‘Martha’ Review: R.J. Cutler’s Splendid Documentary Taps Into Everything We Love, and Don’t, About Martha Stewart

Reflecting upon Martha Stewart’s extraordinary life, I find myself both enchanted and perplexed by this remarkable woman. Her unyielding charm and audacious opinions have undeniably left an indelible mark on our collective consciousness, yet her revelations of personal flaws and contradictions paint a complex portrait that defies simple categorization.

“Martha Stewart’s Life Journey Unveiled in R.J. Cutler’s Documentary” (now available on Netflix)

The film illustrates that Stewart possessed an impressive vision and her unique blend of shabby-chic retro design, easy yet elaborate recipes, and keen business sense made her the first self-made female billionaire in America. However, her empire crumbled when she was implicated in insider trading, a questionable case (some argue she was targeted solely for who she was) that led to her serving five months behind bars. Yet, defying the odds, she managed to reinvent herself during the social media era, transforming into a youthful, trendy figure associated with Snoop Dogg and timeless coolness.

She did all this, of course, by marketing the Martha personality: the self-empowered WASP goddess, direct and imperious, with an eerily serene grin of beatific power. She was a woman who glowed, who peered at the world through an upscale glaze. In a New Yorker essay by Joan Didion that’s quoted in the film, Didion makes the point that Stewart wasn’t just a superwoman. She was Everywoman — that is, she made herself into a mythological image of the roles that women had been raised to occupy, then merged that with a self-empowerment that transcended those roles. She literally had her (gorgeous) (designer) (made from scratch!) cake and ate it too. But there was a dark side to this Wonder Woman saga. How could there not be?

Martha narrates an enchanting tale, and the movie captivates due to how Cutler transforms Stewart’s life narrative into a contemplation on the essence of Martha. The film portrays her as “the pioneer of influence,” and this seems fitting if we consider that the realm of influencing is essentially a sponsor-driven grand facade. Indeed, it was for Stewart, who constructed and promoted the concept of the successful homemaker for women who no longer desired to be housewives. The world of Martha Stewart Living – encompassing not just the magazine but the philosophy, the entire style of Martha Stewart living – was more a virtual reality than a tangible one. After all, who could genuinely accomplish it? Who could manage even a fraction of what it entails?

The key word in all this is “aspirational.” That was Martha’s calling — to show you all the good things you could aspire to. She laid down an aesthetic, and it’s one that spoke to a lot of us. But is aspiration, in that sense, always such a good thing? Obviously, in a great many ways, to have aspirations — for your life, career, family, home, you name it — is healthy and human. But the aspirational culture of the 21st century tends to mean a certain unattainable proxy dream thing. (Two fifths of 20-year-olds today say they’re planning to be “stars.”) Martha Stewart was a progenitor of that. In a certain way, she put a turkey in puff pastry so that you didn’t have to (but could dream about it as if you were the one who’d done it). She turned “homemaking” into a so-real-you-could-touch-it-and-taste-it hologram.

Initially, a famous designer marketed her products in K-Mart, which proved to be an ingenious move for late capitalism. This strategy hinted at the democratization within her brand. Simultaneously, a voice from behind the scenes in the documentary notes, “She aimed to create homes and environments that people desired, regardless of their financial status.” While it’s true that money is necessary to obtain those homes and luxuries, if we follow Stewart’s perspective, “In truth, what it truly requires is time and dedication,” then one might argue that time is also a form of currency. Essentially, she peddled an illusion of elitism to the already affluent.

In the film, Stewart, now 83 years old, is conversed with by Cutler throughout, and she comes across as incredibly likable: a treasure trove of bold opinions and self-reliant charm. However, she’s also shown in some candid moments. Her marriage to Andrew Stewart endured for nearly three decades until it hit the rocks due to his infidelity. During the interview, Cutler inquires about an alleged affair that Stewart may have had prior to her husband’s indiscretions – after appearing uncomfortable on camera, she acknowledges it but dismisses it as insignificant and essentially says: It didn’t matter, it doesn’t count.

It’s feasible for people to have mixed feelings towards Martha Stewart, a duality that many of us find to be the most rational response. She marketed something seemingly unreachable as if it were genuine. In essence, she peddled superiority – her own over you, and yours over others if you emulated her. However, she did so with such elegance and grace that she could make ordinary life appear captivating. She made us believe in the fantasy she created.

Her perceived image of integrity crumbled when she faced allegations of insider trading, following her sale of ImClone shares on the same day as Sam Waksal, a friend and company owner, and his family members did. Waksal had been informed that the FDA wouldn’t approve his groundbreaking drug. While it appears to be a clear-cut situation, Stewart claimed she never conversed with Waksal, instead arguing that her broker suggested the sale during a brief conversation. The peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that she wasn’t directly charged with insider trading. Instead, James Comey (then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York) accused her of lying to the authorities, which essentially amounted to the same offense.

Martha largely believes Stewart was unfairly executed due to being a wealthy and influential woman, as portrayed ungraciously in the media. This treatment can be seen as a form of collective media glee at her downfall, or schadenfreude. The actual legal case appears to have been handled similarly to cases involving ordinary citizens. A documentary offers an insightful journey into Martha’s diary during her stay at the Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia, a minimum-security facility often referred to as “Camp Cupcake,” but was harsher than that reputation suggested. This 150-day period is depicted as Martha’s personal journey of suffering, resembling the Stations of the Cross. She endured pain, but also found humility. The protective barrier of her pride was shattered, allowing her to learn and grow from this ordeal.

The film showcases Martha Stewart’s surprising comeback, a moment rich with irony after her company’s stock plummeted due to a scandal and her cultural influence waned. In March 2015, she roasted Justin Bieber on Comedy Central, delivering a performance that was shocking, crude, and relentless – yet distinctly refined with a WASP-like finesse. This appearance paved the way for her collaboration with Snoop Dogg and her connection with a new generation of influencers. By the end of this film, you’ll probably find that her transformation into an O.G. of taste in the modern world is indeed a positive development.

2024-10-30 23:20

‘Martha’ Review: R.J. Cutler’s Splendid Documentary Taps Into Everything We Love, and Don’t, About Martha Stewart

Read More

Minority Mindset