This has really been an amazing year for films, not just the topics and story lines, but the new techniques film makers are employing to tell their story. Martha Marcy May Marlene has taken critics by storm, partly because of the amazing break-out performance of Elizabeth Olsen; I tend to be pretty hard on actresses, but she was amazing and deserving of the highest praise. Critics, in my estimation, have really failed to grasp the power of this story and intentionally overlooking its meaning and consequences, blaming the script for poor writing when it's really the critics who have failed to dig into the film.
Just a quick synopsis: Martha (Olsen) had problems to begin with. At some point she joined a kind of hippie commune lead by Patrick (John Hawkes); when she joins that, he changes her name from Martha to Marcy May; after breaking into a home in an attempt to steal, one of the girls, Katie (Maria Dizzia), stabs the homeowner in the back; unable to overcome her feelings about his murder, Martha flees; she contacts her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) who picks her up and takes her back to her beautiful vacation home in Connecticut. There, Lucy attempts to connect with her sister who has shut-down and keeps relapsing into memories of her life in the commune. Lucy and her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy) decide to take her to a therapist; as they are driving towards the appointment, it appears that one of the men from the commune has found her and is following her to take her back.
The film illustrates how culture will take a good aspect of Christianity, strip it of Divine Love, and turn it into a sin. The commune exists because Patrick finds young women emotionally damaged and then manages to control them by twisting his power to make it seem that he loves and cares for them when he really just wants to control them, mainly for sex. By using words such as "cleansing" and "freedom," "love" and "nirvana," anyone who doesn't all ready have a solid base is easily led astray into his vacuum of power. It's interesting because Patrick is very thin, like bony thin, and the film wants to point that out by specific shots of his physique. This is important because it shows that he's really "weak."
When we first see Martha in the commune, she is setting the table for a meal; as she goes around placing the bowls at the places, she forgets to place one at the head of the table; she catches herself and puts one there and then we see that is where Patrick sits; Martha is willing to starve him as he has been starving her. The women don't eat until the men are finished and then it's obvious that the women are eating gruel or oatmeal compared to the more substantial meal the men had and we should understand this symbolically: the women are being "fed" a line of watered down philosophical nourishment to intentionally keep them weak so they are not strong enough to revolt at being sex objects. They eat only once a day in the commune and Martha's first sign of revolt is stealing bread.
This is John Hawkes singing the "Marcy's Song" which Patrick sings in Martha Marcy May Marlene even though he's not in character in the video below; it's an eerily beautiful song and gives us important clues as to who Martha really is:
I could spend a lot of time on this song, but the important thing is: Martha, or Marcy May, is "just a picture" of what she's supposed to be, her characteristics are only vague outlines, but none of the details are filled in, and this is why Patrick likes her, on one hand, and why she's a challenge to him, on the other. I think the line, "water for the sand," is the point of the song: nothing grows in the sand, so to waste water by throwing it on sand is an act of futility. Until later in the film, you don't know if Martha has built up a significant fortress of defense mechanisms, or if there just isn't that much to her, you realize there's nothing to know, and the reason she is attracted to shallow philosophical systems is because she's shallow herself. This falls in nicely with films such as Immortals which demonstrates how evil doesn't give us knowledge about ourselves, but robs us of it.
The Ides Of March: Assassinating the Democratic Party).
I give this film the highest marks in all regards, but it's not for everyone: if you enjoy slightly different films, you'll like this one, however, there are disturbing parts. As I said at the beginning, this has been a great year for film and Martha Marcy May Marlene is up there with the best of them.
Just a quick synopsis: Martha (Olsen) had problems to begin with. At some point she joined a kind of hippie commune lead by Patrick (John Hawkes); when she joins that, he changes her name from Martha to Marcy May; after breaking into a home in an attempt to steal, one of the girls, Katie (Maria Dizzia), stabs the homeowner in the back; unable to overcome her feelings about his murder, Martha flees; she contacts her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) who picks her up and takes her back to her beautiful vacation home in Connecticut. There, Lucy attempts to connect with her sister who has shut-down and keeps relapsing into memories of her life in the commune. Lucy and her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy) decide to take her to a therapist; as they are driving towards the appointment, it appears that one of the men from the commune has found her and is following her to take her back.
The film illustrates how culture will take a good aspect of Christianity, strip it of Divine Love, and turn it into a sin. The commune exists because Patrick finds young women emotionally damaged and then manages to control them by twisting his power to make it seem that he loves and cares for them when he really just wants to control them, mainly for sex. By using words such as "cleansing" and "freedom," "love" and "nirvana," anyone who doesn't all ready have a solid base is easily led astray into his vacuum of power. It's interesting because Patrick is very thin, like bony thin, and the film wants to point that out by specific shots of his physique. This is important because it shows that he's really "weak."
When we first see Martha in the commune, she is setting the table for a meal; as she goes around placing the bowls at the places, she forgets to place one at the head of the table; she catches herself and puts one there and then we see that is where Patrick sits; Martha is willing to starve him as he has been starving her. The women don't eat until the men are finished and then it's obvious that the women are eating gruel or oatmeal compared to the more substantial meal the men had and we should understand this symbolically: the women are being "fed" a line of watered down philosophical nourishment to intentionally keep them weak so they are not strong enough to revolt at being sex objects. They eat only once a day in the commune and Martha's first sign of revolt is stealing bread.
