Latest / This Film is Lit / We Have Always Lived in the Castle

Transcript

We Have Always Lived in the Castle · This Film is Lit

• 0:04
  Speaker A: This film is lit, the podcast where we finally settle the score on one simple question. Is the book really better than the movie? I'm Brian and I have a film degree, so I watch the movie but don't read the book.
• 0:15
  Speaker B: And I'm Katie. I have an english degree so I do things the right way and read the book before we watch the movie.
• 0:22
  Speaker A: So prepare to be wowed by our expertise and charm as we dissect all all of your favorite film adaptations and decide if the silver screen or the written word did it better. So turn it up, settle in, and get ready for spoilers because this film is lit. The Blackwoods have always lived in this house. We have never done anything to hurt anyone. We put things back where they belong and we will never leave here. It's we have always lived in the castle and this film is lit. Hello and welcome back to this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. We have a jam packed episode with every single one of our segments, so we'll jump right in. If you have not read or watched we have always lived in the castle. Recently, here is a brief summary of the film. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up this synopsis is sourced from Wikipedia. 18 year old Mary Catherine Maricat Blackwood lives on the family estate with her older sister, Constance and their ailing uncle Julian. Constance has not left the house in the six years since she was tried and acquitted of the death of her parents by poisoning. Every Tuesday, Mary Cat goes to the village to shop while the strangers, or while the villagers, harass her. Marykat practices her own brand of protective magic by burying articles of power in the ground to keep evil forces at bay and protect Constance. Constance sees only a single family friend, Helen Clark, who comes to tea every week. Helen tries to convince Constance that she should rejoin the outside world. This enrages and terrifies Mary Cat, who creates magic to prevent Constance from leaving. On Thursday, Constance sends Mary Cat on an errand to town. Marykat is distressed at the thought of going into town on the wrong day and has no time to check her magical safeguards. When she returns, she finds all of her wards have been unearthed. Before she can warn her sister, she is introduced to their estranged cousin, Charles. Over the next few days, Charles attempts to lure Constance away with the promise of seeing the world while setting its sights on the family fortune. Locked in a safe, Constance is charmed and subservient towards him. However, Charles behaves condescendingly to Julian and taunts Mary cat with the idea of stealing her sister. Marycat retaliates by casting magical spells on Charles, vandalizing his rumen belongings and speaking to him only in descriptions of poisonous plants. When Charles threatens to punish her, Maricat throws everything on his desk, including his lip pipe, into a wastebasket. Charles beats her until he discovers that his room is on fire. The fire department arrives, along with the villagers, who call to let the house burn down. Constance and Marykat hide downstairs as the fire is extinguished. The villagers then rush into the house and vandalize it. The mob seems ready to attack the sisters, but Helen Clarks husband announces that Uncle Julian has died of smoke inhalation. The mob disperses and the sisters take refuge in the woods. The following morning, the sisters return home and barricade the doors and windows. With the upper floors destroyed, the remains resemble a turreted castle. Mary Cat announces that she intends to poison the whole village, and Constance reveals that this is what Mary Cat did once, once before to their parents and expresses gratitude that Mary Cat saved her from their wicked father. The villagers leave gifts of food at their doors and apologize for destroying their property, but the sisters never respond. Charles returns, begging Constance to let him in. When they remain silent, he enters the house by force and attacks. Constance and Marykat bludgeons him to death with a snow globe. And they. They then bury him in the garden. In the present, the sisters are cleaning what remains of their house when two village children arrive to taunt them. Mariquette steps outside and the children flee in fear. Constance tells Mary Cat that she loves her and Marykat, for the first time in the film, smiles. The end. That is a summary of the film. We do have one description for guess who. So let's do it. Who are you? No one of consequence. I must know.
• 4:21
  Speaker B: Get used to disappointment. I used to try to draw her picture with long golden hair and eyes as blue as the crayon could make them and a bright pink spot on either cheek. The pictures always surprised me because she did look like that. Even at the worst time, she was pink and white and golden, and nothing ever seemed to dim the brightness of her.
• 4:44
  Speaker A: Hmm. Okay, so this is in first person. So this is probably whoever our main narrator is obviously talking. Seemingly. Yeah, we're talking about a woman here. Golden hair, eyes as blue as a crayon. I don't think I would describe her hair as golden, but she does have striking blue eyes. And when I say she, I'm talking about Constance. So my guess that this might be Mary cat talking about Constance say this.
• 5:12
  Speaker B: Is Constance, you would be correct.
• 5:14
  Speaker A: Nailed it. Yeah. I mean, they nailed the. Yeah. Alex Dadario. Alexandra Dadario has very blue eyes.
• 5:23
  Speaker B: His eyes as blue as the crayon can make them, for sure.
• 5:26
  Speaker A: That definitely fits that. But, yeah, her hair is darker.
• 5:29
  Speaker B: Yeah. She has, like, dark brown hair.
• 5:32
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right. Well, yeah, that was pretty easy. All right, I have quite a few questions. Let's jump into those. And was that in the book?
• 5:41
  Speaker B: Gastam, may I have my book, please?
• 5:43
  Speaker A: How can you read this? There's no pictures.
• 5:46
  Speaker B: Well, some people use their imagination.
• 5:48
  Speaker A: So this is the section where I ask questions about stuff in the movie to find out if it came from the book. So one of the first things that jumped out to me, and I actually don't have as many questions as normal. I tried to keep it this time to more, I don't know, bigger. I don't know, to bigger things that really stuck out to me. But one of the things that stuck out to me early, mainly because of a specific shot, is that we see a lot of mushrooms early on. And this movie is kind of arranged. We start at the end, and then we flash back and go through the week leading up to where the story started. And then we end there at the end of the film, back in where the film started. But each of the days there's a little image that pops up over with the title card. And the first one we see is a drawing of mushrooms. And then as Marikat is heading into town, we get this split diopter. It's probably fake, but it looks like a split diopter shot of some mushrooms growing in their yard as mariquette walks towards the camera from the distance. And so several things, several mushroom imagery illusions in the very beginning of this film. And I wanted to know if anything with the mushrooms came from the book.
• 6:59
  Speaker B: So there aren't any illustrations in the text of this book. Although the kind of, like, biology textbook illustration style of those title cards is pretty similar to the illustrations on the inside cover flaps of the edition of the book that I have.
• 7:16
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 7:16
  Speaker B: I don't know if those are included in every edition of the book, but they're on the ones that I have. But within the text, mushrooms, and especially poisonous mushrooms, are referenced pretty frequently. In particular, Mary Cat does recite facts about poisonous mushrooms at Charles, as you mentioned in the summary.
• 7:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. So initially, so obviously going into this, I had never seen this. I had never read this. So I didn't really know what took place in the story at all. But one of the things that I kind of knew from the trailer. And the reason I asked is that I was wondering if that mushroom stuff came from, because I think what we're doing here is going, obviously, for some symbolism. I did not know that it was like the whole thing with the. The poisons and whatnot that we get into, and we find out that Maryket really likes poisons and that sort of thing, and kind of studies them or whatever, and especially, like, poisons made from. Because there's a conversation later where I think Constance says there's all kinds of plants around that she knows how to make poisons out of and that sort of thing. And so initially, I didn't take the mushrooms that way. I took them as especially the. What looks like a split diopter shot of the mushrooms with Marikat in the background reminded me of this shot from a film called Blue Velvet, which is David lynch film, where the imagery of that shot is a very famous shot where the camera, like, slowly moves down. Like, it starts on the rose, there's these roses growing in a garden, and it slowly pans down, and we're kind of introducing the town. And then eventually, the camera gets down and goes into the grass. And then after it goes down into the grass, it gets to all these bugs, like, in the grass. And it's the film. I actually haven't seen blue Velvet. I just am aware of that shot and the film itself, from what I understand, it's about, like, the dark, horrifying secrets within this idyllic tower. So, like, you see all the flowers and the beautiful stuff on top, and then we get down underneath, and there's all these insects and similar idea, from what I understand, a blue velvet that represents the dark things underneath the surface of the town. And so I was thinking this was probably alluding to a similar idea of secrets from the past, things buried kind of coming back to the surface, and the mushrooms representing that. And again, the way that the mushroom shot that we see in the film reminded me a lot of that blue velvet shot. So I think that's definitely.
• 9:37
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think that's a good interpretation of the use of mushrooms here.
• 9:41
  Speaker A: Yeah. But, yeah. Because at this point, we have no idea about the poisons or anything like that. So my next question is, as constants or not constants. As Mary Cat goes into town, she's, like, buying their supplies for the week, which I guess they don't eat very much. It's funny, which is actually kind of an interesting, fun thing that I think works really well, is we see her go into town and get groceries. And she comes back with, like, one bag's worth of groceries. But then every time we see them eat, they have these sprawling, gigantic.
• 10:11
  Speaker B: Right.
• 10:12
  Speaker A: Which they do grow.
• 10:13
  Speaker B: Yeah, they have. At least, I don't remember how much of the. We talk about the garden in the movie.
• 10:19
  Speaker A: They do talk about having a garden in the book.
• 10:21
  Speaker B: Pretty clear that they have, like, quite a large garden. Like, they grow quite a bit of food.
• 10:26
  Speaker A: I think that's implied in the movie as well. But even still, it seems like they would have to purchase more groceries than they do. Maybe not. I don't know. But I thought that was kind of interesting to maybe allude to, like, that sort of like a magical little. I don't know. Anyways. But they have a. She goes into town to get these groceries and all of the people in the town hate them already. And again, we don't know why at this point but we find out pretty quickly that they all think that. We find out that the parents of Constance and mariquette are dead. Died in some sort of tragic murder. And then eventually we find out that Constance was tried for it and acquitted for vague reasons that aren't really like her acquittal. There isn't really reasons somebody says something about her being too pretty or blah, blah, blah. But there's never really a concrete reason given for why she was. But. So everybody in the town, like, suspects that they killed their parents and they don't like them because they're the weirdos who live in the big manor on the hill whose parents died mysteriously and they suspect them of murdering. And specifically constance of murdering them. And I wanted to know if that was kind of the setup for our story in the book.
• 11:34
  Speaker B: Yeah, that is one of the kind of main points of contention in the book. The vibe is kind of that the townsfolk already did not like the Blackwoods but it really ramped up following the murders.
• 11:52
  Speaker A: Yeah. So I'd mentioned it a little bit. Well, I mentioned it, obviously, in the summary that Mary cat does magic. And the way she tends to do magic that we see primarily is that she just buries. She gets trinkets of certain things from people or whatever and then buries them in the yard kind of as, like, wards or spells or whatever. And I wanted to know if that came from the book and what. Which I assume it did, but. And what her. Like, what she was doing. If the book goes into more detail because the movie plays it pretty vague with, like, what she's actually doing there.
• 12:28
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 12:28
  Speaker A: Obviously it's some sort of thing. And she alludes to the effect that it's to protect Constance, but it's never really explicitly stated what she's doing and why. So I wanted to know if there was. This is almost a lost adaptation, but is there more from the book going on there?
