Shirley: Not a Biopic
Like many horror fans, Shirley Jackson is one of my favorite writers of all time. I’ve read almost all of her books and short stories. One of the most interesting things about her writing is analyzing how her own life impacted her stories. Going into this movie, I thought that would be the major theme. Spoiler alert: Shirley wasn’t actually about Shirley Jackson, the real-life horror author. It’s a psychological drama that uses the names of Shirley Jackson, Stanley Hyman, and a few of her short stories. But was it still good?
If it’s not a biopic, then what is it about?
The story portrayed in Shirley and the novel that it’s based on is completely fictional. The movie starts with a young couple, Fred and Rose, on a train to Bennington, Vermont. Fred is an academic, and has just gotten a job helping Professor Stanley Hyman with his research. The professor has offered for the couple to stay in his home. He is very warm and friendly, the life of the party. His wife, Shirley, on the other hand, is incredibly cold, rude, and very clearly depressed. Stanley asks Rose to basically become his housekeeper in exchange for free room and board. Pressured by her husband, Rose agrees. Soon, her husband and Stanley are gone all day at work and she is stuck in the house cleaning, cooking, and talking to Shirley. Fred is out late every night, advising the campus Shakespeare Society.
The two women start off with an antagonistic relationship (Shirley somehow guesses that Rose is pregnant, reveals it to everyone at the dinner table, and accuses Rose and Fred of having a shotgun wedding), but they soon grow close. Shirley is obsessed with the recent disappearance of a Bennington College student, and Rose agrees to help her investigate. This becomes the basis for Shirley’s new novel (you guessed it), Hangsaman.
As Shirley and Rose grow closer, Rose starts to realize how similar her own life is to the author’s. Both women are pretty much confined to the home while their husbands cheat on them with their undergraduate students. This is especially true towards the end of the movie, when Rose has her baby and must take care of the child on top of the house. The film culminates in Rose having a breakdown after Shirley reveals that there is no Shakespeare Society, and that Fred has just been using that as an excuse to sleep with his students.
What the movie got right
This film has one of the best aesthetics I’ve ever seen. The cinematography perfectly captures a gothic vibe. I’m even using one of the screenshots I took as my computer background because it’s so creepy and beautiful. Building off of that, the soundtrack for this movie was incredible. Tamar-kali, the composer, did a fantastic job of setting the paranoid, sad, haunted tone of the film. The soundtrack really highlighted the characters’ difficult emotions. I will definitely be turning this playlist on the next time I’m writing gothic horror.
I also would be remiss if I didn’t talk about the performances. Every single actor in this film did such a great job. Odessa Young as Rose gave a really compelling performance of a character that could have ended up being quite boring. Elisabeth Moss was phenomenal in her portrayal of depression, agoraphobia, and dissatisfaction (although, to nitpick, she didn’t do a good impression of the author’s voice). The scenes where Shirley interacts with her husband are so nuanced and real. She was hard to watch, in a good way. Another standout was Michael Stuhlbarg as Stanley. He toed the line really well between being warm, manipulative, and predatory. All of the actors should get awards for this movie, in my opinion.
The themes in the film were fascinating. Ultimately, Shirley is about the horrors that women face in a patriarchal society, of how terrifying it is to remove yourself from the outside world, be forced to run a household by yourself, and still be invisible. This film is very claustrophobic and delves deep into the profound loneliness that these women feel. Further, it connects these feelings to the novel Hangsaman, which you should read. For that reason, I think Shirley is definitely worth watching.
Finally, there were a lot of fun easter eggs for us fans of Shirley Jackson’s work. Obviously, there are plenty of references to Hangsaman, from a stern Stanley determined to read and critique Shirley’s writing to a wild masquerade party around a bonfire. There’s also a scene featuring something no fan of We Have Always Lived in the Castle would miss: death-cap mushrooms.
What it got wrong
As the title states, this movie is not a biopic. So, I don’t fault the movie for not being true to life. However, I do think it’s interesting and important to talk about what Shirley Jackson’s life was actually like during the time the film takes place.
Shirley takes place in the late 1940s or early 1950s, after Jackson published her infamous short story The Lottery. The film portrays the author as a depressed recluse who is alone all day and obsessed with writing a novel based entirely on a real-life disappearance. In reality, Shirley Jackson’s life at the time was very different. I am by no means an expert on this woman’s life, but here are some facts that I do know about my favorite author.
