SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 48 Discussion - Sound of My Voice

[Guestx]

NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Interested in joining the SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB? Shoot me a PM for more info.


All right homies, it's Indie Week and I'm really glad we ended up choosing this film because, from the beginning of the Club, I knew it was one that I was going to try to push toward a discussion. We voted, it won, and now that day of discussion is here! This week, of course, we'll be talking about. . .

Our Director​

Sound of My Voice is directed by ZAL BATMANGLIJ.

From Wikipedia:

Batmanglij was born in 1981 in France to Iranian parents and grew up in Washington, D.C.. His mother, Najmieh Batmanglij, is a cookbook author; his father is a book publisher. His younger brother Rostam was a founding member of the band Vampire Weekend.

Batmanglij studied anthropology and English at Georgetown University, graduating in 2002. At Georgetown he met Mike Cahill in a philosophy class. They took a screenwriting course together and co-directed a short film that won the Georgetown Film Festival. Brit Marling saw the film and asked if she could work with them. Several years later, following Marling's graduation, the three friends moved to Los Angeles, California, where Batmanglij attended the American Film Institute Conservatory. For his thesis film, he made a 35mm short called The Recordist (2007), which starred Marling.

In 2011, Batmanglij's debut feature, Sound of My Voice, co-written with Marling, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Shortly thereafter, Fox Searchlight Pictures purchased Sound of My Voice, as well as Batmanglij and Marling's next feature script, The East. Batmanglij also directed The East, starring Marling, Ellen Page, and Alexander Skarsgard. The film premiered at Sundance in 2013.

Batmanglij and Marling collaborated to create drama series The OA, which debuted in 2016 on Netflix. It was written by Marling and Batmanglij, who produced the series along with Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner of Plan B, and Michael Sugar of Anonymous Content.

Our Stars​

Christopher Denham: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1706832/?ref_=tt_cl_t1

Nicole Vicius: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1656122/?ref_=tt_cl_t2

Brit Marling: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1779870/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Film Overview and YouTube Videos​

Premise: Two documentary filmmakers attempt to penetrate a cult who worships a woman who claims to be from the future.

Budget: $135,000
Box Office: $408,000

​

Trivia
(courtesy of IMDB)​

* The first in an intended trilogy of films following Maggie and her cult. Though well-received, Brit Marling and Zal Batmanglij have said they do not know if the subsequent films will ever be produced.

* Brit Marling wrote the role of Maggie with herself in mind to play the part.

* Originally intended as an ongoing web series, that's why the film is broken up in the parts. The filmmakers decided to release what was filmed as a feature film.

* Brit Marling and Zal Batmanglij both refuse to discuss the true "meaning" of the film; i.e. Maggie's true identity, the significance of Abigail to the cult or the Justice Deparment's true interest in Maggie. Both have said there are subtle clues in the film that answer some of these lingering questions, but that even they don't know if Maggie is really a time traveler.

Members: @shadow_priest_x @europe1 @iThrillhouse @chickenluver @jeicex @MusterX @BeardotheWeirdo @Coolthulu @AndersonsFoot @TheRuthlessOne @Scott Parker 27 @Mr Mojo Lane @WebAlchemist @the muntjac @Caveat

 

[Guestx]

I know you guys probably skip over the videos most of the time, but if any of you are specifically interested in the subject of low-budget filmmaking or the process of breaking into the industry, then I would recommend both videos this week. I watched them yesterday and they are pretty interesting.

 

[europe1]

Is it bad if my dominant thought during the watching this film was "man if the director wasn't gay then Maggie's character would probably have been so hot and sexy". I mean, it's a film that centers around a cult that slovenly venerates a young, nubile woman with golden tresses. That's just prime kink material. Hell that premise itself abounded in many genre pictures from the 30's to the 60's.



Anyway, some thoughts

* A lot of cults center around ritual behavior. Really, one of the big changes in modern society is the lack of ritual behavior. In the past, religion ensured that we had rituals in our lives. The cult is constructed so that it's members have to perform rituals before they gain an audition with Maggie. They have to clense themselves (very common), wear all-white (like Kung Fu heroes are known to do), do that silly hand-shake thing (which just gives me flashbacks to Fresh Prince in Bel Air), and bow before Maggie enters. This is to give the proceedings a sense of specialty, of importance, of holiness, so that the cult-members feel as if what they're prepearing themselves for is really important. It also builds communal spirit, which is what lures many people into cults to begin with. Notice that early on, it's the woman that reacts the most heartfelt to the proceedings, laughing as she dances and such things. The narrative states that she's a former party-junkie. I suppose it's logical that a woman who has lives her life in a sea of sensory-stimulation would find such communal activites gratifying and fulfilling.