• 12:41
  Speaker B: Yeah. So Marykat practices. The book doesn't specifically call it this, but it's called sympathetic magic. Most notably something called correspondence, which is based on the idea that you can influence a person or a situation based on its relationship or resemblance to another thing. So, for example, in both the book and the movie, she smashes the mirror in Charles bedroom to try to break his connection to that space, to eliminate him from the space. And the movie goes in a little more hard, I think, on the idea that she's specifically trying to protect Constance. She is. But in the book, it feels more like her goal is just protection in general, at first from the villagers, the outside world, and then later on, more specifically, to try to get rid of Charles.
• 13:41
  Speaker A: Yeah, and that makes sense. And that is implied in the movie as well. But I think there's, like, one specific line that I queued in on where she says something about Constance specifically. But, yeah, I assumed it was just like general protection y kind of things. Is there. Is it implied in the movie? Cause I can't. It's interesting in the film. It's never really. I think you can. And I think it works really well. And I like that they do this. It's never really kind of concretely established one way or the other, whether this magic actually does anything in the film or if it's just her own. You know, it's just a thing she does kind of out of her neurosis. But, like, is it. Does the book ever, like, imply whether or not it works?
• 14:27
  Speaker B: No, it's kind of similar. I would say in the book that it's. There's not proof that it works.
• 14:35
  Speaker A: Right. But coincidentally, it does work.
• 14:37
  Speaker B: Coincidentally, it kind of works.
• 14:38
  Speaker A: Corresponds to, like. Like, things are okay for them when there are in place. And then after they all get dug up and stuff, things go poorly and whatnot. Yeah.
• 14:48
  Speaker B: Yeah. There's no confirmation in the book, but the book does not also make a point of telling us that it doesn't work, if that makes sense.
• 14:56
  Speaker A: Yeah. Which I thought that worked perfectly in the movie. And I. Cause I think it plays a lot to just kind of the nature of that in reality, of, like, how that. How the way that those spells tend to work is that they. How they work for the people and how they interpret them. The people doing them and that sort of thing. And I think the movie does a good job of not, like, ever explicitly saying, like, oh, yes, magic is real and this is like a real thing or this is just a thing that this person who is kind of unwell is doing. I liked that the movie just kept it vague in that regard. I thought it worked for what the story was doing. But speaking of Charles, and I assume, based on your answer from the last question, that this is the case, but does Charles come to stay with them, their cousin Charles?
• 15:41
  Speaker B: Yes. Charles shows up pretty early in the book, similar to when he shows up in the movie. And his backstory is that his parents, their aunt and uncle, had cut off ties with the rest of the family following the murders. Cause so embarrassing. Right. And then his reason for showing up is that his parents are now dead and he wants to reconnect with his cousins. That is, steal their money.
• 16:05
  Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. Which we will ultimately kind of discover. And again, the movie never has that concretely stated at any point that that's his goal, but it becomes very obvious that that is.
• 16:14
  Speaker B: No, the book doesn't concretely state that either. But he is very fixated on concerned about the money. He's concerned about the money. And where is the money? Where are we keeping the money? How much money is there? All of that.
• 16:26
  Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. So Charles becomes kind of the antagonist, the main antagonist, as he re inherits kind of the father's role in the story, like literally wearing his clothes and sleeping in his room and all that sort of thing, which I thought was interesting and will lead to eventually kind of the end of what happens here and what the story's doing. But Marykat immediately does not like him, does not want him there, knows he's up to no good and doesn't want this dude invading into her and Constance's space and trying to steal away Constance because Constance is really the only person Mary Cat seems to care about. So there's this great scene in the movie that I want to know if it came from the book because the line's great, the delivery's great. The way it's performed by Sebastian Stan, I thought was fantastic. But he walks into the kitchen as Marykette's standing there, and at this point, the tension is bubbled to the surface. He's aware that she doesn't want him there. It's not like they're not pretending to play nice anymore at this point in terms of pretending to like each other or whatever. And he gets some milk out of the fridge and he starts drinking it, and he's just staring at her. And then he says this line, and this line specifically, I wanted to know if it came from the book because the way it was delivered and just the line itself, I thought was great, says, I wonder in a month from now who will still be here, you or me? And there's just this big, long, awkward silence as he drinks milk and stares at her. I thought the scene was really well done and kind of horrifying and again, really well acted by everybody in it. And I wanted to know if it came from the book.
• 17:59
  Speaker B: That line is from the book. They made like a little tweak to it. It's not quite verbatim, but it is from the book. He's not calmly drinking milk when he says it, but gotta love a nod to movie villains drinking milk.
• 18:12
  Speaker A: They do like to drink milk.
• 18:13
  Speaker B: They do.
• 18:14
  Speaker A: I don't know what that says about me because I like to drink milk.
• 18:16
  Speaker B: But maybe all movie villains are from the midwest. I don't know.
• 18:21
  Speaker A: It's fair. So one of the characters that we haven't really talked too much about yet is Uncle Julian, played by Crispin Glover. I love when Crispin Glover shows up and things because he's just a weird guy who only takes the strangest roles. Like, that's just what he does now. He's been a weird guy forever from everything I've ever seen. But he kind of like writes and directs his own movies that are very strange and unique. And anytime he shows up in something, like, he just doesn't act unless it's something that he's really interested in doing. And so I thought it was fun seeing him appear in this and I thought he did a good job. But he's playing Uncle Julian, who is was at the dinner where Mary Cat and Constance's parents died. And he's the brother of John Blackwood. Is that the father's name?
• 19:02
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
• 19:04
  Speaker A: Who was the father of Mary Cat and Constance. And he was also poisoned. And this is, I kind of lost in adaptation. Does him being in a wheelchair because of that poisoning or was that prior to.
• 19:15
  Speaker B: Okay, that's what I was saying, that. That's why he's in the wheelchair.
• 19:18
  Speaker A: That's what I thought. I just wasn't 100% sure if he maybe had been in before or whatever, but he got poisoned slightly. It just didn't kill him.
• 19:24
  Speaker B: Just a little poisoned.
• 19:25
  Speaker A: Just a little poisoned. But all of his conversations in the film are incredibly strange and he kind of just talks nonsense most of the time. He's writing a book about the Blackwoods and about specifically the night they were killed and all that sort of stuff. And he has all these notes about it, and he's working on the story, but beyond that, he also just kind of says nonsense a lot that's vaguely relevant and related to the Blackwoods history and stuff, but it's all very kind of cryptic and strange. And I wanted to know if that his character was similar in the book in that he kind of just spouts nonsense and every conversation, and even beyond conversations, including him, just a lot of the conversations in this film in general are very odd. Odd, yes. And I wanted to know if that was translated from the book or if the film is making those conversations more kind of, like, strange than they are.
• 20:19
  Speaker B: Okay, so Uncle Julian is a pretty faithful adaptation from his book character. I think he is very, like, hyper fixated on the murders. He's always rambling about them and collecting information for his book that he's been working on for six years. I guess he's not quite all there. They do this a couple times in the movie, but particularly in the book. He also gets confused about who people are. Feels like a little bit similar to somebody who has dementia or Alzheimer's, where he gets Mary Cat confused for his wife, Constance confused for her mother, I think. And he continually calls Charles by his brother's name, which infuriates Charles, which I think is the main thing that we see happen in the movie.
• 21:10
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't even remember that, but, yeah, we'll talk about that. I have a note or a thought about anyway, so continue.
• 21:16
  Speaker B: And now it's left vague. So I'm not really sure if this is meant to be, like, from age or mental illness, or if this is a result of almost being poisoned to death or, like, a combination of those three. I don't really know what surviving attempted arsenic poisoning does to you.
• 21:36
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I have no idea. But, yeah, so, yeah, their conversation is very strange. And I will say I didn't really have a note anywhere else about it, but I'll just mention it here because I think it's relevant, is that I. Overall, I thought this movie was interesting. I didn't love it. I don't even know if I liked it necessarily, but I thought it was interesting and well done in a lot of ways. But one of the issues I think I had with it is that, and maybe it's just a nature part of it's just an issue of doing the podcast and taking notes. Maybe it would have worked better if I hadn't been also writing, but I don't think so. So one of the issues I have with it is because all the conversations are so odd. And they, like. They do. It's almost like a mumblecore movie in the sense that they tend to talk over each other a lot more than in other movies. I feel like it's a very natural flow of conversation in the way they kind of step on each other's sentences and stuff and talk over each other. It's very realistic and natural, but it also makes it very hard to follow what's always being talked about. And especially when Julian is saying all this stuff about the fan. Like, there were a lot of times where I wasn't sure what was said, not even that what was said. Like, I heard the words, but, like, I was having trouble parsing, like, what was being discussed and everything. And I think if I were reading the exact same conversation, it would work a lot better. Because in a film, if you miss what's going on in a conversation, you have to, like, pause and rewind it and watch a scene again, whereas in a book. And it's very disruptive to the experience of watching a movie. Whereas in a book, if you don't quite parse a paragraph, you just reread the paragraph again and it doesn't feel as disruptive to the experience of reading. I mean, it obviously can get annoying if you're doing it, like, constantly. And so I think that was one of my issues with the movie, is that I think if I had read the book and had a grounding for everything that was going on, I think the film would have. I would have enjoyed the film more, I think. But as it was, I had a hard time at times. Like, I followed the overall general story pretty well. But at times, some of the, like, little details that I feel like were probably important and interesting for, like, small characterization stuff, I had a bit of a hard time following because it was so dense and odd, I guess, if that makes sense.
• 23:50
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, that makes sense. And to answer your other questions, their conversations are also very strange in the book, I think there's a couple things that Shirley Jackson is kind of playing with here. First off, obviously, there's the fact that nobody in this family is okay.
• 24:08
  Speaker A: Yes, they're all.
• 24:09
  Speaker B: No one is doing well, they're all dealing with stuff. But then I think she's also playing on this kind of, like, stiltedness of a very traditional kind of old money, upper crust family where nobody really says what they mean and everything is kind of couched and hidden. And I think. I think we're playing with that as well.
• 24:37
  Speaker A: I think that as well. And then on top of that, they're. Conversations are odd and stuff because they're also just not socialized. Like, they're literally the only people they interact with are their family members. Like, they're not socialized, like, at all. Marikat goes out into society once a week for a couple hours.
• 24:55
  Speaker B: Marykat is, like, semi feral, basically.
• 24:59
  Speaker A: Yeah. So, yeah, it's definitely. Yeah, there's a lot going on there. And again, I think it works, and it creates this very odd feeling. And I think it, like, kind of, like, it works on a. I don't want to say a world building level, but, like, an ambient, like, level of making kind of the whole film feel strange and off putting.
• 25:19
  Speaker B: Vibes. The vibes, man.
