The other evening, I had a hankering to watch something. I had heard much about the alleged biopic of Shirley Jackson, whose complete oeuvre I own, and how wonderful Elizabeth Moss was in the role.
I was horribly disappointed. Not with Moss, who made me feel she was inhabiting Shirley Jackson. Same wiith Michael Stuhlbarg, who did an exceptionally fine job as Shirley's husband, and close competitor, Stanley Edgar Hyman. The tensions in their marriage, when it is just these actors on camera, are so palpable, one feels trapped with them within their domestic claustrophobia and academic clutter.
This last part is superbly conveyed by the set designer, art director, and cinematography. And that is where things end.
For, instead of really examining the roots of Shirley Jackson's brilliance and insecurity--her mother having been disappointed, from birth, that the child, was not a great beuaty,like herself!!!!!!!!!!!!--the film presents one with two characters, Rose and Fred Nesmer, played by nobodies Odessa Young and Logan Lerman. Did they even exist? I doubt it!!!!!!!!! They are so flagrantly heterosexual, it is disgusting. And he screws her from behind on a speeding train caboose--and she is pregnant!!!!!!!!! This sets up what I think the writers intended--less an examination of Jackson's persona, and more an interpretation of the Hymans' sexual tensnions, contrasting with the Nesmers, in what amounts to, as my David said, an ersatz verion of "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?"
The story is set in 1951, when Jackson was working on the book that would become "Hangsaman," based on the 1946 real life disappearance, still unsolved, of Bennington College sophomore Pauline Jean Welden. It completely misses the fact that by this time the Hymans already had the first of their four children, and the writers use the Nesmers to expose Stanley's infidelity and sexual hypocrisy, through Fred,who does the same thing. As for Rose and Shirley, this film would have one believe the two women had a symbiotic, quasi-lesbian relationship, and that Shirley, writer that she was, used Rose as a muse to pull back layers suggesting what kind of girl Pauline might have been, as well as what happened to her.
The domestic and literary aspects are handled superbly, and draw viewers in. But the overindulgence in sexual ambiguity is demeaning to Jackson, who was many things, but not a lesbian. And while her obesity and agoraphobia are hinted at, it is never made clear how these came about, leading to Jackson's early death, at 48.
It is almost like the film is trying to be both a biopic, and one of Jackson's stories. But the concept does not work.
Darlings, if you have never read Shirley Jackson, it probably won't make a difference, though I would urge those of you who have not to do so, and then you will see what I mean. For those, like myself, who are Jackson aficionados, if you have not seen it, don't bother.
To paraphrase Shirley, "whatever walks in this film, should have walked off camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
This is my favorite, darlings!!!!!!!!!!!! Read it, and it will become clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 comments:
Many young people don’t even know who she is.
or who Any author is.
Unless it’s a “celebrity”
I just read "Hangsman" and I think it's one of her best books. I saw the movie but was not crazy about it...
MartyO49,
Yes, "Hangsaman" is great. I am
tempted to re read it. But the
movie was such a disappointment to
me, as well!
Victoria,
You are so right. Is "The Lottery" even
taught anymore. Does anyone younger than
our generation still read Jackson?
Post a Comment