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)
Okay, Mr. Drew Hancock, writer of Fred: the TV Show and Fred 3: Camp Fred. I hear you have a new, little horror film – COMPANION. Let’s give it a go.
And I am going to try as hard as possible not to spoil a goddamn thing since its marketing did the complete opposite.
PLOT OF COMPANION (SPOILER-FREE)
Iris (Sophie Thatcher) and boyfriend, Josh (Jack Quaid) travel to upstate New York to have a friends get-away with Josh’s best friends: Eli, (Harvey Guillén), Patrick (Lukas Gage), Kat (Megan Suri) and Kat’s boyfriend, Sergey (Rupert Friend).
However, trying to fit in, Iris starts to discover a terrifying secret within this tight-knit group of friends. A deadly secret…
THOUGHTS ON COMPANION (SPOILER-FREE)
Never would I have thought I would be saying that a writer of ‘Fred: the TV Show’ and ‘Fred 3: Camp Fred’ wrote a damn fine film. But here we are.
Writer/director, Drew Hancock, created a funny, clever and interesting gem of a horror film. COMPANION is a great adventure film in the horror genre, focusing on the ideas of identity, self-preservation, the cogito, ergo sum of life, and women’s rights.
And, trust me, I know that sounds like a lot, but that’s pulled off by the superb writing and the acting – it flows together really well. It’s an incredibly precarious job to balance humor, horror and drama. If you go too hard with humor and it’s cringey. You give too much drama and it’s tonal dissonance. If there’s too much horror…well, that’s okay, actually.
But with heavy hitters with incredible comedic timing like Harvey Guillén and Jack Quaid, the cast only elevates the writing and story. Quaid and Sophie Thatcher have so much chemistry and work so well together that the drama feels authentic and raw. Thatcher is such an engaging actress, working with what could have been a very flat role. But she portrays Iris with such intelligence, wit and vulnerability, it sells the idea of COMPANION that would usually require more suspension of disbelief.
I liked the soundtrack by Hrishikesh Hirway. Both the original soundtrack and the songs chosen work well with the tone and plot. Super fun bop. You can tell that the song selections were picked with intent and care, for example, the Goo Goo Dolls’ song playing in Josh’s apartment.
The effects in COMPANION were terrific by being used sparingly but grotesquely, for example, the scene with the slow, tortuous scene with the candle. Most of it is practical, but there are some key scenes with CGI that are really well done.
BRAINROLL JUICE: THIS HAS VAGUE SPOILERS
I love horror films. Yeah, I know, big surprise. But this type of film highlights why horror is such an important and crucial part of our history and culture. Horror is a lens of a society of the times. Looking back, we can see what creatures scared us. What people were afraid of or should be afraid of.
Horror, by large, is a very social and progressive genre. Monster movies and mad scientist movies of the 1950’s were en vogue due to the rising fears of the atomic bomb and the Cold War. The same is true for the rise in space horror as we had the Space Race and landed on the moon.
Movies of the ’60’s and ’70’s had serial killers, delinquents, social rights, and the pearl-clutching fear of losing our innocence as a nation and losing our good, Christian values.
The 70’s and 80’s saw the fear of the faceless stranger, sexual deviance, as well as our growing concern of the expanding powers of corporations.
And so on and so on (this could be an entire article itself).
However, I find this new twist on an old genre interesting – a woman’s story. From the exploitation revenge flicks of the ’70’s to the girl-power vibe of the 90’s and early 2000’s, AFAB stories are getting more attention. More realistic and substantial attention.
Coralie Fargeat has been exploring this with great success with her most recent film, ‘The Substance‘, but first really dove into this with her fan-favorite, ‘Revenge‘. ‘Freaky‘ and ‘Happy Death Day‘, while comedic, explore girlhood, femininity and social expectations. ‘Don’t Breathe‘ turns the trope on it’s head (in a still gross way). ‘Babadook‘ shows the difficulty with being a mother, and ‘Hereditary‘ is a deep drama on matriarchal generational trauma.
Obviously exploring themes of the AFAB horror experience isn’t a new idea, the exploitation of a woman’s story is starting to feel strained and gross. Currently, women are facing a tremendous push back on their rights. From losing the right to choose in a wild turn of events as Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022, to the most recent (at the time of this review) removal of women in the government, a senseless war on diversity and protections in the workplace, and the guttural shout of, “fuck you!” to transwomen and literally putting them in danger of starring in their very own rape-revenge true story.
