Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to We Have Always Lived in the Castle - Poor Things Fan Reaction, Shirley Jackson

Transcript

Prequel to We Have Always Lived in the Castle - Poor Things Fan Reaction, Shirley Jackson · This Film is Lit

• 0:08
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our poor things listener polls, learn about Shirley Jackson and preview. We have always lived in the castle. Hello and welcome back to another prequel episode of this film is lately podcast, where we talk about movies that are based on on books. We have all of our segments and lots to talk about on this prequel episode, so we'll jump right into our patron shoutouts.
• 0:37
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons, that's why.
• 0:41
  Speaker A: One new patron this week, and they're actually a returning patron at the $5 Hugo award winning level. Minty cell welcome back, Minty Cell. Thank you for jumping back on and supporting us. Make sure you listen to that bonus content. And as always, we have our Academy Award winning patrons and they are Breen's beans and peen. Eric Harpo Rat Nathan Vic Vega Mathilde Steve from Arizona. Ent drought draft drufft. I don't know how to pronounce that word cause that's a thing in Lord of the Rings, right? The. It's what the ent's drink, I think.
• 1:19
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 1:20
  Speaker A: Cause it's spelled like. Is that pronounced draft d r a?
• 1:24
  Speaker B: I think it might g h t, but don't quote.
• 1:27
  Speaker A: I want to say drought people, but I don't think it's so anyways, ent drought or ent draught. One of the two. Or maybe it's something irish or something that I don't even know. Maybe there's a different pronunciation. Ent drach. Teresa Schwartz ian from wine country, Winchester's forever, Kelly napier Grey Hightower Gretch. Just scratch shelby's inner capybara era, that darn skag v. Frank and Delina Starkov, thank you all very much for continuing to support us. Ind draft, I believe was Paul before they changed their name. Yeah, I don't know why they changed it. It's interesting. Maybe they know something that we don't know.
• 2:09
  Speaker B: It probably has nothing to do with us.
• 2:12
  Speaker A: Probably a different thing that they're a patron for, if I had to guess. But who knows? All right, Katie, let's see what the people had to say about poor things.
• 2:22
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. All right, well, spoilers. Most of our comments are on Patreon, so this is going to be a front loaded comment section.
• 2:36
  Speaker A: But they're all long.
• 2:37
  Speaker B: Yes, and they are all long, so strap in. But on Patreon, we had three votes for the book and one for the movie. Kelly Napier said, I went back and forth a little bit on this, but I preferred the book to the movie. The twist at the end where she rebuts the entire story by saying what her husband says. Never says happened. Never happened is one of the most surprising things I've ever come across in a book. It's probably only second in my mind to flipping the page in gone girl and all of a sudden the story being told from the perspective of a very alive Amy. I found the last second flip of making it an unreliable narrator to make the whole tale even more absurd than it was to begin with. Was he telling what actually happened? And she's lying. Was he lying and she's telling the truth? Who really knows? I absolutely loved the fact that the rug was pulled out from under me, and I was left wondering what the truth is. One or the other or somewhere in between. You're left to decide for yourself.
• 3:35
  Speaker A: Roshomon. That's right. Is that the thing?
• 3:38
  Speaker B: I don't know what you're talking about.
• 3:39
  Speaker A: So there's a famous. I think it's a movie, but it's the same thing they did a little bit in, like, last Jedi, but lots of movies is. There's a. It kind of hearkens back to the saying, there's the truth, your truth, my truth, and then the real truth is somewhere in between or something like that. The idea, I think, in Roshomon, I believe, is a japanese film that shows, like, the same. I've not seen it. I just have heard it referenced. And it's kind of like a trope thing where you see the same thing from multiple perspectives and you're never really sure which one is, like, the real, like, what actually happened, basically. Anyway, sorry, continue.
• 4:18
  Speaker B: Kelly went on to say, once again, I found myself watching the movie at work. And, man, when she first discovered herself, you've never seen me hit the close button on my webpage so quickly. Please tell me we have some work safe choices coming down the pipeline. Maybe. I don't. I don't know.
• 4:36
  Speaker A: I have no idea about what. We have always lived in the castle. I don't know about that.
• 4:41
  Speaker B: I mean, I. I wouldn't think that there would be, like, sex in that one. I could be wrong.
• 4:48
  Speaker A: Yeah. I don't know. There may. I have no idea. I literally have no idea what happens in it at all. So maybe it wouldn't surprise me based on what I know of, like, haunting on Hill House and stuff, if there's some stuff. But anyways, dune two is probably fine spoilers for the fact that, I mean, our patrons know we're already doing that, but eventually, that one, I can't imagine.
• 5:07
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 5:08
  Speaker A: There might be, like, a sex scene, but it wouldn't be, like, explicit. I think it's a pg 13. Well, it's probably an r rated movie.
• 5:12
  Speaker B: But it's not like we are doing a romance in between. We have always lived in the castle and dune two, but I don't think there would be. I don't know. I'm talking out of my butt right now. Yes. Anyway, we'll find out. Kelly. Sorry.
• 5:33
  Speaker A: It is Rashomon. Rashomon is a 1950 japanese film by Kurosawa, actually, Kurosawa, that is. Various people describe how a samurai was murdered in a forest. Every element is largely identical, from the murdered samurai speaking through a Shinto psychic to the bandit in the forest, the monk, the assault of the wife, and the dishonest and the dishonest retelling of the events in which everyone shows their ideal self by lying. So, yeah, it's about how everybody tells a different version of the story.
