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)
Episode two of Dexter, Original Sin, was just as wonderful as the first. As a long-time Dexter fan, I find it added so much to the background of the story. And if you’re a new fan, I promise you won’t feel left behind.
The story
At the start of our episode, Dexter is learning the ropes of his new internship at Miami Metro. He’s getting a little hazing but is learning how to fit in.
Especially when he starts digging into the old files and finding new playmates for his Dark Passenger.
Meanwhile, Deb is struggling. She feels underappreciated and ignored at home. So, she decides to steal some jewelry from around the house for some quick spending money. Having little in the house in the way of jewelry, she happens upon a pair of earrings in Dexter’s room.
Nurse Mary’s earrings, to be specific.
And finally, in what will probably be the storyline for the series, a little boy is kidnapped. While he looks like a victim from the first episode of Dexter, or at least dressed in the same school uniforms, we soon find out that he’s the son of a judge. And his kidnapping might have something to do with the death of Dexter’s biological mother.
What worked
I’ve often complained about slow episodes in a TV season or mini-series. The episodes that just don’t have anything going for them. The episodes that are needed to set up the story, but otherwise are kind of dull.
This is an example of that sort of episode done well. It is true that there were no murders in this episode. There was only one dead body, and it was already dead when we got there.
But that didn’t mean the episode was uninteresting. There was character development. There was comedy. And most importantly, it had a storyline that had a satisfying conclusion. Specifically, Deb stealing Dexter’s trophy earrings and trying to sell them.
This little storyline worked on so many levels. One, it heightens tension because we know those earrings can lead the police to Dexter for the murder of Nurse Mary. Two, it shows how frustrated Deb is with her life and how far she will go to have a little fun. Three, it shows how far she won’t go when she refuses to sell her mother’s pearls. And four, it gives us a satisfying beginning, middle, and end of a story while we’re doing the necessary work of laying a foundation for the rest of the series. This was a masterclass in subplots.
I also want to point out that, so far, this series works by itself as much as it works as a prequel. I would watch Dexter Original Sin if I’d never heard the name Dexter Morgan before. And while it certainly benefits from its predecessors, it isn’t only relying on that.
What didn’t work
All that being said, I’m afraid there is still one glaring issue with this series. I hate Gellar’s character.
Yes, I am biased. But hear me out.
Tanya is supposed to be Dexter’s mentor. She got him the job as a paid intern. It would stand to reason that she did that because she wanted to take him under her wing. And yes, I am aware that a certain kind of teacher likes to knock their students down a peg or two. But she seems more interested in proving what a Strong Female she is to this college student than actually teaching him.
And frankly, this is some of the most sexist stuff I’ve ever seen on Dexter. This show has a long history of being pretty good about gender relations. It passes the Bechdel test. All of the female characters have flaws, strengths, and personalities. It’s almost like they’re, gasp, real people. None of them have been the girl hero with no personality other than being the Strong Female until Tanya was introduced. And given how similar she is to Buffy, and how unlike the rest of the cast this character is, I sense some meddling from Gellar herself.
Do better.
I am so pumped for the rest of this mini series. It is clear that everyone working on this series, except Gellar, are huge fans of the original show. Everyone is going a great job, the story is great, and I cannot wait to see what happens next.
(4 / 5)
Movies n TV
Heretic: ‘It’s a simple choice that should not be made simply: Belief or Disbelief?’
‘It’s a simple choice that should not be made simply: Belief or Disbelief?’
A24‘s chilling religious horror film, Heretic, arrived in theatres this November, forcing viewers to confront the unsettling line between faith and doubt. Directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, this edge-of-your-seat thriller will leave audiences deeply disturbed as Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) pass over the threshold of Mr. Reed’s (Hugh Grant) home where they undergo a terrifying experience that shatters their beliefs.
The Plot.
Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton are Mormon missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As the opening scenes roll they are visiting houses in an unnamed, rural Colorado town. These houses are from a list of people who have shown interest in joining the church. After being rejected and ignored several times, they arrive at the door on Mr. Reed, a pleasant gentleman who invites them in the discuss the church, promising his wife is home in the kitchen to put the Sister’s minds at ease.
Welcoming the women to sit in his living room, Mr. Reed initiates what amounts to be an awkward conversation, questioning the faith of the missionaries. Sensing that something is amiss, with Mr. Reed’s wife still not coming to meet them and a storm brewing outside, the women decide it is time to leave. Sneaking to the front door when Mr. Reed leaves the room they find the front door locked, and the only way out is to go deeper into the strange house.
Highlights.
