MovieChat Forums > Martyrs (2008) Discussion > 'Martyrs' ending explained: 'Keep doubti...

'Martyrs' ending explained: 'Keep doubting' is the key. UPDATED

posted 13 years ago by submachine
278 replies | jump to latest

Anna knows, just like the viewer knows, that discovering the existence of the afterlife is Mademoiselle's life work, so important to her and the cult that they are willing to do anything.

The beauty of the movie (which some viewers have completely missed), is that when Anna whispers to Mademoiselle, we think Mademoiselle wins. We think Mademoiselle gets what she wants. We think Mademoiselle is going to tell the glorious news to the gathering cult. And we think Anna has been reduced to nothing more than a used, mindless, unthinking tool.

But then comes the twist: "Keep doubting...bang!"

And we realize we were wrong, as the director Pascal Laugier explains: "the real point of everything is revealed only in the final seconds of the movie. For me, that was the exciting part of the project."

Anna purposely lied to Mademoiselle and said there was no afterlife, she saw nothing. Anna was the first to speak, and what she spoke convinced Mademoiselle that there was nothing, that her entire life was a futile, evil quest for nothing. Mademoiselle gave up, overcome with guilt and worthlessness, and killed herself. But not before giving a final warning to her friend Ettiene: "Keep doubting (because if you don't, like I didn't, you're gonna end up destroyed like me): Bang!"

It is the one and only thing that Anna could do that would destroy Mademoiselle. Despite her pain throughout the ruined shell of her body, she retained enough strength and humanity in her mind to use the one and only chance she had. With a simple whisper she destroyed her captors, finally avenged her friend, and saved countless girls from falling into the same fate.

Why Martyrs works is that we the audience don't know it happens, can't even fathom it could happen, until the shocking reveal forces us to question all of our previous mistaken notions. We can then reflect upon the foreshadowing in the very beginning of the movie, when young Anna tells the doctors she knows she is there to help Lucie, and to find the bad people who hurt her. When we realize that beaten, barely alive skinned creature was not only willing but able to defeat her captor, that is what makes Martyrs great. It is this unexpected display of strength, loyalty, endurance and sacrifice of Anna, a martyr defined, that elevates the movie to a level far above the horror genre. Anna transcends, and thus Martyrs transcends.

How Martyrs tricks us into the false belief that Mademoiselle and the cult won:

1) The gathering cult leads the viewer to believe there is an incoming victory speech.

2) The conversation between Mademoiselle and Etienne, specifically about getting an answer, getting a clear answer, but still actually the wrong answer.

3) Similar appearing emotional expressions of relief/dejection in Mademoiselles reaction to what Anna said. This distinct lack of sentiment shown by Mademoiselle is not only the key to understanding why she wouldn't "greedily" kill herself to reach the afterlife, but is also why many viewers are confused about her defeat. To someone who doesn't understand psychology, she doesn't seem to be acting suicidal or overtly depressed. And that makes the suicide so much more shocking for the viewer. But apparently it totally confuses some viewers into completely missing the twist that Anna lied, even with the warning of "keep doubting". Mademoiselle is cold, calculating and emotionless, she kills herself with the same lack of emotion as she tortures and kills others. She is a cult-member, and the entirety of that cults existence is finding an answer. Find the wrong answer, and the will to live is simply removed, that awareness is what empowered Anna to endure hell. She told Mademoiselle there was nothing, and Mademoiselle ends her wasted life with the same methodical detachment as she ended the lives of others. That is the truly evil villain the director has given us, not some megalomaniacal comic book character.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] itspoop 12 years ago

I don't really buy this. there seems to be tons of conjecture, not much proof. we are not given what she said, only it's result, madam's suicide. but let's look beyond that. let's look at the structure of the film: it's loaded with doubles, dopplegangers and replacements. if one person dies/is killed, another person fills the vacuum. the mom and dad get killed, they are replaced by a male and female in the same house. the woman lucie left behind has her doppleganger in the woman with the helmet. anna is a replacement for her friend, lucie, as a martyr in the cult. infact, if you look at the way the flashbacks work, you can almost look at the second half of the film as a flashback with anna reprising lucie's role until she reaches martyrdom. my point is, after madam kills herself, she will be replaced, as will anna. even madam's final words are a mirror of anna's after lucie died. she said, "i'm sorry i doubted you." that doubt seems to be what motivates this cycle.

the idea that madam's death at the end, is the end, is wishful thinking at best.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sphar 11 years ago

Regardless of what we thought about the meaning of the end, we all can agree that Martyrs is a movie that deserves high praise for making us think rather than 'witnessing' yet another "horror" movie. We will all witness our end sooner of later after decades of suffering at the hands of gravity, the sun, life in general, and it will be different for each and everyone of us. Mademoiselle found an answer in her search for the ultimate truth so her life's work was done. BANG!

[–] eru0527 11 years ago

Copied from other thread:

I think she saw something, as we follow her "light at the end of the tunnel" point of view.

But my interpretation of the ending is that she on purpose lied/said something about the afterlife as a ploy to get the über-bitch to shoot her fücking face off. I want to interpret it as she getting to fücking shoot her tormentors in the face, although indirectly. That is satisfying for me. Mademoiselle getting the ultimate answer and going to glory in the afterlife - fück that. Anna saying something like "it's incredible, shoot your brains splashing to the the wall and you'll see" and ultimately lying and sending the bitch cünt to hell, that's the ending I infer. Because it's both within what's rational and logical and it totally makes me feel good.

[–] submachine 11 years ago

"it's incredible, shoot your brains splashing to the the wall and you'll see" and ultimately lying and sending the bitch cünt to hell, that's the ending I infer.

That doesn't make sense: If Mademoiselle (thought she) was successful, she would have informed the group. And as a revenge, it doesn't quite work because Mademoiselle believes she was victorious.

That is why I prefer the alternative: ""it's nothingness, shoot your brains splashing to the the wall because you have failed in the only thing that matters to you".

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] eru0527 11 years ago

But why would she wanna die if she thought there was no afterlife and the life on earth was the only one she had? THAT doesn't make sense. If I could reasonably infer that she both gets to have her life's work smooshed and suicide, I would, but I think it's either or... Or what the heck, I'm going for the mademoiselle bitch cünt trifecta and think she also had hair lice.

[–] submachine 11 years ago

But why would she wanna die if she thought there was no afterlife and the life on earth was the only one she had?

There's a name for that, it's called "suicide".

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

But why would she wanna die if she thought there was no afterlife and the life on earth was the only one she had?

There's a name for that, it's called "suicide".

You dodge questions better than the republicans. Suicide is NOT what it's called when you know there is no afterlife and you wanna live the one life you have been given for as long as possible. Survival is the word you were looking for, not suicide.

Someone already brought up an interesting point. Madam kills herself, but Anna is still alive, doesn't someone else just go and question her? No one has addressed that point.

Another question I have been asking myself is doesn't there have to be an afterlife for Anna to transcend and become a Martyr? If there is no afterlife, there is nothing for her to see and she is just a skinned person laying on a table probably in a lot of pain. Possibly even hallucinating. I know the movie kind of hints that there is an afterlife by showing us the vision that Anna has right before Madam comes and talks to her, but could she have been hallucinating that, Oh I don't know, because she had no friggin skin lmao.

Your explanation that Anna was getting revenge on Madam by lying to her is a plausible one simply because if I were in that situation, I would want revenge on my captor, especially after she explained before hand that the reason for my suffering was that I was a science experiment for a bunch of rich people with weird religious beliefs about martyrdom.

I don't know in the end why Madam killed herself and I don't really care why. She was evil and she is gone. I have seen two sides of an interesting argument on why she did it. Both seem plausible, but I commit to neither one because it was left open to interpretation. I can see that she killed herself to rush to an afterlife that Anna described and I can also see that she killed herself because there was an afterlife and her life work was done and I can see her killing herself because there was no afterlife and her life's work was crushed. The film was vague about it on purpose.

As a psychology student, the one thing I do like to ponder about the movie is whether Anna saw an afterlife or not. We as the audience got to see her seeing an afterlife, but who is to say she wasn't hallucinating because of the immense pain she was in. Just too many unanswered questions regarding her state of mind at the time we are shown the afterlife. What does sitting under a heat light for 2 hours with no skin do to the brain? Does it cause hallucinations? Had she had anything to drink recently? What does dehydration do to the human brain. What was the liquid her body was emerged in at the end? Could it have caused hallucinations? What happens to the human brain when someone is skinned alive but survives? Every nerve exposed? Huge amounts of pain? Can that cause hallucinations? I dunno, but it is interesting to think about.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Suicide is NOT what it's called when you know there is no afterlife and you wanna live the one life you have been given for as long as possible.