* I thought it sort of interesting that Maggie called him "anal retentive". Then she starts prodding him on the basis that his emotional issues is rooted in his relationship with his parents (where "anal retentive" issues are said to originate). She first asks about dad -- then lands homeclean with mom. I found it interesting since just by using that word -- it appears that she made the call on a psychological basis, that is to say, she made an analysation of him and drew the conclusion from there. Instead of say, playing it off as if she used some mystical powers, where "she reads his mind or soul", an effect she could have achieved simply but not using such baseline psychological-lingo beforehand.

* The whole "We're all dying" speach was another interesting cult-feuture. Really, she's just stating what is common and obvious. But she spins it like it's some grand mystery or life-lesson, so to impress her underlings.

* I got a hearty laugh at the guy asking if we still had CD's and MP3 players in the future.

 

[Guestx]

First @europe1, I'm glad to see you were actually able to fit this movie in by Wednesday. I think it's been a few weeks since you were able to do that. However, second, I must admit I'm a little disappointed you don't have a mega-post for me.

Also, you don't really say here if you LIKED the movie. Rating?

Is it bad if my dominant thought during the watching this film was "man if the director wasn't gay then Maggie's character would probably have been so hot and sexy". I mean, it's a film that centers around a cult that slovenly venerates a young, nubile woman with golden tresses. That's just prime kink material. Hell that premise itself abounded in many genre pictures from the 30's to the 60's.

LOL, I can honestly say this thought didn't even cross my mind.

It's worth pointing out that Brit Marling was a co-writer on the film and wrote the role of Maggie for herself, so it's tailored. Even if Zal had wanted to go in that direction she probably would've vetoed. Having seen some interviews with her, I really think she wants to be an artist and not just make films with a commercial focus.

* A lot of cults center around ritual behavior. Really, one of the big changes in modern society is the lack of ritual behavior. In the past, religion ensured that we had rituals in our lives. The cult is constructed so that it's members have to perform rituals before they gain an audition with Maggie. They have to clense themselves (very common), wear all-white (like Kung Fu heroes are known to do), do that silly hand-shake thing (which just gives me flashbacks to Fresh Prince in Bel Air), and bow before Maggie enters. This is to give the proceedings a sense of specialty, of importance, of holiness, so that the cult-members feel as if what they're prepearing themselves for is really important. It also builds communal spirit, which is what lures many people into cults to begin with. Notice that early on, it's the woman that reacts the most heartfelt to the proceedings, laughing as she dances and such things. The narrative states that she's a former party-junkie. I suppose it's logical that a woman who has lives her life in a sea of sensory-stimulation would find such communal activites gratifying and fulfilling.

Interesting observations.

I always find the subject of cults fascinating. I have a friend who used to be a Jehovah's Witness and he is always talking about it. For anyone who hasn't seen it, I highly recommend the show The Path:

* I thought it sort of interesting that Maggie called him "anal retentive". Then she starts prodding him on the basis that his emotional issues is rooted in his relationship with his parents (where "anal retentive" issues are said to originate). She first asks about dad -- then lands homeclean with mom. I found it interesting since just by using that word -- it appears that she made the call on a psychological basis, that is to say, she made an analysation of him and drew the conclusion from there. Instead of say, playing it off as if she used some mystical powers, where "she reads his mind or soul", an effect she could have achieved simply but not using such baseline psychological-lingo beforehand.

Well that brings up another interesting point--something I caught this time but didn't the first time I watched the movie. During the scene where Maggie is smoking in her room, she says, "I'm from the future, I'm not a saint."

Okay, so, if you're just a regular person, but one who happens to be from the future, then why are you acting like a mystical guru? Does the simple act of being from the future make you enlightened? Is there some upheaval in the future that has given all future people insight that we in the present simply lack?

Basically, what are your qualifications for being a teacher of mankind? This is never really addressed.

 

[europe1]

Also, you don't really say here if you LIKED the movie. Rating?

