Skip to main content

An Inauthentic, Perfect Celebration of Shirley Jackson


The thing that needs to be understood about Shirley is that it is not a biopic. It is based on a novel by Susan Scarf Merrell, positing a fictional story set against a distinctly non-fictional context about Shirley Jackson and the writing of her 1951 novel Hangsaman; set at her home in North Bennington, Vermont, while depicting her tumultuous relationship with her controlling academic husband Stanley Hyman, a critic and professor at the local college. However the core of the story concerns their relationship with a young couple who move into their house, and how these visitors, but the woman especially, become entwined in an obsessive and manipulative process of inspiration that drives Shirley’s book. This has no basis in truth, which makes it quite appropriate that the movie would frequently blur the lines of its own reality. Much like a Shirley Jackson story would.
Indeed the brilliance of Shirley, stupendously directed by Josephine Decker, is that it brings Shirley Jackson to life as a Shirley Jackson story. I have seen few films, few adaptations even, that can replicate the experience of reading a text so distinctly. And I’m not talking about the book Shirley, which I haven’t read, but the prose of Jackson herself for a story she didn’t write. True there are plenty of elements, either in plot or style, clearly borrowed from her work -most notably Hangsaman itself, but also We Have Always Lived in the Castle, various short stories (a form I would argue she perfected), and even The Haunting of Hill House. The underlying darkness and entrancing atmosphere of her work is profoundly realized. And it presents Shirley, played by Elisabeth Moss, as a character she might have written, extrapolating off of her real distinct personality and anxieties -and though film Shirley does some awful things, it’s never libellous. The film has a deep sympathy and respect for Shirley Jackson and that shows through.
But most thrilling is the films’ dedication to a couple of Jacksons’ favourite themes: obsession and madness. They have their in-text roles of course. The writing of Shirley’s book is prompted by the disappearance of a student from the college whom she gradually becomes fixated with. It is in the enterprise of research on this project that she recruits her young house-guest Rosie (Odessa Young) to help her find records and books that the reclusive author cannot herself obtain. A mutual obsession with this story and with each other develops, and out of it, aided by other machinations and manipulations largely inferred, that same tenuous grip on sanity that has plagued so many Jackson characters from Natalie Waite to Eleanor Vance, Merricat Blackwood to Mr. Beresford. What escalates these tendencies however is how the film itself incorporates them. The atmosphere is tense and hypnotic, the pacing even more so. Much of the cinematography is hand-held, unconventional for a typical “biopic”, many scenes are shot with a subjective claustrophobia -intimating a danger where none should be, and continuity editing is deliberately inconsistent to set you off. Glimpses of surreality dot the film too, striking imagery that is dreamlike and disturbing, such as Shirley at her writers’ desk in the middle of the woods, or a bloodied Paula (the vanished girl, whom Shirley conflates with Rosie) shuffling through a desolate corridor.
Ambiguity is key to all of these, and though a foundational reality is often ascertained, perspective is regularly thrown into question. Rosie is as significant a part of the film as Shirley, and much of the story seems to unfold from her point-of-view -though even that could be interpretive. Because of this, we’re left unsure how hostile Shirley is really being towards Rosie or vice versa, though we do know both women are to some degree under the thumb of their partners. Rosie hasn’t any real prospects of her own as her husband Fred (Logan Lerman) pursues his teaching career, and Stanley (Michael Stuhlbarg) maintains a smug intellectual superiority and constraining influence as he sexually harasses Rosie under his and Shirley’s not wholly consensual open relationship. It’s a big part of what drives Shirley and Rosie together; a societal, intellectual, sexual repression that enigmatically compels, even attracts them to one another, but without entirely an overarching trust either between them or with the audience, at times putting me in mind of films like Persona.
The performances here concerned are quite enticing. Elisabeth Moss may not look much like Jackson (though a valiant effort is certainly made in her poise and expressiveness), but she succeeds in large part off of how well she and Sarah Gubbins’ script capture the voice of the author. As fictitious as much of the plot is, she is an authentic realization of Shirley Jackson, playing the severe isolationism and personal insecurity of the literary giant just as well as her transgressive attitude and dark humour. The more revelatory though, is Odessa Young as the woman Shirley sweeps away, whom we first meet being sexually aroused by “The Lottery”. Young is stupendous as she plays with Rosie’s compulsive curiosity turned dependence and dark intrigue, and is a perfect Jackson heroine as she slowly succumbs to whatever spell Shirley casts her under. I’d also be remiss not to applaud the ever underrated Stuhlbarg, who once again offers a stunningly charismatic yet insidious take on a character who would not make much of an impression in the hands of a lesser actor.
For as much as I’ve addressed, there’s plenty of ideas and commentaries and psychological points of interest I’m leaving out. There are complex and fascinating layers to Shirley, as there were to Jackson, as there are to each of her novels and stories. Though the movie should not be taken as fact, it does understand Shirley Jackson, and penetrates to the root of why her work is as resonant as it is. Clearly I’m a bit biased, I’ve been a fan for years; but trust me when I say that Josephine Decker, who has certainly proven herself a sharp and singular new creative filmmaker, has made not only a worthy tribute to one of America’s great writers, but a truly transfixing psychological thriller of a kind rare to see in the contemporary American cinema.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...