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.
Shirley Jackson with her children, North Bennington, Vermont, 1956
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
“How to Split an Atom,” a Scientific Return to Evil
The assessors return to investigate a particle accelerator with a damning history in “How to Split an Atom.” Season 4 Premiere of Evil.
The assessors return to investigate a particle accelerator with a damning history in “How to Split an Atom.” David (Mike Colter) can’t seem to shake off the dire warning of his vision. Kristen (Katja Herbers) reaches her breaking point. Ben (Aasif Mandvi) sees the light and faces some uncomfortable realizations.
“How to Split an Atom” is the first episode of season 4 of Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
What I Like about “How to Split an Atom”
While “How to Split an Atom” does start in season 3’s conclusion, it’s still a satisfying introduction through Kristen’s reaction alone. While it’s less effective and necessary in the era of streaming services, it reminds viewers of the last season’s execution to re-establish tension.
“How to Split an Atom” sets Kristen and Ben to face their most personal challenges. While Kristen often gets a good amount of material to explore, Ben receives the least development of the three assessors. Now that the titular scheme suggests a scientific focus, Ben seems to earn more attention.
- In the final season, Kristen, David, and Ben continue to assess cases that involve wayward technology, possessed pigs, demonic oppression and infestation, a dance muse conjured by alleged witches, and an evil relic
- Throughout, Leland attempts to lure Kristen into raising a baby antichrist who was conceived with her ovum
- David is recruited by the Vatican’s secret service to remote view a paranormal ability to see the unseen to detect evil
- From creators Robert King and Michelle King (The Good Wife), Evil is a critically acclaimed psychological mystery series that examines the origins of evil along the dividing line between science and religion
- A skeptical female psychologist (Katja Herbers) joins a priest-in-training (Mike Colter) and a contractor (Aasif Mandvi) as they investigate the Church’s backlog of unexplained mysteries, including supposed miracles, demonic possessions, and hauntings
- This 13-disc collection includes all 50 episodes, along with deleted scenes and more!
Last update on 2025-03-03 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
In comparison, David takes a step back, but the performance shows a man haunted by his vision. You see this conflict in his performance as he seems more held back and reserved throughout the episode.
Though far from unique to this episode, I haven’t yet found the opportunity to dive into the opening credits. These credits embody the idea of evil as an intrusive force against the good. It visibly displays the famed “problem of evil,” showing how the darkness intrudes against the light.
“How to Split an Atom” prepares the viewer for a new norm across every character. While that doesn’t evoke a truly haunting experience, it remains effective in building the foundation for the final season of Evil.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Andy (Patrick Brammall) spirals in this episode, induced by trauma and manipulation. His interactions with Kristen showcase several toxic behaviors. While these issues hold merit and other forces manipulate him, this might not matter to some.
Though not directly stated, a minor character seems to suffer a psychotic break, leading to their death. “How to Split an Atom” doesn’t confirm if this is a suicide, a demonically assisted act, or a complete accident.
What I Dislike about “How to Split an Atom”
“How to Split an Atom” explores a similar titular scheme as last season, but it doesn’t resonate as well. It feels like it retreads season 3, focusing instead on science but still lingering in a similar design.
There’s a strange scene where Sister Andrea and David speak in a low whisper despite being alone in her room. If “How to Split an Atom” wants to imply that spies listen in, “How to Split an Atom” doesn’t show this idea effectively. However, I think it’s intended to parallel Catholic confession, but it still doesn’t make logical sense in execution.
As streaming shows become standard practice, starting a new season in the prior season’s conclusion makes the episode more dependent and repetitive. While the execution remains effective in “How to Split an Atom,” I can’t help but linger on that thought.
Final Thoughts
“How to Split an Atom” establishes a definitive timeline where all the forces of Evil will collide. It has its strengths but doesn’t haunt the viewer. The ramifications of Ben’s descent and Kristen’s breaking point keep this episode from blending into the background, but only slightly. (3.5 / 5)
We’ve reached the end of Goosebumps, The Vanishing. And after eight episodes of quality going up and down, I’m sad to say that the finale held to that theme.
The story
We begin this episode with the teens getting ready to go down into the fort to save their dad. Dr. Pamani gave them serum injections to keep them from being turned into pods. Then she locks them in, intending to never let them out again.
Through a series of quick thinking and bravery, everyone makes it out of the fort, though. Including Matty, Nicole, Hannah and Sameer.
For a time it looks like everything is going to be alright. Until Anthony tells Jen that they’ve got to do something about the alien ship that’s still trapped within the fort.
By the way, watch this with the caption on. It’s fantastic.
Jen and Anthony go back to Dr. Pamani’s lab in time to realize that no one is safe. Least of all, their kids.
What worked
You might notice that the ‘rescuing Dad from the pod’ part of this episode was over pretty fast. That’s because the actual story of this episode was about what came out of the facility rather than what was going on down there. And that was a surprising misdirect. I enjoyed that I didn’t see this misdirection coming. Well done.
I will also say that this episode was fun to watch. The critters were equal parts creepy and kind of cute. The dialog was fun and there were a lot of laughs.
This ending was also satisfying. All the questions are answered. Everyone gets a happy ending and all the people you want to get together do. It was a solid ending with no loose threads.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, that’s all the good things I can say about this episode.