Jackson was actually raising four small children in suburban Connecticut during this time period. Obviously, I understand that there are legal issues that could have prevented the filmmakers from including Shirley and Stanley’s children. But, by most accounts, Shirley seemed like a fun, active mother. You can even read her own reflections on parenting in her popular memoirs Life Among the Savages and Raising Demons. According to her children, at the time the film takes place, the house was always full of play, visitors, and pets. I doubt that this real-life element would have contributed to the gothic, sad tone of the movie. And, to be fair, Jackson never loved being a housewife and did have a pretty rough marriage. Still, it was a little bizarre to see someone who was described by most people who knew her as lively and kind, if reserved, to be portrayed as brash, unhinged and downright cruel at points.
While Jackson did suffer from depression and agoraphobia after writing We Have Always Lived in the Castle, she actually seemed to have been pretty stable while writing Hangsaman. Furthermore, the film treats Hangsaman as though it’s some sort of true crime novel based on the disappearance of Paula Welden. That’s not really true. While Jackson did get some inspiration from the case while writing the novel, she wasn’t utterly obsessed with it as the character of Shirley was in the film. For a while, the movie took on this weird almost detective story tone as Shirley sent Rose to investigate the case. That was kind of jarring and had no basis in reality.
One of the worst parts about this film was that it didn’t involve Jackson’s actual writing when it could have. Throughout the movie, Shirley reads lines from her Hangsaman manuscript. These lines aren’t actual lines from the book. It was really bizarre to hear these made-up quotes when they could have just quoted the novel itself and it would have worked better. This choice I really do not understand. Hangsaman is a great book that perfectly fits the themes of the movie. Why not have Elisabeth Moss read lines from it?
Oh, and this is pure speculation but I’m pretty sure Shirley Jackson didn’t have the X-Men power of guessing when a woman was secretly pregnant.
Final Thoughts
This is a haunting, interesting film. It deals with the dread and horror of women grappling with being forced into a subservient, domestic gender role, mistreated by their husbands but unable to do anything about it. It’s about “lost girls” who live on the margins and disappear. But it is not biographical. I would really hate for people to come out of this movie thinking that it was a completely accurate portrayal of Shirley Jackson’s life. Her story was actually more empowering in reality: she broke free from a bigoted, repressive family, wrote some of the greatest horror fiction of all time, and found joy raising her children even though she had a difficult relationship with her husband. That story, to me, is more powerful than the one portrayed in Shirley, and why I didn’t love the film as much as I wanted to.
(3.5 / 5)
Movies n TV
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022), a Film Review
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022) is a horror comedy directed by Halina Reijn. This R-rated horror film stars Amandla Stenberg and Maria Bakalova.
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022) is a horror comedy directed by Halina Reijn. This R-rated horror film stars Amandla Stenberg, Maria Bakalova, Myha’la, Rachel Sennott, Chase Sui Wonders, Pete Davidson, Lee Pace, and Conner O’Malley. The film is currently available on fuboTV, Netflix, Hoopla, and Showtime.
Sophie (Amandla Stenberg) brings her girlfriend (Maria Bakalova as Bee) to her friend’s hurricane party. Lasting resentment and toxic relationships infest the group, leaving Bee to witness increasingly uncomfortable situations. Soon after, bodies start dropping.
What I Like about Bodies
The chemistry between these toxic friends gives me anxiety. If toxic friendships aren’t a universal experience, toxic traits certainly make themselves apparent in any friend group, and this film maximizes this experience. It’s not revolutionary, but effective and uncomfortable.
Several subtle clues hint at the relationships of these friends, building up as the story progresses and chaos ensues. I love these moments, though the film doesn’t seem confident that the viewer picks up these clues. This decision hinders execution, an unfortunate point for later.
While the performances are strong throughout, Amandla Stenberg and Maria Bakalova remain the main characters and receive the most opportunities to perform. However, almost every character has a moment, or several, and lives up to those moments once given.
The twist seems obvious, but that doesn’t hinder the viewing experience. While not the biggest fan of the execution, I enjoy the spiraling chaos it creates.