No, what's that got to do with the movie Martyrs? When you give up and kill yourself like Mademoiselle did it's called suicide.

Madam kills herself, but Anna is still alive, doesn't someone else just go and question her?

No, because she shut-down after Mademoiselle talked to her.

doesn't there have to be an afterlife for Anna to transcend and become a Martyr?

No, she already sacrificed herself for the past-victim (her friend) and for any potential future victims.

I can see that she killed herself to rush to an afterlife

Needlessly ridiculous given the whole gathering cult that was the whole inspiration for Mademoiselle.

I can see her killing herself because there was no afterlife and her life's work was crushed.

The obvious twist, keep doubting is the key because she tells her friend to keep doubting the afterlife, because it's the false-belief that will destroy you.

the one thing I do like to ponder about the movie is whether Anna saw an afterlife or not.

That's the only mystery in Martyrs. But if there is an afterlife and Anna lied about it to destroy Mademoiselle, let's hope Mademoiselle doesn't end up there, at least not in any pleasant section.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

No, what's that got to do with the movie Martyrs? When you give up and kill yourself like Mademoiselle did it's called suicide.

She did indeed commit suicide, congrats on figuring that out. The question that was posed to you though is why would someone commit suicide if it had just been revealed to them that there is no afterlife and you only have whats left of your life to live. And I am not buying the scenario that she was down and depressed because her life's work had been shattered. Madam was too cold for that, she was a survivor and had survived for what, 17 years searching for answers. With 4 previous failed attempts, she never gave up after those attempts, she just kept going.

No, because she shut-down after Mademoiselle talked to her.

You can assume all day long she shut down after Madam talked to her, but that's actually not what happened. Ettiene very clearly states that Anna is "as we speak" still alive and if she spoke to Madam, why wouldn't she speak to the next person that came a askin? As a matter of fact, as the movie is ending, we see Anna still emerged in the liquid and we can neither tell whether she has shut down or whether she is alive. But if saying she is shut down supports only your theory, then run with it.

No, she already sacrificed herself for the past-victim (her friend) and for any potential future victims.

She didn't sacrifice herself for anything. She had no clue the cult even existed when Lucie offed herself. She didn't offer herself willingly to these people, they took her and gave her no choice. And now that Madam is dead and the cult doesn't have their answer, she most certainly didn't sacrifice herself to save any potential future victims, because now with Madam gone with the answer, they have to find another victim to get their answer.

Needlessly ridiculous given the whole gathering cult that was the whole inspiration for Mademoiselle.

I think the cult played a more minor role in Madam's motives than you give them credit for. I see them as more of a bankroll for Madam's own selfish motives and Madam having just enough of an interesting theory for all these old rich folks to buy into. Madam used their fear of old age and death and the unknown to get what she wanted out of them, allowing her to find the answer. I personally feel like Madam got her answer and said screw the others. BANG.

The obvious twist, keep doubting is the key because she tells her friend to keep doubting the afterlife, because it's the false-belief that will destroy you.

I think you get the part where she asked Etienne if he was capable of imagining the afterlife and he says no mixed together with the part where she says a simple keep doubting. Keep doubting what? She never says, she just blows her head off. If she had instead asked him, "Do you believe in an afterlife Etienne?" and he said no then I would connect the two, but she was simply asking him if he could picture it, which in my mind made her statement about keep doubting more about it being more than you could ever handle or it will drive you insane.

That's the only mystery in Martyrs. But if there is an afterlife and Anna lied about it to destroy Mademoiselle, let's hope Mademoiselle doesn't end up there, at least not in any pleasant section.

Agreed, I think it would be funny if Madam ended up inside Anna's eyeball for all of eternity and had to witness the acts she had a hand in committing on Anna forever.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

why would someone commit suicide if it had just been revealed to them that there is no afterlife
and you only have whats left of your life to live.

The same reason anyone else commits suicide, its calling giving up, and what better reason to give up than to finally receive the answer that you've been waiting for, except it's the wrong answer and your entire life has been wasted and worthless?

4 previous failed attempts, she never gave up after those attempts, she just kept going.

This wasn't a failed attempt, that's why you're confused. This was the first success, but it resulted in the wrong answer, proving her lifelong quest meaningless, destroying her.

if she spoke to Madam, why wouldn't she speak to the next person

They stated in the movie that she spoke in her brief moment of revelation, and then went back to her catatonic state.

She had no clue the cult even existed when Lucie offed herself.

As a child she even promised the doctor to avenge Lucie, in a moment of foreshadowing that you missed.

She didn't offer herself willingly to these people, they took her and gave her no choice.

The choice, again clearly in the movie midway throughout her torture, was to stop fighting and endure the punishment, with the help of (imaginary) Lucie.

I think the cult played a more minor role in Madam's motives than you give them credit for. I see them as more of a bankroll for Madam's own selfish motives and Madam having just enough of an interesting theory for all these old rich folks to buy into.

No evidence for that, and it's a silly theory almost like Mademoiselle is a goofy comic book villian. Martyrs is not another superhero Hollywood blockbuster, don't insult it. The cult was an insidious underground organization with many facets and participants.

Keep doubting what?

Keep doubting the afterlife, it was clear warning to her friend. She did not keep doubting, she believed, and when she was told by Anna her belief was false, it completely destroyed her.

with Madam gone with the answer, they have to find another victim to get their answer.

Mademoiselles suicide, plus her last words 'keep doubting' is more than enough to destroy the cult forever. This was Annas main goal, to destroy Mademoiselle not to punish her, since she did actually see an afterlife so who knows what comes next. But to stop the cult from torturing others like lucie or herself or the other one she witnessed.

Agreed, I think it would be funny if Madam ended up inside Anna's eyeball for all of eternity and had to witness the acts she had a hand in committing on Anna forever.

We need a sequel. Police arrive, rescue Anna, emergency surgery and then months later she tells her story.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

The same reason anyone else commits suicide, its calling giving up, and what better reason to give up than to finally receive the answer that you've been waiting for, except it's the wrong answer and your entire life has been wasted and worthless?

It's ok to assume that is what happened, but since it is not shown or stated directly in the movie, it is just an assumption. One could just as easily assume she got the answer she did want and had no reason to hang around anymore.

This wasn't a failed attempt, that's why you're confused. This was the first success, but it resulted in the wrong answer, proving her lifelong quest meaningless, destroying her.

Again, we don't know what was said to her, so we are left to assume. It could just as easily be said that she got the answer she wanted and decided she was done. Both assumptions can be right or wrong. But Madam doesn't strike me as someone who has invested so much time in a project like this, years and years, and just gives up after having a 10 second conversation with someone because she doesn't get the answer she wants. Madam strikes me as someone who would just keep going and keep going until she did get the answer she wanted. Kind of common in religious nutjobs, you can present evidence to them all day long, but their life long learned FAITH justs keeps them going and going and going.

They stated in the movie that she spoke in her brief moment of revelation, and then went back to her catatonic state.

So there is a history of her coming in and out of her catatonic state, lovely. Means she could come out of it again and report what she had seen to someone else.

As a child she even promised the doctor to avenge Lucie, in a moment of foreshadowing that you missed.

I think you read a little too much in that foreshadowing. It was all over the news that the girl had been abducted and tortured and then had escaped. She was promising the doctor to help Lucie get revenge on her captors. Which she did at the beginning of the movie. No one, not even Lucie knew of the existence of the cult until it was revealed to the audience. But she sure as heck helped Lucie get revenge on the original captors you know moving dead bodies and all.

The choice, again clearly in the movie midway throughout her torture, was to stop fighting and endure the punishment, with the help of (imaginary) Lucie.

Again, she was not there willingly she was given no choice. It is a common human defense mechanism to tune out the pain.

No evidence for that, and it's a silly theory almost like Mademoiselle is a goofy comic book villian. Martyrs is not another superhero Hollywood blockbuster, don't insult it. The cult was an insidious underground organization with many facets and participants.

