The movie: Sound of My Voice

This is not a movie review but my attempt to fathom a deep mystery. Or, I should say, “my first stab at an attempt.” The following remarks are primarily for those who saw the movie. But I want to whet the appetites of others with a brief synopsis:

Peter and Lorna are a 20-something live-in couple who attempt to infiltrate a charismatic cult, posing as converts, in order to make a documentary film exposing the leader as a fraud. When they manage to “graduate,” they are ushered into the presence of Maggie, the cult’s leader. She claims to have come from the future (the year 2054) in order to affect the outcome of a devastating civil war yet to come. The audience is left to wonder, after the movie’s 85-minute run time, if Maggie is really who she claims she is.

For the uninitiated, check out this link to the first twelve minutes of the film:

http://www.soundofmyvoicemovie.com/index2.html

Those first twelve minutes don’t look like much, do they? Certainly not compared to (say) The Avengers, the blockbuster currently tearing up the box office. But for my money (and I’ve seen Sound of My Voice twice and don’t intend to see The Avengers…ever), this modest, annoyingly minimalist “sci fi” feature is far worthier of your attention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For you who have seen the movie

My “Truth in Packaging” Warning:

My take on this movie is colored by the fact that I am a Buddhist. So of course the title intrigued me, as well as Maggie telling her followers, “The only thing you’ll remember is the sound of my voice [after I leave you].” I couldn’t help but think of a well-known claim by the Buddha: “The voice does the Buddha’s work.” When I saw this movie the second time, the day after I’d first seen it, I tried to answer this question: “What kind of work does Maggie have in mind?”

And this question bothered me, for I couldn’t imagine a Buddha or any kind of highly-advanced spiritual being going back in time to try to change the outcome of events gone bad. The work done by the Buddha’s voice is to direct people toward Buddhist practice, so they themselves can become Buddhas. If Maggie had come back in time to try to change the future, then her efforts were misguided. At least from this Buddhist’s perspective.

Anything that happens to a person is the result of that person’s karma. The bad things that happen as “punishment” would only have to happen in a future lifetime if, by someone else’s intervention, those bad things didn’t happen due to that future civil war Maggie spoke of. The only “easy” way to explain Maggie’s stance is that she’s yet another example of a spiritually-advanced person who doesn’t yet understand that certain events have to unfold. And that any supernatural attempt to stop them is short-sighted, lacking in compassion, and based on sentimental attachment.

Some observations/questions:

ONE:  I couldn’t help but think this movie is nothing more than a writer’s exercise, intentionally underdone. I remember doing multiple-choice math problems as a kid that included this option: “Not enough information to determine an answer.” And, yes, a lot of people would see Sound in that vein - as nothing more than an attempt to throw some shallow, eclectic, inconclusive, and teasing material at an audience, hoping their imaginations fill in the blanks.

However, I don’t think the scriptwriters are guilty of underwriting. This would help our perspective: We in the audience should compare ourselves to the infiltrating doc filmmakers. Peter and Lorna knew a lot because they were there. We know more because the film showed us more than any members of the cult could have seen. But even that much frustrated me because there were times (I’m sure) the audience wanted to shout out some questions.The scriptwriters, though, gave us enough information to conclude that Maggie was indeed from the future. And that’s the important part.

TWO: From the beginning, I was distracted by Lorna’s nose (which is indeed the nose of actress Nicole Vicius in real life). It looked strange, like from a plastic surgery not gone quite right. When we learn that Lorna used to be a model, I can only conclude this is supposed to be an Intended Dissonance – something intended to make you say, “What?!”

In that same category (ID), Maggie says, “Like anything new, it would be impossible for your mind to digest.” Of course, that’s not true, but it leaves you wondering why she said it.

INDENTED COMMENT: I feel obliged to add this comment on the off-chance Nicole Vicius would ever read my words: “I loved your performance in this movie, and I think you’re ethereally beautiful, but…I was distracted by your nose. Absolutely no offense meant, beautiful.”

THREE: The acting was wonderful throughout. It almost goes without saying that top notch acting can make up for weak material. Though hesitating on calling the material “weak,” I want to applaud acting well-done when I see it.

FOUR: Who filled that bathtub with water? Maggie tells us that she awoke two years ago in an empty motel room under water. She was immersed in a bathtub that was “about three-quarters filled.” The story wouldn’t have suffered if she had awakened in that room merely sprawled out on a bed. Although the image of someone emerging from a womb (that bathtub) having no memory, much like a newborn being thrust into this world, is a powerful one.

I concluded that the cleaning woman who discovered her had a friend who had drawn that water, perhaps for the purpose of cleaning. Just before she entered to find Maggie standing there, she called out as if expecting to find someone else (her friend?) in the room. Of course, that raises the question: What happened to that someone else?

FIVE: There was a lot of white in this movie. Maggie and her followers were all dressed in white. There were no blacks among her members, though there was one Hispanic and two Asians. In fact, the only black person was a large, brusque woman (Carol Briggs), who claimed to be from the Justice Department. She made an interesting contrast to the vulnerable Maggie and Abigail.

SIX: What’s in a name?

·       “Klaus” means “Victory of the People.” Klaus was the one who found Maggie wandering the streets with other down-and-outers. He was the necessary link to the future, allowing Maggie any chance of succeeding in her mission. I like to think of Klaus as a warrior of the 99% (who have no clue of the impending Apocalypse) trying to do battle against the one-thousandth of one per cent who are trying to cause that Apocalypse.