• 25:21
  Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. But it did, I feel, like, slightly hamper my ability to connect with not only the narrative, but also thematically, like, what the characters, of connecting with the characters and, like, what their saying and, like, what they're going through. The fact that I was having a hard time occasionally following some of the conversations and that I would have needed to literally pause and rewind and watch them again and maybe even watch them with subtitles made it. And again, it wasn't a huge issue. It was just a handful of scenes where it made me feel like I was missing or made me wonder if that was maybe why I didn't connect with the story quite as much as I was hoping I would. And again, it's not that I didn't connect with it at all or get anything out of it, because I did and I enjoyed it. But it was. I think I would have. It would have worked better if I had been able to, like, follow all of the minutiae of their conversations, which I think I would have been able to if I had been reading it or if I watched it again, I guess. But I don't know. Anyways. Okay, so my next question moving forward a little bit. We get. Things have. Tensions have risen even more between Charles and Mary Cat, specifically to the point where Charles has actually, like, attacked her because she, uh. She did something. I remember what she. Why? I don't remember why he. Why did he attack her?
• 26:39
  Speaker B: Um, I think at this point, she.
• 26:45
  Speaker A: Oh, is this cause she has all the. She puts all the stuff in his bed and whatnot?
• 26:48
  Speaker B: That's part of it. But we're, like, past that. She comes into dinner, and Constance tells her to go wash her hands, and she goes and watches the faucet run for a few minutes and then comes back to dinner. She probably. I think she's just like. This is one of the scenes where she's spouting mushroom facts, and he gets progressively more angry until he pops.
• 27:16
  Speaker A: Okay, I think you're right. Yeah. But anyway, so he literally, physically is attacking her and dragging her, or she's, like, running away from him, and he's, like, chasing after her and, like, grabbing her and yelling at her. And after this transpires, or right before this transpires, Mary Cat had. Was already mad at him, and she ran upstairs, and she dumps all of his stuff in, like, a trash can. And in the movie, you can't really tell if she does this on purpose or if it's an accident, but she throws a pipe in there, and it turns out the pipe was lit. And then it starts a fire, and it ends up, like, burning most of all of the belongings and, like, a lot of their upstairs level of the house, but specifically starts a fire in Charles's room, which is their former father's room, because he's staying in the same. In that room. And I want to know if that came from the book. If she burns their father. Charles room.
• 28:10
  Speaker B: Yes. I don't think it was her intention to burn half the house down, but she did, in fact, start the fire.
• 28:16
  Speaker A: Does it seem in the book that she starts the fire intentionally? Yes. Okay. Because then again, in the movie, I think you could kind of read it, whether or not. It's hard to tell whether or not you think it was intentional, but she.
• 28:28
  Speaker B: You could probably squeak out an unintentional reading in the book, maybe. But it, to me, seems pretty clear that she did, like, was aware that she was starting a fire, but maybe thought that it was not gonna be that big of a fire or thought it would, like, stay contained to his room.
• 28:48
  Speaker A: Yeah. And I think the same. I think it's the same in the film that it, you know, most likely she did it intentionally, but it's hard to tell because just the way the framing of the shot, we only see the trash can, and we see her throw the stuff in there, and, you know, we don't. It's hard to tell. There might be a shot where she looks at the pipe. I don't know. Anyways, I think it's implied that she probably intentionally started the fire in the film. I just can't remember if it's, you know, how. How explicit that implication is. But anyways, she. She burns this foul the thing down, and then as the fire starts, people in town see it, call the fire department. The volunteer fire department shows up and starts putting the fire out. And as the fire is getting put out, the villagers all show up as well to watch this because, you know, it's a small town, and this is interesting, high entertainment. Yeah, they gotta go watch the Blackwood manor burn. And they get there, they're all like, hey, you guys should just let it burn because these people suck. And then after the fire does get put out, they decide to, like, vandalize the place, and they break in and start breaking windows and knocking furniture over and all kinds and stealing stuff and whatnot. And I wanted to know if the villagers come and vandalize the Blackwood estate after the fire and what you think, why that occurs?
• 30:03
  Speaker B: So, yes, they do come and vandalize the house after the fire. Mob mentality takes over pretty quickly while everyone is gathering around watching the house burn. And then you have the one guy, like, the fire chief guy throws the first rock through the window, and then just like, the tidal waves break.
• 30:23
  Speaker A: Right? And then after that, my other question that I had here that I forgot to mention was, after that, they. Then after they vandalize a bunch of stuff and they leave, they come back over the next week or so, and they bring gifts, and they kind of apologize by giving the, like, leaving gifts outside the home. And I also want to know if that came from the book, because I thought that was also an interesting little detail.
• 30:48
  Speaker B: Yes. The townspeople do end up bringing food and things for them at first. Feels like they just really, in the light of day, they feel bad for the actions that they took. But we actually see a bit more time pass in the book. Enough time for vines to completely grow over the house. And as time passes, the sisters start to become part of the local folklore, and people are leaving things for them out of superstition, fearful respect, whatever you.
• 31:24
  Speaker A: Want to call it. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Interesting. Okay, my next one was, is it revealed in the book? Cause this whole time, the story has been that, oh, Constance was tried for poisoning her parents. And everybody knew she did it, but she was acquitted for know, whatever, XYz reasons that it's never made super clear, but just the implication being that she's too pretty, too young, whatever. So we just let her off because it would be a shame to lock her up or whatever. But it is revealed later in the story that, in fact, it wasn't constance that poisoned their parents, it was maracat. And this is, like, kind of a surprise reveal. Not surprising, at least. Surprising reveal at all if you've been watching the movie to this point, in my opinion, because it's very clear, one, that Constance or that Mary Cat. Well, several things. One, Constance is not capable of that. Two, Mary Cat, very capable of that. Seems to be kind of a sociopath also, to at least to some extent, in my opinion, at least the way she's portrayed in the film, also talks about poison all the time. Like, literally, just like quoting poison pamphlet stuff to Charles all the time. And it just seemed very obvious to me that that was what was going on there. But is that also kind of a reveal? Is that what happens in the book? And is it kind of treated as a reveal? To be fair, the movie doesn't treat it as like some gigantic, like, big twist or anything, but it is a slight, like, kind of surprise reveal.
• 32:50
  Speaker B: It is the same in the book. I would say that the text treats it not as a reveal, but as a confirmation of what you've already suspected to be the truth.
• 33:02
  Speaker A: I would say the film does the.
• 33:03
  Speaker B: Same, though, because, you know, there is evidence against Constance. She's the one who made the food. She does know about plants and poison as well. But, yeah, if you've read the book, watched the movie, you know that Constance is not capable of this. Doesn't seem like Mary Cat very much so.
• 33:21
  Speaker A: Very much, yes. And then my other kind of question related to that is part of this reveal in the film is that Constance knew this the whole time, because I could also see it where it's revealed that Constance either was lying to herself or just truly didn't know because she's so naive or whatever, that Mary Cat poisoned their parents and that maybe Constance just didn't know who did it or thought some weird accident or who knows? But no, it's revealed that Mary Cat or that Constance knew that Mary Cat did it. And I wanted to know, did that ask, does that angle of it come from the book that she kind of knew the whole time?
• 33:57
  Speaker B: Yes. First we get a very similar scene to what we see in the movie where Mary Cat talks about wanting to poison the entire village. And Constance says, like you did before. And Mary Cat responds, like I did before, which is the first confirmation of what we already knew. And then later, they have kind of a more direct, short conversation about it, and Constance says, I know. I knew then.
• 34:24
  Speaker A: Okay, well, I have a different question here because I don't know if you have this. Do you have anywhere else the motivations, a discussion of the motivation behind that?
• 34:32
  Speaker B: I don't, but we can talk about it.
• 34:33
  Speaker A: Cause I wanna talk about it. Cause this is actually something I read today. I was reading, I was on the IMDb page to get the quote for the beginning. And I read the review that was up. Was somebody complaining about a change from the book to the film? And the thing they were complaining about was that they didn't like that the film added a motivation for that. That, according to them, was not in the book. So in the film, it's never explicitly stated, but it is alluded to the fact that Maryquette killed their parents specifically to kill John Blackwood. Because. And again, my interpretation of it is that he was sexually abusing.
• 35:12
  Speaker B: That was also the vibe that I got from the movie. Yes.
• 35:16
  Speaker A: Okay. And this person, this reviewer, was upset that they added that motivation to Mary cat killing their parents or that backstory to Constance having been abused by the father. Well, to be fair, I think you could go either way. It doesn't necessarily have to be sexual abuse, but whatever. Abusing Constance in some capacity, physically, emotionally, sexually, something. Again, to me, I interpreted it as like he was sexually abusing her. But I guess there's not really anything explicit in the film that would make that super clear other than some lines and just kind of the language of how films talk about that. And there's like a line about him being like a wicked man or something.
• 35:58
  Speaker B: It's definitely very in line with the way that media tends to talk about sexual abuse. Yes, but it is not explicitly stated to be that in the film.
• 36:07
  Speaker A: So I guess my question is, does the book have anything like that as to what the motivation for Marycat killing the parents was or she just killed their parents?
• 36:17
  Speaker B: So I'm gonna say yes, but also no.
• 36:21
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 36:22
  Speaker B: The film is definitely much more direct and on the surface about giving Mary cat that motivation.
• 36:31
  Speaker A: Yeah, of like protecting Constance from.
• 36:33
  Speaker B: Yeah, of like protecting constance getting rid of her parents because they were abusive or the father was abusive and the.
• 36:40
  Speaker A: Mom didn't stop or whatever.
• 36:41
  Speaker B: Yeah, and none of that kind of explicit confirmation of those things or semi explicit confirmation. Implied confirmation.
• 36:51
  Speaker A: It's tough to talk about. Cause even in the film it's not explicit. No, but it's very obvious what they're alluding to.
• 36:57
  Speaker B: Yes. So none of that implied confirmation comes from the book. So the reviewer is correct about that. However, I personally would not say that there is zero implication of that.
• 37:10
  Speaker A: Okay, so you think you could get that reading from the book?
• 37:12
  Speaker B: I think I could get that reading from the book.
• 37:14
  Speaker A: Was that the reading you got from the book or had you not really thought about it before the film.
• 37:20
  Speaker B: That was not the reading that I got the first time reading the book. The second time reading the book, it jumped out at me a little more.
• 37:28
  Speaker A: Okay, that's interesting.
• 37:30
  Speaker B: So a couple points here. There's quite a bit of talk throughout the book of Marykat being frequently punished by her parents. And there's another thing, and it's very subtle, and you could read it multiple ways is kind of the sticking point here. You can read it multiple ways. But Constance, throughout the book, will repeat this refrain of it being all her fault, of what happened being all her fault. When we know. Yeah, and Constance knows ultimately, and Mary Cat knows that ultimately, she is not the one who murdered their parents. And that's honestly more of the red herring than anything else in the book, is that she's constantly repeating this for Frayne of, like, it's all my fault.
• 38:25
  Speaker A: I think she does say that in the film as well, at some point.