The cult can be whatever the eff it wants to be that doesn't change Madam's motives for being a part of the cult. And it doesn't make her a comic book super villain, I don't even know where you pulled that from. It makes her a greedy, greedy human being, which look around you, they are everywhere, especially among the rich and powerful.

Keep doubting the afterlife, it was clear warning to her friend. She did not keep doubting, she believed, and when she was told by Anna her belief was false, it completely destroyed her.

Her exact words were "Keep Doubting" BANG... she never says what it is he is supposed to be doubting. You like to continuously attach "the afterlife" to that phrase when it wasn't spoken that way. But it's ok, if it reinforces your theory, then more power to you. In reality though they were discussing whether or not he could picture the afterlife and he says no and she says keep doubting, which plays in my mind as keep doubting because it is beyond imagining and trying will drive you insane. BANG. Common in literature it is called the Promethean Principle. Someone seeks knowledge and gains the knowledge. The seeker is then filled with regret for what they have learned. The knowledge destroys them psychically, or completely destroys the person who holds the knowledge.

Mademoiselles suicide, plus her last words 'keep doubting' is more than enough to destroy the cult forever. This was Annas main goal, to destroy Mademoiselle not to punish her, since she did actually see an afterlife so who knows what comes next. But to stop the cult from torturing others like lucie or herself or the other one she witnessed.

Ok in one response you say the cult is an insidious underground organization with many facets and participants who aren't to be insulted and in the next you say they can be brought down by words from a girl that they never get to hear and in fact only one man out of the many gathered there even got to hear what Madam said about keep doubting. I need you to make up your mind man either they are an incredible organization that need not be insulted, or they are puny and can be brought to their knees by words they never hear. I think your theory on that only works if Madam actually addresses everyone and tells them as a whole to keep doubting and then BANG. Also we don't know that Anna sees an afterlife as she could have very easily have been hallucinating and that's what the director wanted us to see.

We need a sequel. Police arrive, rescue Anna, emergency surgery and then months later she tells her story.

As long as Madam is trapped in her eyeball for all eternity, I am game.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Madam strikes me as someone who would just keep going and keep going until she did get the answer she wanted. Kind of common in religious nutjobs, you can present evidence to them all day long, but their life long learned FAITH justs keeps them going and going and going.

Like a one-dimensional superhero villain, except again, this isn't a superhero movie. The director couldn't have been more obvious to make all the cult members lacking in sentiment. The key fact that you're not including is Anna was the first, the only, the one. All was riding on Anna. The gathering cult, all coming to hear what Anna said. The pressure was on Mademoiselle and she crumbled, because she is weak, while Anna was strong. Mademoiselle did keep going and going, until she got what she wanted, which was an answer. The viewer thinks its the answer she wanted...until she kills herself in shamed defeat. That shocking twist reveals that its the answer she didn't want, and we understand why Anna stopped struggling and gave in to the torture. We understand her plan, as martyr, to sacrifice herself and defeat them all completely.

there is a history of her coming in and out of her catatonic state

Once is not a history. It was the first and only time it ever happened, and implied in the movie that it certainly wouldn't happen again with Anna.

She was promising the doctor to help Lucie get revenge on her captors. Which she did at the beginning of the movie.

It was the end of the movie where Anna got her final revenge, defeating them completely, fulfilling the foreshadowing (which is a dramatic element, it doesn't necessitate knowledge by the characters).

It is a common human defense mechanism to tune out the pain.

It was explicitly pointed out that Anna stopped struggling and gave in to the torture, finding strength in Lucies memory. After the twist, her plan as martyr was now revealed to us, to sacrifice herself and defeat them all completely.

It makes her a greedy, greedy human being

In your mind, like a one-dimensional superhero movie villain, but in the movie she is a leading cult member doing her job, same as all the others, if anything lacking emotion or feeling. All eventually gathering to celebrate their long quest together. "Cult" is the key word you're missing. They are the evil, which is what makes the movie work. Not just a crazy old greedy lady, poor storytelling and painful to watch.

keep doubting because it is beyond imagining and trying will drive you insane...The knowledge destroys them psychically, or completely destroys the person who holds the knowledge..

Like I said, a warning to her friend so he doesn't end up broken and destroyed like her.

I need you to make up your mind man either they are an incredible organization that need not be insulted, or they are puny and can be brought to their knees by words they never hear.

I need you to understand this isn't a simplistic superhero movie. Cults and their members gain power from belief. Their belief may compel them to accomplish great evil things, but once that belief is crushed, they have nothing. That is what Anna did, and the dramatic message of failure was better captured with a suicide than a monologue. That shocking twist is what elevates Martyrs.

we don't know that Anna sees an afterlife as she could have very easily have been hallucinating

If Anna was hallucinating it renders anything she says to Mademoiselle unknowingly false, again poor storytelling.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

I guess what I am trying to say in everyday English is that you might be right but you might be wrong. We can argue our projected viewpoints on this movie all day long, but since none of it was shown to either of us, they are just interpretations and our take on things. Which is what the director probably wanted. Good debate. Have a good one.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

I think the lack of sentiment shown by Mademoiselle is not only the key to understanding why she wouldn't "greedily" kill herself to reach the afterlife, but is also why many viewers are confused about her defeat. To someone who doesn't understand psychology, she doesn't seem to be acting suicidal or overtly depressed. And that makes the suicide so much more shocking for the viewer. But apparently it totally confuses some viewers into completely missing the twist that Anna lied, even with the warning of "keep doubting". Mademoiselle is cold, calculating and emotionless, she kills herself with the same lack of emotion as she tortures and kills others. She is a cult-member, and the entirety of that cults existence is finding an answer. Find the wrong answer, and the will to live is simply removed, that awareness is what empowered Anna to endure hell. She told Mademoiselle there was nothing, and Mademoiselle ends her wasted life with the same methodical detachment as she ended the lives of others. That is the truly evil villain the director has given us, not some megalomaniacal comic book character.

I guess what I am trying to say in everyday English is that you might be right but you might be wrong. We can argue our projected viewpoints on this movie all day long, but since none of it was shown to either of us, they are just interpretations and our take on things. Which is what the director probably wanted. Good debate. Have a good one.

Anyone can have an opinion, but when your opinion isn't informed by the evidence then it can be dismissed. In this case, as I showed in my last post, the director had a clear plan for Martyrs, not just the twist, but the story as a whole. Anyone can say something like Mademoiselle shot herself because she ran out of anti-depressant medication that morning, but that would be bad storytelling. My interpretation is not only backed by the evidence the director has given us, but is also by far the best story, and if I've made any assumptions it's that the director knows how to tell a great story.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

I will say it again. You are free to INTERPRET the movie how you want. But just because you think you can read the directors mind does not make it so. Maybe he wasn't a very good story teller. Maybe he was. We will never know. And your interpretation isn't backed by anything. You have interpreted the movie to fit with your theory. Well done. If your interpretation were backed up by evidence, you wouldn't need an interpretation. And that I think is the genius of Martyrs. It left everything open to interpretation so that 6 years later you are still sitting here talking about this movie. And no you can't dismiss anyone's interpretation because of lack of evidence, as none was given in the movie. If it were, we wouldn't be sitting here asking questions about this movie. And hey buddy, saying Madam killed herself because she ran out of anti depressant meds would be a better explanation then some I have heard here. And it's not bad storytelling, it just goes to show the imperfect nature of human's. They very often don't follow the guidelines one would think logical. If they did, half of literature and movie would not currently exist. People wouldn't be walking into schools and killing people they have never met. They would seek therapy. Which I suggest you go do.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Maybe he wasn't a very good story teller. Maybe he was. We will never know.

We don't know if you're a good storyteller. We know Pascal Laugier is...because Martyrs. So that's another factual error on your part.

If your interpretation were backed up by evidence, you wouldn't need an interpretation.

Interpretation was your word, my post explains Martyrs based on the evidence and the clues the director has given us, even if you missed half of those clues. And now I think I'll append my original post with one of my replies to you, so you've been useful for something.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

Glad to help. And no, we don't know if Laugier is a good story teller or not and if you watch the movie you will clearly be able to see at different points it is almost like watching two different movies entirely. So maybe he was a bad story teller and didn't know where he wanted to go with the movie, so we are left with Martyrs. And you can't use the work you are debating to prove he is a good story teller because it is still up for debate. That's like saying the bible is true and when asked why you think the bible is true saying, because that's what it says in the bible. Kind of childish actually.