Let’s start with the continued superficiality of the whole story. I just didn’t feel much of anything for any of these characters. I had a little twinge of bittersweetness when Matty looked through the box of his old things. But that was about it.
The problem here was that everything was going too fast. We jumped from chaos to chaos so fast that the emotions didn’t have time to sink in. It was like rain on a dry field. No matter how much falls, if it can’t be absorbed it’s not going to do much good.
Here’s the real problem I have with this episode, though.
You’ll recall that in the last episode, I was irritated by how quickly Dr. Pamani decided to help the kids. It should surprise exactly no one that she didn’t decide to help them, but to trap them in the facility to be podded forevermore.
- Goosebumps now on Disney+!Jack Archer is convinced something strange is going on at his neighbor’s house
- Mr
- Fleshman always wears all black, hardly ever leaves his house, and never says hello to anyone
Last update on 2025-02-28 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
While I’m thrilled that Dr. Pamani didn’t just change her mind, I still think it was dumb as shit that anyone, especially our main characters, thought she did. These teens aren’t dumb. Kids aren’t dumb. We shouldn’t be portraying kids as dumb in a show for kids.
I’m not saying this series was pure garbage. I’m not saying it was dangerous or unwatchable. I’m just saying that, if it didn’t have the name Goosebumps, I probably never would have watched it. This story just doesn’t have the same staying power that the original stories do. It was fine to watch, but in the end, just didn’t have enough substance to warrant a rewatch.
(3.5 / 5)
After a shaky start, Goosebumps The Vanishing is still on shaky ground with this penultimate episode. While there were some surprises, a lot of them were rather disappointing.
I feel like I say this a lot, but if you’ve read the original book then you might have a hint about where this is going. But it won’t tell you the whole story. So let’s take a trip to Camp Nightmare and see what’s waiting for us.
The story
We begin this episode with a flashback to the Fort before it was a fort. A group of Camp Nightmoon campers is hiking there with the worst camp counselor ever. It was almost a relief when the mysterious monster reached up from the cliffside and grabbed him.
Back in the present, the teens are putting the pieces together. They track down Dr. Pamani’s father and even find a book he published. They then locate the address of her lab and break in. There, they find her journals that chronicle the discovery of the monster, and how it managed to kill her entire team.
What worked
In this episode, and in fact this season, scientists are not the bad guys. Which is a relief. Science fiction and horror tend to hold up a mirror to society, showing us what we’re really scared of using monsters and ghosts as allegories. So often, when people are wary of science and scientists, we have horror movies that demonize them.
But that’s not what happened here. The scientists are not necessarily the good guys, but the ones who tried to save the world. Even though they failed, they tried.
One good example of this was Dr. Pamani telling her father, “We’re scientists, not soldiers.” This is a great line. And this episode had a lot of great lines. The dialog was on point. Nothing felt forced, but it also felt polished and impactful. It was just overall well done.
I also enjoyed, to a point, the flashback scenes to 1969. It was interesting to see the people who tried to contain this entity. To learn from it. The flashback was also ominous. Because never did the characters explain how this entity got there. They didn’t seem interested in that, only in how to destroy it. Since we don’t know why or how it came to New York, we don’t know if there are more of them somewhere else. And since everyone’s being so secretive, we might never know.
Until it’s too late.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, this episode failed more than it succeeded.
Let’s start with the sudden change of heart Dr. Pamani has. For decades, she’s been controlling and containing this creature. She’s been careful to never take risks that might release it into the world. So when Cece and Devin want to go save their dad, she says no.
At first. Then, after a not-so-passionate plea by Cece, she changes her mind and agrees to help them save Anthony.
Which seems like a really quick departure from her stance just moments before. Honestly, this wasn’t believable at all. It was lazy. It felt like they just didn’t have a good enough reason for her to change her mind, so they just handwaved it away.
This wasn’t the only part of the story that was too easy. This whole investigation went smoothly for them. They wanted to find the book by Dr. Avi Pamani, and they found it at the library. They didn’t even find it. The librarian found it for them. They wanted to find Dr. Pamani’s address. They found it in seconds and also found her credit score. They got into her lab by doing nothing more than cutting a chain holding the door shut. And we’re supposed to believe that no one ever thought to do any of this? Four teenagers vanished in the 1990s, and none of their family members were ever able to put all this together. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Both of these issues feed into the main problem with this episode. The whole thing felt watered way down. Especially after the hints about some horrific medical experiments taking place at the fort. I love a good horrific medical experiment story, so I was looking forward to that.
But that’s not what happened. Instead, it was a watered-down alien invasion story with a bunch of people who did their best and failed. It just felt like, frankly, not enough. It felt like there could have been so much more, should have been so much more. Instead, we got the Great Value version of what we could have had.
At this point, I think I’m too invested to give up. After all, there’s just one more episode left. But I’d be lying if I said that was something I’m looking forward to.
(3 / 5)
-
Book Reviews7 days agoExploring real terror with The House of My Mother
-
Book Reviews6 days agoVictorian Psycho: She’s Paranoid, Violent and Utterly Charming
-
Original Creations7 days ago
Yearning, Poem by Jennifer Weigel based on Andrew Wyeth’s Christina’s World
-
Book Reviews1 day ago
A Stellar Debut Novel, We Used To Live Here
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!