This is John Hawkes singing the "Marcy's Song" which Patrick sings in Martha Marcy May Marlene even though he's not in character in the video below; it's an eerily beautiful song and gives us important clues as to who Martha really is:
I could spend a lot of time on this song, but the important thing is: Martha, or Marcy May, is "just a picture" of what she's supposed to be, her characteristics are only vague outlines, but none of the details are filled in, and this is why Patrick likes her, on one hand, and why she's a challenge to him, on the other. I think the line, "water for the sand," is the point of the song: nothing grows in the sand, so to waste water by throwing it on sand is an act of futility. Until later in the film, you don't know if Martha has built up a significant fortress of defense mechanisms, or if there just isn't that much to her, you realize there's nothing to know, and the reason she is attracted to shallow philosophical systems is because she's shallow herself. This falls in nicely with films such as Immortals which demonstrates how evil doesn't give us knowledge about ourselves, but robs us of it.
The Ides Of March: Assassinating the Democratic Party).
I give this film the highest marks in all regards, but it's not for everyone: if you enjoy slightly different films, you'll like this one, however, there are disturbing parts. As I said at the beginning, this has been a great year for film and Martha Marcy May Marlene is up there with the best of them.










46 comments:
is there a reason all her names begin with "M" or is that just random? i am sure there is a good reason even in the randomness, but if there is a reason, I would be interested to know
thanks for the review! gave me a lot of meaning.
Oh, thank you so much, glad I could help!
Well, about the prevalence of "M": I had an idea but I didn't know if it would be worthwhile to mention because I haven't seen the film in awhile...
In 1937, the great Fritz Lang made a film with Peter Lorre called "M." Lorre plays a serial child killer who is hunted down by criminals because the cops think it's someone in the "organized" crime world doing it.
The film is a very painful lesson about the importance of taking care of your children. It's possible that the "M" in the poster and at the beginning of her names references this great film, because everyone in the film world has seen it, yet I don't have any real proof, just a hunch. It can be validated, however, by Lucy, who keeps telling Martha that she feels guilty about not taking better care of her after their mother's death. If "M" (1931) can be linked to Martha Marcy May Marlene, it's very interesting because it links Patrick (the cult leader) to a killer of children, which I think is pretty appropriate given what happens in the film and how the members of the commune (especially the girls) are encouraged to not speak to their families.
Is there a reason why Patrick only has sons? I didn't catch how many sons he has in the commune, but I thought that was a particularly odd part of the film and him.
You're right, that's odd and I think it says a lot about him.
That he only has sons I think is a political statement about the Democratic party: they say they are in favor of women's rights (such as abortion) but they don't actually support individual women in their needs (think of what happens to Molly the intern in The Ides of March and how she dies from her abortion). The reason this seems important to me is, this is really the only way Patrick could be having only boys when he's sleeping with every woman in the commune: he's aborting the girls when they are born and the mothers are keeping quiet about it.
It also reminded me of another film, if only superficially, and that is Training Day with Denzel Washington, whose character in that also "only had boys" and we know how corrupt he was.
I think the point of Patrick's sons is, above all, that he is making "more men like him" who will treat women in the same ways as he does.
Thanks for your question!
Your analysis was interesting until you got to the Democratic Party bit. Then you use the exact pseudo-logic used by the cult members in this film. The film is not about the Democratic party and Barack Obama. He is not having sex with people in order to control them. He is not raping women. People have the right to vote him out of office or to hold other points of view. The film is about how some people find it hard to think for themselves, use common sense and that it can destroy their sense of self. You obviously did not get this lesson if you are spouting some lame Tea Party b**sh*t.
Thank you for your comment and challenging me; I am ultra conservative and if you are correct and I am intentionally grafting my viewpoints onto the film, I should be held accountable for that as it would be a blatant case of lying and misleading.
I would ask what lessons of Martha Marcy May Marlene you took away from it, so I can better respond to your concerns.
I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT OBAMA IS HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN, NOR RAPING PEOPLE TO CONTROL THEM OR GET VOTES; we are not talking about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. I AM SAYING, based on political sociology advanced by two avid Democrats, Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney, in their film The Ides of March, THAT POLITICAL RHETORIC IS SEDUCTIVE THE SAME WAY PATRICK'S WAY OF LIFE AND TREATMENT OF MARTHA/MARCY MAY IS SEDUCTIVE. If Martha/Marcy May would not "buy into" what Patrick is saying, they wouldn't let him sleep with them, they would have left much sooner, but once inside the mind, he controls them: to control the mind is to control the person, it's a basic case of domination, when a strong will is able to exert pursausive control over weaker wills. To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard anyone, in good or bad terms, describe Bachmann, Rooney, Cain, Gingrich or any of the other GOP candidates as having "seductive rhetoric," the way the power of rhetoric has always been linked to Obama. Specifically, in The Ides of March, this is a characteristic of the Morris campaign, which also, to me, links the two films.
I have to divide my response up in different posts, it has a limit and won't let me put it all into one comment form.
What about Lucy and Ted? How is their lifestyle presented? It's presented as being totally impossible for Martha. When they press her at dinner to know her plans about a job, she asks them about "just existing"... it's very easy for her to take shots at the yuppies, they have a very material lifestyle, and when Martha yells at Lucy, "You're going to make a terrible mother," that, on a political scale, is Martha saying that the "future" (the baby not even conceived yet, as far as we know) is going to be given a terrible example for life in Lucy and Ted, which, of course, you can examine against the life of the Patrick's baby boys growing up in the commune. But does Martha offer a real and viable possibility as a lifestyle? Is it possible to "just exist" the way she wants? I believe it is when God is the one who is the center, the religious life is a very "seductive choice," just read all the language of seduction in The Song of Songs. But God isn't a character in this film, that's part of my understanding of the problem of Martha's lifestyle.