Interpretation was your word, my post explains Martyrs based on the evidence and the clues the director has given us, even if you missed half of those clues.

Once again there was no evidence, only YOUR interpretation of things you saw in the movie that were not actually revealed the way you interpret them. You can assign meaning to every single thing you saw in the movie that's fine, what you can't do is sit here and say that is the way the director intended for them to be interpreted. Unless of course you are Laugier. And no I didn't miss any clues, just choose to interpret some of them differently than you. Some of them I interpret the same as you. Again, it comes back to we will never really know.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

And you can't use the work you are debating to prove he is a good story teller because it is still up for debate.

Now you're confusing debate over meaning with debate over quality, described by you as "genius".

what you can't do is sit here and say that is the way the director intended for them to be interpreted.

No really I can, I solved the puzzle, just like I did with:

Mulholland Drive - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/board/inline/228920508

Donnie Darko - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/board/inline/230716142

etc

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

LMAO No you can't. Just because you claim to have solved something, doesn't make it so. lmao. Troll-ol-ol-ol.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Just because you claim to have solved something, doesn't make it so.

We're all witnessing your continued inability to refute my explanation, using, ya know, actual evidence from Martyrs.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

I can't and neither can you, there is none. It's all open for interpretation. And don't speak for others besides yourself, as we are the only two idiots still left on this thread of yours that you use to troll your other movie analysis'.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

It's all open for interpretation.

It's a solved puzzle, just because not everyone can solve it (such as yourself) doesn't mean it can't be solved as my threads prove.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

I did solve it, the way I want it solved. The same as you, just with a different take on it. Since the movie doesn't present us with the answer, there isn't one, we get to make crap up lol. Your THEORIES are interesting though.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

I did solve it

Your solution isn't backed up by evidence, and it was dismissed by this post which you have been unable to respond to:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029234/board/inline/188235766?d=232758978#232758978

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

None of what I said was SOLUTIONS, just like everything you said, they were THEORIES. And as it was left open to interpretation,there is no evidence, only THEORIES. Since we are throwing around wild theories, let's shatter all of yours and tell the bleeding masses whats really going on in the movie and back it up with evidence actually shown in the movie.

Anna revealed to Madam that there is an afterlife. Madam who is clearly dying of terminal cancer, decides to kill herself instead of continuing to suffer now that she knows the answer to the afterlife questions.

Evidence: Before she sticks a gun in her mouth and blows her brains all over the wall, Madam very clearly removes all of her fake hair and eyelashes before proceeding to blow her head off. Clear video evidence within the movie itself, that shows Madam is dying of something terminal. Also revealing her true motivations for torturing people. She is not a greedy superhero villain, she is simply dying and scared.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Madam who is clearly dying of terminal cancer, decides to kill herself instead of continuing to suffer now that she knows the answer to the afterlife questions.

More one-dimensional nonsense.

The evidence in the movie explicitly points to Mademoiselle as leading cult member doing her job, same as all the others, lacking emotion or even individuality. All eventually gathering to celebrate their long quest together. "Cult" is the key word you're still missing. They as members are the evil, which is what makes the movie work. Not an individual villain, not just a sick old lady, poor storytelling and painful to watch.

The only individual thing Mademoiselle was kill herself, because she received an unexpected answer, outside the programming of the cult. So sure were they all of success, failure was never even contemplated, thus suicide, with a last warning to her friend and the last clue for the clueless viewer.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

You are wrong. I have the video evidence. The rest is just your fancy spin on how you want the movie to end up. And no, we don't know that Madam was thoughtless or emotionless because she is only shown for a screen time of maybe two minutes, so for you to even say that is just an assumption and also turns her into the comic book super villain you keep railing against. And of course the cult expected the possibility of failure you idiot, it is an experiment, and all experiments are open for failures and successes. And by your reasoning, " Success was what they expected" then we truly do have a pointless bad story of a cult wasting time and money and hurting people, performing experiments on people when they already know the answer. Ridiculous, Madam was sick and dying as evidenced by the movie, Anna told her about the afterlife, she decides she doesn't have to suffer from her illness anymore and BANG!

[–] submachine 10 years ago

we don't know that Madam was thoughtless or emotionless

We do, because thats the character the director gave us.

the cult expected the possibility of failure

Did you see the movie? They were gathering to hear the good news, evidenced by the excitement of Etienne. Success was expected because of Anna speaking you dolt, you really should watch the movie again as you have extremely poor comprehension.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

Did you see the movie? They were gathering to hear the good news, evidenced by the excitement of Etienne. Success was expected because of Anna speaking you dolt, you really should watch the movie again as you have extremely poor comprehension.

They were gathering to hear news period.

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

Also, Etienne was more anxious than excited. He kept questioning Madam for clarity remember. And then there was the whole thing with his doubts. And yes Madam was portrayed for all of 2 minutes as cold and emotionless by the director. She was also portrayed as dying and suffering by the director, hence her removing her fake hair and eyelashes and blowing her brains out.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

This was a very interesting interpretation of the ending. But it has one major fault : Why oh why would the Mademoiselle believe what Anna said to her, as if Anna was the most impartial witness? Anna had every possible reason to lie in order to get her revenge, so why would Madam fall so easily for her lie? Did the old fox assume that the experience Anna had somehow changed her and made her willing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Why would she assume that? Why wouldn't Anna want to have her revenge even when barely clinging to life? Actually her intense pain and suffering would be a very strong motive to lie so that she had her revenge. So why was Madam, a thoroughly cynical and ruthless person, so freaking naive in the very end?

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

why would the Mademoiselle believe what Anna said to her

Why would she torture girls for decades to hear one of them speak, if they are going to question that speech? The entire premise of the movie is that the cult transforms the girls into Martyrs, witnesses.

Mademoiselle didn't think she could lie, just like you didn't think she could lie, until it was revealed that she did lie. That is the genius twist, the shock that this catatonic skinned creature is not just an unthinking unfeeling victim, but mentally strong enough to avenge her friend, and end the cult for good. Did you miss it?

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Darth_Fett 10 years ago

LOL, no... you just made that. You're such a sad and pathetic person. You've been on here over 2 years pushing your stupid theories as fact, and belittling anyone else that perceives it differently from you.

You FAIL at life.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

For someone that detests that this movie be viewed as "a superhero movie", you sure make it sound like one: A stronger than usual avenging protagonist (or "the one"), defying all odds, and surviving in the face of inexplicable pain and resistance; with her final breath mutters the words that will destroy the evil and insidious cult leader, creating a domino effect that disables all remaining cult members from continuing their evil ways across the land, while also avenging the early death of her avenging sidekick.

Sounds like a (insert action star) saves the world movie to me. I would like to think that this was a different kind of movie. I mean, that's exactly the chain of events that I WOULD expect from hundreds (if not thousands) of other movies.

So you're saying that M is told that there is no after life (a ruse created by our avenging, and fallen, hero), and commits suicide based on the false words of her arch nemesis? I thought she was more cunning than that! I figured she would have stubbornly done what you've been doing, which is simply not accept an opposing answer to a long standing question, and just kept going at it.

/sarcasm

Your "theory" would hold more weight if all (or most) of the attempts had actually been successful, and they all relayed the same information. I mean, would you commit instant suicide over the first person that told you that your life's work was meaningless? Wouldn't you want confirmation from more than one source before deciding that it's true? What if the first source of information was wrong (as you believe it was)? It happens. People are wrong all the time. Even highly intelligent, educated, and motivated people can be wrong on occassion. It happens.

What M heard had to have been something that she agreed with. If she didn't agree with it, she's just the kind of motivated individual that would have pulled a "submachine", and would not have accepted the answer as indisputable fact. Now, if she had heard the same exact claim of "nothingness" by 3 - 5 different on-the-brink-of-death martyr experiments, your theory would have stronger legs to stand on.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

So you're saying that M is told that there is no after life (a ruse created by our avenging, and fallen, hero), and commits suicide based on the false words of her arch nemesis? I thought she was more cunning than that

She isn't more cunning than that, which is why you're wrong.

would you commit instant suicide over the first person that told you that your life's work was meaningless?

Would you torture young women for after-life secrets? Your analogies are ridiculous. People do commit suicide, and the reason they commit suicide is the exact same reason Mademoiselle did: They give up. If you still don't get it, there is the warning for her friend Etienne, plus the dejection of the cult which she led.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

She isn't more cunning than that, which is why you're wrong.

