MovieChat Forums > Martyrs (2008) Discussion > Martrys----incorrect

Martrys----incorrect

posted 9 years ago by horsecoach4hire
16 replies | jump to latest

Ok, this film was so disturbing, I can't believe I watched it. In fact, I'd rented it when we still rented films back in the day, with a friend, and we had to speed up the end beating scene because it was making us physcially ill.

There is no point to this movie. A martyr is someone who is selfless, who willingly dies for a cause. These girls did NOT do that. They were held captive and beaten and treated horribly. That would NOT create a martyr. It just created a film that made no scene.

High Tension, while gory, still had a plot. This film, did not. In fact, it was 2 movies in one and I'm still trying to figure them both out!

I will highly, highly warn people that this movie is graphically violent----a torture film and I would not recommend it.

mar·tyr
ˈmärdər/
noun
1.
a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.
"saints, martyrs, and witnesses to the faith"
verb
1.
kill (someone) because of their beliefs.
"she was martyred for her faith"

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr

In its original meaning, the word martyr, meaning witness, was used in the secular sphere as well as in the New Testament of the Bible.[1] The process of bearing witness was not intended to lead to the death of the witness, although it is known from ancient writers (e.g. Josephus) and from the New Testament that witnesses often died for their testimonies.

[–] horsecoach4hire 9 years ago

Ah, ok--thank you for this clarification. I did not know this, even though I did read the New Testament. This explains why it's been linked to those who die for a religious cause. But I always equated a martyr as being selfless/over looking their own demise for a greater good. In this film, these poor girls never had a chance! And they certainly didn't choose their fates.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

Well, Anna became a "witness" of The Truth, which is what the process Madame devised is intended to do with certain special people that she calls "Martyrs". The Martyr is then to give their testimony to Madame, though Anna is the only one who succeeds in being coherent enough to relate what she saw.

She dies for a cause, not one she initially chose, but it does appear she buys into it at some point. Stockholm Syndrome, maybe? She knows what's coming, and uses her connection with Lucie to stay strong through it all. And once she's seen The Truth, she communicates it to Madame with well-crafted clarity. She's on the Team.

Now... there is someone else who could be seen as a Martyr, in the sense you're used to: Madame herself. Finally having the knowledge of The Truth she sought for years is not at all what she bargained for. It's Unknowable for a reason. We just aren't meant to Know it, nor are we spiritually capable of living with such Knowledge. If she tells the rest of the Cult what Anna told her, their lives would be similarly affected. Killing herself prevents the others from suffering the same fate. The greater good.

[–] horsecoach4hire 9 years ago

Very interesting view points. Of course, we aren't sure what Anna relays to Madame. It could be a lie for all we know.

to me, a martyr is someone who has chosen their path--like Joan of Arc, Jesus, or those who were more politically influenced like Malcolm X, Steven Biko etc.

From my understanding of the definition of a martyr, they choose their cause---in Anna's case, she's captured and tortured. There is no cause. She's not on a political or religious agenda. That's where I have a problem with this film (and it's brutality in the original was far, far unnecessary and unneeded. There are ways to convey torture without having to show it for 20 minutes).

Thank you all for your input though--it does help me to see things somewhat differently, but I still have an issue with this one plot hole: I could understand if Anna was fighting for Lucy's sake, and willing to take the torture FOR her, but it was never a choice for Anna. If Anna had chosen to stand up for Lucy, and to protect her, THEN, she would be a true Martyr.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

I'm not sure having a different idea about the title of the film than the director intended is a "plot hole". Just a different expectation.

But Anna did die for Lucie, in a way. Lucie had to get vengeance on the people that tortured her, and Anna protected Lucie and tried to cover-up the crime for her. Anna's love for Lucie got Anna into this mess.

And, of course, Anna jeopardizes herself even futher trying to save the Mom and then the girl with the metal visor. She's pretty selfless, and I think that's what made her an ideal Martyr for Madame's cause.

I don't believe Anna was lying about The Truth she witnessed. She was done fighting. She saw something. And Madame has to know there's a chance Anna was lying, so there'd be no reason to kill herself if she thought for a moment Anna lied. No. What Anna told Madame was something no one could make up, which is why Madame immediately Knew it was The Truth she'd been searching for.

[–] fillshertease 8 years ago

Now... there is someone else who could be seen as a Martyr, in the sense you're used to: Madame herself. Finally having the knowledge of The Truth she sought for years is not at all what she bargained for. It's Unknowable for a reason. We just aren't meant to Know it, nor are we spiritually capable of living with such Knowledge. If she tells the rest of the Cult what Anna told her, their lives would be similarly affected. Killing herself prevents the others from suffering the same fate. The greater good.

