TIFF Review: Martyrs

Martyrs - Theatrical Poster

Martyrs
Opening Date: n/a
TRAILER:
ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
martyr (Greek μάρτυς “witness”)

Opening Statement
It took me days to summon the courage to even write about Martyrs. The French need to be quarantined before their cinematic horror films destroy us all.

Facts of the Case
A young girl, Lucie (Mylène Jampanoï) is found bloody, tortured and half-naked, nearly catatonic from unspoken horrors and placed into a hospital for emotional rehabilitation. As she grows up under care, she learns to function again with the help of her friend, Anna (Morjana Alaoui). The two girls become fast friends, and Anna is committed to helping Lucie purge her demons, no matter the cost.

Fifteen years later, Lucie is out for vengeance, seeking out those who kept her chained up so many years ago. With Anna’s help, she tracks down the family responsible for her torture—or so she believes—and reaps terror upon them. But the further Lucie descends into revenge, the more confusing events become for both girls. Sinister forces are at work.

martyrs.jpg

The Evidence
Martyrs is destined to become an infamous film before people even get to see it. After being hit by the French equivalent of an NC-17 rating, France’s Society of Film Directors jumped on the protest wagon to attack the ratings board and get the film shown. Considering that this rating has never been dropped on a genre film in all of French cinematic rating history, it was quite the hum-drum. People are going to hear about this film, amazing things like “the film so scary that France tried to ban it!” and all manner of silliness. To set the record straight: Martyrs is a unsettling film, but it is not the penultimate horror film.

It’s something entirely worse.

There are two distinct films at work in Martyrs, and each one has their pros and cons, but both are out vying for the intellectual destruction of the other. It makes for an interesting cinematic experience to say the least; like having lunch with homicidal in-laws. The first part is a by-the-book horror film, the kind the French have been getting very good at making as of late: lots of blood, lots of gore, a crazy incongruous plot full of screams and jumps and a terrible disregard for human life. Just as the audience is starting to get warmed up to it, surprise! Another movie appears right when you would expect Martyrs to end. It runs on for a long time, brutally dragging out an already torturous horror experience into… something. It becomes something entirely uncomfortable and disorienting; something upsetting and visceral and mean.

I have never seen or heard of a horror film quite like Martyrs. Lauded and hyped-up to be “the” definitive French horror film, a film so emotionally wrenching and shocking to put the current crowning champion, Inside (À l’intérieur) out to pasture. Well, no, not even close; Inside is still the “oops-I-crapped-my-pants” champion of intense French horror in my book for on-screen violence. That’s not to say that Martyrs doesn’t terrify the hell right out of me. It just does it it in a wholly unexpected fashion.

As horror films go, Martyrs has the right stuff—a nice plot that borders on the absurd without actually being so, crazy shotgun-toting protagonists who shoot a whole lot of people full of holes, and a creepy monster tale that slowly metabolizes into view. Then, the ground opens up, and we go from the standard slash-and-scream film into something David Cronenberg would huddle in a corner after seeing. Martyrs is profoundly upsetting, in part because of this horrendous 180-degree shift; audiences reeled at the screening like they had just gotten whiplash. The cheers and cries of fear and delight at the carnage and gore and chases were soon replaced by awkward squirming, wandering gazes and uncomfortable silences. There were more than a few boos after the screening, and with good reason.

Once you have seen the film, you will understand, but without spoiling every bit of the story, it is difficult to truly explore and dissect exactly why Martyrs is so disorienting to audiences. Imagine if in the finale of The Sopranos, the cast suddenly started to sing and dance in a Rodgers and Hammerstein-styled musical number with kisses and hugs and fireworks… and then the show ended. Audiences would be in shock. Sure, there is a noticeable lack of singing, kissing and hugging in Martyrs, but this style of emotional derailment has been harnessed quite brutally. We go full-tilt from a mindless slasher film into a profound and disorienting examination about sin, pain, the afterlife, human tolerances for torture and the notion of martyrdom in one of the most uncomfortable and unsettling thirty minutes of film I have ever bore witness to.