Well, then that just makes M a weakly written antagonist; fooled by the very first person that had magic beans to sell. I can almost hear that losing chime when a contestant in a game show answers a question incorrectly.

If that's how it plays out, then she has no business being the leader of anything, and the movie has gotten more credit than it deserves.

Would you torture young women for after-life secrets?

No, but M did. However, I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. If she's motivated enough to experiment on this for decades, I'd like to think that she's ambitious enough to not go all emo the first time someone has a conflicting answer for her.

People do commit suicide, and the reason they commit suicide is the exact same reason Mademoiselle did: They give up.

People also spend decades kidnapping, torturing, and murdering young women for after-life secrets. M is, for all intents and purposes, a serial killer. You want to know when THESE types of people kill themselves (if they ever do): Right before they're caught by the police, or right before they're going to get slaughtered by inmates in a prison.

She gave up? Please. You're analyzing her like a common case of suicidal depression. She's a rich, calculating, egocentric, ruthless killer. She can't be analyzed on the same level as "other people".

If you still don't get it, there is the warning for her friend Etienne, plus the dejection of the cult which she led.

The "warning" and "dejection" is nothing more than your interpretation. That's how you chose to accept the situation to fuel your desire for a happy ending (the good guys win, and the bad guys lose). If such a well organized, and well funded, cult would fold under the weight of a couple of cryptic and unclear sets of words, it's a complete miracle that they lasted as long as they did - A Shyamalan-esque leader would have imploded that cult in a week.

What's odd is that you're patting yourself on the back for deciphering what you think is a brilliant brainteaser by turning it into such a simple and ordinary formula: Our hero, in the final moments finds the strength for one final act that will destroy the evill cult, once and for all.

You can't assume a brilliantly complicated film and back it up with: Well, she killed herself because that's what people do when they have nothing left to live for. You're dumbing down the character to be like any other person who commits suicide, which by extension dumbs down the movie by practically hitting every hollywood cliche that mainstream audiences eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Oh, I get it. I just think it's flimsy, at best.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Well, then that just makes M a weakly written antagonist;

Incorrect again, it makes her human, flawed, fooled by her ego into believe she won, just like the audience was fooled. Brilliant script, even if some audience members ego also can't admit they too were tricked.

If she's motivated enough to experiment on this for decades, I'd like to think that she's ambitious enough to not go all emo the first time someone has a conflicting answer for her.

It's been said in this thread before, all a believer has is their belief, more so when that belief is strong and means everything to them "for decades". . if you destroy that belief you destroy the person. Also you underestimate the impact of this being the very first time they received an answer, everything ride on this answer, the cult has gathered from around the world just to hear it, and celebrate. That there was finally an answer, but the wrong answer, a negative answer, was more than enough to crush the will of Mademoiselle.

M is, for all intents and purposes, a serial killer.

Thus the core of your confusion. The killing is incidental. Mademoiselle is at heart a coward, clinging to a belief that there is something beyond, ,a belief so strong she would risk murder to confirm it, a belief so strong that once falsified, it can do nothing else but destroy her.

a well organized, and well funded, cult would fold under the weight of a couple of cryptic and unclear sets of words,

Nothing unclear about a bullet to the head, no more surer sign of loss than what the director gave us. Etienne and the cult will be devastated beyond saving.

You're dumbing down the character to be like any other person who commits suicide

Granting her superhuman powers would be the dumbing down. Again, to the credit of the director and what makes Martyrs work so well is the villains are not supervillians, explicitly and extensively displayed by the mother, the father, and their two children. They are regular people. We don't acknowledge it, because their crimes are so heinous. Until we are forced to acknowledge it at the finale, the "evil villain" was actually a scared old lady who couldn't handle defeat or shame, the "helpless victim" was not as helpless as we thought. You, the audience, your assumptions were wrong, and you had no idea you were wrong until you heard that shocking gunshot (some still don't realize their wrong).

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

... it makes her human, flawed, fooled by her ego into believe she won,

Human? Flawed? Well, that would be just about the greatest excuse to forgive any ill-thought decision any movie character has ever made. Give me any movie decision you've ever hated, and it can instantly be countered with: Well, the human and flawed nature of people make the terrible decisions they made easier to swallow, because, well, you just never know what people will do at any given moment.

...just like the audience was fooled.

Here, you're just convinced that viewers were generally tricked into believing that M got the answers that she was looking for, but since no one knows what she was told, and M wasn't developed enough to fully understand her motives for shooting herself, it's a huge strecth to assume that audiences were "fooled" rather than confused.

She's told something, but the viewer doesn't know what it is. She shoots herself, but the viewer doesn't know why. What she heard was crystal clear to her, but went unheard to everyone else. What we do know as a fact was that whatever she heard compelled her to shoot herself. Was she fooled? As much as you'd stake your life on it, we don't know. There simply isn't enough information given to the viewer to (a) know whether or not what Anna said was true or false - She is, after all, "humanly flawed" too; and (b) to know what info is the particular info that compelled M to shoot herself.

Since we know so little, she could have just as easily shot herself in a selfish, ego-driven act (isn't suicided usually viewed as a selfish act?) to keep the secret to herself. "Keep doubting" could just as easily mean: I've got the answer, and if you want it too, "keep doubting" will get you there. Just because she's spent decades looking for an answer with others doesn't mean that she was willing to share the rewards with them. There isn't enough info to assume that she would, and being presented as ice cold (and theorized as "flawed") doesn't help that assumption.

Either way, none of these theories would hold water in court. Not enough evidence.

It's been said in this thread before, all a believer has is their belief, more so when that belief is strong and means everything to them "for decades". . if you destroy that belief you destroy the person.

Again, you're assuming. We don't know if her beliefs were destroyed, because no one knows what Anna told her. Shooting herself might have been a good thing from her POV. We don't know the humanly flawed M well enough to decide (much less, assume) either way.

Also you underestimate the impact of this being the very first time they received an answer, everything ride on this answer, the cult has gathered from around the world just to hear it, and celebrate. That there was finally an answer

Why does EVERYTHING ride on this answer? Because YOU need it to? M takes "the answer" to the grave with her, and I find it illogical that you would assume (there's that word again) that it wouldn't spark curiosity to try again. This is a very rich group of INDIVIDUALS that want to know "the answer"- Simply calling it a "cult" seems to give you the impression that they have a singularly controlled mind similar to the droid army in Star Wars. Who knows what these rich individuals were thinking when M shot herself. I'm sure that they were angry, confused, and disappointed that M didn't share what she heard. Since they don't know exactly why she shot herself, it's silly to assume that their curiosity wouldn't bankroll another attempt; hopefully with a less selfish and flawed leader.

I also find it silly that you'd assume that Anna "planned" the complete destruction of a cult without knowing how far her words would reach. In her state, do we even know if she's aware of what she's saying? The answer: No, we don't know. Even if your theory (that she lied to M)was correct, her words died with M anyway - That she shot herself without sharing "the lie" doesn't answer any substantial questions for rich, morally flexible individuals looking for substantial answers. Anna couldn't have known how her words would have been interpreted since she can't know the legths of how (and by whom) those words were going to be analyzed.

...but the wrong answer, a negative answer, was more than enough to crush the will of Mademoiselle.

Again, another assumption. No one knows that since no one knows what Anna said to M.

Thus the core of your confusion. The killing is incidental. Mademoiselle is at heart a coward, clinging to a belief that there is something beyond, ,a belief so strong she would risk murder to confirm it, a belief so strong that once falsified, it can do nothing else but destroy her.

I'm talking about real serial killers; not some Freddy Krueger-like character that's "destroyed" in the face of a few well-timed words. All serial killers are obviously motivated, but carry varying degrees of "cowards at heart", and none of them, especially those that have been in business for as long as M has, have beliefs that are flimsy enough to be destroyed by words with questionable credibility. They've heard it all before, which suggests that M heard something entirely new to her; something powerful enough to make suicide an almost immediate action. Since we don't know what came out of Anna's mouth, you can even theororize that what M heard was the voice of a devine being, using Anna as a vessle to relay the message.

A conscious ruse by Anna to fool M just simply feels too Hollywood, and would be something that I'd expect from an american remake.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

There is enough evidence, and it's all within this thread (and the last one that had too many posts) regarding the clues the director has given us.

Who knows what these rich individuals were thinking when M shot herself.

