Review: Pascal Laugier’s MARTYRS

Reader Comments

1. dullboy 09/26/2008 @ 8:47am

   I’ve read a few reviews now that describe this movie as being transcendent.  I think it’s easy to throw this word into the review because the story uses the term itself, relating to the manner in which the character is to change after enduring prolonged torture.  But, I don’t think this movie transcends anything. 

   *SPOILER*

   The idea of an elite group of socialites forming a secret club to torture young women to satisfy their curiosity about true martyrdom and euphoric afterlife begs a huge suspension of disbelief.  I just don’t see it happening.  In fact, for me, it brought a bit of camp value to the film.  Had the movie shortened some of the (boring) torture time, left out the rich people in black coats, and centered on Anna possibly falling into Lucie’s hell of being haunted by her own demon, namely Lucie herself, then things might have gotten a bit more interesting.

2. Rodney 09/26/2008 @ 8:51am

   Exhibit 1
   http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/17/france.cult/

   Exhibit 2

   http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21674/abused-boys-had-skin-hacked-off-and-eaten-by-relatives

   I can go on and on and on . . .

3. Garth 09/26/2008 @ 8:56am

   *SPOILERS*

   I don’t think “huge suspension of disbelief” even covers it… I can’t think of a phrase that covers the needs of disbelief for this flick…

   Even beyond the secret club bs, how do you suspend the disbelief of having a family living there...do the kids know about this?  How do you suspend disbelief to the point of buying into the fact that the basement is a giant, state of the art torture chamber?  It’s just laughably, cmapy-bad, as far as i’m concerned.  More power to those who buy into it, I just couldn’t.

4. dullboy 09/26/2008 @ 9:01am

   Rodney, those examples aren’t what I’m talking about.  One deals with cultish mass suicides, while the other abuse case didn’t mention the reasoning behind the abuse.  The “cult” in the movie weren’t doing things to each other or to their relatives so that they could fly away to a serene planet.  They were using guinea pigs to satisfy a curiosity...an abstract thought that couldn’t even be translated to the living.  And they seemed intelligent, well-off people, not nut-job hippie religious freaks.  Show me an example of that.  In fact, one of the points they made in the movie was that religion didn’t have to be a part of martyrdom.

5. Rodney 09/26/2008 @ 9:09am

   The point is not to provide examples of the exact same situation. The point is to show that cultish or obsessive behavior does lead to extreme behavior, and the situation presented in the film is not as big of a leap as is being suggested here (I have researched the area in the past). Although the explanation deviated from history a bit, the use of photo of real Leng Tch’e in the film is another example.  Georges Bataille talked about the Leng Tch’e photo in Tears of Eros, and his ideas re: the photo have a parallel w/some of the ideas in the film. Thats about all I have to say about it.

6. dullboy 09/26/2008 @ 10:06am

   I’m not out to bash the film or force examples out of you, Rodney.  I understand the director’s story.  I just want to offer that I don’t believe it has transcended the genre.  Had I not read so many statements like this, I may have had more fun with the film.

7. Rodney 09/26/2008 @ 10:23am

   This is why you can read 6 different opinions about it here. If everybody agreed, I would be suspicious in spite of my support for the film.

8. dullboy 09/26/2008 @ 10:27am

   True.  That’s why I enjoy this site.  However, I hadn’t read one bad review about it before seeing it.

9. Rodney 09/26/2008 @ 10:31am

   Oh, there are plenty of negative reviews out there. Twitch writers, however, see films at different times so opinions come in waves.

10. Garth 09/26/2008 @ 11:02am

    What I hate about this site is that when there are dissenting opinions, people don’t just down eachother’s throats and insult their intelligence for not agreeing.  What the hell is wrong with you people?  Especially all you stupid people who disagree with me!

11. louisplunchbox 09/26/2008 @ 2:49pm

    Rodney - the world hardly needs the film Martyrs to explain that “cultish” or “obsessive” behavior can lead to extreme behavior. Anyone that has a modicum of social awareness should be inherently aware of that fact. If you’re suggesting that’s the point of the film, then it fails miserably in making any sort of commentary on or advancement in understanding the phenomenon. Beyond suspension of disbelief issues, I was enfuriated by the insulting and stupid premise of the film. What enfuriates me even more are the reviews that continue to laud the film as thought-provoking and visionary. The only daring thing about this film is that it has the audacity to think it’s clever or has any real artistic merit. I can quite honestly say I have never hated a movie more in my life.

12. Ard Vijn 09/26/2008 @ 2:51pm

    Yes, how dare we keep being civil?
    
    The count is 4 for the yays, 3 for the nays.
    
    I swear, reading the Martyrs comments seems to be more rewarding (and certainly more fun!) than watching the film itself…

13. Rodney 09/26/2008 @ 3:01pm

    I stand by every word, and have nothing more to add.

14. louisplunchbox 09/26/2008 @ 4:54pm

    Rodney, I’m not sure what words you’re standing by. Citing a couple of articles about atrocities that were perpetrated in real life is frankly irrelevant. It’s quite fitting that Georges Bataille is referenced, a philosopher who’s writing about eroticism, death and degradation seem to provide about as many tenuous excuses for his own dark preoccupations as Martyrs does for its existence in the first place.
    
    Sorry you seem to baring the brunt of most of the attacks, it’s just you’re the only one on this thread that appeared to appreciate the film at all. If you don’t have anything more to add, that’s fair enough - but as someone who may have missed the big picture, I’m curious as to what someone who liked the film finds so compelling about it.

15. Rodney 09/26/2008 @ 6:12pm

    To be more specific, I stand by every word of the review, and my comments in this thread.  I spent an inordinate amount of time thinking through what I wrote (its been on the site for at least six weeks). A related piece might appear in the future (its been in the works for awhile) but that will be about it from me on this one.

16. louisplunchbox 09/26/2008 @ 7:50pm

    Fair play.

17. The Visitor 09/27/2008 @ 8:14am

    the question about the genre now isn’t how far they can push it. it’s whether all the violence and bloodletting still have a point to them. frankly, the whole genre (or sub-genre of horror) is beyond the point of saturation, a situation where everything inevitably becomes self-parody. first they were serial killers who keep coming back, now they are faceless sickos with torture chambers. and it’s always some poor soul being tortured in a secret, unknown location, seemingly without reason. then all is revealed to the audience. how many times can you keep doing that without it becoming a cliche?

18. The Visitor 09/27/2008 @ 8:15am

    oh, forgot to add that that is also why i have no interest whatsoever in watching Martyrs.

19. bnl771 09/28/2008 @ 8:02pm

    My take on all this is even though I can’t say I really liked it and had major problems with it.  I’ve spent the days since fantastic fest thinking - “Does the fact that I cannot stop thinking about this movie mean it had it’s intended effect?” I mean, I hated HATED Seventh Moon and Repo! at Fanastic Fest but I have not thought of either of those movies.  Even though I went straight from Fantastic Fest to the the ACL Festival, I spent 3 (hot) days in the sun with this movie in the back of my head.  That has to say something about the “power” of the film - I can’t point to anything in the movie to explain, but it’s there.

    What was the last movie to ignite this much discussion on Twitch??

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry