film: Martha Marcy May Marlene

Hype is a frustrating concept. I went into this movie with no more information than the title, synopsis, and cast. I think that might be the very best way to see a movie. If I'd read reviews, I would have seen the hype, I would have had sky-high expectations. I'd much rather have completely neutral expectations, neither positive nor negative. Yes, sometimes you will be disappointed, but then there are movies like the one I saw today, where you are just blown away, and so glad to have experienced it with a blank canvas of a mind.

Synopsis from cinemaclock.com: Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) escapes from a cult in rural New York and tries to reintegrate into a normal life with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson). Lucy brings Martha to her Connecticut vacation home, where she and her husband Adam (Hugh Dancy) are trying to enjoy a few days away from their regular lives in the city. Martha constantly experiences chilling flashbacks and begins to lose her grip on reality. As the days pass and Martha's behavior becomes more and more erratic, it becomes clear that her time away from home may have had far more effects on her than initially believed.

The success of this movie largely rests on the shoulders of the lead actress, Elizabeth Olsen. If I'd had any concept of the hype, I would have known going in that she is the younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, and that there has been tons of Oscar buzz around her performance. I am supremely thankful that I was oblivious to both those facts. I knew her name, and when she came onscreen, I knew what she looked like. That's it.

This is a quiet movie. It was described as a dramatic thriller and I was hoping for more emphasis on "drama" than "thrills". Really, it's light on either, but what there is has true impact. Horrible things happen so quietly that you can't figure out quite how to react. Olsen's performance is quiet, mostly. Martha's later self is subdued (mostly), which makes the contrast to the first flashback - when she was happy, bubbly - more jarring. Through the flashbacks you see the entirety of the descent to her present state of near-catatonic PTSD. Because the performance is so subtle, it feels like the character is embedded in Olsen's skin. There is next-to-no awareness of Elizabeth Olsen The Actress, because she is Martha Marcy May Marlene.

I'm glad Olsen is getting such rave reviews (as far as I've seen) for this role, because I can't wait to see more from her. She is gorgeous and lovely, but also so compelling and magnetic as an actress, it almost feels like she's right there in the room with you. Yes, I'm a fan. Deal with it.

(I can't help but realize I am only adding to the hype with this post. That is why I call it "frustrating" and not some other less forgiving adjective.)

Quickie Movie Reviews.

Two recent loves and two recent ...not-loves. Opposite of loves. Disloves.

The Break-Up: Miserable. The impression you get from all the promo materials is accurate: a painfully negative film about dragging out the unpleasant acrimonious end of a relationship. It's horrible enough to go through something like that; why would anyone want to watch a movie about it? The only slightly redeeming feature is the final five minute scene, but absolutely not worth sitting through two hours of it (and I wouldn't have, if it hadn't been on TV).

Paper Man: I picked this movie up on the basis of Ryan Reynolds and Emma Stone in a movie together, and I'm ever so glad I did. Jeff Daniels and Emma Stone play a lonely middle-aged man and a lonely teenage girl, respectively, who discover an unexpected friendship just when each needs it most. Though deeply sad, that sadness has an undeniable beauty. Also starring: Lisa Kudrow and Kieran Culkin.

Group Sex: This film was chosen in the hopes that the potential I could see in the brief synopsis - a man accidentally joins a sex addiction recovery group and discovers a community - would be realized. There are a lot of interesting possibilities there, but unfortunately the film aimed for the lowest of all common denominators, and didn't really accomplish anything of worth. Full disclosure: We did not watch to the end, turning it off when two simultaneous date-rape scenes were played for laughs.

Chloe: Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson perform impeccably in this psychological thriller about love and trust. Each character is uniquely sympathetic and flawed, pressing you to feel every shock and emotion as they do. A film that will leave you contemplative and slightly disturbed.
Bonus: The movie is both filmed and set in Toronto.

The Tourist!

