Writer/director Mona Fastvold has already proven she is capable of solid work, whether on her own (The World to Come) or with her partner, Brady Corbet (The Brutalist). Which makes her latest effort, The Testament of Ann Lee, all the more disappointing. It may well be one of the most tedious films of the year.
Amanda Seyfried (The Housemaid) stars as Ann Lee, founder of the 18th-century evangelical religious group known as the “Shakers” (a name taken from their ritualistic dances), which began in England but then took root in upstate New York after Ann emigrated to the soon-to-be-new-nation of the United States in 1774. It was a celibate movement, which helps explain why there are virtually no more adherents alive today. Most folks probably know the name from the simple, well-crafted wooden furniture for which the Shakers became famous. Sadly, there is very little of such items in the movie.
Instead, there’s a lot of (often beautifully) choreographed movement and song (less beautiful and surprisingly anachronistic in its instrumentation), much of which holds visual interest while doing very little to help explain Ann Lee’s visions, what she actually believed, and, most importantly, why anyone would follow her. The fourth-wall-breaking expositional narration from Thomasin McKenzie (Last Night in Soho) notwithstanding, the origins of the Shakers remain murky. All we know is that Lee had a feckless husband (Lewis Pullman, Press Play), multiple miscarriages, and ended up with a dislike of both sex and childbirth. And she believed she saw God speaking to her.
But what exactly those communications taught her, and what she preached beyond celibacy, is hard to decipher. As is Fastvold’s obsession with Mr. Lee’s desire for fellatio (to be fair, she co-wrote the script with Corbet, so he bears responsibility, too). “Take it in your mouth,” he demands, while also spanking Ann. If this is at the heart of what prompted the Shakers, it seems a light premise on which to start a religious order. I’m sure there’s more, but we don’t find it here.
We also struggle to understand who is who and why certain characters deserve close-ups only to thereafter feature less. Except for the one African American woman who (somewhat cynically) shows up in the last act to let us know that the Shakers were anti-slavery. I’m glad they were, but I’d love to find out even more about the sect’s guiding philosophy beyond celibacy. For all the words spoken throughout, the testament to meaning is quite thin.
Christopher Llewellyn Reed
Chris Reed is the editor of Film Festival Today. A member of both the Online Film Critics Society (OFCS) and the Washington DC Area Film Critics Association (WAFCA), and a Rotten Tomatoes-approved film critic, Chris is, in addition, lead film critic at Hammer to Nail and the author of Film Editing: Theory and Practice.