·       “Maggie” has several tantalizing meanings. In Greek, it means “pearl” – as in pearl of wisdom. The Scots take it to mean, “Child of light, famous bearer.” I can’t recall my source for this, but “People with [the name Maggie] have a deep inner desire for a stable, loving family or community, and a need to work with others and to be appreciated.” This is a stretch but I’ll offer my opinion: “Maggie” is short for Magdalene, which refers to Mary Magdalene who became known as “Equal of the Apostles.”

·       “Abigail” means “father rejoiced, or father’s joy.” We could see how devoted Abby’s father was to her, even though he appears only briefly. The name “Abigail” is sometimes used to refer to a “servant” or a “handmaiden.” But I don’t think of this as necessarily meaning a lowly person.

SEVEN: Time Travel in the year 2054. The sense I have is that Maggie was able to travel back in time due to her own advanced level of spiritual practice, not because a time machine had been invented. She spoke of “my legs and my right arm would fall asleep like in meditation, you know, but for hours.” That tells me that she did meditate, which is how she became able to travel back in time. But she was a flawed practitioner, for masters of meditation don’t have problems with their limbs falling asleep. Maggie herself said, while smoking a cigarette in Peter’s presence, (something like), “I’m not perfect.”

EIGHT: Abigail and Maggie were both prescient. In Maggie’s case, this is obvious when she’s confronting Peter, probing for the source of his weakness. In Abby’s case, I offer one small clue: When she writes the word “terrorist” on a schoolmate’s backpack, she sees what’s in that girl’s future. [I admit, though, this is quite an extrapolation.]

NINE:  Carol Briggs' strange behavior in that hotel room. Why did she draw the curtains, turn on the shower and bathroom basin’s faucet, and disable the electronics in the room? Why did she find it necessary to lure Maggie into the open? I thought of Carol as following SOP as determined by a secret, elite unit within our national security apparatus. She might have been exercising extreme caution because her bosses feared the unknown power of people like Maggie, especially in their homes.

Personally, I believe there are spies who function to scout for potential threats to the Elite, with the mission of neutralizing them before they become too powerful. Here in the US, militias and cults are routinely infiltrated. Even in the case of such an obscure and remote figure like Joseph Kony, I have to wonder why the US in spending hundreds of millions of dollars to hunt down one man – a “phony” charismatic.

TEN: Carol Briggs is from the Justice Department? If that was true, that was only her cover. Carol told Lorna that Maggie was wanted for “armed robbery and arson.” Those aren’t federal crimes, so if I were Lorna I would have challenged her on this and asked to see some ID. Even Lorna should have (and certainly we in the audience must have) seen that Maggie wasn’t capable of crimes of that nature. If, however, Maggie ordered her followers into criminal actions, then she would have been wanted for “aiding and abetting.”

ELEVEN: That future civil war.  That’s just an expression of convenience. It’s really to be a massacre by the Elites and their dupes of the general population, done in the name of thinning the herd. The only thing the Elite would ever have to fear is the unknown power of the Spirituals. And that’s why I think the Elite, in this day and age, are taking no chances. In the case of Maggie, I wondered why they didn’t simply kill her. Perhaps they determined it would nip her movement in the bud to have a sham trial wherein she’s “exposed” as a phony.

TWELVE:  Why did Maggie want to see her mom? Eight-year-old and very bright Abigail is supposed to be Maggie’s mom some day. Anything I’ve ever read of time travel warns against such interactions, so I’m left wondering why Maggie had to see her mom. Perhaps she could see how the recent loss of Abigail’s mom (that’s why she wore that red cap, that belonged to her mom, all the time) and the heavy influence of an adoring and devoted father needed to be balanced with support from a source of trusted female energy that would help her in the future.

THIRTEEN: Why did Abigail initiate the secret handshake? Maggie followed up, successfully completing the sequence. Abigail asked, “How did you know my secret handshake?” Maggie answered, “You taught it to me.” A short time later, Abby asks Peter, “Who was she?” Peter knew but maybe his instinct kicked in stopping him from saying, “She says she’s your daughter.” He simply said, “I don’t know.”

FOURTEEN: Carol asks Lorna if the cult “asked for a kid.” I’d like to know what Carol, who seemed to know, would have told Lorna was the real reason. This was one of those times I wanted to shout a question to an impossibly unapproachable silver screen.

FIFTEEN:  A flash of white panties. Abigail, again all of eight-years-old, is lying on the sidewalk. When she rises to stand, the audience catches a glimpse of her white underwear. When I wrote, above, that this movie had a lot of white in it, this scene crossed my mind. And it bothered me. I don’t like seeing children exploited in any manner whatsoever, and I certainly hope there was at least some reason in the minds of the filmmakers for this. Maybe this scene was put there to simply move us out of our comfort zone. I might be too old-school here, but I have to voice my disapproval on this one.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well, that’s just about it. Although I could manage more, I’ll hold back. It’s possible to over-explain some things, perhaps even making mountains out of molehills. And I try to keep in mind how Bob Dylan never explained/analyzed any of his songs. In that spirit, I stop. As in a Dylan song, the beauty of the thing, imperfect though it might be on any absolute scale, loses something in translation.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Keep your eyes open and keep on paying attention. You might learn a lot from some very unexpected sources.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com