Etienne knows, because Mademoiselle warned him to keep doubting.

Anna couldn't have known how her words would have been interpreted since she can't know the legths of how (and by whom) those words were going to be analyzed....M heard something entirely new to her; something powerful enough to make suicide an almost immediate action..

Anna knew what they wanted, knew she was the first in decades to give it to them, and knew exactly what to say to cause Mademoiselle to kill herself after warning Etienne to keep doubting there is an afterlife.

you can even theororize that what M heard was the voice of a devine being, using Anna as a vessle to relay the message.

Your theories aren't based on facts, specifically the fact about the warning to Etienne, and the fact that Mademoiselle had the cult gather to celebrate the good news.

A conscious ruse by Anna to fool M just simply feels too Hollywood

Funny that you're calling the movie too Hollywood, when the director misdirected you so powerfully that you still can't see what really happened. Mademoiselle killed herself in defeat because Anna gave her the reply she didn't want. To not realize that, the moment the gunshot goes off, is to miss one of the greatest twists in film history. Watching you desperately try defend your initial false belief, despite new evidence, is an unexpected joy of Martyrs, for example:

bullet to the head raises more questions than it answers. Why did she do it? No one knows.

No one knows why people commit suicide? lol! But the director gave us more: Annas foreshadowing promise? Mademoiselle warning her friend? And then abandoning the cult she just gathered as their leader? Shameful defeat. Anna won, and what you missed again is that it was her unexpected, shocking victory that elevates Martyrs above the typical Hollywood horror movie.

Another article talking about my thread: "My favourite take on the ending is that Anna lied to Mademoiselle intentionally. Mademoiselle’s punishment for doing these horrible things to Anna was that she was told there was no afterlife and rather than have failed her followers she kills herself. Mademoiselle’s evil means will justify her end." - http://whatculture.com/film/10-unanswered-horror-movie-questions-that-keep-us-up-at-night.php/4

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

There is enough evidence, and it's all within this thread (and the last one that had too many posts) regarding the clues the director has given us.

Let me guess. Does this "evidence" entail a theororized warning, and an invitation to gather people together for a celebration? Is that it? Sounds like an interpretation to me, especially since there are too many unanswered variables to assume almost anything as a hard fact.

M shoots herself = Fact
M shoots herself because of something that she heard from Anna = Probable
M shoots herself because Anna told her there was nothing after life = Theory

There are theories and interpretations roaming around because there is no difinitive conclusion presented to the audience. Everything really rides on what M heard from Anna, and since the director made a diliberate decision to not let anyone know what Anna said, it's not a stretch that the director diliberately aimed for an ambiguous ending; open for interpretation and theories. Why do this? Well, to spark endless conversation years after release, of course. If there was a difinitive conclusion there wouldn't be anything to argue, and instead we'd be talking about how much we loved or hated the conclusion, which is less interesting food for thought.

You only think you've figured it out when what you've actually done is agreed with a theory.

Etienne knows, because Mademoiselle warned him to keep doubting.

M told Etienne to keep doubting = Fact
Etienne fully understood what that meant = Theory

Anna knew what they wanted, knew she was the first in decades to give it to them, and knew exactly what to say to cause Mademoiselle to kill herself after warning Etienne to keep doubting there is an afterlife.

In her state, do we even know if she's aware of what she's saying? The answer: No, we don't know.

Your theories aren't based on facts

Neither are yours. However, I'm not patting myself on the back for "figuring it out" with a theory either.

Funny that you're calling the movie too Hollywood, when the director misdirected you so powerfully that you still can't see what really happened. Mademoiselle killed herself in defeat because Anna gave her the reply she didn't want. To not realize that, the moment the gunshot goes off, is to miss one of the greatest twists in film history. Watching you desperately try defend your initial false belief, despite new evidence, is an unexpected joy of Martyrs, for example:

Ugh. Where to I start with this?

Funny that you're calling the movie too Hollywood

I'm calling your theory too Hollywood. I'd expect more from this movie.

when the director misdirected you so powerfully that you still can't see what really happened.

What really happened? Your theory? The theory where our tortured beyond recognition hero finds the strength for one final act that'll destroy our villain once and for all? Powerful stuff. I haven't seen anything like that before.

Again, I'd expect something more thought-provoking than that.

Mademoiselle killed herself in defeat because Anna gave her the reply she didn't want.

M heard words come out of Anna's mouth = Fact
M killed herself in defeat because Anna gave her the reply she didn't want = Theory

To not realize that, the moment the gunshot goes off, is to miss one of the greatest twists in film history.

Let me get this straight. To not realize that a theory was in effect, the moment that M shoots herself, is to miss one of the greatest twists in film history? Yikes.

For me to accept that, I would have to believe that Anna made a conscious effort to fool M into killing herself. Since there are too many variables that punch holes into that theory, I would have had to have suspended disbelief to have caught "one of the greatest twists in film history". I would have had to have made assumptions, filled blanks in with speculation, or even made stuff up, or lied to myself, to have had that "A-HA!" moment that you geniously figured out by....making assumptions, filling blanks in with speculation, or even making stuff up.

Twists are designed to be clearly understood. It does a diservice to the movie to not get this right. It's like telling jokes - If you have to explain the joke, then you're not telling it right.

Now, I'm not saying that this is an ill-thought twist. I just don't think it was a twist at all. I think the director diliberately made an ambiguous ending that would spark conversation. What did M hear from Anna? What's in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction? Even Tarantino would admit (years later) that even he doesn't know what's in the briefcase. He didn't know what to put in there, so he put a bright light in there, and left it to the imagination; assuming that what the viewer placed in there would always be more interesting than what he would have put in there himself. In this case, fans came up with a great theory (Marcellus' soul), that was pieced together by odd coincidences in the movie that weren't planned.

Watching you desperately try defend your initial false belief, despite new evidence, is an unexpected joy of Martyrs

Hehe. I'm not trying to "desperately" defend a belief. I've only got what you've got: A theory. A theory that I never paraded around as fact. I simply recognize that your theory doesn't hold water. It's ok; mine doesn't either, but I never claimed it to.

No one knows why people commit suicide? lol!

Not always. Besides, I never said that no one knows why ANYONE would commit suicide. I said that no one knows why M committed suicide. The movie never suggests that she left a note.

But the director gave us more: Annas foreshadowing promise? Mademoiselle warning her friend? And then abandoning the cult she just gathered as their leader? Shameful defeat. Anna won, and what you missed again is that it was her unexpected, shocking victory that elevates Martyrs above the typical Hollywood horror movie.

All speculation, and opinion.

Another article talking about my thread: "My favourite take on the ending is that Anna lied to Mademoiselle intentionally.

The key word here is "take", or interpretation. Because someone likes your interpretation of it doesn't make it right.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Twists are designed to be clearly understood.

"My favourite take on the ending is that Anna lied to Mademoiselle intentionally. Mademoiselle’s punishment for doing these horrible things to Anna was that she was told there was no afterlife and rather than have failed her followers she kills herself. Mademoiselle’s evil means will justify her end." - http://whatculture.com/film/10-unanswered-horror-movie-questions-that-keep-us-up-at-night.php/4

Annas foreshadowing promise. Mademoiselle warning her friend. Mademoiselle abandoning the cult she just gathered as their leader. Mademoiselle suicide. Anna won, and what you missed again, and again, is that it was her unexpected, shocking victory that elevates Martyrs above the typical Hollywood horror movie. It was so unexpected that some people still cant wrap their mind around it. You thought Anna incapable, you were proven wrong, yet you hilariously near-religiously cling to your initial first belief.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

I don't understand what you think is so shocking about "the good guys winning". In movies, the good guys almost always win, no matter how desperate and unwinable a situation appears. Since the good guys almost always win, it's more shocking and unexpected when the good guys lose. There's nothing shocking about M getting her comeuppance.

Annas foreshadowing promise. Mademoiselle warning her friend. Mademoiselle abandoning the cult she just gathered as their leader. Mademoiselle suicide. Anna won

You keep repeating this as irrefutable fact, but this is all speculation and opinion.

Anna's foreshadowing promise? How is this a fact? Just because the director put some words in there doesn't mean that he had foreshadowing in mind. I think that the crux of your problem is that you're giving too much credit to a director that hasn't earned it. You're trusting the director to know exactly what he's doing when he hasn't created a body of work that's worthy of that trust. You're doing his job for him by filling in blanks that he probably didn't even consider when he made the movie. You're imagining a master work from a master artist when what you really got was competent work from a bench player.

