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

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day