Ryan McNeil
We’ve become a culture obsessed with publishing our every thought and action. The good, the bad, the astounding, and the mundane…nothing is too huge or too insignificant to tell the whole wide world. Perhaps because of that, there’s something truly haunting about someone who “doesn’t want to talk about it”.
MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE begins with Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) waking up at the break of dawn and running off into the woods. She is chased, but has enough distance to elude her perusers and make it to a payphone. There she calls for help, reaching out to her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson). Despite some palpable animosity, Lucy finds Martha at the canteen she called from and takes her to her spacious cottage in rural Connecticut.
Once there we begin to learn what brought Martha to this point of desperation. Some time ago (my guess is a few months, the movie isn’t clear how long) Martha ran off without a trace. At the time, she made her way to a commune somewhere in the Catskills. The commune is lead by Patrick (John Hawkes), who thinks Martha’s name doesn’t suit her and christens her “Marcy May”. Patirick teaches the group to embody love and community, but does so through abuse, violence, and isolation.
As Martha tries to regroup at Lucy’s cottage, we slowly learn what life on the commune was like. We see what eventually drove her to flee, and we likewise see how difficult a time Martha is having shaking her ordeal and re-acclimating to life back in the real world.
MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE is an unnerving film. Silent exchanges are its violence, broken spirits are its bloodshed. It’s so aware of its surroundings, that it knows that all it takes to instil fear in the middle of nowhere is the unexpected sound of a stone hitting a cottage roof. It throws the audience off-axis right from the start as we watch Martha make a calculated run for it. The moment she makes that phone call, we can tell that this is a girl who is truly broken. The fact that we don’t know why, and that it takes so long for us to really find out, is what makes the simple story work. We want desperately to cut to the chase…to take Martha by the hand and ask “What happened?”. Instead we’re forced to watch her remain a half-step out-of-time, and must wait patiently until the film trusts us enough to reveal Martha’s story.
Selling that unsettling story with her every broken-spirited expression is Elizabeth Olsen. For most of the film she carries herself with quiet fortitude – whether she’s being lectured about how she’s supposed to be a teacher and a leader, or selling someone else that she in fact is a teacher and a leader (Unfortunately for Martha, she is neither). Despite that fortitude, Olsen gives us many flashes of just how damaged Martha is. She’s damaged enough to latch on to the commune in the first place, and unsettlingly damaged after leaving. However through almost all of it, we’re spared the drama. She might want to go back to her room and cry, but she’ll be damned if she’s going to let you see that.
One interesting facet of the film that I couldn’t help but notice is the way many scenes look underexposed (which I must believe is 100% intentional). This aesthetic for the film is an interesting choice as it gives it a rare authenticity. In the age of digital photography, underexposure is far less common, but back in the days of film, underexposed images were far more common. Snapshots that were captured in less than ideal images had a grey-ish cast to them, faces carried less detail, shadows seldom went to true black. While an underexposed photo wasn’t quite a “Kodak Moment”, it had an immediacy to it…a “lighting be damned” document of the moment. Underexposing various scenes in MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE gives the film that same immediacy. It makes me believe that the film was caught quickly and authentically under that wooded. Sure, were we given more time in these scenes we’re watching, we could work with the elements and create a better visual record…but sometimes the moment won’t wait for you to fix your aperture.
Without question, the very best part of MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE is John Hawkes, who seemingly wants to prove last year’s Oscar nomination was no fluke. I’m not sure why I’m just noticing this, but Hawkes has quite an interesting look about him, which serves him well as Patrick. He carries himself, both with an everyman honesty and a quiet violence. That image above is a prime example. As he sits and sings his song, you listen to his warm voice croon lovingly for a woman who is the picture of beauty, but in the same breath he’ll look at you with an expression that could cut you in half. His portrayal of Patrick is quite haunting, embodying a manipulative man who sells higher ideas about a greater good. He’s the sort of man who can explain to you that “Death is true love”…and if you aren’t hyper-aware, you’ll find yourself agreeing with him.
MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE is a divisive film for sure. It’s a film that isn’t entirely sure of its thesis, but will lecture quite eloquently about its theory anyway. In some ways it reminds me of a charcoal drawing – something with texture, tone, and technique but missing a certain amount of finite detail. It’s this lack of detail that makes it a bit difficult to truly fall for Martha since we’re not entirely sure whose story we’re hearing. Who was she before? Did the cult break her or wake her up? Seeing the juxtaposition of who Marcy May was on the compound, and who Martha is at the cottage makes for a good film. I have a theory that seeing a bit of who she was before the film began, and what becomes of her just a little bit after might have made for a great one.
Great writeup Ryan … “like a charcoal drawing …”. Wow.
Love how you mentioned the lack of a point it was making and the underexposed use of camera – we are going back to humans as animals in the natural world. And it seems the footage is shot equally as archaic and traditional.
Any take on my analysis?
I thought you’d like the charcoal analogy! What struck me most about the underexposure was the way it felt a bit more geniuine and “low-fi”. back when I used to photograph on film, I constantly had photos that turned out looking like those scenes. They were badly executed, but I always kept them because the expression of the people in the photos usually still came through with a lot of character.
You’re right though – if there are any cameras up on that compound, they’re film cameras for sure.
Haven’t read your piece yet as I try to
Seems like a very fresh film, also because I’ve never heard of the actors – or the film itself.
I think this is Elizabeth Olsen’s first role, so she’s new to everyone.
Bits of it are fresh, bits of it felt like something I’d seen before.
As Rich pointed out, this is Olsen’s first role. But I reckon you’ve seen John Hawkes before, you just don’t realize you have as up until recently he’s been primarily a character actor. If you haven’t already seen his amazing work in WINTER’S BONE, go give that film a watch.
I’ve already seen Winter’s Bone, it’s fantastic. And even though I know everyone says that, I found it to be a refreshing take on naturalism – one of my favorite “genres”.
Im with you on this, though with a slightly more negative bent. Technically it was great. The under exposure you mention was fantastic. The acting was great. But the Martha character was too underdeveloped as an actual person, and her sister and brother in law didn’t offer enough to center the story outside of her, so ultimately it felt more like an exercise in showing us how someone is initiated into a cult than giving us a really great story about a character who goes through a formative/destructive experience.
It felt ultimately distant and cold, and relied on cheap manipulation like loud string music to try and make a true emotional impact. It didn’t work.
So although I think the movie has a lot of merit, in the end I was just left asking myself “what for?”
I agree with you that there was a slight bit of underdevelopment to Martha’s character (underexposure??!!). That was why I mentioned in closing that had the film given us a bit more of what got her to the compound, and a bit more of the fall-out, it would have elevated into something great.
The movie has merit for a lot of scenes that are both quiet and unsettling (after all, those strings aren’t omnipresent), and an interesting construction that keeps lobbing back and forth between the cause and the effect.
Not perfect, by any stretch. But all things considered, a solid film worth watching.
Yeah. Solid film. I’d still recommend it for the look and the performances alone. And that song John Hawkes sings is amazing. I just wish there was more to chew on. Like you said, it’s a good film that’s disappointing mostly because it could have been great.
Well said – just remember that “failed greatness” doesn’t negate “achieved goodness”
An excellent review which makes me sad that this won’t be near me for like three-four weeks.
Have you seen Deadwood? Hawkes is great in that as well.
I have a lot of shows I’m trying to get through (right now I’m slowly thumbing through The Wire). Deadwood is on that neverending list.
I’m hoping to see this next weekend since it will arrive in Atlanta next week. Hopefully with another film.
Do make a point of it – if it’s dropping in your hood this weekend (11/4) it’s easily the best option out there this lousy week.
Great review, Ryan. Love the “charcoal drawing” analogy. This is an unsettling film for sure, but I loved the way the film unravelled it’s mystery, by seamlessly editing together her peculiar behaviours at her sister’s place with ever-worsening events in the cult. There is not a precise point where you can recognise the drastic change in their activities – it creeps up. I was also a big fan of the wide-lens cinematography and the underexposed look was a unique idea. Olsen was astounding (for a debut) and I hope Hawkes is recognised for an Oscar again. He was sensational. One of my favourites of 2011. I saw it both at SFF and MIFF.
Loved it so much you used up precious festival spots twice eh? That’s telling!
I’m with you in loving the editing of this film and its pendulum effect, there were several cuts in it that actually made me mutter “Nice”. Brings a nice balance to the two stories, and in the later stages makes everything that much more unnerving.