I have never really understood the appeal of Hugh Grant. I found him lackluster in Love Actually and just plain annoying in Bridget Jones’s Diary. After watching Heretic though I think the problem is that his career focus has been on the wrong genre. Hugh Grant is terrifying, but not in the conventional sense, in the creepy religious uncle that you only see on Boxing Day sense. It might be in the jerky way Mr. Reed walks, or the near-whispered dialogue throughout the movie. Also, whoever put Mr. Reed in those glasses is a genius, they give chilling Jeffrey Dahmer vibes.
I must also note the intense monologues that Hugh Grant delivers in Heretic. It is hard to take your eyes off him. The ideas and theories that are presented are not unknown and rather convincing. I was surprised to find myself nodding in agreement with an obviously deranged and hostile character.
Drawbacks.
It is hard to explain the main drawback of this movie without spoiling the ending, but let me try. The explanation and big reveal at the end of Heretic was a bit… on the nose. I just couldn’t hitch myself to that wagon. I understand what the writer was trying to say. That there are people who have such strong faith that they are willing to give up their lives to prove the belief true. It is the way this is presented in the plot however… I didn’t like it and wonder if there might have been another way to present this idea.
The Final Take.
Ahh, how I loved this movie. Never mind National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, Krampus or Die Hard, Heretic is my new favorite Christmas film. There is nothing more to be said.
(5 / 5)
Movies n TV
Returning to the Soothing World of Evil with “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King.
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama 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.
The assessors investigate the weight of a soul. Father Frank Ignatius (Wallace Shawn) agrees to participate in this test despite his growing disillusionment. David (Mike Colter) and Kristen (Katja Herbers) deal with the ramifications of their confessions. Kristen’s girls go on the warpath with Leland (Michael Emerson). Andy (Patrick Brammall) signs his death warrant.
What I Like about “The Demon of Death”
As season 2 ended with a cliffhanger, “The Demon of Death” picks back up with an interesting addition. The episode provides a more obvious stopping point that Season 2 should have taken advantage of. It dumbfounds me because this addition makes for a more interesting and darker cliffhanger. The added context would have made the cliffhanger more palatable. However, it’s a nice twist for the episode.
Dr. Boggs (Kurt Fuller) and Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) make an interesting pair that adds complexity to both. We even explore some of Sister Andrea’s character flaws, best displayed by her interaction with Kristen in the next scene. Few wise sage characters that display flaws, making this addition appreciated.
Father Ignatius’ introduction adds layers of interest for a character who will play a recurring role, tying into Monsignor Korecki directly. The yet-to-be-explored relationship between Father Ignatius and Monsignor Korecki (Boris McGiver) evokes an interest.
While “The Demon of Death” isn’t a haunting episode, but explores the mysteries and terror of death through science to provide an interesting environment for an episode. It introduces a new character that adds to the cast.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
There’s not much to report here that particularly crosses the line and what teeters on the line holds a dark comedic tone.
Perhaps Sister Andrea’s flaw might rub some the wrong way, as it deals with her overwhelming faith. However, it’s a minor point at the moment. Again, I lean on liking some complexity for the wise sage archetype.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” still plays it safe with its supernatural elements, but that does seem to be Evil’s standard. At this point of the series, it seems a strange restraint. However, the new normal remains functionally paranormal.
While the premiere starts with an interesting procedural plot, it doesn’t direct the season like prior premieres. This episode doesn’t deliver a massive refocus as season 2’s premiere, but that’s because its conclusion doesn’t deliver as focused of a direction. Regardless, “The Demon of Death” is still an episode that slips away despite its premiere status.
Ben (Aasif Mandvi) seems needlessly hostile as they investigate a soul’s potential weight. The study delivers a thorough scientific process, which makes his resistance linger on the “angry atheist” archetype.
The demon shown on screen certainly isn’t the demon of death the title suggests. While the plot revolves around the mystery of death, there is a demon with a more carnal domain. As future episodes dive into their respective demons, it does seem to be an inaccurate title. However, the demon of the episode will get further focus in a different episode.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Death” doesn’t stand out as a premiere but provides an interesting procedural episode. As Father Ignatius will become another key character in the series, giving him an entire episode to introduce him is a nice strategy. While it’s not a haunting episode, it still provides a level of camp with interesting characters to pull it off.
(3 / 5)
-
Original Series4 days agoNightmarish Nature: Starvation Diet
-
Movies n TV5 days ago
Returning to the Soothing World of Evil with “The Demon of Death”
-
Movies n TV2 days ago
Heretic: ‘It’s a simple choice that should not be made simply: Belief or Disbelief?’
-
Movies n TV6 days ago
Rare Exports, a Magical Christmas Horror Movie Mess
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!