I could be very wrong in how I understood this scene, so please correct me if necessary. When Martha sleeps on the couch and a man's hand reaches out and touches her, her waking up and franticly running up the stairs to discover that it's Ted, symbolically, that's easily the Republican Party "reaching out" to young Democrats potentially wanting to join/explore other options; we clearly see Martha's reaction of fear and repulsion, yet we also know her... anxiety at the end when it appears that a man from the commune is following her and the film ends. To me, the film supports a political reading and that reading is: neither party's platform is advantageous to Martha and the young generation I believe she symbolizes.
To me, the question is, does Martha (the younger generation in the Democratic Party) have unrealistic political views/agendas that neither side can fulfill satisfactorily? If all she wants is to "just exist," is that possible?
Lastly, I do apologize if I have offended you for understanding the sexual nature of the film in political terms; TO ME, part of the genius of the film is relating to us that CHOOSING A POLITICAL PARTY IS LIKE INTERCOURSE: IT IS GOING TO BEAR FRUIT. The political times are highly charged, as your very strong language describing the Tea Party testifies to, and our political identities are constantly coming under attack and have to be defended; this film provides a chance, like Justin Timberlake's "In Time" provides the chance to examine the class wars in a much deeper light than just the light of hard cash, what it means to belong to a political party, it means to bear fruit for future generations that will have an effect on the country and the world. Tellingly, Martha never "bears fruit" with Patrick, she doesn't bear any fruit at all; is that, in your estimation, Martha's fault or Patrick's fault?
One can't make links in the comment forms provided, but I would like to mention that the views expressed on Martha's problems were explicitly based on my understanding of The Ides of March which was posted Saturday, Oct 8 because she reminds me of the young intern, Molly. Again, that film was produced, written, directed and starred two liberal, prominent Democrats and the film seemed terribly anti-Democratic to me; I cordially invite you to read the post and engage me with your reading of that film as well, that is one of the reasons this blog exists.
Again, I extend my gratitude to you in appreciation of taking time to comment on my reading and I look forward to your rebuttal! Thank you!
Couldn't help but thinking about Charles Manson and his "family" while watching Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene...
Well said,...
This isn't a film for everyone, but I am sure everyone who makes films will be influenced by this one, there were just too many well-planned risks taken and exploration of new techniques for this film not to be taken very seriously by the changing film industry.
i loved your analysis of the film. you have some very interesting concepts which got me to see the film on a few different levels. the only part i'm taking a different perspective on is "why is this film being made now" - to me this film represents where women are in society - men are still at the top and women (even those with big titles) are stuck doing the grunt work. on a spiritual level the films shows that we have choices. we can chose direction of our life: go with fear (patrick) or faith (lucy). demons will always haunt us, trying to break into our peaceful souls to rob us of our serenity. and yes, while the car symbolized the cult always following her (great call, by the way), on a spiritual level, there will always be darkness trying to steal our light. i find it interesting that the cult morphed and warped the concept cleansing. to me, this is where our society is at on a spiritual level - confused and godless, following the darkness and getting mixed up in immoral acts.
that's the beauty of true art - there are so many interpretations.
thank you for your post. you got me thinking. loved it.
Dear Simone,
Thank YOU for your post, I love it!
You are absolutely right in your interpretation of the film and the forces always pulling on us and how we must make choices and those choices must be active.
Thank you for your insights and for sharing them with us!
I enjoyed reading your analysis of this amazing film right until the last few paragraphs. Linking this movie and it's protagonist, a lost young woman who has been mentally abused and raped, to a some young undecided voter is not only absurd but insulting in every possible way.
The fact you chose to include President Obama and refered to him as 'Barak Hussein Obama' is a very strong clue to your character. Everybody reading this can see what type of person you are and if they don't that little clinton rape joke you put in your comments sure will.
You would get laughed out of university or college or high school if you submited this analysis and with good reason. Whatever your political beliefs are keep them seperate from reviewing a film like this as you seem to embarrass yourself repeatedly in your long self indulgent indecipherable rants.
What has Leonardo Dicaprio or George Clooney 'two avid democrats' got to do with anything?! DiCaprio wasn't even in Ides of March you child.
Please don't write anything anymore, you're not a very intelligent person and your convoluted attempts to attach this movie to your warped world view is staggering. This notion of 'Seductive rhetoric' is completely ridiculous. The difference between 'President' Obama and the current GOP candidates or the majority of republicans is not some cult leader with the power of brainwashing language and to imply as much disqualifies you from any real adult conversations.
Your words show, to anyone stupid enough to read them all, exactly what kind of person you are. I'd say in your heart of hearts you're at best a birther but the facile way you refer to rape, abortion and the merging of sexual and political ideas makes me question your entire moral compass.
The whole thing would be a joke if it wasn't so depressing.
"Martha seems to symbolize the youth of the Democratic Party who have been caught up in the "charisma" of President Barak Hussein Obama"
I do not follow American politics and was enjoying your writing, but really now, WTF?!
