Martha Marcy May Marlene is about a young woman who escapes from a destructive, patriarchical cult to reunite with her sister. She has experienced much in the two years in which she has been gone from the rest of the world, having disappeared without a trace, and what she has witnessed has left her so traumatized that not only can she not discuss it with her sister, she can’t even begin to process what was real and what was a nightmare.
The movie plays out in parallel plots – the present, in which Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) has been reunited with her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and Lucy’s husband Ted (Hugh Dancy), and the past, in which Marcy May (also Olsen) lived with the cult/commune. Because of the intensity of her experiences, Martha finds the lines of reality and dreams to blur to the point of indistinction; she lashes out at her new family while flashing back to her old one.
A quick word about the plot – it’s almost spoilerproof. I say that because although ads had led me to believe that what had happened to Martha to cause her to be so traumatized was the thrust of the plot (that is, a mystery), it’s just not so. Director/screenwriter Sean Durkin gives us a lot of information, alternating scenes between her time in the cult and her time in the present. The scenes are fairly well interwoven and make sense, but the result is that we’re given too much information. There is no mystery at all. We see exactly what poor Martha has endured, and although it garners sympathy from us, it’s not added sympathy; we’re with her right from the beginning, when as a frightened girl she calls her estranged sister from a pay phone.
So while I was watching this movie, a question kept creeping into my mind: Where was this headed? We know where she’s been. We know what’s happened to her. We know how indoctrinated she had become in the cult. We know she’s with her sister but will require serious professional help in short order. What more is there? I don’t like it much when questions occur to me while I’m watching a movie, because to me it means the writer messed up somehow. I should be able to accept things for how they appear and hope that there’s more to come, but when it becomes evident that there aren’t really any loose ends of import remaining… well, then questions pop up, don’t they? As in, what is the point?
You may have heard that this movie contains a rape scene. It does, and it is necessary to the plot, and it is not terribly graphic. (And make no mistake – it is a rape scene, however willingly Marcy May appears to give herself.)
Both Olsen and John Hawkes (as the leader of the cult) deliver astoundingly powerful performances. This isn’t a surprise for Hawkes, who was nominated for an Oscar just last year for Winter’s Bone, but for Olsen this is a huge breakout role. Yes, folks, turns out there’s an Olsen sister who’s pretty and talented, and then some. Olsen deserves strong consideration for Best Actress, and both she and Hawkes rise far above the script. Their work is so compelling here that it’s as if they’re on a different planet.
I wanted very badly to love this movie. I was intrigued by the premise, but ultimately I felt let down. By presenting so much information about Martha’s time in the cult, the movie leaves nothing to the imagination, thus removing that promised intrigue. It is a good movie, but it is not a great one, and it would have been an even worse one had it not been for the superhuman efforts of Olsen and Hawkes.
For obvious reasons, I won’t divulge the ending, but I will say this: it left me completely cold, disillusioned, and perplexed. I don’t mind ambiguous endings, but I do mind when a movie ends on an atonal note, meaning that the ending itself doesn’t seem to fit in with the rest of the movie. What happens to Martha? Why this ending, above all others? It’s not a good sign when, after the credits begin to roll and the lights come on, people can be heard asking, “What?”
Martha Marcy May Marlene: **1/2