And...

I don't believe Anna was lying about The Truth she witnessed. She was done fighting. She saw something. And Madame has to know there's a chance Anna was lying, so there'd be no reason to kill herself if she thought for a moment Anna lied. No. What Anna told Madame was something no one could make up, which is why Madame immediately Knew it was The Truth she'd been searching for.

I completely agree with you that the term 'Martyr' is perfectly legitimate and is being used in the sense of the word meaning 'witness'. No argument there! However the end of the movie is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Yours seems to be that Madame chose to kill herself to protect the 'others' because what she was told was somehow negative? If that's your interpretation then that's fine - everyone can make up their own minds - but that explanation doesn't make sense to me. If what she discovered was negative then why would she kill herself? If what happens after death is negative then surely she would want to stay alive as long as possible? Why wouldn't she simply tell the others that the knowledge was negative? I mean ... she's hardly a compassionate person - obviously none of them are - so it would be strange for her to suddenly act in an empathetic way; especially when being empathetic will result in death! I think a better explanation is that she found out that what happens after death is a Very Good Thing (as Winnie The Pooh would say!).

B-)

Surely she kills herself because she now knows that something excellent happens after death and she wants to bring it on as quickly as possible? She doesn't tell the 'others' because she isn't a compassionate person and simply doesn't care about anyone else. Don't you think that makes more sense? Keep in mind that the 'cult' - for lack of a better word - had been trying to discover what happens after death because they had photos of people in a state of blissful serenity just before they died. Why would those people look like that if they were seeing something negative?

Anyway ... I'm not trying to say you're wrong and get into a fight here! I just think there are multiple interpretations and I'd like to find one that makes complete sense to me by discussing it with others. The negative 'side' has problems - as I've explained - but the positive one does too. I mean ... Anna is an innocent victim, so what happens after death might be different for her than it will be for Madame; a sociopath who has been torturing young women for years! I agree wholeheartedly that Anna didn't lie, and that what she discovered - and told to Madame - "...was something no one could make up, which is why Madame immediately Knew it was The Truth she'd been searching for"; obviously she isn't going to kill herself if she isn't 100% certain of the outcome. However that's where we diverge because, as I've said, I don't understand why she would commit suicide if something bad was going to happen to her. If you see what I mean? It just seems more likely to me that you would only commit suicide if you knew something wonderful was going to happen after you did...

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

[–] carl_johnson-1 8 years ago

However the end of the movie is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Yours seems to be that Madame chose to kill herself to protect the 'others' because what she was told was somehow negative?

No, not at all. For the record, I don't think any of the common interpretations work.

1. Anna told Madame the Afterlife is awful.
A. Killing herself would send her to an awful place sooner. She'd just stay alive as long as possible.
B. She'd tell the Cult this, so that they too would try to live as long as possible.

2. Anna told Madame the Afterlife is awesome.
A. She would have told the Cult this. No reason not to. She's going to a wonderful place whether she tells them or not.
B. She waited a while to kill herself. Why? If it's so wonderful, she'd have done it right away.

3. Anna told Madame there is no Afterlife.
A, Same problems as #1, actually. She'd tell the Cult, and she'd avoid death.

What I'm suggesting is not that the Afterlife itself is negative, but that the impact of knowing what the Afterlife is, is negative. What the Afterlife is doesn't matter. We humans simply aren't meant to know The Truth until we die. Perhaps our living brains just aren't equipped to handle that Knowledge, like an ant's tiny brain couldn't think like a human. In death, perhaps we are then transformed to a state that allows us access to The Truth without harm. The details aren't important at all. In fact, we shouldn't try to determine them, lest we also learn too much. :)

Madame killing herself is her way of ending the torment of knowing The Truth. She waited some time, perhaps thinking she could deal with the burden. But it became too much and she ended it.

And, she didn't tell the Cult so that they could continue to live their lives unburdened by the Truth. They need to stay away from it, to leave open the possibilities of the Afterlife, to have doubt which one is correct.

[–] fillshertease 8 years ago

Hmmm ... OK, well, I have to admit that's a pretty good explanation!

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

[–] Chefeetaboopers 9 years ago

Just because you refuse to take the other definition for a word as the right one for this movie, doesn't mean it's a plot hole. The director and creator used the other definition of martyr- the witness one. You may not like it, but it doesn't mean the people are wrong.