First and foremost, I thank you for taking the time to read my analysis and leave your comments. Secondly, I apologize for the delay in replaying: I am still very sick and everything takes so much longer to do when one is ill.
To your points.
Leonardo DiCaprio was an executive producer for The Ides of March.
I apologize if I got the President’s name wrong? How does saying a person’s name reflect their character? If I say Hillary Rodham Clinton, what does that say about my character? A lot can get lost in the mere writing of comments, so please, if you will, clarify what you mean about my using the President’s name as a reflection on my character, thank you.
Are you sure that Martha/Marcy May/Marlene was raped? It has been a while since I have seen the film, but her sexual conduct at Patrick’s farm seemed to be willing, even with Patrick after she had taken the “shake” or “drug,” I personally don’t think she was raped, but she did stay there and she did continue to have sexual relations with, not only Patrick, but other men at the farm.
Every work of art exists within a context: historical, social, sexual, political, cultural, moral. There are two very strong, and very strongly opposing forces in Martha's life: the liberal life at Patrick's farm and the material life of her sister Lucy. The diametrical opposition demonstrates how Martha doesn't fit in with her sister's life, but feels she can not go back to Patrick's farm. Can we agree on that?
This film exists within a political context; the next step is to explore what could be causing young people to be feeling that they are "caught between two worlds," something particularly relevant to their identity (will they be a Martha or a Marcy May? or a Marlene?). To me, that describes the undesirable conflict of young people in choosing their political identity today. If you are happy with your political party, that's wonderful; not everyone is happy with the job that the President is doing and some of those happen to be Democrats. Not liking the Republican party and the emphasis on material wealth that they find, what once attracted SOME young voters to the Democratic party may no longer be applicable (for whatever reason, such as “rhetoric isn’t enough” anymore) but there isn't really anything attracting them to the Republican party, either, and they are stuck, just like Martha.
I believe I have a legitimate and viable reading based on information provided by the film and today’s cultural context. Please, feel free to post your counter-reading of the film!
Again, thank you for your time and comments!
I am a little late on the go, but found this blog after watching "Martha Marcy May Marlene" on PPV & then using the net to possibly find a meaning to the ending. I didn't read any critics prior to seeing the film, I just wanted to see it because it was "different" & I like films that give me something to think about when they're over. This one certainly did that & I appreciate your insight, whether it's a popular one or not. People ask why this film now but I think it is extremely relevant NOW, especially the way it really mixes the earthiness of the commune (clothing styles, ect) but the houses they break into in the woods are so modern & sleek & expensive-looking. The contrast of Martha's life on the commune against that of her sister Lucy were sometimes so bold that it made some scenes almost uneasy to watch. At first I am rooting for Martha to do well at her sister's, but somewhere in the film I started to resent Martha & then it drew me back around in the very last scene to where I felt heartbreak for her because I felt she really wanted to be away from that life, but could never escape it no matter what. So, not the kind of insight you gave obviously, but a film I enjoyed immensely.
Dear Mrs. Probst,
Thank you very much for taking the time to leave your comments and reactions to the film; most audience members have emotional reaction to stories, and that reaction is what film makers want to invoke, but because of the way I watch films, I regrettably ignore my own emotional response which is essential to really "entering into" a story and the characters, so your insight is very valuable and much appreciated! I think it's a sign of great film making that the makers have the confidence to let you not like the hero/heroine at different points because (at least to me) that's a sign of versimilitude (truthfulness in art): we often don't like people in our own lives, even at times in our own family, and when art can do this, it shows that it's really taken time to understand how to get beneath our skin, how to get beneath our own "social masks" and needle us, so to speak, with issues and situations that we normally wouldn't find ourselves in, but the art makes us respond to it so we see a side of ourselves that normally we wouldn't. I agree with your observation about there being scenes that were difficult to watch: there certainly were, and I think it's those techniques which will become staples in film makers' visual vocabularies to communicate with audiences.
It's great that you enjoy films so much and really try to dialogue with what they are saying. Thank you for visiting this blog and I hope that you will continue to do so, leaving your valuable contributions!
I just finished watching Martha Marcy May Marlene and wanted to see what others thought of the ending. I happened upon your site and found your interpretations and explanations very insightful....until the last paragraph or so. I was totally with you on everything and just like in the movie, the ending to your post came out of left field! Knowing that I couldn't be the only one to wonder about the political extrapolation thrown into this movie review, I started reading the comments. And of course, there were plenty of others who found fault with your logic. While some definitely took a more "fighting" approach, I was interested in reading your replies (or if you would reply at all)I was just flabbergasted that you actually took up even more comment space and time to defend your views. While, yes I could see the connection (a VERY loose one albeit) to Molly from The Ides of March, I still cannot understand how you make the leap from an obviouslypolitical film to a film that's just as obviously about mental illness, psychology, and cult mentality--just by the MERE coincidence that the female characters in the two films are alike! I don't agree with your political views and would heatedly argue them with you in an appropriate forum, but that forum is definitely NOT a movie review of Martha Marcy May Marlene. The movie has many nuances and layers, and is perfectly ambiguous to leave a lot to individual interpretation-but adding the political aspect is just reaching too far. I did read through your comments and replies, so I understand where you are coming from, but it's just too much of an extrapolation and dare I say even paranoid in many ways. If you can truly make that much of a reach from a movie like this, you'd have a field day with even simple, innocent children's shows. I mean it's probably not too far of a stretch to say that Dora the Explorer obviously is trying to brainwash children into accepting the Hispanic culture, therefore making them more susceptible to be sympathetic towards the plight of illegal immigrants. **Side note: I obviously DO NOT feel this way, I'm just trying to make a point.** Anyways, I definitely think that you had some great insight that helped me understand the film in a deeper way, however, your credibility really starts to diminish when you try to tie in the political rhetoric, which has no place in the film and should have no place in your review. If you do reply to my comment, I truly hope that you will consider my point of view without feeling the need to defend yours for the 4th/5th time in this. In that respect, let's agree to disagree.
Dear Anonymous,
It was very kind of you to take the time to leave your thoughts and comments; thank you! Additionally, it was very generous of you to include your kind words about insight we have been able to share about aspects of the film; given your strong disagreement with the last area of my interpretation, it was kind of you indeed and deeply appreciated.
As you yourself as said, I have all ready responded to objections regarding my observations about the political dimensions of the film. ALL ART EXISTS WITHIN A POLITICAL CONTEXT, all art exists within a historical, economic and political context, or it does not exist. If you want to deny this, that is perfectly acceptable, however, you then have to deny (wholesale) that any art can have any meaning and that it exists to exist only on the surface and as nothing more.
It doesn't matter that The Ides of March is supposedly a political film on the surface; every film is political whether it is obvious or not. Martha Marcy May Marlene takes great pains to establish STRONG DICHOTOMIES: rich and poor, upper and lower class, birth and murder, family and commune, monogamy and promiscuity, leisure and labor, etc., and Martha/Marcy May/Marlene is a ping-pong ball going in-between them all in a psychologically violent way. The reason this structure is so fascinating is because in the 1960s and 1970s, theorists were working at abolishing dichotomies because they created unfair political categories (male and female, white and black, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, etc.) so the resurrection of this approach tells us something about the moment in which we are living.
Instead of those who disagree with me repeatedly saying that I am wrong, I am requesting A COUNTER READING utilizing elements of the film to support their own position instead of just pivoting your dislike of what I have to say as the concluding verdict of "rightness" or "wrongness."
Anonymous, lastly, I would like to suggest that more and more films are coming out AGAINST the current political administration than films supporting it and those additional films strengthen my interpretation of Martha searching for a viable political identity. Art has always been a realm wherein that which cannot be discussed can be discussed, and to say that politics don't belong in this film--wherein a group of people have established themselves as an alternative to society, and then the main character flees back to mainstream society--is ignoring the structure of the narrative and what is happening in society today.
Again, I DO appreciate you taking the time to leave your thoughts and comments, and I look forward to your presentation of own reading of the film.
Thank you!
The political jazz was very poorly crow barred into the film's meaning. Maybe you are right but you jumped from A to Z without any of the supporting points in between. Plus there is so much to discuss that is not specifically political why should be slop it in?
On a side note,
I noticed an ongoing theme of opening doors without ever closing them. I mean this figuratively. (i guess literally as well considering the camera shots through the slightly opened door)The movie would hint at things that I personally thought were plot points and then never bring them up again or give the viewer a concrete answer. The example someone brought up about how the cult leader always has boys is indicative of this. It allows the viewer's imagination to run wild as to where a sex fueled commune's baby girls go. or if they are even allowed to be born.
There are multiple other examples of this especially combined with Martha's psychosis which leaves one always questioning if something is real or imagined.
The exclamation point of this theme is of course the ending. Recognizing this reoccurring theme I have discussed def helped me cope with the abrupt ending which i had braced myself for. I can see how most people would be frustrated with it but i found it brilliant. Even more so upon reflection.
Btw,
80% of me feels that there really was a cult member on the rock and that he was chasing them down in the black suv at the end. left me with such an erie vibe
Anonymous,
Thank you for taking the time to share your very fruitful insights with us! Your observation about the doors being opened and not closed is an excellent one! Besides, obviously, leaving open the door to (possibly) return to the commune one day, there is also the leaving open to "the doors of the mind" and the way we wander through our mind, like a house. This can be both Martha exploring other possibilities of her existence and identity (she may want to go back to being Marcy May someday, or become a different Martha, one more like her sister Lucy). But you are right! Thank you for sharing that with us!
I agree with you again about the ending being brilliant: it's not our typical ending because the film doesn't want to say typical things, it's a new sort of ending because it wants to say new things, and viewers such as yourself that applaud the expansion to film's capabilities make it possible that film will just continue to evolve and get better all the time!
Again, thank you very much for sharing your insights and observations!
I watched this movie last night with me wife and haven't been able to get it out of my mind. It was helpful finding this blog and just wanted to thank you for posting your thoughts. I have no trouble seeing the juxtaposition of the liberal and conservative lifestyles. I will admit I'm at a bit of a loss as to how Obama fits into that. Obama certainly has more in common with Martha's sister than he has with the commies but I do understand your desire to answer the question, "why now?". I just don't think that's a question that really needs to be asked. I think this movie could easily have been made in 1971 and would probably have been more relevant. However, that's not really what I'm interested in at the moment.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I often misinterpret) but you are under the impression that Martha's brother in law was harboring some lustful intentions regarding Martha. I didn't make that connection. It was fairly quick when he woke her up, she leaped from the couch, and ran upstairs. Though he is obviously feeling a bit annoyed at having to put up with his wife's weird sister, I thought his overall intentions were good. I do agree with you on your interpretations of her reaction and desire to gain back control of her body but I think that, that is mainly what the scene was about and the brother in-law is just collateral damage. There were other times when his wife wasn't around that would have presented better opportunities for him to try something. I haven't returned the movie yet, I may try watching that scene again and see if I missed something. I did get the feeling that at any moment things could get sexual between them but I was worried it would be Martha, in a moment of regression, that would instigate it and not the other way around.