The smartest thing that the director has done is kept his mouth shut about the movie's outcome. He knows that revealing ANY outcome will come with holes that he, himself, created. He painted himself into a corner, and he recognizes this, and he also recognizes that this movie holds more value without inventing a patchwork ending.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

I don't understand what you think is so shocking about "the good guys winning"

First you say you didn't see the twist, then you say don't understand why it was shocking. Make up your mind already.

Just because the director put some words in there doesn't mean that he had foreshadowing in mind.

That's what foreshadowing is. Also Mademoiselle warning her friend. Mademoiselle abandoning the cult she just gathered as their leader. Mademoiselle suicide. All evidence points in one direction, the opposite direction where you thought it was going, ie the twist.

You're imagining a master work from a master artist

Masterful storytelling is how my mind works, just as that journalist said, whether its Martyrs, Donnie Darko, Mullholland Drive, The Blair Witch Project, this forum is filled with my threads explaining films.

The smartest thing that the director has done is kept his mouth shut

"The real point of everything is revealed only in the final seconds of the movie. For me, that was the exciting part of the project." - Pascal Laugier, on the twist in Martyrs:

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

First you say you didn't see the twist, then you say don't understand why it was shocking. Make up your mind already.

Well, you're misunderstanding what I'm writing, which doesn't speak volumes of your analytical skills. What I said was that I didn't see M shooting herself as a twist, and especially not "one of the greatest twists in film history". There were too many unanswered variables that leaves reasonable doubt to the theory that you agree with.

In another post, I said that I didn't understand why you think it would be shocking for M to shoot herself. You would somehow find it shocking and unexpected that "the good guys win, and the bad guys lost" when I would just call that business as usual. The good guys almost always win.

That's what foreshadowing is.

Yikes! Posting, for you, appears to be turning into a race of throwing any ol' words together and sending it off into the interwebs. Did I break your concentration?

Masterful storytelling is how my mind works

What you think is masterful storytelling is how your mind works. See what I did there. I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

... just as that journalist said

Oh, I didn't bother reading whatever link it is that you sent me. I can already see the holes in your theory from here. Somebody agreeing with you isn't going to change that. Besides, what good is the credibility of some journalist that would get his/her source from someone that doesn't know the difference between facts and assumptions.

whether its Martyrs, Donnie Darko, Mullholland Drive, The Blair Witch Project, this forum is filled with my threads explaining films.

Hopefully, you're doing a better job "explaining" those movies than you are analyzing this one. How you got "masterful storytelling" out of a movie (The Blair Witch Project) that was lifted wholesale from another (and superior) movie is something that I don't think I'll be able to resist.

"The real point of everything is revealed only in the final seconds of the movie. For me, that was the exciting part of the project." - Pascal Laugier, on the twist in Martyrs

That's about as ambiguous as the ending itself. The final seconds of the movie are simply a skinless, catatonic Anna lying on a table. If you go back about 30 seconds earlier, you've got M killing herself after saying "keep doubting", which could mean a handful of things.

I get that you like mindbenders, and you especially love the idea of "figuring them out" and shouting out to the world "look at me, simple people! I figured out what you couldn't!", but I don't think you ever considered the fallibility of the people who create them. They're smart, but they're not perfect.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

you're misunderstanding what I'm writing

Incorrect, you're as confused about what I'm writing as you are about the movie. The reason Anna winning was a shocking twist was not because "the good guy won", which is typical, it was because in this movie nobody expected Anna to win, because of misdirection by the director. What makes the twist work so well is that misdirection uses the assumptions of the audience. The misdirection was so convincing that some people like you still can't wrap your head around the meaning of the end.

If you go back about 30 seconds earlier, you've got M killing herself after saying "keep doubting", which could mean a handful of things.

Evidence points to it meaning one thing: "Keep doubting the afterlife exists, or else you'll end up defeated like me...BANG!" Evidence like the foreshadowing, the abandoning of the cult, and the directors own comments. As a director, the ambiguity in Mademoiselles reaction and the ambiguity in the warning to Etienne exist for one reason: while not betraying the twist, they keep the audience misdirected, specifically in the sure belief that Mademoiselle won. The genius of Martyrs and why the twist works so well is that after all is revealed, one can go reflect and see those ambiguous moments which they assumed meant one thing, actually meant the opposite. The reason the gunshot was so shocking is we are certain Mademoiselle got the answer she wanted.

I don't think you ever considered the fallibility of the people who create them. They're smart, but they're not perfect.

We both agree my explanations are what the movie should be, because they make for the best story. I'm assuming the director of Martys is as good as I am, and you're assuming he isn't.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

Incorrect, you're as confused about what I'm writing as you are about the movie. The reason Anna winning was a shocking twist was not because "the good guy won", which is typical, it was because in this movie nobody expected Anna to win, because of misdirection by the director. What makes the twist work so well is that misdirection uses the assumptions of the audience. The misdirection was so convincing that some people like you still can't wrap your head around the meaning of the end.

Sorry, but no.

Evidence points to it meaning one thing: "Keep doubting the afterlife exists, or else you'll end up defeated like me...BANG!" Evidence like the foreshadowing, the abandoning of the cult, and the directors own comments. As a director, the ambiguity in Mademoiselles reaction and the ambiguity in the warning to Etienne exist for one reason: while not betraying the twist, they keep the audience misdirected, specifically in the sure belief that Mademoiselle won. The genius of Martyrs and why the twist works so well is that after all is revealed, one can go reflect and see those ambiguous moments which they assumed meant one thing, actually meant the opposite. The reason the gunshot was so shocking is we are certain Mademoiselle got the answer she wanted.

Wrong again. Maybe next time?

We both agree my explanations are what the movie should be, because they make for the best story. I'm assuming the director of Martys is as good as I am, and you're assuming he isn't.

Nope. Three strikes! You're out!

Thank You for Playing!

Next!

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Sorry

Apology unaccepted. However, keep bumping my threads. :)

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] bljonathan 10 years ago

"keep doubting".....doubting the pretentious writer actually knows the answer.

Lets be honest here; there is not enough information given. It is not a clever ending by any means, its just a cheap cliche so that you get equally pretentious people trying to decipher a meaning out of a boring Hostel rip off.

[–] iworkfortheharold 9 years ago

"The final seconds of the movie are simply a skinless, catatonic Anna lying on a table." Yes, that is the point of the film. The exciting part of the project was showing the product of a meaningless torture porn film.

[–] zero1733 10 years ago

CONT.

Nothing unclear about a bullet to the head, no more surer sign of loss than what the director gave us.

Of course, it's unclear, because that bullet to the head raises more questions than it answers. Why did she do it? No one knows. The only thing that anyone is left to analyze are cryptic words that can mean different things to different individuals.

Etienne and the cult will be devastated beyond saving.

Why? We're talking about a flawed human being here. It's not like Jesus Christ died on them. Terrorist factions live on beyond fallen leadership. There's no concrete evidence to support that someone couldn't just slide right into M's leadership role.

This is just another assumption on your part.

Granting her superhuman powers would be the dumbing down.

Yes, that would also be a dumbing down of the character.

Again, to the credit of the director and what makes Martyrs work so well is the villains are not supervillians, explicitly and extensively displayed by the mother, the father, and their two children. They are regular people. We don't acknowledge it, because their crimes are so heinous.

It's a common ingredient that makes ANY movie, involving an insidious and murderous cult, work well. I really like this movie, but this is certainly not an aspect of the movie that I haven't seen before.

Until we are forced to acknowledge it at the finale, the "evil villain" was actually a scared old lady who couldn't handle defeat or shame, the "helpless victim" was not as helpless as we thought. You, the audience, your assumptions were wrong, and you had no idea you were wrong until you heard that shocking gunshot (some still don't realize their wrong).

Assumptions (as facts) certainly seem to make your world go round. Hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

[–] aassmmoo 10 years ago

I tell you the truth. The girl without skin tells her there is afterlife so the old woman is worried if it's lie or not because there will be no more chances to confirm that before the old woman will naturally pass away. She decides to kill herself anyway to hit the other side without waiting but the skinned girl didn't mentioned that she will go into 'evil other side' if she kill herself.

woo! :D

[–] Dark_Penguin 10 years ago

I like your interpretation, but one thing is bothering me about the ending. It's been a while since I've seen Martyrs, but my recollection is that Mademoiselle and Anna spoke for some time. If all Anna had to say to Mademoiselle was that there was nothing after death, wouldn't that have been at most a one or two minute conversation?