In a way, Anna did fight for Lucie by going through what Lucie went through as a means to understand.

[–] abas426 9 years ago

In the context of this film, the word 'martyr' is used in accordance with its original Greek root word, 'martur' which translates literally as 'witness', as opposed to the modern conventional meaning of someone who willingly dies for their beliefs. Hence dismiss the modern meaning altogether, the films title refers to its original meaning, as demonstrated at its end, when the original meaning of the word 'martyr' is shown on the screen.
Anna becomes a 'witness' to the secrets of the afterlife. The cult imprisoning Anna calls people whom have undergone transfiguration 'martyrs', a term they use in accordance with the original meaning of the word.
You have simply interpreted it wrong, and understandably so, as if you don't see the part at the end where the root word for 'martyr' flashes across the screen, you won't be able to understand the meaning of the title.

Also, I just want to comment about how you fast-forwarded the part where Anna is systematically beaten. This part of the film contains little gore, yet what disturbs us is the emotional trauma that Anna is going through, correct? This film does not disturb because it is gory, yet because it disturbs us by daring us to attempt to understand the emotional suffering of the films protagonists. And I think that when a horror film genuinely disturbs us without consistently gratuitous gore or cliched jump scares, the director has done his/her job. Hence this is why I liked this film.

[–] Serioussand 9 years ago

The director did indeed do a good job. This film disgusted me on several levels.

I think the thing that did it most for me was how they just casually treated them as non-humans. They tortured and beat the victims over and over again without seemingly getting even the slightest emotional response from any of them other than the same one you would get from opening a door or something.

It was the same kind of atmosphere in the first Hostel movie. So clinical.

It just doesn't feel like that woman leading them did it for "normal" reasons like pleasure or the need for feeling in control; which somehow makes it more scarier to me.

[–] abas426 9 years ago

Yes indeed, to all you just said.

However, this had much more of an emotional impact than Hostel. Martyrs has a depressed and melancholy tone. Hostel is more of a horror/thriller whereas Martyrs is a horror/drama.
Hostel still does have that clinical feeling, as you say, but I find it to be much more prominent in martyrs, as in Hostel, it is suggested that the torturers acquire excitement from their actions. In Martyrs however, the tormentors are even more cold in my opinion, anyway.

[–] Serioussand 9 years ago

I agree.

[–] macdonald-guo 8 years ago

Great point.

The director once said that the most distinct difference from Martyrs and films like Hostel is his film focuses more on pain, while the latter more on torture, I think that's a good point to help us understand.
My take is that when the film focuses more on pain, it tries to put the viewers on the receiving end, it "disturbs" you because as the bearer of such deeds, you feel powerless; the film thus makes you avert violence. When the film focuses more on torture, it tries to put the viewers on the giving end, which, as you say, "acquires excitement"; the film thus makes you enjoy violence.

[–] abas426 8 years ago

All great points there.

The director once said that the most distinct difference from Martyrs and films like Hostel is his film focuses more on pain, while the latter more on torture, I think that's a good point to help us understand.

Yes, I've heard that the director said something along those lines. His intent was to display the mental suffering rather than the physical aspects of torture (and he did do an excellent job of that). I've also heard that he wrote the script for Martyrs during a fit of depression, likely why he wanted to emphasise the mental suffering.
And this is why it annoys me when people call Martyrs 'torture-porn', as torture-porn revolves around the concept of enjoyment out of (usually gory) torture and violence. Martyrs elicits the exact opposite response to that aforementioned.

My take is that when the film focuses more on pain, it tries to put the viewers on the receiving end, it "disturbs" you because as the bearer of such deeds, you feel powerless; the film thus makes you avert violence. When the film focuses more on torture, it tries to put the viewers on the giving end, which, as you say, "acquires excitement"; the film thus makes you enjoy violence.

That is an excellent explanation. I'd never thought of it that way.
Like you say, by putting the viewer on the 'receiving end', they see through the eyes of the victim and hence become averse to the violence displayed, disturbing the viewer. Films like Hostel focus more on the physical aspect of the torture (rather than the mental suffering) via the assistance of gratuitous gory close-ups and their coressponding sound effects, putting you on the 'giving end' and allowing you to see through the eyes of the torturer, hence you enjoy the violence displayed.
So yeah, that's a really good explanation.

[–] FreddyVoorheesTheThird 8 years ago

I think the title is sort of dark irony in that regard.