To be frank, I thought it was alright but nothing special. 5/10

I must admit I'm a little disappointed you don't have a mega-post for me.

Honestly, I just don't have that much to say about the film.

LOL, I can honestly say this thought didn't even cross my mind.

Haha. I just love those old adventure movies where the hero battles a cult dominated by a haughty yet dazzling woman. So I guess my mind just drifted towards those films in comparison. Hell, Maggie didn't even demand human sacrifices? What the hell kind of cult-leader is she?

I always find the subject of cults fascinating

I too find them fascinating... until they knock on my door.

More specifically, I find these kinds of cults that worship human individuals as divine especially fascinating, since it harkens back to more ancient forms of religion. Instead of venerating something abstract (like God), you worship something more material. And the religious elements dictates both your temporal and celestial existence. There is no secular sphere, basically. All your wordly affairs are infused by some sort of supernaturality.

Okay, so, if you're just a regular person, but one who happens to be from the future, then why are you acting like a mystical guru? Does the simple act of being from the future make you enlightened? Is there some upheaval in the future that has given all future people insight that we in the present simply lack?

Yeah. If she's a time-traveler here to impart lessons for the future, then why all the mumbo-jumbo? They seem to combine "practical" issues (growing their own food, gun-training, etc) which one could assume would be neccesary for an apocalyptic future, with needless cultish tomfoolery that seem to serve no purpose.

That said, they seem to dress up the time-travel aspect as a religious issue. The central question seems to be: do you believe her? Do you belive that Maggie has leapt through time? So they take a secular issue (speculative science) and threat it as a religious issue (do you belive?).

So... are all these "religious-trappings" just a way for the director to raise this issue? Making the question of "do you belive in time-travel" more apperent by filling it with religious-esque aspects? They're trying to blend science and faith, basically.

Maybe the couple that lead the cult is the one that really infused all these religious elements into her organization? They meet her and decided to worship her. But that doesn't explain why she goes along with it.


Honestly, me being so mellow on this film has a lot to do with my inkling that there simply are no answers to these questions embedded in the film's narrative. The directors left it unexplained and unanswerable just for the sake of ambiguity. You get confirmation that she's a time-traveler in the end scene -- but why all the cult-shit, that's just left ambiguous without satisfactory hints or hidden answers because the director wanted it that way.

It's worth pointing out that Brit Marling was a co-writer on the film and wrote the role of Maggie for herself, so it's tailored. Even if Zal had wanted to go in that direction she probably would've vetoed. Having seen some interviews with her, I really think she wants to be an artist and not just make films with a commercial focus.

Yeah. I read that Zal was gay on Wikipedia before I saw the film but I didn't catch that Brit was the co-writer. And reading up on her, yeah she does seem to want to be an artist. I sort of wonder what her "artistic voice" is though. What are her fascinations? Her wonders? What makes her special as an artist? On the IMDB quotes list she speaks about "Male Gaze" vs "Female Gaze", but those are more sexual issues, not an subject that seems very prescient to this film at least.

 

[Guestx]

To be frank, I thought it was alright but nothing special. 5/10

Damn, low scores for Victoria, Spring Breakers AND Sound of My Voice. We clearly just have different taste in films.

I wonder if you would feel differently about these movies if you were aspiring to be a filmmaker. I think I often feel differently about certain movies because of the fact that I want to make movies myself.

More specifically, I find these kinds of cults that worship human individuals as divine especially fascinating, since it harkens back to more ancient forms of religion. Instead of venerating something abstract (like God), you worship something more material. And the religious elements dictates both your temporal and celestial existence. There is no secular sphere, basically. All your wordly affairs are infused by some sort of supernaturality.

It seems that in this day and age no one would really fall for that kind of thing. I mean, if someone came to me and told me they were divine or anything of the sort, there'd be a pretty damn high burden of proof to be met.

Did you see last year's documentary Holy Hell? It's about exactly this topic.

Yeah. If she's a time-traveler here to impart lessons for the future, then why all the mumbo-jumbo? They seem to combine "practical" issues (growing their own food, gun-training, etc) which one could assume would be neccesary for an apocalyptic future, with needless cultish tomfoolery that seem to serve no purpose.

I can come up with two possibilities:

1. Being a cult leader feeds Maggie's ego. Maybe she's just into it.

2. There REALLY IS something in the future that gives her special insight and has transformed her into a more enlightened being. In fact, perhaps this is what we're supposed to intuit simply BECAUSE Maggie is the way she is?