I liked the ending as well but couldn't figure out if it was one of the actual commune members or just paranoia. Either way, it's kind of irrelevant and you're right. No matter what, that part of her life is going to follow her, so I really liked how you put that into context for me and helped me appreciate the ending a bit more.
Cheers, I'm bookmarking your blog.
Cobber
Cobber, thank you very much for taking the time to share your comments and insights, especially the "relationship" with Martha's brother-in-law; you're right, I do "fear" there was something, and fear/anxiety is the word that she was going to be taken advantage of, and your own perspective that it's probably not the case does comfort me! Thank you so much for bookmarking the blog, and I hope you will continue sharing your own observations on films with the rest of us!
Thanks again!
I think by adding the political metaphor to your review you're just using it as a sounding board for your own personal opinions. I have pretty liberal leanings but if a Democrat had written your review and portrayed the young, naive and poor characters as Republicans I'm fairly sure it would seem just as silly. I don't feel like putting effort into it right now but I'm fairly sure you could find metaphors for or against any political party in any movie if you're looking hard enough for things to support your own views. Also, Barack Hussein Obama is our president, yes, but whenever his name is written out fully it's apparent that the writer is expressing a negative opinion of him, like they're trying to connect his name with Islam. I liked your review for the most part and it helped give me a lot of insight into the movie, it's just that as soon as politics entered your review it was like slamming on the brakes, screeeech, full stop.
Dear April 9 Anonymous,
I absolutely agree with you: political metaphors can be found for either side in any work of art; please understand, I agree with you on this and I have NEVER EVER NEVER in any of my posts said that my interpretation was the only one, it's infallible and final and I NEVER will say that; how stupid. I do have political views, just as you do, but what surprises me so much is the shame that the president's name seems to inspire in Democrats; could you please explain that? How is writing the president's legal name a NEGATIVE OPINION? Why on earth would I be trying to connect his name with Islam? What's wrong with Islam? He has just as much freedom to worship openly as I have. What does that matter if I call him by his name or title, and, again, what's the difference with calling Hillary Rodham Clinton by her full name? If Democrats have an issue with his name, that's not my fault, it's the party's. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain this to me because it has nothing to do with me, but obviously Liberals get very upset about it, so please articulate it for me! Thank you in advance!
I am very happy that a portion of my post offered you an insight into some of the wonderful aspects of this great film; I do not apologize for the political aspects, especially now that more and more films are coming out supporting more conservative approaches rather than liberal. Again, my interpretations are never final, and, as always, if you do find you have the time, I still offer an open invitation to all those who have left notes of their distaste about my political views to offer their own interpretation of the film, we would all benefit from it I am sure. As of yet, no one--despite the high number of comments left on this post--has even offered a possibility for an alternative reading of the film, so please, if you have time, do post it as that would only increase our chances for dialogue and help me to understand your position far better!
Thank you for taking the time to leave your comments and I look forward to hearing from you again!
I liked your review on this movie, and I won't go into all the political stuff that the others already covered, because I'm not so sure I would have reviewed a movie like this one politically, anyway.
The only thing I had a question about was Martha sleeping in the dress and urinating and then hiding the dress. I just watched the movie so maybe I missed it the first time, but I would think that the scene wouldn't have been Martha going against lucy's lifestyle by hiding the dress ( or that her sister would have necessarily called her on the missing dress). It could have been Martha hiding to maybe hide her weakness? Since urinating in your sleep while an adult can be felt like an embarressment or lack of control. Cleaning herself with the dress could have been seen as a sign of going against lucy's lifestyle though.
(Please forgive me for taking so long to respond, I have been sick). I'm very glad that you liked the review and I hope, as in the scene about Martha urinating, that my suggestions for the film help you in understanding your own feelings about it and deepen your engagement with it!
The part where Martha pees on herself is really odd; I can't remember having seen anything like that before, so its very oddity draws us to it. An important question we have to ask ourselves about it is, do we think that's happening in reality or is Martha dreaming? That will help to put us on the path we want to take. But the film is so beautifully complex with so many interpretative possibilities that it can mean a variety of things! I have no doubt that film makers are being influenced by it and we will be seeing various visual references to it in upcoming years!
Thank you so much for taking the time to post your comments (again, I apologize for the long delay in responding)!
This was an entertaining read and I applaud the effort. Like most semiotic interpretations of art, it presents some thought-provoking ideas and some ideas worthy of derision. The funny thing about art is that the artist’s intentions can remain just obscure enough to essentially present a blank canvas onto which we can project our own concepts. Normally, I am nauseated by psychobabble but art and the interpretation of art are both heavily invested in it so, in that spirit, I may as well go “all in”: Inevitably, our interpretations of art reveal infinitely more about ourselves than they do about the object being interpreted.
Ultimately, I find this fixation on finding “meaning” (in every human endeavor and of every natural process) to be mostly misguided and wasteful of precious time. It reminds me of our similarly pervasive human need for a sense of control; both purpose and control strike me as the psychological manifestations of a species deeply immersed in self-absorption. But that suggestion would likely lead us to a philosophical discussion that I am quite certain we would find ourselves in disagreement on.