• 38:28
  Speaker B: I think my interpretation of that is that Constance sees either Marykat did this to protect her or because she failed to protect Marikat from their parents. This is ultimately what ended up happening. I see a lot of that oldest sister eldest daughter psychosis in Constance, and feeling responsible for something that happened to your younger siblings is a huge part of that.
• 39:03
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, and I think even beyond that, just the. Her saying it's all because I think just another, like, kind of more surface level way to interpret that is just that she blames herself for. Because, you know. So I guess that's another layer that I forgot that I didn't mention is that. Yes, on top of whatever happened to Constance, that Marykat was killed, her parents, to protect them, Marikat was also mistreated by her parents. But what I was saying is that I think the part of Constance saying it's all my fault, I think it's also just a kind of like her reinforcing a victim blaming narrative. Let's say she were being sexually abused. Her saying, it's all my fault, Marikat finds out about it. Mary Cat kills their parents because she knows that her father is abusing Constance. It seems like a perfectly understandable reaction for Constance to blame herself for either not like, stopping her father or for blaming herself for telling or for, let's say, maybe she told Mary Cat or something, for not keeping that secret from Mary Cat, for putting Mary Cat into a situation where she felt the need to kill her parents. All of these things are very much like. Yes, kind of self blaming, victim blaming mindsets that Constance has clearly taken upon herself. Which makes sense within the time period which this takes place, which in the film, it's intentionally vague, like it could be ten years ago or it could be 50 years ago or whatever. But yeah, no, I think that is, yeah, I think that makes perfect sense. I think her blaming herself in that way definitely implies there was something going on.
• 40:50
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, I agree. And, you know, and that's why I say yes, but also no, because the book is definitely not as heavily alluding to it as the film is. But there's not nothing.
• 41:02
  Speaker A: There's not nothing there. Okay. Okay. Interesting, interesting. My final question was or for was that in the book is I wanted to know if the story ends with Constance. Everything's happened now. And this is, this is what the final line in the Wikipedia summary said. Americat scares a couple of the shithead kids away and then they decide they're gonna bake a pie and they joke about eating kids or whatever. And then Constance tells Mary Cat that she loves her. And in the film, and I think this is true, I'm trusting Wikipedia here that at the end of the final shot of the film is after Constance says, I love you, Mary Cat smiles for the first time that we've seen in the film. And I think that is accurate. I think. I don't know. Again, I'm trusting Wikipedia, which is not, as we've discussed numerous times on here, in terms of movie synopsis, movie summaries. It's not always accurate, but I wanted to know if the book ended similarly.
• 41:59
  Speaker B: Yes, but also no again. So at the end of the scene in the book is a similar scene to where there's the kids kind of taunting them and then they get scared off and the two sisters joke about what if we did eat kids? And Constance is like, I don't think I could cook one. But the book actually ends with Mara Cat saying, oh, Constance, we are so happy. End scene.
• 42:26
  Speaker A: Yes. Okay, I like that. It's a very similar where it's like.
• 42:30
  Speaker B: Yeah, kind of similar.
• 42:31
  Speaker A: Kind of a similar idea of them being happy maybe in this, in this new, in their isolated, in their castle that they will always live in. Okay, I do have some more questions that we'll get into some more stuff in lost in adaptation. Just show me the way to get.
• 42:49
  Speaker B: Out of here and I'll be on my way.
• 42:53
  Speaker A: Yes, yes. And I want to get unlost as soon as possible. So this was confusing to me in the film. And this to me feels maybe like a failure of direction or editing or something a little bit in this scene. Because I really did not realize. Could not put together what was going on here. Or at least I could put together what I thought was going on. But I don't think the movie did a good job of showing that or whatever. But there's a scene where I think it's when Helen.
• 43:18
  Speaker B: Helen Clark comes over for tea and she brings misses Wright who was an uninvited, unannounced guest.
• 43:24
  Speaker A: Yeah. And there's this scene where Julian is there and then he goes. He takes the other woman, her friend into the other room where like the dining room where. Where they died and where they had the dinner or whatever. He's like explaining a little bit.
• 43:42
  Speaker B: He's doing like this macabre show and tell.
• 43:44
  Speaker A: Yes, exactly. And. But as this is happening, they're sitting in the other. Marykat and Constance are sitting in the other room. But then at one point he says something and like Constance responds to him and I couldn't. So is that scene from the book and is what's going on there? I. Like. I was just. I think it's just poorly. Like we were missing some establishing shots. I don't know. I think. I think this like from the filmic language doesn't do a good job portraying like exactly what's transpiring. Could they hear Julian in the other room? Is that what's. I guess maybe being implied because it didn't seem like it. But then when they started responding, it's like. Okay, well, they must be able to hear him. I just thought that scene was strange and maybe that's intentional. Like. I don't know, like some of the off putting this. I do wonder if like some of that's intentional and some of the. But maybe I'm giving too much credit there. I don't know. But what's going on there? Do you know?
• 44:37
  Speaker B: So that scene is from the book. And in the book it's very clear that they can just hear what he's saying in the dining room.
• 44:43
  Speaker A: I guess that's what's going on.
• 44:44
  Speaker B: It's just the next room over. They like open a door and go through from the parlor into the dining room.
• 44:49
  Speaker A: Right. And that makes sense for some reason. Something about the way it was shot did not translate that to me directly. Again, I kind of guessed that was what was going on but it didn't feel clear to me that that was what was going on again. Which maybe could have been intentional but I don't think it was anyways. Okay, so that was just a weird, like kind of generic question. But. And this kind of ties back to what I was saying earlier. But so Julian's. I couldn't understand what his angle was throughout most of the film. And I think ultimately I kind of got to the point. I was like, okay, well, his angle is just that he's unwilling, like, crazy deep, deeply unwell. Yeah. Okay. And that's fair. But I was like, for initially, I was wondering if he had, like, a motivation that was going, like, the whole dynamic between him and, like, Constance and Marykat was so strange because he is seemingly. Does he think one of them killed them? Does he think they're responsible? Like, Constance was responsible for the death? Or, like, what does he think and know? And why does he still live with them? I guess because he can't really go anywhere.
• 45:50
  Speaker B: Yeah. I don't think he really has anywhere else to go.
• 45:52
  Speaker A: And that's fair. But there wasn't as much animosity, but there was some. I was just having a hard time parsing, like, what the dynamics between them were. And I think that was made more complicated by the fact that he's just kind of lost it.
• 46:03
  Speaker B: Yeah. And I think you're supposed to kind of be confused by the family dynamic.
• 46:08
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 46:09
  Speaker B: I think it's supposed to be weird and unsettling.
• 46:12
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 46:12
  Speaker B: Because Uncle Julian, the question of whether or not he thinks one of them did it is interesting because he'll say at multiple points throughout the book, he'll kind of list all the evidence that's against constance. He'll be like, oh, she prepared the food, blah, blah, blah, blah. But then he'll be like, she was acquitted. My niece was acquitted.
• 46:39
  Speaker A: Hmm.
• 46:40
  Speaker B: I don't think he knows up from down.
• 46:42
  Speaker A: That's fair. I agree with that. I think that's true. So my next question for this was that there's this line in the film where after something transpires, where I think it's like a disagreement with Charles or something, Mary cat runs out of the house and goes and sleeps. She has this place in the yard on the lawn where she has dug a small hole or something, it looks like, and she sleeps in it. And when she gets back, Constance says, oh, you slept in your crater on the moon, didn't you? And there's conversations throughout the film, several times, where Mara Cat says she wants to take Constance to the moon. And she's like, blah, blah, blah. And we see the moon a lot throughout the film. One of the title cards, like I mentioned earlier with the mushrooms, one of them has the moon on it. So we see the moon a lot. And I wanted to know if the moon imagery came from the book and, like, what you think it is and what it's doing. And also, Mary Cat sleeping in a hole in the yard. Is that in the book? Is it just like, she's kind of neurotic and OCD and all these things and, like, what's. What's going. I just. I know. It's like a hodgepodge of questions.
• 47:46
  Speaker B: Okay, I did my best to answer your hodgepodge of questions here. Mary Cat is absolutely a deeply neurotic person.
• 47:53
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 47:53
  Speaker B: I think, at bare minimum, she probably qualifies for OCD, paranoia, and agoraphobia.
• 47:59
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 48:00
  Speaker B: Which only feeds Constance's agoraphobia and anxiety.
• 48:04
  Speaker A: Yes. Because Constance very clearly agoraphobia. They have conversations about how one of the scenes she's like, oh, look how far I made it out into the yard, or whatever. She's proud of the fact that she got further away from the house than she's ever been and stuff like that. So, yeah, that's very clear. And it also feels the exact same with Mary Cat. And again, the paranoia and the OCD, specifically, anytime her routine is interrupted, in terms of when she goes into town and all that, she gets very upset about that and that kind of thing.
• 48:33
  Speaker B: But I really enjoyed how the narrative commingled those things with her witchcraft, I thought was very interesting.
• 48:39
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 48:41
  Speaker B: So in the book, Mary Cat frequently references wanting to go to the moon, wanting to take Constance to the moon. I don't recall that Constance ever refers to Mary Cat's hiding spot in the woods as her crater in the moon. I think that's a movie addition. I don't remember that being in the book at all. I think the moon symbolizes Mary Kat's idea of a perfect, perfectly safe place for her and constance. And obviously, there are a lot of ways to interpret lunar imagery. There's rich history of folklore and symbolism there. In this instance, I'm not sure it symbolizes much more than safety and being thoroughly removed from the world.
• 49:26
  Speaker A: I would completely agree. I think that's exactly what it's doing. It's. It's there. It's a. It's a place they can imagine where they could go and live that is completely private, completely safe, as you said, where they wouldn't have to be around any other people because nobody else on the moon.
• 49:41
  Speaker B: Very thoroughly removed from everyone.
• 49:43
  Speaker A: Yes. But it's also bright and seems beautiful, like, at least, you know, as you're looking at it from the earth and that sort of thing. So, yeah, it's kind of like this. It's the grey havens or whatever. This is kind of unattainable, happy place that they wish they could go live, that obviously they cannot, though they must remain in the castle. And then my final question is just kind of more broadly about thematically, like, what you got from this? Because I thought the film was interesting. I was expecting to get more explicit, kind of, I don't know, to come away with a more explicit message. And the film is touching on lots of things. It's touching on trauma and mental illness, honestly, to some extent, and all these different things. But it doesn't really feel to me like it has a whole lot of a message, necessarily. So I was interested to see what you got from the book and the movie, because ultimately, to me, when it wrapped up and then the final scene with the little kid, and they scare him away and they joke about eating kids, I was like, this whole thing just like a witch origin story. That's all this is, right? This is just like a. It's actually kind of interesting, because I was like, oh, okay. So all this was, like, a fun, like, writing exercise of, like, all right, so we, like, imagine whatever town you grew up in has this myth about these scary women who live in the house on the edge of town that's all, like, decrepit and, like, half burned down or whatever. And, like, we get to see the events that led up to or at least some of the events and the story that led up to the myth that became the weird witches or whatever that lived in the house on the outskirts of your town. And so it is kind of just feel like the origin story of a myth, a legend, some folklore or whatever, but I thought was interesting. But what I thought was extra interesting is that it's not a particularly sympathetic one, because what I kind of almost imagined it would be. Not that it's not sympathetic at all, but that I was almost imagining it, that it was going to be. Or when we finished the film, I was like, I'm kind of surprised that it wasn't a more, like, if what you're doing is writing a witch origin story, I would even imagine what Shirley Jackson was going to do with that would be to take. And I say this, not having read anything of her. So I don't know why I would assume this, but I was kind of expecting, thinking that for it to be a thing that was like. Like the people in the town misinterpreted them or, like, were wrong about them or that they weren't, like, evil or bad in the ways that that town people think. But they're actually kind of.