This film digs deep. The disruptive finale tarnishes Martyrs from being a “great” film by the traditional definition, but director Pascal Laugier has sacrificed his own film in order to explore something else entirely; something primal and disturbing that transcends the simplistic set-up of his own film. Before audiences even realize it, we are trapped in a windowless room, being tortured and beaten and mutilated beyond all recognition. And that’s about as close as spoilers as I’m prepared to go.

Forget mindlessness—Martyrs tries to put a method to the madness of modern-style torture porn, and it just makes your skin crawl. The “torture porn” genre survives on its camp, its inherent absurdity and its removal from reality. Imagine the same on-screen brutality laden with existentialism and philosophical meandering as to why all these teenagers needed to be dismembered slowly, agonizingly, and with great prejudice, and then did it again and again and again. Trying to explain such madness just makes it so much more upsetting, so much more real. There’s torture, and then there’s the crazy @#$% going on in Martyrs, and the latter is so much worse.

Closing Statement
This is one of those rare occasions where a film has inspired a negative reaction in me, but in doing so has actually endeared me to the film. Many people will be turned off by the sudden unexpected tonal shift in Martyrs, expecting simply to have their external senses tortured and tweaked, but Martyrs goes much, much deeper. This is a torturous film in the most literal sense of the word; making it through is tantamount to punishment. But in a good way—really, it’s hard to explain. Fans of deeply visceral and introspective horror will definitely want to give Martyrs a look.

It is unlikely Martyrs will receive theatrical release in this country, but The Weinstein Company has purchased distribution rights to the film, so keep an eye out on the Dimension Extreme label in months to come—a DVD release is all but assured. Then, you can watch Martyrs back-to-back with Inside and never leave your house again.

The Verdict
Mind-numbingly unsettling, but a turning point in horror cinema for fans that can stomach it.

7/10

17 comments ↓

#1 WiredRacing on 09.25.08 at 10:43 am

I think it’s better than the reviewer indicates. I also think while it certainly contains ‘Torture Porn’-like scenes, there are key differences and the film as a whole.. “okays” it.

Nothing put on screen here (especially after the half way point) is for anyone’s sick enjoyment.

This is a horror movie with a point.

#2 RamblinSydRumpo on 01.27.09 at 11:40 am

10/10 for Martyrs. Inside is nowhere near as good a film. Starts promisingly but degenerates into a stupid splatterfest which makes absolutely no sense. Ludicrous exercise.
Martyrs on the other hand is one of the best horror films in decades. I found it extremely moving. A stunning achievement.

#3 Axle on 06.03.09 at 12:36 pm

Martyrs is an interesting film, disturbing and thought provoking. As a horror movie, it has done its job–which may be the most one should ask of a horror movie. After all, what is the purpose of the horror genre? To be shocked, startled, reviled, disgusted in the safety of one’s family room or the local theater. Entertainment.

However, it is odd to me how some people seem to find “greatness” in Martyrs. This is not a great film. I do like the acting, the camera work and editing are technically competent, the sound and music good–which quite a few horror films lack! Martyrs is a well-crafted movie in the Hollywood style. (It IS made in the Hollywood style–Media Studies majors get over it…) But, the grand epiphany that supposedly comes through intense and prolonged physical pain as seen in the photographs of other tortured people throughout history, although intriguing, is not supported well enough in the script to overcome my willing suspension of disbelief. The cellar hallway scene, of course, with the Cult’s leader explaining to the main character the need for torture with the photo album (despite the fact that the same larger photos are on the walls next to the actors) is almost comical in its brevity. The film would have been creepier had it delved into the occult and the mysterious efforts of alchemists…or, say, if the secret organization were financed by the Vatican. We’re not told, and I think to the film’s detriment. How can martyrdom be talked about without religion. And, how can torture be rationalized without some self-serving (most would coin this kind of enterprise as evil) intent? Of course, anyone thinking that the male torturer and the others are just “doing their jobs” would probably find “the whole Nazi thing” to be no big deal….

No. What horrifies me about this kind of film is that it glorifies a false intellectualism that treats graphic torture in a relative light. I’m not as worried about “American Rednecks” loving this film as much as the mildly educated 20-somethings who think that they have stumbled upon something deep in this “wicked Euro-flick”–which they’ll probably buy and place next to their TOOL CDs….

#4 somebody on 07.06.09 at 5:14 pm

“Martyrs is a unsettling film, but it is not the penultimate horror film.”

