Martha Marcy May Marlene

[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, [

Show Spoiler

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, [

Show Spoiler

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:

[

Show Spoiler

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.