• 52:17
  Speaker B: Are they? Actually? Yes. The villagers are kind of correct.
• 52:20
  Speaker A: They're kind of correct. They respond poorly in some ways, but they're not, like, wrong about, like, what is transpiring. And Marykat is kind of like a sociopath who wants to kill people, like, for reasons in some way, like, I don't know. It was very interesting, and again, I think it's what makes it compelling and really interesting and a fun to watch and fun to think about and kind of chew over after the fact. But it wasn't really what I was expecting, which was, I guess, interesting in its own way. Anyways, what did you get from this story?
• 52:49
  Speaker B: Is it a witch origin story? I do think that witch origin story is part of this novel's genre function. It's very firmly american gothic, and the old witch who lives in a creepy house at the edge of town is very much part of american folklore. Digging a little deeper, think back to our learning things segment on Shirley Jackson. We know that she struggled with severe anxiety, other ailments, and mental illnesses for most of her life, as well as pretty severe agoraphobia later in life. We also know that she felt ostracized and unwelcome in her small New England town that she lived in. I think, at its heart, the novel is an exploration of those things. I think the novel has a lot of themes. I don't know if it necessarily has an explicit message.
• 53:41
  Speaker A: I would agree that it doesn't. Yeah.
• 53:42
  Speaker B: And I. You know, I think you're right that the. The story is not particularly sympathetic to the girls. It's not. Not sympathetic.
• 53:52
  Speaker A: It's not. Not sympathetic. It's. Yeah, but, you know, it's not overly sympathetic. It's not like, oh, you were wrong about them or, oh, you like. Cause, like, you could imagine a version of the story where the message is, don't judge a book by its cover. Actually, all these people were wrong to assume these girls murdered their parents, or they didn't realize the reason why they killed their parents, which there is at least some fairly justifiable, depending on how you want to categorize it, kind of self defense in a way or something. It's complicated, but there was a reason behind why it happened and that sort of thing. And it isn't just. But the fact that you framed it in reference to, like, kind of almost being not autobiographical, but, you know, relating to a lot of things going on in Shirley Jackson's life, I think, actually makes it more compelling and interesting that they aren't treated super completely sympathetically. Like, if she sees a lot of herself in that character or in those characters, I think that it makes sense that I think a person who could write this kind of story couldn't be someone who viewed themselves that sympathetically.
• 55:02
  Speaker B: Like, I imagine Shirley Jackson probably dealt with liked herself.
• 55:07
  Speaker A: Yes. Self loathing and self, you know, that sort of thing. So, like, I. Insecurity and stuff. So I can imagine that. Yeah, that actually makes it make a lot more sense of sort of like, she's exploring the reasons why she is the way she, like Shirley Jackson in this instance. I think you could view this as a way of her exploring kind of the way she is. Why the way she is exploring why she is the way she is. And it's. And it's kind of just an honest. I guess, as honest as any self exploration like that could be kind of examination of it that isn't, like, doesn't let herself off for what is going on in her life. I don't know. It's interesting.
• 55:51
  Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah.
• 55:52
  Speaker A: It is really compelling. It's just. I think the thing that I found lacking in the film, it's just that it felt kind of. Well, and I mentioned this earlier when we were talking about it. I think the reason it didn't really completely work for me is that I just had a hard time emotionally connecting with the characters in the film as much as I wanted to, I guess. And it's not that I didn't at all. It's just that I think that I struggled at times to kind of find the emotional core of the film. And so ultimately, it just felt almost more of like a documentation of these strange events that I was. It was almost like watching, like, a documentary. It's obviously not remotely in that style, but where it's just sort of like. I don't know. And we talked about one of the other things, like, maybe what would have made it work better for me is if we had been more told from the point of view or from the perspective of Constance. Whereas it's. We're primarily follow Marikat for the most part. We hear her. It's her voiceover we hear at times in the film, like, her narration. And I wonder if, because she is kind of like a sociopath. I don't know how I categorize it, but she seems maybe to be kind of like a sociopath or something. If that made it hard to connect emotionally from me to the story. I don't know. It's interesting.
• 57:14
  Speaker B: Yeah, maybe. I think we could also take it back to genre because this is gothic fiction. You know, you talked earlier about, like, the mushrooms and the bugs and, like, zooming in down on, like, the rot, the seedy rot underneath that lays beneath the surface. And that's kind of a good summary of what gothic fiction is. It's about the rot under the surface.
• 57:41
  Speaker A: Right.
• 57:42
  Speaker B: So you're not really gonna find bright, shining examples of protagonists in gothic fiction. You kind of end up with, like, you know, there are characters you can identify with. Maybe sometimes there are characters you can occasionally sympathize with. But it is kind of about, like, everybody's not super great here.
• 58:09
  Speaker A: Yeah. And I guess that's the thing, is that maybe that's why I didn't connect to the movie as much. And I think it's kind of intentional, is that the movie? And it goes back to what I was saying, but almost being documentary, like, where it's almost like we're just kind of documenting, like a horrifying train accident. And it's not really anything to emotionally connect with in that. Like, it's like, that's not. It's not what the story's trying to do at all. It's more. So just look at these. And it is kind of. You know what? You know what? This is reminding me of a little bit of our discussion of high rise where I was like, I like a lot of the elements of this. I think the performances are great, I think. But, like, I had a hard time connecting with, like, kind of what it was doing. And it's a similar thing where it ultimately feels a little cynical. This feels different. It doesn't feel cynical in the same way that, like. Or not cynical. Sorry. Nihilistic in the same way that high rise was. But it is kind of similar in that it does feel a little nihilistic, kind of just about humanity in general, where, again, nobody. Everybody kind of sucks somewhat in certain ways. And really it all just boils back to the fact that people suck and trauma causes more trauma. And that's kind of just what it's about. And bad things happen to people and then they end up kind of leading shitty lives because of it. And it's like, okay, great. But, yeah, that is what it's doing. And I guess it works well in that regard. Like I said, I think it's a good movie. I just didn't. I don't know. I don't know if I. Yeah, anyways. All right. Sorry. I'm done talking now. It's time to find out what Katie thought was better in the book. You like to read. Oh, yes, I love to read. What do you like to read?
• 59:59
  Speaker B: Everything. Okay. So the first change that the movie made that I really didn't care for was when Marikat is in town getting the groceries, and she stops by the diner for a cup of coffee, which she does as a way of letting the townspeople know that she's not scared of them. She stops in and has a cup of coffee every time she goes. And the police chief guy or the fire chief, whatever, comes in. And Mara Cat tells us this backstory, that he had been in love with constance, but that Americ told their father about it, and the father didn't let him run away with Constance or something. And I didn't really care for that. It's kind of the entire point that the villager's hatred and cruelty isn't actually personal.
• 1:00:57
  Speaker A: Right.
• 1:00:57
  Speaker B: It's just they're hating the idea. The idea of the Blackwoods. There's not, like, personal beef going on.
• 1:01:05
  Speaker A: A history of, like, oh, somebody he. Like, he didn't slight somebody on a business deal or something like. That's not. Yeah. Although that is mentioned in the movie, too, isn't it? Actually that exact thing? Now that I say that, I think somebody doesn't somebody say that? Like, Blackwood, like the stare thing.
• 1:01:21
  Speaker B: Yeah. The guy who, like, fixed their stare, which has gone into a little bit more in the book. And it turns out he didn't actually fix their stare, which is. That's what Mary Cat says.
• 1:01:32
  Speaker A: Well, it's seemingly not, because. What's his name? Charles.
• 1:01:35
  Speaker B: He's still trying to fix it.
• 1:01:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
• 1:01:40
  Speaker B: I thought there was not enough Jonas the cat in the movie.
• 1:01:44
  Speaker A: Is that the cats? I didn't even notice that.
• 1:01:46
  Speaker B: Jonas the cat, who looks just like.
• 1:01:49
  Speaker A: Grindy does look just like our cat. Grindy. Like, literally identical.
• 1:01:53
  Speaker B: He's got a little white spot in.
• 1:01:55
  Speaker A: The exact same chest. Yeah. Black cat with a little white.
• 1:01:58
  Speaker B: Grindy watched the entire movie with us.
• 1:02:00
  Speaker A: Yes. And every time Jonas went, he went.
• 1:02:03
  Speaker B: Yeah. Katniss was not fooled, but Grindelwald was.
• 1:02:07
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, he was. He was very sleepy, so he's a little out of it. So I'm not sure. His senses weren't at their peak. So anytime he heard anything that sounded like a cat, he was like, what?
• 1:02:17
  Speaker B: Anyway, I thought there was not enough of the cat in the movie.
• 1:02:22
  Speaker A: I was not worried about. Well, actually, I was only worried because I was like, maybe the movie changed it, but I was like, you didn't seem worried about the cat. So I was like, the cat must not die in the book because otherwise you would have been. As soon as. As we saw the cat, I would have known. Cause he would have been, like, emotionally fraught already. And so I was like, the cat must be fine. Which it is.
• 1:02:41
  Speaker B: Yeah, the cat is just FYI, if you're thinking about reading this or watching this, the cat is totally fine throughout the entirety of the book and the movie. Thank you, Shirley Jackson. I also. I didn't really care.
• 1:02:56
  Speaker A: It's a good thing that Mike Flanagan didn't adapt this one. I know that cat would have fucking died if he had.
• 1:03:01
  Speaker B: God.
• 1:03:05
  Speaker A: Sorry.
• 1:03:07
  Speaker B: I also didn't really care for the scene in the movie where Charles is in the bath and then he gets out of the bath.
• 1:03:13
  Speaker A: Okay. I almost asked about this scene is.
• 1:03:16
  Speaker B: In his room, and he intensely stares her down and walks her backwards out of the room. I thought it was just weird. I guess it's supposed to be unsettling, and it was, but I wasn't really sure what to make of it in the moment.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker A: No, I felt the same way. I was like, so what's going on?
• 1:03:34
  Speaker B: I was like, I'm not sure what you're wanting me to get from this.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. Cause it.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker B: Well.