I don't really agree with this YouTube comment--it's a comment on the interview video I posted in the OP--because I think Brit and Zal make genuinely good films, but you might be amused by it:

These two have what I call a 'beautiful nonsense' style. There films (and The OA) are utter bullshit. The character are non-existent, the plot relies on random twists to stay fresh, the acting is fairly bad and the writing style is way too expository. And yet what is produced is mesmerizing. Batmanglij is a wonderful visual director like George Lucas and he has the ability to create beautiful-looking scenes, and he and Marling come up with some very good lines of dialogue.

What they make isn't good. But they're always good to watch.

Maybe the couple that lead the cult is the one that really infused all these religious elements into her organization?

I read through some of the old archived IMDB threads that are now on MovieChat and saw a few people propose this idea. We can only speculate.

We know, for instance, that the bearded guy knows something--or thinks he knows something--about Maggie. That's why he went looking for her in the first place. Remember that he didn't stumble across her, he tracked her down.

The question is: What does he know?

You get confirmation that she's a time-traveler in the end scene.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Do we really get confirmation of that? She knows a handshake, she didn't de-materialize on her way back to the future.

You may want to pay attention to this entry from the Trivia:

Brit Marling and Zal Batmanglij both refuse to discuss the true "meaning" of the film; i.e. Maggie's true identity, the significance of Abigail to the cult or the Justice Deparment's true interest in Maggie. Both have said there are subtle clues in the film that answer some of these lingering questions, but that even they don't know if Maggie is really a time traveler.

Yeah. I read that Zal was gay on Wikipedia before I saw the film but I didn't catch that Brit was the co-writer. And reading up on her, yeah she does seem to want to be an artist. I sort of wonder what her "artistic voice" is though. What are her fascinations? Her wonders? What makes her special as an artist? On the IMDB quotes list she speaks about "Male Gaze" vs "Female Gaze", but those are more sexual issues, not an subject that seems very prescient to this film at least.

I don't know, but I like her. I've been following her ever since I saw her in Another Earth in 2011. I've also seen her in The Keeping Room and The East, and am currently watching The OA. Those latter two are also Brit/Zal team-ups.

Time to spam some trailers in case anyone is interested:

 

[the muntjac]

I did not like this movie. Sorry about the long read.

I found this one on a stream, so I'm not sure if the one I found cut the first few minutes off or something, but it began right as Peter and Lorna are going to meet the cult for the first time. There weren't any scenes of them preparing to go, or how they found this cult, or whatever. I looked up the synopsis on Wikipedia afterwards, and it seems I may have missed some stuff at the beginning. Regardless, I think it has no bearing on my opinion.

It was predictable that you knew Peter was the one who would get sucked in because he was the more adamant one on doing the project and more adamant of the whole thing being bogus, while Lorna was more hesitant to take part of the documentary. The paths these characters would take were figured out within their first conversation with each other(at least the one I saw). Granted, this can be seen immediately it lots of types of films, but when it comes to one that relies heavily on mystery, it shouldn't be so obvious.

I found Maggie's slow, soft talking pattern to be annoying, and she wasn't ever saying anything compelling. Nothing she said is memorable, or even quotable. Therefore, her parts were boring to me.

As for the DOJ lady, why couldn't they send their own mole into the cult to figure out where Maggie was? They could have had other agents track where the van goes. They apparently knew enough about the cult to know that they wanted children, so how hard is it believe that they would be able to find which house she's hiding in? Driving a van from one location to the next isn't that cunning.

Then there's all the scenes that just go nowhere-

-Lorna shooting the gun with the blonde lady. Okay, they established that Lorna is a good shot without ever handling guns, and then we're never brought back to it again. Is it just to show that the cult really is trying to make its members good with guns and arm them to the teeth so they can rob a bank? Can't say because of how ambiguous the film ends, which I'll get to later.
-The little girl writing terrorist on the other girl's backpack. Surely we'll be given a reason for her outburst. Oh, what's that? We won't? Not even a small detail? Well, fine. Be like that.
-The girl in her room and being drugged in bed by her "father". Clearly, there's something trying to be established around this little girl, but we're only given glimpses of stuff with no context go with it.
-The DOJ lady checking the hotel room for bugs? No, not the insect kind. Are we to believe this cult of around a dozen of people or so has the means and wherewithal to track somebody from the Department of Justice? Was she just being overcautious? Or is she not who she claims to be and has a deeper story? We'll never know because...uh...
-This one isn't so much a scene as it is a detail, Maggie being hooked up to an oxygen tank and other machines is never explained unless you believe she's actually a time traveler unable to live comfortably in this time period because of allergies.