[–] submachine 10 years ago

. If all Anna had to say to Mademoiselle was that there was nothing after death, wouldn't that have been at most a one or two minute conversation?

Yes, it was actually less then that.

It's been a while since I've seen Martyrs, but my recollection is that Mademoiselle and Anna spoke for some time.

That is how powerful the twist was.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] JDWinter07 10 years ago

it's been a while since i've seen the movie, but from what i remember:

i interpreted that anna saw some sort of afterlife during her tightrope walk between life and death (because of that scene when her eyes were reflecting what looked like a cosmic light), but felt the need to lie to the mistress and say that there's nothing, or you feel yourself floating in darkness without any purpose, or something completely abstract. i think she did it that way in order to disappoint the mistress with the definitive answer she so desperately sought after, and the feeling of guilt would overcome her and cause her to either stop the experiments and repent for everything she had done or, you know, shoot herself. i like that explanation the best because of the vindication, but the ending is open to several different explanations. the line "keep doubting" could have been directed at the audience, to consider that their own spirituality and beliefs can have absolutely nothing to do with what happens to our consciousness after death. i doubt she would say that to the man on the other side of the door if she believed further experimentation was necessary.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

i interpreted that anna saw some sort of afterlife during her tightrope walk between life and death (because of that scene when her eyes were reflecting what looked like a cosmic light), but felt the need to lie to the mistress and say that there's nothing, or you feel yourself floating in darkness without any purpose, or something completely abstract. i think she did it that way in order to disappoint the mistress with the definitive answer she so desperately sought after, and the feeling of guilt would overcome her and cause her to either stop the experiments and repent for everything she had done or, you know, shoot herself.

Correct. 

If one definition of stupid is keeping to the same opinion despite receiving conflicting information, then one may consider Martyrs an intelligence test. And if you still think Mademoiselle got what she wanted, after "keep doubting, bang!" then you have failed that test.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] ehpr 10 years ago

I'll try another interpretation that may fit:

Annie told Mademoiselle that it what impossible to describe what she saw and the only way to know what she knows is to go through what she endured or die. Mademoiselle obviously chose the latter.

I didn't like the movie, I felt it was boring and repulsive. And pointless, except maybe to be the sad mirror of our times.

[–] falseprophet616 10 years ago

All praise to zero1733, who truly solved this puzzle by realising that Submachine is the final piece.

Hugely ironic that you (Submachine) are so afraid of accepting the unknowns and ambiguity of the film as Mademoiselle is afraid of accepting that there may be no afterlife at all.

And now we're here telling you, after suffering the seemingly endless torture of your responses and arrogance, as Anna told Mademoiselle, that everything you believe may be a lie, and you cannot fathom that your theories could be for naught.
Here you are, yourself evidence against your own argument, clinging to your original beliefs, instead of being 'crushed' and committing suicide as you so adamantly purport is the correct course of action in the given situation.

Every response you make, proof against your theory. Hilarious.

PS. zero1733, if you could kindly let us know the superior movie which Blair Witch borrows from, I would appreciate that as I'm interested in viewing said movie.

:)

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Anna told Mademoiselle, that everything you believe may be a lie

Correct.  See that's why she shot herself, it all makes sense if you're capable of changing your initially false belief as the director intended for the shocking twist ending.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] falseprophet616 10 years ago

See that's why you're responding in a way that's incongruent with your very own theory, invalidating it every single time.

Every time you think you're proving something, or correcting someone, it's doing the opposite. 

[–] submachine 10 years ago

incongruent

Anna lied, you admitting it proves my theory correct, the only "incongurent" thing is your brain 

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] solarpunk 10 years ago

Blair Witch borrowed from a film called 'the last broadcast' - much better than the Blair Witch me thinks.

[–] zero1733 9 years ago

"PS. zero1733, if you could kindly let us know the superior movie which Blair Witch borrows from, I would appreciate that as I'm interested in viewing said movie." - falseprophet616

I know this response comes several months after you inquired about it, but that movie is "Cannibal Holocaust", released in 1980. It's an independent Italian horror movie that was banned in several countries for it's realistic gore, and alleged killing of animals, which the director actually spent time in jail for.

Now, how did "The Blair Witch Project" steal it's idea from a movie called "Cannibal Holocaust"? Well, CH is about four journalists that went to an island in the Amazon to film a documentary about it's indigenous tribes. The journalists disappear, but the footage of what happened to them is found. The vast majority of the movie is told through the journalists' documentary style footage. Sounds a lot like TBWP, doesn't it? Only it was released a full 19 years before TBWP in a handful of grind house theaters, and wouldn't get a widely distributed release on DVD until the tail end of 2005.

My reaction when I saw this movie for the first time (in 1999): I've seen this before, only it was cannibals instead of a witch.

What "The Blair Witch Project" did was steal the found footage concept wholesale from an old independent movie that hardly anyone has seen (especially in 1999). They replaced the cannibalistic tribes with a witch, and viola, you have a movie that got much more credit than it deserved.

At the time of "Cannibal Holocaust's" release, the gore, and documentary style footage, was so realistic that the director actually had to prove to authorities that the actors were still alive - It was accused of being a snuff film, and many viewers believed that they were watching one. Even the marketing of "The Blair Witch Project" (in which the actors of the movie were declared "missing" by authorities on websites) bit off from something that people actually speculated on "Cannibal Holocaust".

So, as you can see, I don't see anything "masterful" about a movie that completely ripped off it's concept from another movie that, again, hardly anyone had seen, which of course, included critics and indie fanatics that praised it for it's original concept. Now, I'm not saying that TBWP isn't worth watching, it's just that CH simply worked the concept (in all aspects) much better 19 years earlier, and it still does. About the only things that I can credit the directors of TBWP for is (1) realizing a great concept to steal from that hardly anyone would call them out on; (2) stealing a concept that can be re-created cheaply, and with a minimal level of technical skill; and (3) realizing that the late 90s was a great time to make such a movie......although this one is probably just a case of being at the right place at the right time with the right product.

Look for Eli Roth's "The Green Inferno" later this month, which seems to be heavily inspired by CH and other Italian cannibal films of the late 70s/early 80s.

[–] falseprophet616 9 years ago

Thanks bro. I've heard of that flick but haven't got around to seeing it yet.

Looking forward to The Green Inferno too :)

[–] submachine 9 years ago

What "The Blair Witch Project" did was steal the found footage concept wholesale from an old independent movie that hardly anyone has seen

There's a reason "hardly anyone has seen" it, and there's a reason TBW is one of the most successful movies in the history of cinema.

You can't "steal" greatness.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 9 years ago

Of course, there's a reason that hardly anyone had seen it. A cannibal movie in 1980 doesn't exactly have any mainstream appeal - Hell, it doesn't have any mainstream appeal now. What "The Blair Witch Project" did was steal it's concept. If it was successful it was because it had a great marketing campaign that sold it as real footage of three film students that disappeared (or were murdered) in the woods.

If you want to argue that TBWP had a great marketing campaign, I'll actually agree with you since that's what propelled the vast majority of it's mainstream attention to begin with. However, I will disagree that it's a great (or innovative) movie. It had it's 15 minutes, and is now a small footnote that not many would bother to re-watch. IMHO, a boring, grinding, movie that was at peak effect when half the audience believed that they signed up to watch a snuff flick. There are definitely better found footage flicks that were made before, and after, TBWP. They might not have been as "successful", but they are better, and that's what I would ultimately care about.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

There are definitely better found footage flicks that were made before, and after, TBWP.

I noticed you didn't give a single example...telling. 

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] zero1733 9 years ago

I did. Cannibal Holocaust, which released 19 years earlier. You know, the one that TBWP stole it's concept from. If you want an example for a better one that released after TBWP, well, pick a name out of a hat at random...chances are that it'll be more entertaining than TBWP was. If you really need a specific example, "REC" curb stomps TBWP in every meaningful aspect.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

If you really need a specific example, "REC"

REC is the scariest film ever made, and like all found-footage movies it owes a great deal to TBWP.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] FirstBlood1982 9 years ago

There were found footage movies before TBWP.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Not the same.

http://TheMovieGoer.com