• 1:03:38
  Speaker A: Cause obviously the movie throughout kind of builds up that they're like, even though he's her cousin, they building up this romantic relationship very slowly over the course of the film. And it becomes very clear that, like, you know, he's into her and she kind of seems into him, which I think, also kind of reinforces the fact that we're put off by that. And we're like, this is weird because his cousin also, I think, reinforces kind of what we're supposed to get. And from the implication about what the relationship between John or the father and her was.
• 1:04:10
  Speaker B: And especially since we're told repeatedly that.
• 1:04:13
  Speaker A: He looks just like him and literally wearing his suits and stuff at different points in the film and sleeping in his bed. Yeah. So I think that's also what's going on there. To your point, that specific scene still felt like. I wasn't really sure what.
• 1:04:27
  Speaker B: Yeah. Like, was it just to be unsettling and creepy?
• 1:04:32
  Speaker A: Because it seems like it. Because, like, what was what? Because the thing that makes it confusing is, like, what is John's motivation in that? Or John, what is Charles's motivation?
• 1:04:40
  Speaker B: Yeah. Like, what is he hoping to.
• 1:04:41
  Speaker A: Because he's trying to woo her. He's trying to, like, win her over so that he can take their money.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker B: Does he think he's seducing her.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker A: That's what I mean.
• 1:04:49
  Speaker B: But he just scares her.
• 1:04:50
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:04:51
  Speaker B: Because it doesn't. He does. He seems like he's just acting kind of scary.
• 1:04:55
  Speaker A: Seems like he's being intimidating, but. Yeah, but why would that be? What his. Why would he do that in that scene?
• 1:05:00
  Speaker B: Yeah. What would his goal be?
• 1:05:02
  Speaker A: Yes. That doesn't. Yeah, and I agree that that doesn't. Yeah, that was also my, like, why is he doing this? Like, what is. Because he's just silently walking towards her in an intimidating way.
• 1:05:11
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:05:11
  Speaker A: And unless the idea is that he thinks he's being seductive, but I don't think that's the case. It doesn't seem like that's what he thinks he's doing. I don't know.
• 1:05:19
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:05:21
  Speaker A: It's very strange. And again, it is off putting. It does make you.
• 1:05:25
  Speaker B: Oh, yeah, it's very off putting.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker A: Yeah. In a similar way.
• 1:05:28
  Speaker B: But I don't understand his motivation.
• 1:05:30
  Speaker A: It's just for the actual character. I'm not really sure. It makes a lot of sense, but, yeah.
• 1:05:35
  Speaker B: Charles never attacks Mary cat in the book. This is not a deal breaker for me in the movie, but it did feel, like a little heavy handed to have him physically. To have him physically get into an altercation with her.
• 1:05:48
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think they just felt like they needed to really up the stakes at the end.
• 1:05:51
  Speaker B: Yeah, I agree.
• 1:05:52
  Speaker A: To give it more of a crescendo to the conclusion.
• 1:05:57
  Speaker B: And in the most Hollywood change, Mary Cat does not kill Charles at the end of the book. A very movie kind of ending and particularly, like witch movie kind of ending where they, like, kill him and then bury him in the garden.
• 1:06:14
  Speaker A: Practical magic.
• 1:06:15
  Speaker B: Yeah, basically. But that does not happen in the book. He does come back at one point and tries to get them to let him back in the house, and they just don't answer him. They just ignore him and he ends up leaving. Then that's all that happens with him.
• 1:06:32
  Speaker A: Yeah. Again, that feels similar to the last point of just the movie needing a.
• 1:06:36
  Speaker B: More the movie needing more to movie.
• 1:06:38
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:06:39
  Speaker B: My last note here, as ever, I am not a huge fan of ending a piece of media with the main character starting to write a book about their experiences. I'll allow it in Lord of the Rings, but I'm not a huge fan in general.
• 1:06:55
  Speaker A: I liked it in and now I can't. It's been so long. But at the end of spoilers for the 2019 little women, isn't little women written by her in that? Because that was the whole thing where she goes, and she gets it published and then. Or something like that.
• 1:07:16
  Speaker B: I can't remember. I remember liking that. There's, like, a last minute reveal that the whole last scene where she runs to get what's his butt off the train was actually the end of her book and not what really happened, which I would not count as being the same as the main character sitting down to literally write a book and repeating the opening lines from the movie because now they're writing their book.
• 1:07:41
  Speaker A: Okay, all right, all right. Time to find out what Katie thought was better in the movie. My life has taught me one lesson, Hugo, and not the one I thought it would. Happy endings only happen in the movies.
• 1:07:56
  Speaker B: I really liked seeing Constance's room in the movie. We never see her room in the book. And I liked all of the visuals indicating that at one point in her life, she was really interested in the idea of traveling.
• 1:08:10
  Speaker A: Yeah, she has all these, like.
• 1:08:11
  Speaker B: Like. She has, like, the snow globes and, like, the postcards and all of the, like, travel paraphernalia around her room. I thought that was a really interesting thing to add.
• 1:08:21
  Speaker A: Yeah, it definitely helps motivate her falling into Charles.
• 1:08:26
  Speaker B: Yes. Like, under his spell.
• 1:08:29
  Speaker A: Under his spell. Because he's. He keeps alluding to, like, taking her away. Taking her to travel because he's traveled.
• 1:08:36
  Speaker B: And, you know, so he says.
• 1:08:37
  Speaker A: So he says. Yeah, obviously. But, yeah. So it gives a reason, a little bit of motivation, subtle motivation for why she. Yeah. Falls under his spell.
• 1:08:47
  Speaker B: I liked it.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker A: I will say, I don't think you necessarily need it because he just seems like the kind of person who would be, like, easily manipulated.
• 1:08:54
  Speaker B: Yes, I agree. But again, there's a lot of the house that we just don't see in the book because Mara Cat doesn't go into those rooms. So I thought it was really fun.
• 1:09:04
  Speaker A: No, it makes perfect. It's the exact kind of thing you should absolutely include because, again, it's not necessarily needed. But you're gonna gotta put something in a room if you're gonna see it at all. And that makes tons of sense.
• 1:09:13
  Speaker B: So, yeah, I liked the creepy piano music throughout the movie. I thought it was very atmospheric. Obviously, the book did not come with creepy piano music.
• 1:09:22
  Speaker A: It's true.
• 1:09:24
  Speaker B: There's an exchange between Mary Cat and Constance shortly before Charles shows up where Marykat thinks that she hears her father in his room. She goes to Constance. She's like, I heard father in his room. And Constance says, they're gone. And Mary Cat says, I feel him coming back. And I thought that was, like, a great creepy way to foreshadow Charles showing up. I also liked having Charles show up while Mary Cat is on the unexpected trip into town. In the book, he shows up while she's off being semi feral in the woods. But I liked the added layer of this thing has disrupted her usual routine. So she already feels unsafe. And then, lo and behold, when she gets back, there's this demonic presence in her home. I liked the little scene of Charles mansplaining how to plant something. That was a great little addition for his character. We see Constance playing a piano at one point during the movie. In the book, she plays a harpoon. I liked the change from harp to piano. It's giving gothic. Yeah, I like that.
• 1:10:39
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:10:40
  Speaker B: Not that a harp can't give gothic, but, like, you know, the piano in, like, the center hallway with the staircase going up and, like, the skylight, it's giving gothic mansion.
• 1:10:52
  Speaker A: Yes. Which I also really liked that shot at the end of the film where I think it's during the fire. Right before the fire or right before everybody shows up where we get that top down shot through the stairwell. And Constance wanders into the shot and looks up at the skylight at the camera. I thought that was cool.
• 1:11:09
  Speaker B: And there's a little moment when the house is on fire where Uncle Julian just goes into his room and locks the door. And he's looking at a photo of his dead wife as his room fills with smoke.
• 1:11:21
  Speaker A: I did not even notice that.
• 1:11:22
  Speaker B: I thought that was really. That one got me. Got me right here. And then another line that I liked thought was kind of funny. After the fire and everything. And they have sequestered themselves in the house. Helen Clark and her husband come by to try to get them to come out and go home with them. And Helen Clark is like, break down the door. And her husband's like, every window is broken. I'm not going to break anything else, for Christ's sake.
• 1:11:52
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right, let's go ahead and talk about what the movie nailed. As I expected, practically perfect in every way.
• 1:12:03
  Speaker B: So, first off, I had no idea how this movie was going to work without a voiceover. So I was glad to hear that they included at least some of that. Cause I think Mary Cat's inner monologue is really essential to this story. I don't know if the movie included enough of it.
• 1:12:21
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:12:22
  Speaker B: But I was glad that they at least acknowledged how important her perspective and monologue is to making this story work. The book begins very similarly to the movie. We kind of, like, start in one place and then jump back and catch up to ourselves. Although without the repeating visuals at the beginning and end of the movie, it's a little less obvious in the book what's going on because Mary Cat starts her narration out and it's not super obvious at first that she's narrating after the events of the book, but that becomes more clear as the book goes on.
• 1:12:59
  Speaker A: I would say it's also not obvious in the film necessarily, until we jump. I mean, literally, we get a title card that says last Tuesday. So it becomes very clear very quickly. But when it opens, you don't know necessarily when this is taking. We have no idea.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker B: Misses Clark does bring misses Wright to tea unannounced and they try to convince Constance to re enter society. And then Uncle Julian does his little macabre show and tell in the dining room. The movie only did this once that I caught. But there is a repeated refrain with Uncle Julian throughout the book where he asks Constance, he'll be talking about the events of the poisoning. And he'll just look up and be like, it did happen, didn't it? And Constance will be like, yes, it did. I only caught that once in the movie, but it happened several times in the book. Charles is pretty spot on. He's just immediately this loud, disruptive presence who doesn't make any effort to actually understand these people or their lives. He just wants their money.
• 1:14:06
  Speaker A: He's there for their money.
• 1:14:07
  Speaker B: Yeah. Mary Cat does try asking Charles to leave. She gives it the old college try, asks him if he'll go.
• 1:14:15
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:14:16
  Speaker B: And she does destroy the room that he's staying in. Very similarly to what we see in the movie. Like, she drags in all the sticks and leaves and everything and dumps water on his bed. This is briefly mentioned. I don't know if you're gonna. You caught it.
• 1:14:30
  Speaker A: I noticed this line.
• 1:14:32
  Speaker B: Yeah. But Uncle Julian at one point says that Marykat died in the orphanage. I remember that trial.
• 1:14:38
  Speaker A: I think that's might have been what spark or sparked my question earlier about, like, is what is Jul. Like, does everything he say just sound like nonsense? Like. Because I was like, I don't know what that is in reference to.
• 1:14:50
  Speaker B: Yeah, there's. There's a lot going on here. And you are kind of meant to question like, you know, does he just not know what's going on or is. Or is there some weirder truth to.
• 1:15:02
  Speaker A: This here stuff he's saying? Yeah. Huh.