Peter and Lorna's quest for answers only yields more questions, which I guess a lot of people are claiming to find cleverness about the film. To me, movies about whodunnits, or some great mystery, or something along these lines, their climaxes teeter on a thin line of either being a satisfying payoff or a varying letdown. I find the latter to be true most of the time. Also, once you know the secret either way, the second viewing is not as fun. I think the filmmakers of this movie realized these pitfalls, so instead kept everything as vague as possible to insure that people would be left scratching their heads and possibly intrigued to watch it again. For me, it all felt like a cop out to never resolve anything for the sake of keeping the mysteriousness of the story. Sure, the filmmakers were smart enough to be knowing of these pitfalls, but not clever enough to provide any resolution to the details that they've established.

If it's meant for me to figure out the conclusions to my own questions, then I'm afraid I've got some bad news. This wasn't interesting enough for me to care. It could have been if they tried to be less ambiguous, but even then this movie wasn't quite hooking me. My questions will fade away into the oblivion with this thread and be lost somewhere on the internet when we're all dust. Laid to rest.

Besides the story, this movie looked like it was directed by college film students. I know because I once was a college film student, and my directing wasn't great either. Even today, I haven't really kept up with it after I graduated, so I haven't really gotten better. Plus, I don't have good equipment. So, if I watch a movie that looks on the level of what I could direct, then I know it's not anything special.

The acting was fine enough for this scale of movie, but nothing extraordinary. Really nothing to truly nitpick about other than I didn't really care for Brit Marling's delivery.

Well, that's it. I didn't like it. I applaud filmmakers for their efforts, but I'm honest with my critiques.

 

[Guestx]

Ohhhhkay. I see what's happening here. It's Spring Breakers all over again.

I guess I better armor up and get ready to fight.

 

[MusterX]

Cults, time travel, and human nature. This movie is about all three.

Cult leaders are masters at saying the right thing at the right moment to make the majority of their followers fall in line. Masters of manipulation. When Brit Marling, Maggie, sings a Cranberry's song from the 90's and is called out on it she easily deflects by saying it could have been from the 90's but a man in the future makes it famous again. She also expertly deflects proving she is a time traveler by challenging Lam to tell her something that happened in the spring of 1959. Maggie simply tells him I come from the future but I don't know everything that happens in the past any more than you do.

Peter became obsessed with the cult. He never intended for that to happen but that is what happened. He obviously lied to Lorna in the cafe when she asked about the throw up scene where he cried. He got sucked deeper and deeper into it until he was willing to commit crimes for Maggie. By the end he wasn't even recording footage for his documentary anymore and was willing to give up his girl Lorna if that's what Maggie wanted.

Ultimately we have to try to figure out the handshake ending. This is the moment where Peter probably becomes a true believer for life. Was Abigail Maggie's mother or not? If not then how did Maggie know the handshake and teach it to all her followers? Must we assume that Maggie somehow had Abigail under surveillance the entire time and somehow recorded her secret handshake? Was Abigail being abused by her father? Her father injects her on the bed then lays down next to her with a laptop. Was he drugging her or administering medication?

Everything in this film is left open-ended. Maybe Abigail's father was a member of another cult, and in that way Maggie learned about her and the handshake. We have to jump through hoops to try to understand the ending of that film. That or Maggie was a time traveler but that seems unlikely and unbelievable. We are left with that stupid handshake as the credits roll. This is the moment when Maggie dupes the audience in the way that a cult member is duped. This is the director and the writer saying to the audience, this is how you get tricked. This is how people get tricked.

Maggie's cult uses the secret handshake of 12 year old Abigail Pritchard. All of us watched that film thinking what a bullshit cult, this is obviously fraud. I was even incredulous at one point that these people could be so stupid. Then BAM, the writer says watch this, you think she's fake, handshake ending. I find the ending to be ingenious in that it performs a cultish trick on the mind of the audience.

 

[Guestx]

It was predictable that you knew Peter was the one who would get sucked in because he was the more adamant one on doing the project and more adamant of the whole thing being bogus, while Lorna was more hesitant to take part of the documentary.

I always take movies at face value so I really didn't see it coming. Twists always get me because I believe the filmmaker when they tell me something.

I found Maggie's slow, soft talking pattern to be annoying, and she wasn't ever saying anything compelling. Nothing she said is memorable, or even quotable. Therefore, her parts were boring to me.

First off, Brit as an actress has a ton of charisma, at least in my opinion.

Second, Maggie is the architect of the apple scene, which I certainly can't say I found boring or unmemorable.

As for the DOJ lady, why couldn't they send their own mole into the cult to figure out where Maggie was? They could have had other agents track where the van goes. They apparently knew enough about the cult to know that they wanted children, so how hard is it believe that they would be able to find which house she's hiding in? Driving a van from one location to the next isn't that cunning.

Do we even know she was really DOJ?

While I conclude that she probably is, I think it's open question. She may have been an impostor.

Lorna shooting the gun with the blonde lady. Okay, they established that Lorna is a good shot without ever handling guns, and then we're never brought back to it again. Is it just to show that the cult really is trying to make its members good with guns and arm them to the teeth so they can rob a bank? Can't say because of how ambiguous the film ends, which I'll get to later.

I took two things from it:

1. It gives us a glimpse into the kind of future that Maggie is telling everyone they need to prepare for.

2. It shows us that Lorna is starting to be swayed by the cult and get sucked in. This of course ended up being something of a fake out, but it worked on me because, like I said, I always take narratives at face value.

The little girl writing terrorist on the other girl's backpack. Surely we'll be given a reason for her outburst. Oh, what's that? We won't? Not even a small detail? Well, fine. Be like that.
-The girl in her room and being drugged in bed by her "father". Clearly, there's something trying to be established around this little girl, but we're only given glimpses of stuff with no context go with it.

These are fair criticisms, though I personally like the atmosphere of mystery these elements create.

-This one isn't so much a scene as it is a detail, Maggie being hooked up to an oxygen tank and other machines is never explained unless you believe she's actually a time traveler unable to live comfortably in this time period because of allergies.

I think it's just another clue, which is largely what this film is: A series of clues that are sprinkled about and that surround a question: If she from the future or isn't she?

Peter and Lorna's quest for answers only yields more questions, which I guess a lot of people are claiming to find cleverness about the film.

Yes, exactly.

To me, movies about whodunnits, or some great mystery, or something along these lines, their climaxes teeter on a thin line of either being a satisfying payoff or a varying letdown. I find the latter to be true most of the time. Also, once you know the secret either way, the second viewing is not as fun.

Well that's just it, by the end of this movie you don't really know the secret. It reminds me of a (much) less complex version of Primer, in that with repeated viewings you understand more about the story.

Consider this excerpt from the film's Wikipedia entry:

In his round-up of 2012's cinematic standouts, Variety film critic Peter Debruge admitted to having watched Sound of My Voice four times and called it an "ingenious low-budget puzzler."

There's a reason he watched the film over and over, trying to piece it together.

I think the filmmakers of this movie realized these pitfalls, so instead kept everything as vague as possible to insure that people would be left scratching their heads and possibly intrigued to watch it again. For me, it all felt like a cop out to never resolve anything for the sake of keeping the mysteriousness of the story. Sure, the filmmakers were smart enough to be knowing of these pitfalls, but not clever enough to provide any resolution to the details that they've established.

As mentioned in the trivia, this was originally meant to be a trilogy, so that might also factor into it.

Besides the story, this movie looked like it was directed by college film students.

Most student films don't even approach this level of quality.

I know because I once was a college film student, and my directing wasn't great either. Even today, I haven't really kept up with it after I graduated, so I haven't really gotten better. Plus, I don't have good equipment. So, if I watch a movie that looks on the level of what I could direct, then I know it's not anything special.

If you feel like you could go out and make a movie of this quality tomorrow, then I can't for the life of me understand why you're not doing it.

Equipment? It was shot on the Canon 7D. You can get a used 7D for under $500.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

Whoa, are you guys saying Brit Marling isn't attractive?

 

[MusterX]

Whoa, are you guys saying Brit Marling isn't attractive?

She appears to have RBF (Resting Bitch Face)

 

[MusterX]

Sooner or later we have to deal with that handshake ending.

