Thoughts on The Testament of Ann Lee

    At the Village East Cinema last week in New York City, I went to see The Testament of Ann Lee, a 2025 historical drama musical directed by Mona Fastvold and co-written by Fastvold and Brady Corbet. The film centers on the origins of the Shaker movement, particularly focusing on Ann Lee (Amanda Seyfried), the founding leader, who formed the religious sect in Manchester, England. In 1758, she had joined an English sect founded by Jane Wardley (Stacy Martin) and her husband, preacher James Wardley (Scott Handy), in an organization that was a precursor to the Shaker sect. This sect was called the Shaking Quakers because of its similarities to the Quaker movement, but also the practice of "removing sin" through dancing and chanting.

    The film follows Lee's life, from her childhood in poverty to finding religion with her friends. Throughout Ann's childhood and early adulthood, she is repulsed by sexuality, associating it with sin (likely with sex work), as well as viewing it in close proximity and finding it vulgar and unattractive. She married young, to Abraham Stanley (Christopher Abbott), and never enjoyed sex, and experienced trauma with losing all four of her babies during infancy, none of them surviving to one year old. In her development of her religious beliefs, as well as a hallucination she had while imprisoned, with vision of Adam and Eve and original sin, she declared that the Shakers take a vow of celibacy, even within marriage. She also believed herself to be the second coming of Christ, and in 1774, the Shakers moved from England to New York, where they continued practicing, but were accused of treason and witchcraft, although they were neutral pacifists during the American Revolution.

    I was mixed on this film. I loved the dancing, choreographed by Celia Rowlson-Hall, that had a mix of praise dance and modern dance to it, with movements like hand percussion on the body and swaying and undulating, and the dance sequences were stunning with fluid camera dolly work by William Rexer capturing the movements, and how rapturous the Shakers would be in feeling cleansed of sin through dancing and chanting. In a Q&A I attended after the screening, writer-director Mona Fastvold spoke of how the costumes and corsets were designed for more freeing movement, and that the costumes were created for the film, because renting period costumes wouldn't allow for that same time of dancing.

    The music was composed by Daniel Blumberg, drawing from original Shaker hymns, and complements the film beautiful, setting it in its period well.

    Amanda Seyfried was great in this film, throwing herself into the dancing and physicality, as well as singing with her gorgeous soprano voice, and portraying Ann Lee with the religious fervor and conviction that borders on psychotic.

    In the supporting roles, Lewis Pullman played William, Ann's brother, and it's an understated role, but he was good. Thomasin McKenzie played Mary, who narrates the film and has one blind eye, and is often on the sidelines watching the action, with an eerie presence. Tim Blake Nelson appears as Pastor Reuben Wright in the New York scenes.

    I felt lost in the last third of the movie, where I didn't feel like I could connect with the Shakers as much, especially when they receive criticism from others that their night chanting can be heard from miles away, and I didn't agree with the vow of celibacy or equating sexuality with sin, that felt more controlling and more on the sanctimonious Evangelical side for me. I lost connection with the story as it felt like the movement had been trying to convert people when moving to New York, and seeming incredibly naive. I didn't agree that they deserved violence from angry mobs or to be imprisoned, but I wasn't liking them very much, either.

    Overall, I loved the dancing and the music and the uniqueness of the film as a period musical that felt more unusual and unconventional, and focusing on a female religious leader who was strange and controversial. I wasn't as into the later storytelling as much, but I still found this to be a very interesting film to watch.

Thoughts on Lost in America

     On Criterion, I watched Lost in America, a 1985 comedy written and directed by Albert Brooks, starring Brooks and Julie Hagerty as David and Linda, a yuppie couple in L.A. who feel bored with their bourgeois lives. David works at an advertising agency, and Linda works at a department store. David is expecting to get a promotion to senior vice president after having been at the agency for eight years, while Linda, despite getting promotions, is bored at her job and doesn't like the house they've lived in for seven years or the house they've just bought. When David doesn't get the promotion and is instead offered a transfer to their New York offices to work on an account for Ford, he throws a fit and curses out his boss and is immediately fired. He convinces Linda to quit her job too, and that they should sell their house, liquidate their savings, having $150,000 to their name, and go get a motor home and live out on the open road, living out David's Easy Rider fantasies. They do all of that, and go to Las Vegas with the plans of renewing their vows, but then Linda loses all their money in gambling at the roulette table, and they are dead broke and have to figure out how to manage from then on, not being prepared for being poor without their nest egg.

    What is hilarious and smart about this film is how good Brooks is at making fun of Reagan-era yuppies who fantasize about the 1960s counterculture movement, but still want the security of their massive nest eggs. When David is talking about wanting to "drop out," but still having a lot of money, and Linda says how the guys in Easy Rider dropped out but weren't rich, David counters by saying they sold cocaine to get by, insisting that they still had a high income.

    Brooks nails the entitlement of these characters, especially David, who keeps trying to bribe people or wanting special treatment at every corner. When they go to a Vegas hotel, he bribes the concierge $50 to check again if the bridal suite is occupied, then bribes another $50 when the concierge tells him his price is $100. Then the "bridal suite" turns out to be the "junior bride suite" with double heart-shaped beds instead of a single, and no tub for their bath fantasy.

    One of the standout scenes of the film is when, after Linda loses all their money, David meets with the casino manager (Garry Marshall) to try to get their money back, and continually acts as if he is different than other Vegas tourists who lost at gambling, insisting that he and his wife are the "bold" ones who just made a mistake, and aren't like the "schmucks to come to see Wayne Newton." The manager: "I like Wayne Newton. That makes me a schmuck?" He tries his angle of offering advertising tips for the casino, to make them seem more welcoming and open to giving money back to tourists who lose, and keeps trying to act as if he's better or more special than others, to which the casino manager stays professional about their policy but is clearly annoyed by David's hubris.

    Another wonderful scene is when David goes to an employment office, and to the employment agent (Art Frankel), after listing his white collar resume with his past job of $80K yearly salary and a bonus of $15-20K, is asking if there are any jobs in the $100K salary range, which is ludicrous to ask of an employment office that mostly have minimum wage jobs and low-level secretarial jobs at best. David goes "I wanted to change my life." The agent "You couldn't do that on $100,000?"

    I really liked this movie a lot, and I liked that it wasn't so much of a fantasy of them living on the open road, but about them immediately not being able to handle financial challenges or setbacks and wanting to run back to their old lives as soon as possible. It's a great film, and I'm glad I checked it out.