• 1:15:07
  Speaker B: There's a scene in the movie where Mary Cat imagines, hallucinates her parents saying that they love her. And that she should never be punished. That is from the book. And that's also something that I would count as evidence towards Marykette having that motivation to poison her parents.
• 1:15:27
  Speaker A: Absolutely.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker B: The scene, I didn't super love it in the movie. The scene in the book is very chilling because she's imagining this whole scene where her parents are talking about how much they love her and how she's their most beloved daughter. And it's so laced with anger and malice that it really is very chilling to read.
• 1:15:51
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think it worked okay in the film. Maybe not perfectly, but it was one of the little details I loved in the film is that they have them sitting in one of those conversation chair things. You know, if you don't know what this is, they're old furniture things where it's like a wooden chair that has two seats, but the seats are facing opposite directions and they're next to each other and so that people could sit in them and talk to each other.
• 1:16:20
  Speaker B: Yeah. You would be kind of facing each other.
• 1:16:22
  Speaker A: Kind of facing each other, but not really.
• 1:16:24
  Speaker B: Whereas on a bench, you're both facing the same direction. If you don't know what it is, just Google conversation chair and you'll understand immediately.
• 1:16:33
  Speaker A: Yeah, but they're sitting in one of those. Fun. Because it's such a very, like, it's such an old timey, weird thing.
• 1:16:38
  Speaker B: Yeah, they don't make those.
• 1:16:40
  Speaker A: They don't make them like that anymore. Yeah, I'm sure they do. I'm sure you can get. I'm sure. Honestly, I'm sure. Like, very fancy furniture.
• 1:16:47
  Speaker B: Like, I'm sure you could get one somewhere, but.
• 1:16:50
  Speaker A: Well, and it wouldn't even surprise me if it's still a thing, like, among, like, rich people furniture like those. You know what I mean? I wouldn't surprise me if, like, luxury furniture. Those weren't super uncommon, but they're not a. Which, to be fair, these were. They were. I think they were primarily in, like, fancy.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker B: It's a very, like, Gatsby esque piece of furniture.
• 1:17:09
  Speaker A: Yeah. I also think of, like, what we just, like Bridgerton, like, regency kind of like, they have those kind of like. Because I remember seeing those at, like, I think the art museum in St. Louis. The art museum in St. Louis has a furniture floor, right? Am I crazy?
• 1:17:24
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:17:25
  Speaker A: Like a furniture display that's been there forever. And I feel like there was several of those in the art museum of St. Louis. I feel like that may have been the first place I ever saw them, but I feel like I remember them looking sometimes, like they belonged in, like, a regency like manner or whatever.
• 1:17:40
  Speaker B: But we never been to the art museum together. I don't think we should go to the art museum.
• 1:17:45
  Speaker A: Yeah, I do like the art museum.
• 1:17:47
  Speaker B: Anyway, back to my notes here. A line from Constance as the house is beginning to burn down. She says, we just cleaned it. It has no right to burn.
• 1:18:01
  Speaker A: Yes, I do remember that. That was a good line. I chuckled at that one.
• 1:18:05
  Speaker B: And Charles, trying desperately to steal the money in the safe during the fire mob, just bound and determined to get out of there with that money. Another line from Constance. When people start bringing them food, she says, we're the biggest church supper they've ever had.
• 1:18:23
  Speaker A: I really. I heard that line. I remember that line from the movie, and I really liked it because it was dripping with a level of passive aggression at church people that I really enjoyed.
• 1:18:35
  Speaker B: Passive aggressive disdain?
• 1:18:36
  Speaker A: Yes. For church people, it's like, oh, yeah, no, they love to get together and cook up a big church dinner for people.
• 1:18:43
  Speaker B: Probably the people they hurt.
• 1:18:45
  Speaker A: Yes. The people they already out. Yeah, exactly. They're the reason that they needed to cook us a church supper. But they get to pat themselves on the back for being so gracious and accommodating, being so generous and stuff like that. Just a lot of subtext to that line that I really enjoyed.
• 1:19:04
  Speaker B: On my last note here, we already kind of talked about this, but the exchange, I wonder if I could eat a child if I had the chance, and I doubt I could cook one, is from the book.
• 1:19:13
  Speaker A: That line really cracked me up because it was the thing that spurned my, like, oh, this whole thing is just a witch origin story.
• 1:19:21
  Speaker B: That exchange really solidifies.
• 1:19:23
  Speaker A: Oh, it, like, chunked into my head. I'm like, oh, okay. Yeah, no, this is just the witch origin story. That's all this is. Okay. Yeah, right. Cool. All right. We got a handful of odds and ends before the final verdict. This is a little detail, but it cracked me up. Is that the opening? We started the film in the opening. Production company logos popped up, and these were, like, some truly comically bad opening productions.
• 1:19:56
  Speaker B: I'm mad that I missed these company logo. I did not. I was not paying attention.
• 1:20:00
  Speaker A: They reminded me of the kind of, like, company production logos we see at the beginning of good bad or bad bad movies, where they're just overly overdone and overwrought and not well designed. Like, it's hard to explain. You can just tell a cheap, bad production company logo versus, like, you know, like, obviously, like all the, like, the. The classic ones that you're used to seeing all have, like, there's usually, like, a kind of a simple elegance to production logos. Good ones, at least the ones you remember. Like, think of the a 24 logo, whatever. Those ones, you know, or, like, the. With the star flying was the paramount or whatever. Like, you know, all the ones that are, like, really well known are, like, either very, like, grand and beautiful, or they're very simple. Like the a 24 one or whatever. There's the ones that are, like, they look like a weird, like, pre purchased asset from, like, a stock video, like, thing or something. And there was, like, two of them at the beginning of this one. And I was like, that's interesting. Which would make sense that this. Maybe that this film was. Because we talked about. I couldn't find, like, a. Wear this film. Like, it didn't have a box office.
• 1:21:10
  Speaker B: Like, this film was like, I still.
• 1:21:12
  Speaker A: Don'T know where this film came out.
• 1:21:14
  Speaker B: Like, nobody. I've never heard anyone talk about this film, which is, like, wild to me because Shirley Jackson's pretty well known writer, at least in America, and haunting a hill house was. Why isn't anybody ever brought this movie up?
• 1:21:32
  Speaker A: Very interesting.
• 1:21:33
  Speaker B: Yeah, very weird.
• 1:21:34
  Speaker A: Yeah. Again, I think part of it is that it's just kind of, like a hard movie to sell, for one thing. Again, you watch this movie, you get done, and, like, even I. Somebody who likes. Can appreciate what the movie is.
• 1:21:47
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:21:47
  Speaker A: Like, kind of enjoyed it. Still don't think I would recommend it to, like, anybody. Like, not anybody. Very few people would recommend this movie to. And even then, I would recommend it very tentatively because, again, I didn't love the movie.
• 1:22:00
  Speaker B: So, like, I mean, I agree, but I still think that the sheer level of this movie's non existent anywhere is very weird.
• 1:22:09
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's. Again, it's not like it has nobody in it.
• 1:22:11
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:22:12
  Speaker A: Sebastian Sands got Alexander Andrew Jadario. It's got.
• 1:22:14
  Speaker B: I mean, not just Sebastian Stan, but Sebastian Stan at the height of Marvel.
• 1:22:20
  Speaker A: Fame in the middle of Infinity War and all that, I think. Right. Like, it's came in 20 819. Right. I think, yeah. So, like, 100%. Like, yeah. He's just been all the Marvel movies. Yeah. Tons of people. You know, Chris McGlover's not nobody. Like, again, it has people in it. It's very interesting that it just. Zero people talked about it ever, and seemingly had no box office and was.
• 1:22:40
  Speaker B: Like, it got buried.
• 1:22:41
  Speaker A: Production companies that were like.
• 1:22:43
  Speaker B: And the weird other weird thing is, like, it was not super great, but I don't feel like it was bad enough to get buried.
• 1:22:50
  Speaker A: No, I think the thing truly is that it just. I bet it just never got picked up anywhere because it. It's hard to sell. I don't know how you sell this movie again. You. Well, to be fair, you sell it with Sebastian stan, it's. The only way you sell this movie is you go look. And Alexander Dadario, you go look. But. But you would have to sell it as a different movie, and. Well, you wouldn't have to. You could sell it however you want, which is a thing that they do sometimes, but. But I think it would end up. I don't know. I can understand why somebody watched, an executive would watch this movie and go, I don't know what to do with this. Yeah, we can't sell it. I don't know. Yeah, it is interesting, but.
• 1:23:25
  Speaker B: Well, we're covering it.
• 1:23:27
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:23:28
  Speaker B: There we go. I really liked the vintage aesthetic in the movie. I liked the set and the costumes and the whatnot.
• 1:23:35
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, I agree. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's clear that it seems to take place in the past, but it's like a nebulous non specific.
• 1:23:44
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's kind of vaguely like fifties.
• 1:23:46
  Speaker A: Sixties, mid century, but also looks more modern to me. Like, there's elements of it that look more modern than that to me. Like, maybe it's just like. Well, for one thing, I thought Taissa Farmiga's wardrobe that she wears, like, the whole movie looked like she was dressed in 2020.
• 1:24:05
  Speaker B: I agree.
• 1:24:06
  Speaker A: That button down shirt with the shorts, she looks like a hipster or something from LA or something. I don't know. It was a very strange wardrobe that I don't know if that was intentional or if it was just based on something historic that I'm unaware. I don't think I've ever seen a person in the 1950s dressed like that. I don't know. Again, it just looked like a very modern person. But again, I think that's intentional. I think it's vaguely or intentionally because it's called we have always lived in the castle. I think it's intentionally out of time. I think that's on purpose because also some of the little elements of, like, the stuff you see in the film does. It feels more modern to me. Like, I don't know, like, specific. My next note was just random, but there's the tap in the kitchen. Looks to me like a more modern tap, but they have this tap, which I thought was very interesting. And to me, I swear it's backwards. So she keeps using it, and it's it's one of those with, like, a long, like, lever handle. Normally, the lever handle on those is facing you.
• 1:25:04
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:25:04
  Speaker A: In, like, 99% of sinks I've ever used like that in the movie. It's backwards. It's facing away from her, but it's this big, long lever. It looks very strange. Did you not notice that?
• 1:25:18
  Speaker B: I noticed that it looked weird, but I didn't clock specifically what was weird.
• 1:25:22
  Speaker A: I think it looked particularly weird because I think it's like the exact tap my parents had, like, growing up. And it was the opposite. Like, the handle was literally flipped 180 degrees from how I was used to it. So it looked in particularly strange. Strange to me. And I was also. I was kind of wondering if that was some of those little details were intentional.
• 1:25:40
  Speaker B: Like, I don't know what that would.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker A: Be meaning anything specifically, but just creating a sense of unbalance, of unease, of, like, things are off. Like. Like little subtle things that are off that are not. Again, not like super obvious things, but just little things that make. That maybe you don't even notice, but just, like, kind of slowly create this ambiance of, like. Yeah. Of things being off or wrong or weird. I don't know. Anyway, it was driving me crazy. Every time I saw that tap, I was like, that is not how the taps work. Why is it backwards? I mean, that is. You can put them on that way. But I've never seen a tap designed that way to have it be backwards like that. Again, maybe I'm crazy, but I really.