It is not the second to the last horror film? You mean there probably will be more than one horror film after it?

#5 The voice of reason on 12.06.09 at 3:24 pm

F**k. I actually turned to the person at the side of me and apologised to them for making them watch such a god awful, sickeningly disgraceful piece of cinema. What the hell is wrong with the french? Its not daring, its not artful and it certainly isnt worthy of committing to film. Its retentious, disgusting and wrong, plain wrong. What kind of a world do we live in where we can condone such films to continue to be made? Think of all the struggling writers/directors out there who have to fight tooth and nail to ahve their work made, when lets face it all you really have to do is create an excercise in the breaking of the human spirit and then try and pass it off as existential french shit. This made me sad, sad that i would spend money on it, sad that the people in it didint have the sense to smell evil when they put their names to it and sad that no matter what i say these ‘torture porn’ films will continue to be churned out. the only thing that sets this aside from any other (hostel 1/2, Saw 1-6 etc) is that this time they conveniently masked the pointlessness in some ‘religious’ shroud of misguidance. Ridiculous, terrible, shocking and mind numbingly sad. I felt dirty after watching it, anyone that condones this film or actually took away with them some kind of joy or excitement from watching it should be sterilised, and that goes for the director. Oh, and yes….i got the message, i understood the point, i appreciated how well it was shot and how it played with the audiences reconcetions of run-of-the-mill horror genre…and you know what? It was still the worst thign i have ever seen. My comments will no doubt inspire others to watch it, my only advice is….it will be 108 minutes of your life that you will never get back and will leave you a little sadder inside if this is a taste of cinema future

#6 Coby on 06.20.10 at 4:28 am

A METAPHOR for religion (from an atheist perspective).. spoon feeding the lies of religion, the shackles and imprisonment of the rules of religion, the promise of a better life and future and finally when the end is reached (ultimate closeness to God or higher religious state of mind) one is left more confused and without any real answers.

Looking at it in this way.. it all makes sense!

#7 Daz on 06.23.10 at 12:47 am

Two friends actually warned me about watching this film, one apologising for making the other guy watch it. I was told to have something happy to watch after it because it will mess with your happy day. This film has stuck with me, it is a film to make you think, and i enjoyed that about it. At first i thought …. hmmm the cgi could have been better (the shotgun breakfast scene) but i stuck with it. Then it went nasty, very nasty and the ending will be one to upset a happy day. Inside was a movie i had seen before Martyrs and it had nowhere near the impact on me that Martyrs did.

#8 jks on 09.09.10 at 10:24 am

Why do these depressing, nasty, pointless, sadistic movies keep getting made, by clearly talented, educated and intelligent film-makers, and who are the people who time and time again pay their money and then sit, watch and revel in graphically realistic depictions of careful, prolonged and meticulous torture of the helpless and vulnerable ?

The writers/directors/producers of such a wretched, nihilistic, soul-numbing film should truly be held to account for creating this celluloid equivalent of a blood tainted and nauseating splash of vomit.

#9 Coby on 09.13.10 at 7:18 am

Have you not read any of the posts?

#10 jks on 09.14.10 at 4:08 pm

Of course I read the posts and I couldnt care less about any alleged ‘religious metaphor’ or not, and see no evidence whatsoever, from its ‘cheer-leaders’ that this movie has any single redeeming quality.

The same so-called ‘message’ couldve been gotten across without having to ‘belch out’ such a sickening little piece of filth as this.

A film which resorts to such relentless portrayals of abject, brutally wretched and pointlessly debasing dehumanisation as to lose all hope of any ‘enlightened understanding’ being reached by an audience, which has ‘metaphorically’ just been drowned in a bucket of fetid blood.

The majority of the people who paid/pay to watch and ‘enjoy’ this little nugget of ‘graphic sadism-as-entertainment’ most likely couldnt even pronounce the word ‘metaphor’ let alone care less about any deep/hidden/meaningful subtext.

In short, its a pretentious, nasty, shitty little piece of ultra-graphic sadism-dressed-up-as-art that anyone with even a a shred of basic humanity should avoid like they would a turd on the pavement.

#11 Coby on 09.15.10 at 9:31 am

Lol fairy muff..