Thanks for an entertaining and very well-structured read!
Dear Anonymous (May 2),
Thank you for your kind words, and I am happy that my little post was entertaining for you, and thank you for considering it "well-structured," that is a kind compliment indeed! Thank you!
I can understand your hesitancy about art interpretation; we DO agree that interpretation reveals infinitely more about the person interpreting the art than about "the art itself," but perhaps this (and that it's a waste of precious time) is the point at which we disagree.
If art is solely entertaining, or aesthetic (meant to please the senses or emotions in some way) then, yes, it can be a waste of time as you suggest, and certainly, I agree SOME art aspires to this and nothing more; yet there is art which does what I believe all art should do: SHOW US FACETS OF OURSELVES. The best art is also the best mirror of our selves, as individuals and a culture, it shows us what we could not see on our own because it offers us an angle on ourselves that we can't achieve on our own. For atheists, for materialists and the libertine, yes, this is a complete waste of time if the fulfillment of appetites is all that's sought. For a Christian, such as myself, or anyone who believes in the afterlife and destiny, in purpose and self-discovery, such endeavors as artistic interpretation is precious time well-spent because it does, precisely as you pointed out, reveal more about us than the art, and the more we know about ourselves, the more we can engage ourselves, overcome ourselves and improve ourselves. Art forces us to make choices, and when we ascend to make not only a better choice, but the best possible choice, we have fulfilled our self-realization and then art truly has value (not market/monetary value, rather, that timeless value which brings every generation to seek out its lessons and values).
Anonymous, this may be EXACTLY the kind of psycho-babble you wrote of, but look at it this way: the world is a better place when it is filled with better people, and we at least have the tools at our disposal to become better when we engage art (we still have to use our free will to want to become better and devote ourselves to it, but, again, we have the tools) and I think, when we are better people, we might not necessarily be happier people, but we are wiser and more mature.
Thank you most kindly for taking time to leave your comments and observations, they are deeply appreciated and I wish you the very best!
Do you realize that adults wetting themselves is a sign of trauma, specifically bedwetting and sexual abuse. I do not find it odd she stuffed the dress under the bed, as that is likely what an embarrased child would do
Dear Anonymous (May 6),
Thank you very much for your observation! I didn't do psychoanalysis/psychological readings on the film, as I tend to focus on iconography, so your insight into this part of the film is greatly appreciated! Thank you very much for taking the time to share it!
After rewatching this film several times I am convinced that Martha was a part of commune the entire time. She was with her sister to set them up for being robbed. There are numerous clues throughout the film to justify this POV. I strongly suggest you get back into it from this angle and see how it seems to you.
Dear Anonymous (June 28),
Thank you so much for sharing that perspective with us! That idea hadn't entered my mind at all; I deeply regret, it will be months before I will be able to see the film (I am terribly behind on everything) but I would love for you to list the points you see in constructing this thesis, that would be great & very appreciated!
Looking forward to it!
I just watched the film last night and I found your blog while searching for background on the song "Marcy's Song". I got more than I expected from your review and thoroughly enjoyed it. I won't argue with your interpretation on the political stretch you make because while it may be a loose association based primarily on your experiences and views, there is nothing to say it's impossible and it has provided for some interesting banter. While I watched the film I found myself getting annoyed by the fact the viewer never knew whether you were watching past or present as a new scene was introduced. It was half way through that I realized that was the whole purpose. The viewer was meant to be as confused as Martha. I'd also like to point out that you included a pic of Martha with the bartender standing in front a window that showed her reflection. I thought that in addition to the points you had made on that scene that there was also an added insight into Martha's self image. As you notice her dress is highly transluscent and sheer to the viewer but in the relfection her dress is opaque. It spoke to me about her inability to see herself and her vulnerability while others could see it all clearly. I thank you for your insightful review and I'll probably continue to read your blogs.
regards,
Chris
Dear Chris,
First, I apologize deeply for the time lag between your kind comment posting and my response, I just don't have the time nowadays that I used to. Thank you for your kind words, I am glad the post helped, but even more so, THANK YOU for posting that wonderful observation about the translucency of her dress in the reflection, that is fabulous!
Love it love it love it!
You're right about the degree of frustration in watching the film and because, as you mentioned, we get confused between past and present, it makes multiple interpretations of the work possible, yet adds incredible depth to deeper interpretations than other more "run of the mill" films offer.
Again, thank you for taking the time to offer your kind words, as well as your most fruitful insights! Regarding my political interpreation of the film, I DO understand that it probably seems narrow-minded and a shallow expression of a personal agenda, however, the ever-increasing heated debates in newly released films makes me confident of the the film's own political agenda whatever each one of us may choose in seeing it for.
Again, many many thanks Chris!
Very well done. Minus the political interpretation, of course. I loved reading all the comments and getting a better insight of the entire meaning of the movie. Thanks for sharing!!
Dear Anonymous (August 27),
Thank you for your kind words and I am very happy that you enjoyed the commentary and observations; it was kind of you to take time to make the comment and pass it on to me, thank you!
"Minus the political observations" please, you are free to interpret the film according to your own political preferences, however, as I have been keeping up on the films released since this film, I grow ever more confident each weekend that this is, indeed, an accurate and viable reading of the film. Again, I would be happy to be disproved with counter readings!
Thank you, again, for taking the time to leave your comments and kind words, it is much appreciated!