What does this have to do with horror and COMPANION? Well, pretty much everything. COMPANION is about what it means to be a woman. Her fears are real and reflect the fears of our society currently. Loss of agency. Loss of identity. Loss of her voice and decisions.
But like all good horror, it will stand the test of time. It will be on the right side of history, as they say. With an incel proxy as the villain and a woman learning about herself, it’s clear what Hancock envisioned for COMPANION. It’s a film about empowerment and reflection of our society right now. And unlike the newest Black Christmas, it doesn’t shove a diva cup down your throat.
And all that from a guy who wrote Fred 3.
- Factory sealed DVD
- Jake Weary, Carlos Knight, Siobhan Fallon Hogan (Actors)
- Jonathan M Judge (Director) – Robert Zemeckis (Producer)
Last update on 2025-02-04 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
BOTTOMLINE FOR COMPANION
A funny, terrifying and adventurous romp into what it means to be yourself.
(5 / 5)
Movies n TV
The Formal Introduction of Evil’s “The Demon of Sex”
“The Demon of Sex” is the third episode of Evil’s season 3. The assessors investigate a new marriage that struggles with intimacy.
“The Demon of Sex” is the third episode of Evil’s season 3, 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.
The assessors investigate a new marriage that struggles with intimacy. Kristen (Katja Herbers) takes control of her family. Ben (Aasif Mandvi) has an existential crisis after facing plumbing difficulties. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) struggles with the new work culture. Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) battles a demon.
What I Like about “The Demon of Sex”
Ben usually seems underutilized as a character, especially in personal development, but season 3 works hard to rectify that issue. A skeptic’s disillusionment is an obvious choice for this type of character, but the writing and Aasif Mandvi’s performance drive the execution. It also adds another dynamic to his character referenced throughout the series, if rarely shown again, in the Science League.
“The Demon of Sex” is also a good episode for Sheryl, who struggles and triumphs in her new position. While her character trajectory teeters back and forth, “The Demon of Sex” shows what her development can look like when given the attention it deserves.
![Evil: Season Three [DVD]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRGYWJYaGtVVFpFYlV3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTczODkxMDcyMg=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
![Evil: Season Three [Blu-Ray]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRFdGJuQndVRmhtU1V3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTczODkxMDcyMg=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
“The Demon of Sex” also furthers the frenemy relationship between Kristen and Sister Andrea, providing ample material for both characters to explore. “The Demon of Sex” shows Kristen’s willingness to compromise and furthers Sister Andrea’s character flaws.
Leland (Michael Emerson) finally finds an attack that might work on Sister Andrea, beginning a plot thread to explore across the season. Commenting on this plot point might give credit to future episodes, but it’s a compelling example of Leland actually being devious and in control.
“The Demon of Sex” leans on Evil’s dark comedic tone, not intending to haunt the viewer but to entertain them. It dives further into the comical nature of corporate evil and marketing, showing a general shallowness in both arenas in which exploitation occurs. It’s dark, troubling, and entertaining without pulling its punches.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
In an episode titled “The Demon of Sex,” the titular demon seems to hold conflicting motives. First, it grows strong in the married couple’s abstinence, which suggests a different focus. But when acts become carnal, it’s the general kinkiness that makes the demon strong. Considering the couple talks about their troubles with a licensed therapist, it seems to evoke a general kink shame to the execution. However, the therapy also fails to resolve the underlying issues.
A slightly gory moment might unsettle some viewers, but it’s a single moment in an otherwise goreless episode.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Sex”
As mentioned in a previous review, another demon seems to indicate a more direct concept of “sex,” while the motives of this demon seem more complex. It’s a minor point, but I can’t fathom why they didn’t connect this title with the more literal succubus that’s plagued this season already. Addressing that demon also seems like a more logical entry point as the audience sees what it’s been doing.
“The Demon of Sex” sets the groundwork for future plot points. While not a fault of the episode, it blends in the background, doing what it needs to and little more. I don’t mean to pretend this is a negative, but it doesn’t haunt the viewer like past or future episodes.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Sex” delivers but remains buried around more memorable episodes with more lasting power. It sets up key points for several characters and allows some to shine, but it doesn’t hold iconic moments to look back on. Ultimately, it functions as intended and keeps the audience eager for future developments.