• 1:26:23
  Speaker B: Liked the underground shot of all the random things buried amongst the tree roots.
• 1:26:28
  Speaker A: I had the exact same note. I loved that shot where the camera kind of moves past all this stuff because it's a practical shot, too, I think. Doesn't look like CG to me. It looks like they literally just buried a bunch of stuff against, like, plexi or something. I don't know how they did it, but it just looks like an actual practical shot of a bunch of stuff buried in dirt that they figured out a way to shoot practically. And I thought it was really cool. And again, it reminded me of some of the stuff from, like, blue velvet and stuff, of the things under the surface. And I think that would look terrible if it was CG. Like, it had to be practical.
• 1:26:58
  Speaker B: The music, I don't know if you noticed this at times, was a little on the nose.
• 1:27:07
  Speaker A: I don't know.
• 1:27:08
  Speaker B: What do you mean? There was one in particular where Charles and Constance are interacting, I think where they're dancing in the living room or something. And the music is this very loud 1950s style song and somebody's singing about daddy's home.
• 1:27:27
  Speaker A: Oh, yeah. No, I think that was very intentional.
• 1:27:30
  Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think it was. Yes, it was obviously intentional.
• 1:27:32
  Speaker A: Obviously intentional. I actually didn't mind that. I didn't think it was too on the nose. I think it was on the nose in a way. Like, to me it worked. Yeah, it's very on the nose. But I thought it worked for the scene. Like, it didn't take me out of that moment. It just reinforced how weird and creepy this all was. I thought having it be that explicit act because oftentimes I would agree with that. But because it was diegetic, I actually thought it worked better. Like, if it had been non diegetic music, I think that would have made me roll my eyes. But the fact that they're listening to it in the scene just made it creepy and weird. You know what I mean? Because usually my complaint with that in the movie is like, if we're watching a movie and it's like, I think I talked about this like Forrest Gump or whatever, where it's like, it's non diegetic music. It's just like, you know, they're playing music over as the soundtrack over the film. If the lyrics in that are too on the nose with what we're seeing in the film, it can feel cheesy and like corny. Like, okay, really? That was the best you come up with? But I think in this instance, because it's literally in the universe of the film and they're listening to it and the fact that they're like, she's not. She's oblivious to what is going on here makes it creepier. You know what I mean? In that instance, I think it works again. If it hadn't been diegetic, I think I would agree with you. But I thought everybody was fantastic in this. Like, all the performances I thought were really good. Sebastian Stan needs to play villains more. I think. Hopefully he does get a chance to do that more. Now. I don't know if he's. I guess he's still in the movies or. I don't know.
• 1:29:04
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 1:29:04
  Speaker A: He was in the tv show that. So I assume he's going to still be around. I can't remember what happened at the end of Falcon and Winter Soldier, but I assume he's still going to be in the movies. He's not dead. I don't think so. Or whatever. So I. But hopefully he gets to start doing some other stuff. Because I think he was really good in this as, like, a weird, creepy villain guy with, like, who presents as, like, this very handsome, dashing guy, but under the surface is, like, fucked up little weirdo. Like, I. More of that from Sebastian Stan, as we just learned. We just saw Furiosa on Friday, as we just learned more of Marvel characters being fucked up little weirdos. Chris Evans, great. Knives out. Chris Hemsworth. Crushed. It is demento and furiosa. And Sebastian Stan is great in this. Again, just cast them as let them be weirdos. But I really enjoyed Alexandra Daddario. The smiling through gritted teeth thing she does the whole time. She just has so much. And her eyes, the way you can see the pain. Yeah, but she's smiling. It's the desperation. Desperation to appear happy and normal when everything's fucked up, I just thought was yes.
• 1:30:19
  Speaker B: And, like, the implication at certain moments that she almost can't help yes. The grin that comes on her face.
• 1:30:26
  Speaker A: Like, it gets bigger when things get worse. Like, it's just, like, she has to just like, yeah, yeah. No, I thought it was great, and it, like, it could easily have gotten to a point where it felt like one note or. Or, like, kind of cheesy or, you know, like, oh, is that all you're gonna do? But it didn't. To me, it just worked the whole time. And I think part of that is the way it fluctuates in the way it, like, she gets, like, more manic as things get worse. And, like, there's times where horrible things, because that was one of the scene where Charles is, like, attacking Mary cat, like, on the stairs.
• 1:30:57
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:30:57
  Speaker A: She's, like, almost, like, laughing. Like, she's, like, she's grinning so much, it almost seems like she's, like, giddy, but she's clearly not. I don't know. I thought it was just incredibly interesting and, like, a perfect performance for that character and, like, what? She's just hiding all this shit underneath, and it just plasters this grin and this, like, very fake smile on the whole time that it's very obvious. But I don't know. I thought there was a lot of subtlety going on there that worked really well. But, yeah, I thought, again, everybody I thought was really good.
• 1:31:29
  Speaker B: There was one moment that kind of cracked me up at the start of when the villagers start ransacking the house, and there's this one little middle aged woman who's all done up 1960s style, and she has her little hat, and she has her little purse daintily on her arm and her little gloves. And she just walks in and seizes a single curtain and daintily tears it off. Curtain Rod and RK sent me.
• 1:32:04
  Speaker A: Yeah, good, good. And then my final note. So I just recently watched a miniseries called Sharp Objects. It's on HBO or Max. It's on HBO. Max. It's a miniseries, single season, mini series that was adapted from a Gillian Flynn novel who did Gone Girl, which we've done on the show. But it was it. After watching I watched it series, I know it was about a month ago now, watching this, after watching that, it became so incredibly clear how big of a fan of probably Shirley Jackson in General Gillian Flynn is. Holy shit. That the sharp objects remind. And I want to spoil anything. It's a great series. Highly recommend. Sharp objects, if you like murder mysteries and that kind of thing that are like, very, like, fucked up character explorations, which is what, you know, like gone girl or whatever I thought was really good. Amy Adams is the main character or plays the main character in it. It's also, if you're from Missouri, it's based in St. Louis. She works at the Post Dispatch. I think they never say the Post Dispatch, but she works at a newspaper in St. Louis. I assume it's supposed to be the Post dispatch, it seems like. But she's like a reporter, and she goes back to her little hometown. It's a made up town in Missouri, but like a little bumpkin hometown in Missouri to investigate a murder that transpired. So much of that reminded me of this. It's about family. It's about trauma. It's about sisters. It's about. I was like, okay, yeah, no, 100% Gillian Flynn read, we have always lived in the castle and decided, I'm gonna make my own version of that. But yeah, if you enjoyed this story at all, book or movie, I would definitely recommend checking out sharp objects. I've not read it. I've only watched a movie miniseries, but it very similar energy and vibe going on there. And I think, at least for me, I thought the series was better than this movie was in terms of, like, delivering a satisfying overall story. It's different, but, like, I thought that was a more complete, like, well crafted entire story and narrative than this one was, but very similar in lots of ways. So before we get to the final verdict, we want to remind you, you can do us a giant favor by hanging over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, goodreads, threads, any of those places interact. We'd love to hear what you have to say about we have always lived in the castle. You can also help us out by dropping us a five star rating, writing us a nice little review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or YouTube or wherever you can rate and review us. I think like Google maybe, or definitely Facebook, you can drop us a five star rating, interview, any of those things. And if you would really love to support us, you can over to patreon.com. thisfilm is lit. Support us there for a few bucks a month. Get access to different things at different levels, including bonus content at the $5 level and priority recommendations at the $15 level. Go check that out on Patreon for more information. Katie it's time for the final verdict.
• 1:35:04
  Speaker B: No sentence, fast verdict after? That's stupid. As far as adaptations go, we have always lived in the castle is kind of an interesting case on paper. The film is very, very close to the book. There isn't much left out and the only huge change is Mary Cat killing Charles at the end, which, as I said, is also the only change that feels very hollywood to me. And the movie isn't bad either. It's not super creative, but it looks pretty good. I liked the vintage aesthetic and I thought it was well acted. I liked Taissa Formigas, mara Cat. I enjoyed Alexandra Daddarios manic, grinning take on Constance. And I thought Sebastian Stan had a pretty good turn as the storys villain. But something about it that I cant quite put my finger on fell flat for me. Despite being incredibly similar to the book, the movie just didnt hold up to it and ended up feeling thin and insubstantial. I enjoyed the movie in a mild, passive kind of way, but at the end of the day, I would rather revisit the book than the movie. And for those reasons, I'm going to give this one to the book.
• 1:36:25
  Speaker A: All right. And yeah, just to tack on real quick, I think one of the reasons for me, and we talked about this a little bit earlier, but when we discussing your final verdict earlier in the day, I think this lends itself at least the way the movie was presented to reading better than watching. As much as I enjoyed a lot about the movie, I think I think being able to go in and reread things and really dig into like all of the strangeness of the story by if you need to reread a passage and stuff like that, I think would work really well. And I just, I don't know if it was completely there in the film.
• 1:36:54
  Speaker B: Well, and I think, you know, one of the things that we kind of continually discover on this podcast is that sometimes stories are just better suited to a certain medium, and there doesn't always need to be, like, a specific, concrete reason for that. Sometimes things just work better as book or as a movie.
• 1:37:13
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yep. Katie, what's next?
• 1:37:17
  Speaker B: Up next, we are switching gears, and we're gonna talk about red, white, and royal blue.
• 1:37:25
  Speaker A: Mm hmm.
• 1:37:26
  Speaker B: A novel by Casey McQuiston and 2023 film. It is a romance. It is lgbt gay romance. I didn't want to call it gay specifically because I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if I'm committing, like, bisexual erasure or anything.
• 1:37:48
  Speaker A: My apologies.
• 1:37:50
  Speaker B: We'll find out.
• 1:37:51
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:37:53
  Speaker B: Yeah. I thought it would be fun to do something for Pride month. Pride month content tends to be few and far in between just based on what kind of media gets made into films.
• 1:38:06
  Speaker A: Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, more and more, like, we could have. More and more, like, more late, like, we could have done the Mona for.
• 1:38:11
  Speaker B: We probably could have done.
• 1:38:12
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:38:13
  Speaker B: But.
• 1:38:13
  Speaker A: But it's not explicitly like that necessarily.
• 1:38:16
  Speaker B: This, I think, will be a little more direct and explicit. There you go.
• 1:38:20
  Speaker A: Okay, fantastic. That's our next episode. Red, right? White and royal blue. Come back in two weeks time for that. But in one week's time, we'll have our next prequel episode, where we'll preview red, white, and royal blue and hear what you all had to say about we have always lived in the castle until that time. Guys, gals, non binary pals, and everybody.
• 1:38:38
  Speaker B: Else, keep reading books, watching movies, and keep being awesome.