is true the couple do not know the trauma she has experienced and that's a part of it, but her frustration with herself is also a core issue here.

In regards to shelter the film brings the issue up a few times in different ways. There is the communal living arrangement at the cult where they can't afford much and so everyone is jammed together like sardines, then there is the large open space of the rental home where her sister lives and finally there are the homes of other wealthy individuals which the cult invades. The cult professes to not be about earthly possessions but then they steal from and admire the wealth of others. The question here is who controls this territory which everyone needs to survive and the answer is the men. In both timelines the women are the gardeners.

Ultimately I think the film is about the fact that human nature is fundamentally the same no matter which system of control people are functioning within. Certain systems may push you to do more harmful, manipulative or scarring things than others but power relations still function similarly across domains. The cult timeline is a bit superficially drawn in the film but this is partially because the purpose of this timeline is to tease out the underlying issues lying dormant within the later timeline. That said the cult timeline could still be more cohesively constructed.

[MadMan]

I just finally watched the trailer for this movie, although I had heard about it previously. Since MMMM never came to my area, I'll have to rent it from either my local video store or RedBox unless it pops up on Instant Viewing. Reading people's different opinions about (while avoiding spoilers, of course) is quite informative.

[Lucky]

I liked it overall and I don't have much to add to what has already been said, but who leaves their bedroom door open while they're having sex when they have guests?

[Boner M]

I just finally watched the trailer for this movie, although I had heard about it previously. Since MMMM never came to my area, I'll have to rent it from either my local video store or RedBox unless it pops up on Instant Viewing. Reading people's different opinions about (while avoiding spoilers, of course) is quite informative.
That's just, like, your opinion man.

[MadMan]

That's just, like, your opinion man.http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.gif


I liked it overall and I don't have much to add to what has already been said, but who leaves their bedroom door open while they're having sex when they have guests?Swingers, I guess...

[DavidSeven]

This was really, really great. So great, in fact, that I'm willing to not dwell too much on its use of the indie-cliche Ambiguous Ending. I can understand the nitpicks, but as crafted, I found it hypnotic from start to finish. A very special combination of performance and form. Perfectly cast, eloquently shot by Jody Lee Lipes, and beautifully edited. One of the most memorable American indies in recent memory.

[Kirby Avondale]

When the murder happens toward the end, Hawkes' presence pretty much killed it for me. A cult leader has others do his dirty work and is usually never present at these events so as to distance himself from the crime were his followers caught, there also seems to be nothing in the way of mitigating circumstances that lead to murder, even the Manson Family did it for either drug money or to fulfill an apocalyptic vision, depending how you see it

I don't see it. Hawkes didn't kill the guy. One of his followers did, seemingly on impulse, as it seemed only a matter of chance that the owner caught them. This would appear to distance him from the act much more than, say (while we're at it), Manson and the Labianca murders. So cult purism aside - yes, just cult purism aside. It was entirely credible.

[Qrazy]

I don't see it. Hawkes didn't kill the guy. One of his followers did, seemingly on impulse, as it seemed only a matter of chance that the owner caught them. This would appear to distance him from the act much more than, say (while we're at it), Manson and the Labianca murders. So cult purism aside - yes, just cult purism aside. It was entirely credible.


I don't think the death was on impulse but I agree with the rest of your comment.

[Kirby Avondale]

I don't think the death was on impulse but I agree with the rest of your comment.
I don't doubt priming, but it's all the same to me.

[Ezee E]

Hello there Kirby! FIrst time I've seen you in these parts.

[Kirby Avondale]

Hello there Kirby! FIrst time I've seen you in these parts.
Hai. I get around!

[baby doll]

So great, in fact, that I'm willing to not dwell too much on its use of the indie-cliche Ambiguous Ending.Would it have been less cliché to have a very conclusive ending? (Incidentally, there are lots of Hollywood movies that are fairly open ended--The Birds, Brokeback Mountain, and A Serious Man being the first three examples that come to mind.)

[DavidSeven]

Would it have been less cliché to have a very conclusive ending?

A conclusive ending in a critically lauded indie? Yes. That would be quite unexpected and a refreshing change of pace.

I'm mostly kidding. But I do think the Ambiguous Ending's prevalence in indie cinema is fast becoming cliche. Some of these modern films make it work. Some don't.



(Incidentally, there are lots of Hollywood movies that are fairly open ended--The Birds, Brokeback Mountain, and A Serious Man being the first three examples that come to mind.)

Brokeback Mountain and A Serious Man are curious examples to use. While they're both technically Hollywood productions, these are a couple films that I really think embrace indie sensibilities (beyond their use of the Ambiguous Ending). Brokeback Mountain is really unlike anything else in Ang Lee's catalog. Certainly less polished aesthetically and more methodical and unconventional in narrative than his other work (The Ice Storm included). A Serious Man, too, is sort of an outlier for the Coens. I would say it's definitely the least accessible of all their films and definitely the one that seems the least concerned with commercial appeal.

I'm a big fan of both.

[baby doll]

But I do think the Ambiguous Ending's prevalence in indie cinema is fast becoming cliche. Some of these modern films make it work. Some don't.Again, one could say the same about conclusive endings: some films make it work, and some don't. Generally speaking, art movies are less inclined towards conclusive endings because they often pare away a lot of the redundancies that you find in mainstream filmmaking; with regards to Martha Marcy May Marlene, rather than showing the heroine and her family being killed by the cult, the movie leaves it to the viewer to infer what happens next.

[MadMan]

Still collecting my thoughts, but I found this to be a gripping, well crafted film. I'm not sure if I like the ending or not-I imagine a second viewing whenever I get around to it will clear things up. Review forthcoming, eventually.

[Peng]

Very belatedly just got around to this before watching his next feature The Nest. If anything, MMMM could have pushed into abstraction even further, as the film's slippery structure reveals its precise method early on, and becomes less disorienting as it goes along, barring some sudden ruptures of violence. But Durkin's idea of PTSD as free-floating cinematic headspace is otherwise so potent and nightmarishly executed enough, and Olsen bridges her three identities of the title brilliantly, switching between the last two to imply a heartbreakingly confused search to get her first one back. 7.5/10