 

[Guestx]

Ultimately we have to try to figure out the handshake ending. This is the moment where Peter probably becomes a true believer for life. Was Abigail Maggie's mother or not? If not then how did Maggie know the handshake and teach it to all her followers? Must we assume that Maggie somehow had Abigail under surveillance the entire time and somehow recorded her secret handshake?

That's the question, isn't it? If Maggie is not from the future, then how could she have known the handshake? If we are to think that it was some kind of surveillance, we are doing so without even a shred of evidence from the movie itself, at least as far as I can tell.

Was Abigail being abused by her father? Her father injects her on the bed then lays down next to her with a laptop. Was he drugging her or administering medication?

Abigail seemed autistic to me, or something of the sort. Remember the scene where she's building the tower with the black blocks? And her father tries to carry her to bed and she doesn't want to go?

My interpretation was that this means Abigail is special in some way. She's different from other girls, even if the exact way in which she's different isn't fully understood.

Everything in this film is left open-ended. Maybe Abigail's father was a member of another cult, and in that way Maggie learned about her and the handshake. We have to jump through hoops to try to understand the ending of that film. That or Maggie was a time traveler but that seems unlikely and unbelievable. We are left with that stupid handshake as the credits roll. This is the moment when Maggie dupes the audience in the way that a cult member is duped. This is the director and the writer saying to the audience, this is how you get tricked. This is how people get tricked.

Maggie's cult uses the secret handshake of 12 year old Abigail Pritchard. All of us watched that film thinking what a bullshit cult, this is obviously fraud. I was even incredulous at one point that these people could be so stupid. Then BAM, the writer says watch this, you think she's fake, handshake ending. I find the ending to be ingenious in that it performs a cultish trick on the mind of the audience.

Hmm, interesting. So it sounds like you lean in the direction of Maggie NOT being a time traveler, is that correct?

While I agree that it's open-ended and very much open to interpretation, I actually fall on the side of her actually, in fact, being from the future. I feel like there's just too much pointing in that direction.

- The bearded guy tracked her down because of something he knew about time traveler lore, and this confirmed his suspicions

- The oxygen tank

- The fuck up with the song; if she had ACTUALLY been from the present time then wouldn't she just make a song up that's supposedly from the future? Who would even try to pass a song off from the 90s as something from the future?

- The handshake

- The fact that the DOJ (or someone) is so ferociously after her

Now, points 2 and 3 could be written off as an elaborate ruse. And the handshake could be explained through surveillance (but I would expect the film to the give us SOME kind of clue that this is a possibility). And the DOJ might really be after her because she's a con artist, but are we really given the impression that Maggie is so powerful that she can have a DOJ agent's hotel room bugged, especially when she didn't even know that agent was en route?

But none of this explains Point #1, unless we disbelieve the story Maggie is telling as we actually see footage of Bearded Man trying to find her on the street.

 

[Guestx]

Whoa, are you guys saying Brit Marling isn't attractive?

LOL. Did anyone say that?

I think she's beautiful. Her looks, admittedly, was the first thing that grabbed my attention way back when Another Earth first came out.

Though every once in a while the camera will catch her from just the right angle to where I kind of think she actually looks like a dude named Kevin.

BTW, are you still planning on watching this shit? Or did you watch it?

 

[Guestx]

BTW, I'd just like to point out that I think this poster is pretty fucking rad. I'd love to have one.

 

[MusterX]

That's the question, isn't it? If Maggie is not from the future, then how could she have known the handshake? If we are to think that it was some kind of surveillance, we are doing so without even a shred of evidence from the movie itself, at least as far as I can tell.



Abigail seemed autistic to me, or something of the sort. Remember the scene where she's building the tower with the black blocks? And her father tries to carry her to bed and she doesn't want to go?

My interpretation was that this means Abigail is special in some way. She's different from other girls, even if the exact way in which she's different isn't fully understood.



Hmm, interesting. So it sounds like you lean in the direction of Maggie NOT being a time traveler, is that correct?

While I agree that it's open-ended and very much open to interpretation, I actually fall on the side of her actually, in fact, being from the future. I feel like there's just too much pointing in that direction.

- The bearded guy tracked her down because of something he knew about time traveler lore, and this confirmed his suspicions

- The oxygen tank

- The fuck up with the song; if she had ACTUALLY been from the present time then wouldn't she just make a song up that's supposedly from the future? Who would even try to pass a song off from the 90s as something from the future?