The opening scene shows the two leads making out for viewer engagement. However, I think the contract toward the end gives this scene added context and plot relevance beyond simply sex appeal. While it is unavoidable that so well, many films will go no further. So, added relevance deserves a nod.
Far from the bloodiest film out there, but it doesn’t hesitate to bleed its cast. It uses this blood and limited gore to add weight to the deaths as opposed to haunting or nauseating its audience.
Tropes, Triggers, and Considerations
As previously hinted, toxic relationships remain key points in the plot. Falling in line with this are points of spousal abuse (physically and mentally) that should remain a consideration.
Idiocy to push the plot along certainly plays a role in the plot. In this case, I consider it a feature. However, it’s still a required taste for viewer consideration.
Addiction and recovery drive several characters. I’ll avoid pointing to them so as not to give away plot details. However, usage and relapse deserve a mention in this section.
If any of these are deal breakers, give this film a skip.
What I Dislike, or Food for Thought, about Bodies
Bodies shifts between a mindless and clever horror comedy, never comfortably sticking to one or the other. It pulls off elements of both with expertise, but the tugging and pulling of these different elements limits the execution of either. Because of the above friction, Halina Reijin gives us all the clues to piece everything together and still tells us. Pick an audience and trust them.
As a horror comedy, this film leans on the humor over the horror. The unraveling of characters certainly earns respect but expect a comedy for a better experience. It’s not a particularly scary film, and it doesn’t try to occupy that space.
Final Thoughts
Bodies Bodies Bodies spirals into a chaotic horror comedy, banking on the toxic chemistry of its cast to deliver both. The film never makes a strong stance in either claiming a mindless or clever horror comedy, shifting between both at the expense of the whole. It remains a bumpy but engaging viewing experience, nonetheless.
(3 / 5)
Episode four of Amazon Prime’s Fallout was a great one for character development. It was also great because one of my personal favorite actors was involved.
Let’s discuss.
The story
This episode’s story revolved largely around Lucy and The Ghoul. He’s still dragging her about on a rope, but we aren’t sure why. While she can track the Head, she certainly hasn’t shared that information with the Ghoul.
What he wants her for soon becomes clear, when he barters her for vials of the medication that keeps him from losing himself to the ghoul illness.
At first, Lucy thinks this is a step up. She’s taken by a robot surgeon named Snip Snip to get a new thumb. Since, you know, The Ghoul shot her thumb off.
However, after stitching a new thumb on, Snip Snip takes her to his masters. Who then say they want him to cut her up for her organs.
Lucy manages to escape and even frees the other people trapped by these organ brokers. In doing so, she comes into the possession of many, many of those vials that The Ghoul needs so desperately.
Meanwhile, Norm is starting to suspect that all is not what it should be in Vault 33. While the rest of the vault is preparing to elect a new overseer, he takes Chet and sneaks off to Vault 32. There, they find some horrific sights. Long dead bodies, next to messages scrawled in blood. There are especially bodies around the door that leads to Vault 31, where someone has written We Know What’s in There on the wall.
Of course, we don’t know what’s in there. But I’m sure we’re going to find out.
Norm continues to dig, checking for information on the old Overseer’s computer. And he finds that the door to Vault 32 was opened by a Pip-Boy. To be specific, it was a Pip-Boy owned by Norm and Lucy’s mother.
I’m sure that won’t be relevant later.
What worked
The more I see of this season, the more I like Lucy. She is growing and evolving as a person, just like Wilzig told her she would have to do. She is becoming harder. But her kindness and values haven’t changed yet. She is still a good person. I love that.
I also love the dark, creepy storyline with Norm. I love how serious he is, especially when compared to the rest of his community. I especially love that, even as emotionally disturbed he is by what he’s learning, he seems passionate. And from what we’ve seen of this character, this is possibly the first thing he’s felt passionate about his entire life. I am impressed with the writing and acting that have allowed us to see his lack of passion with minimal focus. He is a fun, well-written character.
Finally, I’d like to shine the spotlight on Matt Berry. He is a delightful actor known for What We Do in the Shadows and IT Crowd. And he is playing the remarkably funny role of Snip Snip, the robot surgeon. His voice lends an extra level of humor to an already funny premise. This was another example of the great casting we’ve seen so far on Fallout.