I can't quite remember why I decided not to see The Tourist when it first came out. I've always been fond of Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, so you'd think I would have been psyched! Actually, I think I was psyched, at first. What turned me off? The cheesy posters? Um, yes, I'm pretty sure that was it. It looked cheesy and I thought it would just disappoint me, so I didn't bother.

A few months ago, there was a trailer for the DVD before some other movie we were watching, and I thought, "Oh! That actually looks quite funny! Okay, now I must give it a shot." I think it was, "You're ravenous." "Do you mean ravishing?" "I do!" that got me. I love a good vocabulary joke.



Johnny Depp looked adorably dorky and bewildered, and I can't lie, I like that in a man. Tonight we rented it, and it was everything I hoped it would be, and more! (This endorsement not paid for etc.)

What surprised me was how classic Hollywood it felt. One of my favourite movies is Charade (1963), a caper film following Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant through a series of misunderstandings and misidentifications, punctuated by silly banter that seems oblivious but strikes your funny bone just right, and life-threats that keep you in suspense until the very end. With its atmospheric (and stunningly gorgeous) score, chase scenes through beautiful European cities, and understated romance, The Tourist was highly reminiscent to me of the style of film that Charade exemplified.

I'm a romance/dork-love junkie, so I definitely could have used more of that end, and I didn't especially like the way they decided to sum up the film, but all in all I think I'll have to add it to my favourites list and my DVD collection. I look forward to watching it again soon.

Women in/and Science Fiction

Science Fiction is a stereotypically male genre. I'm not going to pretend I'm one of those awesome nerdy girls who reads nothing but sf*, but I am a born reader and writer - I will read anything with fleshed-out characters and an engaging narrative. I took a Science Fiction course for my English degree and quite enjoyed it.

Me being me, I always prefer reading women writers. I also prefer when those women writers are writing about women. Reverse sexism, yes, but it's a powerful feeling. Having said that, the best book I read in my course was The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin. A woman writer, obviously, but a male protagonist - and a brilliant example of world-building and character exploration in a fascinating plot.

Recently I've been reading the short story anthologies I've collected over years of English study; we never read more than ten stories per class and the volumes are just bursting. I started with Canadian Short Stories and gradually made my way to the final page. Now I've returned to Science Fiction: Stories and Contexts, hence the content of this post. The stories cover quite a span of the history of English literature, and I find that most are only tolerable. Vaguely interesting, vaguely well-written, nothing to call home about.

However, yesterday I got to a story that I just adored and had to write about. A woman writing a woman, yes, and about time in an anthology like this. I'm always excited to find a new "default" author - one that writes so effectively I immediately possess faith enough to go pick up a stack of her books and start devouring. Maybe she's very popular and I'm just out of the loop, but here is my recommendation regardless!

The story is "Nekropolis" by Maureen McHugh. I see from the Amazon page what the anthology told me and I forgot: the author developed the short story in question into a full-length novel. The entry in the anthology reads, "Maureen McHugh has won widespread critical acclaim for her quiet, psychologically probing fiction, which is sometimes compared to the work of Ursula K. Le Guin, with whom she shares an anthropological bent and a gift for finely crafted, character-driven stories." Is it any wonder I fell in love?

The setting is ambiguous, though certainly Middle- or Near-Eastern. The focus is a young woman who chose to enter into a type of servitude assured by an enforced emotional and affectionate bond to her master. She is bought and sold and cannot choose to change positions. Her life is no longer her own. The woman is disturbed when her master's household adds a new technology - a bioengineered clone created to look a certain way, feel a certain way, and act a certain way. She is disgusted by the idea, but slowly comes to realize that he is closer to human than she first thought. DOT DOT DOT.

I was thoroughly engaged throughout and dejected when I came to the end. I can only hope that the novel will be equally intriguing.

*Did you know that the accepted term for Science Fiction is actually sf? My sources say "sci fi" is actually a faux pas. Who knew.