- The handshake

- The fact that the DOJ (or someone) is so ferociously after her

Now, points 2 and 3 could be written off as an elaborate ruse. And the handshake could be explained through surveillance (but I would expect the film to the give us SOME kind of clue that this is a possibility). And the DOJ might really be after her because she's a con artist, but are we really given the impression that Maggie is so powerful that she can have a DOJ agent's hotel room bugged, especially when she didn't even know that agent was en route?

But none of this explains Point #1, unless we disbelieve the story Maggie is telling as we actually see footage of Bearded Man trying to find her on the street.

I don't know how to answer you because its so baffling. The last scene makes it look like she is legit but at the same time she felt fraudulent throughout the film. I don't know what to think. Like I said in another post, we have to jump through hoops to make a decision. Either she and her main cohort were following a little girl around and figuring out her secret handshake and then basing a cult off of it or she may be....a time traveler. This would have been a good movie without the ending but the ending shakes everything up and then just rolls credits. I may be leaning toward the possibility that she is some sort of displaced person who came through time but not as her choice.

Think about it, she woke up in a bathtub, nude, and with no memory of anything before that? WTF is that? So I dunno, my only two choices are she somehow came back in time or she is a very slick con artist, a true grifter.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

@shadow_priest_x I caught it today.

Was Abigail's mother mentioned at any point? All I remember is a house cleaner and her father but I wasn't paying super close attention. Could Maggie be her mother? That would at least give her intimate experience with Abigail's father if he taught her that.

The ending is the real discussion point for me as well.

 

[Guestx]

I don't know how to answer you because its so baffling.

Niqqa, you're the one who keeps saying we have to talk about the handshake! I'm trying to talk to you about the handshake!

The last scene makes it look like she is legit but at the same time she felt fraudulent throughout the film.

Can you tell me why precisely you thought she seemed fraudulent? Maybe this comes down to an internal feeling some people might have toward cults going into the movie.

I mean, I'm no cultist or anything, but all the way through I think I always leaned slightly in the direction of her being the real deal. It was just a feeling I had.

On that note, let me quote a passage from an article I found that's relevant:

As Sound of My Voice’s co-writers, they intentionally crafted a story that’s like a jigsaw puzzle of modern art — full of odd-shaped pieces and open to interpretation.

“The film is designed like a calculus proof, very carefully,” director Batmanglij said in an interview with Wired. “That X factor, that N — what the value of that N is, you just have to trust your instinct at the end of the experience.”

What he means is that the film gives you the equation and some numbers, but a few key scenes in Sound of My Voice remain open to analysis. Any given audience member can solve the problem differently based on what they determine the values of those Xs to be.

I don't know what to think. Like I said in another post, we have to jump through hoops to make a decision. Either she and her main cohort were following a little girl around and figuring out her secret handshake and then basing a cult off of it or she may be....a time traveler. This would have been a good movie without the ending but the ending shakes everything up and then just rolls credits. I may be leaning toward the possibility that she is some sort of displaced person who came through time but not as her choice.

Think about it, she woke up in a bathtub, nude, and with no memory of anything before that? WTF is that? So I dunno, my only two choices are she somehow came back in time or she is a very slick con artist, a true grifter.

If in fact she is a time traveler, then I agree with the idea that it wasn't really her choice.

It's also possible that she might not be the only one. Again, the Bearded Man--I really need to look up his character's name--went looking for her because, apparently, of something that he had heard. He seemed to know what she was, i.e. a time traveler. Is there a history of people with these anchor tattoos popping up from time to time? Was she just another in a line of travelers who had already come back?

 

[MusterX]

I did like the movie though @shadow_priest_x I felt entertained by it throughout and I enjoyed how they jumped straight to it. I felt the acting was spot on for all parties involved and I was actually pissed off at Lam's girl, I forget her name, but he gets kicked out and his woman won't leave with him. I would have filled the room with uppercuts. Sorry but that's too much humility all in one dose, get kicked out of the cult and your woman chooses to stay with out you? Sorry, everyone present is now getting a chair to the head. So at times I felt invested in what was going on with the various characters.

All in all, low budget, takes place in a basement, no big name actors, they pulled off something worth watching for sure. I enjoy a mystery so 8/10.