In the end, this was a great episode from all points. It was fun, heartfelt, and dark. In short, I have no notes. I’m only excited to see what happens in the next episode.
(4 / 5)
The finale of American Horror Story Delicate aired last night. And if you were watching along with us on Threads, then you already know that it didn’t live up to any of my expectations.
Let’s discuss.
The story
We begin with Anna being ushered off stage and into an ambulance. Dex is there because Siobhan called him.
Once in the ambulance, though, the blood starts to spill. And it’s not just Anna’s. She soon finds herself in the clutches of the coven, giving birth in the most anxiety-inducing place possible. And when the baby is born, he’s taken away at once.
Because that’s the agreement that Anna made, without fully realizing what she was agreeing to.
If Anna’s going to get her baby back, she’s going to have to make another sacrifice. She is going to have to join the coven herself. Is she strong enough to do it? Is she strong enough to raise a monster?
What worked
This episode did have some fun elements. As a practicing witch myself, I appreciate the addition of Hestia in a positive light. Especially when this season was so focused on motherhood, womanhood, and sisterhood, Hestia was a lovely goddess to include.
For those who don’t know, Hestia is a goddess of the home and hearth, but not a maternal goddess. She was, in fact, a virgin goddess. So Adeline’s devotion to her made sense in a real-world witchcraft way. Adeline was supposed to be a symbol of female love and support. Including Hestia in this made that crystal clear.
This was made most clear with the behavior of Siobhan. She was a perfect example of a toxic person who uses sisterhood to use and manipulate others. This can be seen clearly in the flashback that begins this episode. We see Siobhan show kindness to Anna, who she wants to use while being cruel to the woman who shared her story at the start of the meeting. For Siobhan, kindness is a currency she spends to get something. And that is clear.
What didn’t work
Sadly, those two elements weren’t enough to save this episode. My first concern is that this ending had more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
This wasn’t just a matter of having questions left after the ending. These were elements that we should have seen and just didn’t. Why were the witches diluting and working with blood near the end of the episode? Why didn’t Dex Senior get what was coming to him? What the hell was with those pointed green heels? My largest question, however, is this.
Did Anna imagine all of this? Did any of it happen? We don’t know. Consider the ending. I don’t want to spoil too much of this, so I’ll only point out Anna’s gown. It’s bloody in one scene and newly clean the next. This is only the example I can share without spoiling the ending. But we have no proof that any of these things happened to her.
While it’s fine to leave some questions up to the viewer, there were too many here. Rather than feeling mysterious, it just felt incomplete. And seeing as how this episode was much shorter than a standard one, this could have easily been corrected.
I would also like to hold some space for how this season ruined the good message of the book Delicate Condition. This novel was bloody, gory, and disturbing. But it also had a beautiful message about sisterhood, and women supporting women through motherhood, career choices, and life in general. There is so much pure, sisterly love in that book.
This is entirely missing from this season. It’s often turned on its head, with women betraying each other for their own selfish desires. And honestly, I hated that.
Finally, this season finale is another example of an ending ruining a good season. AHS Delicate wasn’t without its charm. Some episodes were great fun. There were elements that I truly enjoyed as a horror fan, a witch and a woman. But this ending just soured everything good about the season. It spoiled all of the enjoyment I had. Much like Sabrina, Dexter, and the podcast Dolores Roach, the ending ruined everything that came before it.
In the end, this finale was disappointing. It didn’t deliver on its promises, it did a disservice to the source material, and it was poorly executed. This series is more than capable of better. Delicate Condition, the novel, deserved a better interpretation.
However, as a long-time fan, I can honestly say that in twelve years of content, I have genuinely disliked a season and a half of American Horror Story. This one, and the second half of Double Feature. So while AHS Delicate was a disappointment, I am looking forward to season thirteen. In the meantime, I’m going to rewatch Coven and look forward to better stories to come.
(2 / 5)
Brianna Schullo
July 9, 2020 at 4:53 pm
This is an excellent and thorough review! I really enjoyed Shirley too, but was unsure of the authenticity. Thanks for teaching me even more about Shirley Jackson’s real life!
Kristin Cleaves
July 9, 2020 at 7:04 pm
Excellent analysis and facts about Jackson’s real life. Thanks for pointing out the differences!