Movie vs. Movie: Cult Classics
Well, One is a Classic. The Other, Not So Much
By Tom Houseman
May 16, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Okay, really obviously, the first one. It's not even that close. But to find out why, read on.
Martha Marcy May Marlene
Sean Durkin's directorial debut was one of the most talked about indie films of 2011, but in the kind of way where it still made no money, despite winning the Sundance Directing Award and being nominated for the Independent Spirit Award for Best First Feature. The film garnered attention and accolades because it is a very difficult, impenetrable film, simultaneously very simple and incredibly complex. Durkin doles out information at a deliberate pace that might draw comparisons to the shifting of tectonic plates, but the glacially slow pace of the film is what makes it so effective.
Martha Marcy May Marlene (that's the last time I type out the full name) follows a girl in her late teens as she attempts to readjust to normal life after having lived in a cult in the woods for an undisclosed period of time. We know that Martha has run away from the group, but we don't know why, and we know virtually nothing about what took place during her time there. All we see is that Martha has moved in with her sister Lucy and Lucy's husband Ted, and that she is extremely withdrawn and anti-social, although we really don't know if those traits were impressed on her by the cult or if that is just how she's always been.
Through flashbacks, we are ever so slowly given information about Martha's time in the cult. She is drawn in by other young, attractive, friendly folks who make her feel welcome. She then meets Patrick, the enigmatic leader of the group, who dubs her Marcy May. These early scenes are so effective because Durkin never hits us over the head with the sense that there is seriously wrong with everything that is going on, and yet it is very obvious. There is a sense of foreboding that hangs over practically every scene in a movie, like in that moment in an action movie just before the giant bomb blows up. Except that moment is every scene, and the tension builds and builds until we feel like we are the ones who are about to blow up.
Martha Marcy May Marlene is able to tell its story so well because it is grounded in reality. This very slow (have I mentioned it's slow yet? Because it is) story feels so real, which makes the actions of the characters make so much sense. It is completely understandable why a lonely, isolated girl like Martha would be willing to join a group like this one, because it is the only time she is able to feel welcome and accepted. And the more drawn in she is, the more reasonable she finds the actions of those around her, even as they sail past creepy into very obviously illegal. And when she finally gets the sense to run away, her new normal is seen by those around her as totally inappropriate. A scene as simple as two people swimming in a lake becomes a fascinating character study simply because Martha's behavior has become totally at odds with what is seen as acceptable behavior.
Durkin's filmmaking style is a perfect fit for this kind of story. Lately, using a handheld camera and gritty, natural lighting is the cue from the filmmaker that their movie is honest and real (just ask Gary Ross, who took the idea to its logical extreme for The Hunger Games), but for Durkin it seems like the only way to make the movie. The movie is so slowly paced (seriously, guys, it's a slow movie) that we need to be completely drawn in by what is happening onscreen or we will just get bored. Durkin uses the handheld camera to make it feel like what we are watching is real life, and that we are there, following Martha every step of the way. Despite knowing very little about this character we feel compelled to care about her, and to fear for her safety, because we are following her so closely.
The performances are also crucial to the efficacy of the film. Elizabeth Olsen's performance is so understated that she can occasionally come off as a blank slate, which becomes one of her most compelling character traits. We get the sense that she observes and absorbs everything around her, but that beneath her impenetrable surface there is a void of loneliness that she is desperate to have filled, which is why she is so willing to join the cult. John Hawkes has proven himself adept at playing larger-than-life characters in a very true-to-life fashion. As cult leader Patrick he manages to chew scenery in a subtle way (I guess you could say he chews with his mouth closed), but it is clear every time he smiles or touches Martha why he is the kind of person behind whom lonely, sad people would fall in line. He is so charming and charismatic, but with just a hint of danger in his eyes, and you feel like you have to watch him whenever he is on screen, if only just to make sure he doesn't do something crazy the second you take your eyes off him.
Is Marlene a perfect movie? No. It seems at times too caught up in the questions it is asking, and it makes it clear that it is going to give as few answers at possible, which at times crosses the border from intriguing into annoying. But I do not think there was another way to tell this story without destroying the sense of realism that Durkin creates. By so severely limiting the scope and breadth of his story, Durkin restricts himself from creating something extraordinary, but what he does make is so gripping that it is easy to forgive the film for its limitations, because had it gone too far, it would have risked collapsing on itself. I will take a simple gem over an ambitious failure almost every time.