You were doing JUST fine till you got to the Obama part! Really!!!????? WRONG!! FAIL!!!!! EPIC FAIL!!! Charlie Manson and Barack Obama have nothing in common and the mind control cult leaders have on young, f***ed up women has nothing to do with presidential politics. You need to do some reading - it sounds like you are living in your own world.
never mind, you can delete my post - would never try to change the mind of a Jesus-loving Tea Partier who knows everything.
Dear Mary Armstrong,
Why on earth would I delete your post? I believe in freedom of speech especially when it comes from someone, such as yourself, who obviously does not share my beliefs, convictions and reading of a film. I especially am not going to delete your post, Ms. Armstrong, because you--like most of the others who have left comments on this post--have graciously dished out a list of insults, yet have failed to construct one legitimate argument against my reading of the film other than the one that you don't like my reading, which is not valid. I am happily going to leave your comment up.
Further, if you understand the Patrick character to be a "Charlie Manson" type, (or maybe you think the sister Lucy is the Manson mind-controller?) please develop this line of thought for all the other readers. Because Obama is a socialist, and the life at the farm is socialist, the film maker has constructed a view of their take on what is happening to young, idealistic people in the political system; I didn't make the film, but it exists within a political and historical context and, given the plethora of other films either upholding socialism (Ice Age 4, Lawless, The Apparition, Dark Shadows, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, etc.) which I have also written about, it is not the least bit unreasonable of me to contextualize this film, or any other work of art.
Ms. Armstrong, thank you for your comments and God bless you!
Hi - i have just finished watching this film and found it to be haunting and though provoking. Searching the internet for more insight into the film and especially the ending, I found your review. After reading your review I found it for the most part to be thought provoking and a good analysis of the film. However as a Clinical Psychologist specialising in the field of sexual abuse and trauma I found your comparison of this woman who has experienced this trauma to politics to be extremely insulting. It is fair to ask /"Why is this film made?" however this is not the right forum to be airing your political views. By doing so you have shown an extreme lack of respect for all survivors of sexual trauma, especially in the cult setting by dismissing what they have been through as a comment on something as simple as the political arena.
After reading the reviews and your replies to all of the other commentors I noted that you are more focused on dismissing their own opinions in such a way that you continue to air this political bigotry.
As an Australian I have nothing to do with the American political system however I believe that by attempting to connect this movie with something as simple as a political election shows your ignorance into the true implications of this film and also a lack of respect for survivors of sexual trauma.
Your comments previously about whether MArtha has actually been raped are valid. In this context - yes I believe she was. She was coerced into participating in sexual acts through "brainwashing" as you put it. Violence and force are not always physical, in fact the most pervasive form of abuse can be emotioan land psychological. By the use of intimidation, guilt and threats MArtha was forced into acts it appears at least subconsioucly she recognised was not okay at the time and attempted to rationalise in her own mind within the cult psyche.
The political references you highlighted about the movie were insightful. I don't understand the refusal of so many to acknowledge this powerful and obvious aspect of the film. Thank you for your review. It has helped me gain a greater appreciation of this amazing movie.
Dear Anonymous (Sept 13),
I DO appreciate your background in clinical psychology, however, I would like to point out two things: first, Martha/Marcy May/Marlene IS A CHARACTER, she is not a real person; she is a work of art, hence, she symbolizes what we as a culture are experiencing, not an individual PERSON which would be your arena; secondly, "this is not the right forum" happens to be my blog, not yours. Please respect that.
Further, only liberals call the political viewpoints of others "bigotry," I have not expressed any bigotry whatsoever, and YOU HAVE FAILED to grasp the real point behind my continued replies: NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU can refute my comments or use the substance of the film to prove me wrong or yourselves correct. I am NOT dismissing their views or your own, however, IF YOU CAN'T PUT UP, SHUT UP.
Again, regarding your stance on views of sexual trauma, I have ONLY THE VERY DEEPEST and HEARTFELT sympathy for those who have suffered thusly--it is one of the absolute worst and despicable crimes--however, art (including film) is like dreams, and just as we try to interpret our individual dreams so we better understand what is doing on within us and our inner tensions, so, too, the interpretation of art and engaging with it permits us to understand our cultural "dreams" and "inner tensions," because, I assure you my Australian friend, no president as done as much to divide and destroy this country as the current one.
Thank you for taking the time to leave your comments!
Dear Anonymous (Sept 16),
Thank you very much! I look forward to The Master coming out this weekend which I believe will be very similar in structure to Martha, Marcy May, Marlene and will be referencing this film!
Thank you so VERY MUCH!
Thank you for your analysis of this disturbing film. I thought the political analysis was very insightful, unlike, it seems, many of the other commenters. I had to go watch the film again, and I think you're spot-on. From the beginning where she is in the diner eating real food, and the cult member goes in acting like everything is fine - just like many that became disillusioned with the current administration, looking for something more substantial, they want to pull away from this group that they now realize perform bad deeds for their own benefit, and, like Marlene in the diner they are admonished "Don't do that!" (because the consequences could be even worse, right? because think how horrible it would be if Republicans are in charge again) !!
Lots of other aspects, too, especially related to the dream/reality thing and the leader. Like this was the dream of "just existing" together with everyone cooperating and taking care of each other like the "Dream" that Obama relates in his speeches - but the realities, once we see them, are horrors of rape and deprivation and even murder.
Post a Comment