(3 / 5)
Movies n TV
A Journey from Cosmic Horror to Shell Beach, or Dark City (1998)
Dark City (1998) is an R-rated Cosmic Horror film directed by Alex Proyas, often earning the fitting labels of tech noir.
Dark City (1998) is a Cosmic Horror film directed by Alex Proyas, though I’ve seen labels of tech noir, which certainly fits. This R-rated film stars Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly, and William Hurt. As of this review, Dark City is available to Kanopy and Amazon Prime Video subscribers, with additional purchase options on other services.
John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up in a hotel bathtub, plagued with strange memories and amnesia. Chased by strangers, he follows his memories of Emma (Jennifer Connelly), avoiding those who hunt him in his desperate attempt to understand his situation. As mysterious forces hinder him, Dr. Daniel Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland) claims to know secrets that might help. Emma Murdock (Jennifer Connelly) haunts him.
What I Like about Dark City
Dark City earned 12 awards and an additional 19 nominations. These recognitions include the 1999 Saturn Award from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films and the 1998 Bram Stoker Award. In short, Dark City earns a strong critical reception.
Part detective tale and part cosmic horror, Dark City lures its viewer in with its aesthetic and premise. I hesitate in saying that the mystery drives the film as the beginning narration does spill most of the finer points. However, Rufus Sewell delivers a performance of someone so overwhelmed and out of his element that the terror shows despite our knowledge. This film wants the audience to know the mystery, focusing on characters learning the truth to hook them.
![Dark City (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRGcFEya3plbXh2Umt3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTczODkxMDcyMg=)
- Factory sealed DVD
- Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland (Actors)
- Alex Proyas (Director)
- Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand)
- Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland (Actors)
- Alex Proyas (Director) – Alex Proyas (Writer) – Andrew Mason (Producer)
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
Every performance nails its particular niche. From Kiefer Sutherland’s Dr. Schreber’s untrustworthy scientist to Jennifer Connelly’s mysterious Emma, each performance enriches the plot. This praise belongs to the entire cast, as many performances hold nuances that make sense after learning the entire truth.
Dark City maintains tension for most of its runtime, with the ending being an exception. That isn’t to say that the film fails to create a haunting story, but the focus shifts as the characters learn more about their situation. While both parts of the film accomplish their objectives, it does minimize the horror.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
At the backdrop of this story, there’s a serial killer murdering sex workers. It’s a familiar plotline, and Dark City doesn’t push against its familiarity in most aspects. However, the reasons behind this plot are somewhat more complex beyond simple shock value.
There was one notable voyeuristic nude scene, but the first naked body is Rufus Sewell’s John. Besides these moments, Dark City doesn’t lend itself to voyeurism. Instead, it prefers a largely sexless and detached perspective, which seems common among Lovecraftian-inspired properties.
What I Dislike about Dark City
As briefly mentioned, Dark City doesn’t deliver a traditional mystery because the beginning narration spoils most of that mystery. While this doesn’t inherently hinder the film, it’s a decision that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Most of the narration gets shown or told to the audience later. It’s as if the audience isn’t trusted to understand these elements. However, this film repeats this information or shows it with better execution, making the narration unnecessary.
Without divulging too much, the ending empowers a particular character that hinders the cosmic horror influences. It’s hard to believe the danger of cosmic forces when they prove to be your equal.
While not a fault of Dark City, The Matrix would focus more on empowering its main character through realizing some truth. Since The Matrix came out a year after this film, Dark City holds a stronger claim to the trend. However, the execution of this plot point goes to The Matrix. Despite the drastically different focus and genres, I can’t help but wonder how much The Matrix’s success has overshadowed this film’s lasting power.
Final Thoughts
Dark City creates a tense journey for audiences to follow, combining cosmic horror and tech noir to create something unique. It’s a cult classic that earned an award after its digital re-release because few films provide its unique mix of genres. If you crave a dark mystery where humanity must adapt to overcome the impossible with a flare of cosmic horror, this film might satisfy your craving.
(4 / 5)
-
Book Reviews6 days agoLet’s Do Lunch Review – A Witchy, Whimsical Recipe for Chaos
-
Movies n TV6 days ago
Perfect Reboot of The Franchise: Halloween H20 (1997) Review
-
Movies n TV5 days ago
When Your Mother Dates Creature Features, or What Lies Below
-
Original Creations5 days ago
Arctic Horror – A Chilling Tale of Survival and Terror by Nicole L. Duffeck
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!