I was really excited to see this film, partly because of the trailers but mostly because of the buzz about Elizabeth Olsen's performance. Man, was I disappointed. The failure of this film has nothing to do with Durkin not following any three-act structure or the Hero's Journey or any other “conventions” - kudos to him for not following the rules. The reason this film didn't work for me at all was because of his complete lack of understanding how to construct a meaningful story. This film says nothing. It meanders back and forth between the present and past and keeps repeating the same point over and over. What that point is, I'm not exactly sure. We spend an hour and forty minutes watching this girl go through some difficult situations and meet some twisted people but it doesn't lead to anything. And Elizabeth Olsen's performance is, I'm sorry to say, completely one-note. You'd think that she would act differently before she joined the cult, while at the cult, after she left – you know, an arc of some sorts – but no, the same expression and attitude throughout. If that was on purpose, I guess I'm missing the point. I think it's just bad writing and acting. Compare this to a film like Michael Haneke's Caché which also has an open ending but the journey there is what counts. In that film I cared about the characters and I was genuinely intrigued about what would happen next. It had a plot with ups and downs and completely unexpected turns. It also used the cinematography in an ingenious way to challenge the audience perceptions. MMMM had none of those things. I'm all for breaking rules and inventing new ways of expressing oneself, but I also know that you have to know the basics first. Durkin seems like a first-time filmmaker who is not yet ready for prime time. The topic at hand seems over his head. If you want to challenge the conventions and make a piece of art, make sure it actually moves the art form forward. And when will the awful trend of handheld camerawork end? Please make it stop. It doesn't make the film more realistic, it has the opposite effect, it draws attention to itself.

Very interesting. Have you seen Roman de gar?

Not having seen the film yet, Teddy, what do you think has been its appeal? I'm not defending the movie at all, just curious if you can deduce why at least some critics have given the movie a big thumbs up. Given the present and past narrative structure, is there an apt comparison to be made to Blue Valentine? And if so, does MMMM, like BV, not show the story's middle? I know you have issues with The Hero's Journey and they are legitimate ones as far as I can tell. But I must confess, whenever I see a filmmaker make comments like Durkin did in the interview, it does give me pause. And then your critique highlights precisely one of the main values of The Hero's Journey as a narrative archetype. That is there is a structure, there is a transformation arc. Nevertheless I look forward to seeing MMMM. Interesting subject matter and I will see anything with John Hawkes in it.

I realize that a lot of this comes down to taste and Elizabeth Olsen has a quality to her that is very appealing. She looks good on screen. Her character however, did nothing for me. I just didn't care about her. We're thrown into her story without any background, instead we are shown in flashbacks what she went through joining the cult. All that sounds good in theory and there's nothing inherently wrong with telling a story that way. But I was not able to connect with any of the characters as they weren't well drawn. It was like I was watching them from afar. I wasn't experiencing the story through anyone's eyes. I think this would have worked better if the sister, who Martha stays with after leaving the cult, would have been the main character and we would have seen it through her eyes. That way we would have had some sort of starting point and another perspective on what happened to Martha. The problem I have with The Hero's Journey is when anyone (and I know you don't, Scott) says that every story fits that structure. I don't think so, even though a lot of people set out to prove that it is so. That doesn't mean that I'm not aware of it and its importance as a narrative device in most mainstream movies. Obviously it has had an enormous impact on Hollywood and the screenwriting business with numerous books and gurus following the Joseph Campbell school of thought or similar theories. I do think it's important to learn about all different theories and figure out what works for each individual writer, and you should at least know what has worked in the past and know the various theories, even if you choose to not use them. Durkin seems to say that he wasn't interested in any of the conventions and that's fine, but then he should at least show that he is capable of not following any of them and prove that he either has a unique voice that shines through no matter what, or that he has the skills of crafting a story on his own terms that still works as a narrative that people can connect with. In my view he did neither of those things. I do absolutely agree with you when you say that it is crucial to read scrips, watch movies, write pages, and it just seems like Durkin should spend some more time doing just that. But hey, who am I to talk. He got a movie made. Go see this film and who knows, you might really like it. It could be that it all hangs on Elizabeth Olsen's performance and whether or not you connect with her character. I did not, and since there was nothing else to grab on to – a good plot, a sub-plot, supporting characters that had some depth (John Hawkes is really underutilized) - for me the movie failed.

No, but it looks interesting. I put it in my Netflix queue. Saved. Thanks!

Regarding Blue Valentine: I didn't like it as a movie much, but at least it had characters with some personality and I cared a bit about what happened to them. As a movie, meh.... not much happened, really. Not much character development, which MMMM had the similar problem. Is that what you mean with not showing the story's middle?

Sure. I'd love to know what you think of it in relation to this conversation.

[...] Written Interview: Sean Durkin (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”) (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]