Perhaps reading film descriptions before viewing would help. Director had into to the film apologising for excessive violence.

Violence doesn’t really bother so I’m probably the wrong person to have this discussion with.. also not the most violent film I’ve seen.

When I saw this I felt that any “explanation” offered towards the end of the film seemed like an after-thought to somehow justify the violence.

After reading the religious metaphor business on here it made me look at the film in a whole new way and made the whole thing a lot more interesting. I would have to say without this metaphor the film seemed quite empty and crap to me.. and whether the portryal of religion from an atheist point of view was the intention of the director is debatable!!

#12 Coby on 09.15.10 at 9:39 am

Also torture being a metaphor for religion..

Going down this road, I don’t think “the same so-called ‘message’ couldve been gotten across” without.. well TORTURE!

Part of me just refuses to believe that Pascal would make a film purely to appeal to “torture-porn” fans! This is not holywood but I guess anything’s possible!

#13 Pix... on 10.15.10 at 3:04 pm

I have no idea how I’d class such a movie. To me it was a well put movie. Production was great. IF we’re trying to find a meaning from it, then good luck.

Martyredom is a religious subject but I did not quite get that message from watching this movie. As a matter of fact It looked more like a cult kind of thing. Everyone seemed to be under the power of the Mademoiselle`. Like she was ruler or something.

The first part I did not quite get. It seemed like somehting knocked up and I was getting quite bored actually. The whole family scene just seemed fake. I didnt see the point in Anna calling her mom. She was being totally unrealistic. how could you even think about dosing off in a house full of dead people and a “creature-like” thing.??? The Latter part of the movie was just wrong. I usually enjoy horror movies but this movie struck my sanity. I was in no mood to do anything I was sorta frozen. It was the height of Inhumanety. It’s like they weren’t humans anymore. They go from “Her” to “it”.

#14 Firegoat on 04.18.11 at 10:00 am

I gave up on this inexecrable, filthy excuse for a film right after the MiB-types haul Anna into the basement and the wizened old hag in the stupid hat starts explaining everything in a feeble attempt to have this film justify its own existence. This garbage is as pretentious as it is sadistic. The people who made this film and the people who appear in it ought to be ashamed of themselves.

#15 Swap on 04.27.11 at 8:40 am

I am speechless. I feel like I have genuinely found that film – a tabula rasa – that attempts to explain us to ourselves. This film transends celluloid and becomes a spiritual experience. Being sui generis best explains this film. Nothing you have ever experienced will prepare you for this film. You will think about it in the days/weeks/months/years to come.

#16 keith on 10.09.11 at 9:01 pm

I write a good ten minutes after experiencing this movie. As a horror movie fan, and someone with an interest in boundaries being pushed, this has left me feeling cold, ill and frightened. A pretentious film? Yes, it probably is. As mentioned by many reviewers here the movie switches about halfway and closely, harshly and brutally displays torture. The film will make you look away from the screen at times, i hope. Humans are curious. If there is an accident, people WILL look, not to help like a good samaritan, but to just witness the outcome. This films raises many many questions. One i am currently pondering, deeply and seriously, is should i ever watch a horror movie again? The film states a very very clear message about violence, torture and our morbid curiosity to witness any painful act. After experieincing this movie you write it off as ‘torture porn’ (god who made that up?) then you really shouldn’t be watching films. A previous review stated ‘you will think about it in the days/weeks/months/years to come’. That statement is so so true. Simply unforgettable. For that reason alone, please do think hard before you decide to watch it. You may never ‘enjoy’ a horror film again.

#17 NM on 10.15.11 at 3:51 pm

This film is brilliant, that much is apparent from the commentary debate of it’s ‘quality’ seen on this thread. It is meant to draw such an intense emotional reaction from the viewer, one never imagined from a simple 108 minute film experience, that you question your choice to even have watched it; it changes your thought patterns if only for a few hours, it sticks with you, and it exhausts you. The writer and director met their goal – horror is meant to disturb, disquiet, stretch the mind, and obviously…horrify. This film does just that in a way that has never been done before, period. Plus, it’s two films in one. It’s possibly the most emotionally exhausting film you’ll ever see, for me it can only be matched by the likes of Schindler’s List, and THAT has a seemingly ‘happy’ ending.

Leave a Comment