Sound of My Voice
In certain scenes, you can practically see director Zal Matmanglij in the background, begging for you to compare his film to Sean Durkin's. Now, I am aware that Sound of my Voice was shot around the same time as Marlene, which means that neither influenced each other in any way, but they are stylistically so similar that you cannot say that the two films are worthy of comparison simply because they are both about cults. Such a circumstance is unfortunate, because not only does Sound of My Voice look worse than it is when compared to Marlene, but the aspects of the film that invite such a comparison are the worst parts of it. The story of Voice is an intriguing one that is well told, but it wastes so much time preening and dancing around its own story that it never is able to go past “intriguing” and into the territory of “genuinely good.”
It is more likely that, rather than trying to imitate a film he had not yet seen (unless he's from the future... whoa), Matmanglij was simply using the same stylistic tricks that Durkin used, relying on handheld camerawork and natural lighting as a way to make his film seem more realistic and engaging. Sadly, this was a terrible choice, because that is not the kind of film that Sound of My Voice is. This is not a realistic, gritty drama built around a mystery. Rather, this is a mystery, a high concept one that should have its foot pushing down on the gas pedal from the opening frame. Instead, it takes its sweet time warming up as a way to build the intrigue, but ends up stuck in neutral for far too long.
Sound of My Voice is not a realistic film, but rather a Hollywood crime drama masquerading as indie. You could picture the story being devised in the mind of John Grisham, but for some reason it is being told as if it were more suited to, well, Sean Durkin. There is suspense in this story. There is drama and intrigue and double crosses and impossibly attractive leads. There is nothing wrong with any of that as long as the people telling the story are willing to embrace that that's what the story is. Marlene was not that kind of story. That was a character study that built its suspense brick by brick, because the secret was that there was no secret, that everything was as horrible as we would expect. Sound of My Voice is a high-concept story that twists and turns, and if the film had embraced that story, rather than slow it down as much as possible, it would have been much more effective.
It certainly doesn't help that the characters in Sound of My Voice are not just unlikeable, but uninteresting. While Martha was reserved, Christopher Denham and Nicole Vicius play Peter and Lorna as ostentatiously emotional as possible, which gets old fast. Both characters are built around complex backstories which are interesting out of context, but Lorna's is irrelevant (except to explain why such a gorgeous woman wants to make documentaries), and Peter's has so much importance placed on it, but he is so obnoxious, and she is so bland, that their emotional turmoil drags down the movie. I understand that his traumatic background drives his actions throughout the film, but had he been less aggressive as a character it would have made him more interesting.
In the second half of the film the story kicks into a higher gear, which makes it actually quite compelling as a drama and a mystery, but very little of that is due to the emotional journey of the character. When the plot focuses on the truth behind Maggie, this film's enigmatic, charismatic cult leader, the results are fascinating. Brit Marling is very good at playing understated emotions, finding an interesting balance between Jennifer Lawrence's stoicism and Greta Gerwig's flightiness in the pantheon of indie blondes. I wish she had made some stronger choices with her character, but if the only alternative to her reserved stares is Christopher Denham's outbursts of outrageousness, I will happily take the former any day.
There were parts of Sound of My Voice that were effective, and had Matmanglij understood what made those parts work so well, and used those same tactics for the entire film, it might have been a very good movie. Unfortunately, most of his stylistic choices were completely wrong for the film, and as a result the final product is at best inconsistent, and overall disappointing.
So Which Was Better?
It is not fair to compare these two films based on the type of stories they are telling. While both are about cults, the narrative structures of the two films are very different, and it is impossible to say which story is itself inherently better. The chasm in quality between Sound of My Voice and Martha Marcy May Marlene comes not from the story itself, but in the way that story is told, by the quality of the direction and the acting. Sean Durkin understand exactly how to tell his story for maximum dramatic effect, while Zal Batmanglij seemed to rely on the tricks he had seen other indie movies used to make their films work, and attempted to recreate those. If he had understood why his story was compelling he might have found a better way to tell it, and Sound of My Voice could have been even better than Martha Marcy May Marlene. Instead, Marlene shows us how to take an interesting concept and elevate it, while Voice is an example of how to tell a good story badly.