• 6:03
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 6:03
  Speaker A: Yeah. What it means about them and stuff like that.
• 6:06
  Speaker B: Well, now we've all learned something.
• 6:08
  Speaker A: There you go. Sorry.
• 6:10
  Speaker B: Kelly's last comment here was, I agree with both of you that people who got Big mad about the movie either truly didn't understand or didn't take the time to even try and understand what it was about. It's not even overly nuanced. If you just take a few minutes to think about it, you'll get it. To all of those people shouting from the rooftops about misogyny and the patriarchy and the iconic words of Taylor Allison Swift. You need to calm down. And then Kelly left another comment underneath her first comment that says, side note, for clarity, I am not a swiftie.
• 6:45
  Speaker A: Yeah. What?
• 6:47
  Speaker B: I mean, I feel a little like an unreliable narrator there. Is Kelly a swifty? Oh, yeah, we'll never know.
• 6:54
  Speaker A: Rashomon. Yeah. Like, yeah. I don't know if I would tell those people they need to calm down. I think they need to be better at media analysis. It would be the thing. I think a lot of times, the people that are saying those things, like, in particular, from what I have seen, I think the person who wrote the vulture, I think it was vulture for variety. I can't remember. Vulture review, maybe that was very critical of the film and calling out its misogyny and stuff like that, I think was coming from a place that I agree with but was maybe just uncharitably interpreting the film.
• 7:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, I would agree with that.
• 7:27
  Speaker A: So, like, you know, I guess they need to come down in a sense. But I generally. I don't know, people calling out misogyny and the patriarchy. I'm not quick to tell them to calm down, nor should you be. Yeah, for several reasons, but one, because I don't think they should calm down. But two, it's also probably not my place to make that call. But, yeah, I think it is. And I'm maybe being a little uncharitable to what Kelly was saying here. My point being that I think they were coming from a correct place and I think that their ire and the fact that they're worked up about it, I understand. I just think that it was. And I guess I agree in the sense that, like, take a breath, reflect a little bit on what the movie was maybe actually trying to say, and then, you know, maybe it's not what you thought it was. Potentially.
• 8:15
  Speaker B: I don't know. All right, our next comment was from Nathan, who said, I think this one goes to the book. This is largely because I absolutely love the twist of Victoria's letter at the end. I think the book makes it very clear that this is the reality.
• 8:33
  Speaker A: So Nathan disagrees a little bit with Kelly there because Kelly thought it was maybe a little more nebulous of, like, what is actually true. Whereas Nathan is saying no, he, in his opinion, he's like, no.
• 8:42
  Speaker B: I mean, her letter definitely is like, the more realistic it feels version of events, the more plausible version of events. Nathan went on to say, this possibly colors my viewing of the movie because I spent the whole time I watched falsely knowing that none of this was real.
• 8:59
  Speaker A: Interesting.
• 9:00
  Speaker B: I think the book shows Victorias letter to be reality, by the way, that it mirrors Wedderburns and Bellas competing narratives of their elopement. In that case, Wedderburn is so obviously lying by saying that he is a complete victim who did nothing but sleep all day and have the very life force fucked out of him all night. Bella, on the other hand, sets out a set of believable events colored through a naive lens. She counters and corrects the lies of a man, just like the letter. I found it frustrating that the movie de emphasizes the main thread of the book, which is its interest in class struggle and what the more fortunate can do to correct the system.
• 9:37
  Speaker A: You alluded to that in the episode about how you thought her wanting to help and change things was more prominent storyline in the movie.
• 9:44
  Speaker B: Yeah, it definitely was. The book scene in Gibraltar involves Bella actually physically attempting to save a mother and child by bringing them with her back to the boat she's pulled away by Astley while the mother and kid are dragged back into the mass of suffering Moroccans. Bella's childlike understanding of the folks suffering and thought that she can act as their mother and save them is truly gut wrenching. Even afterwards, Bella thinks that God will have a simple answer for her, but ultimately realizes that she can best help folks by becoming a doctor and opening a free clinic to help the less fortunate. I think this is the story of how Bella learns to help poor things, and it was frustrating to see it kind of glossed over in the movie. The lack of the letter and the sidelining of the book's talk about the titular poor things separate the movie from real life. The movie ends by embracing the fantastical brain swapping and using it to allow Bella to live her best life away from the problems of the fucked up outside world, while the book rejects the magic of the brain swap and shows a world where Victoria makes the world a better place but still dies alone and largely unremembered for her work. I don't mind and quite enjoyed the movie's tale, but I appreciate that the book was able to make a larger point while moving so far away from its original conceit.
• 11:01
  Speaker A: That's interesting. That sounds really compelling. The book's version of the story there, based on what Nathan's saying. And, you know, again, you touched on some of that over the course of the episode, but Nathan kind of laid it out more succinctly here. Yeah, no, that's really interesting. And it's funny because he's talking about. It sounds like Nathan interpreted the title poor things as being a reference specifically to the struggling lower class, the Moroccan, the people in Gibraltar or whatever, that sort of thing. Which is interesting because in just watching the film, my interpretation of the title of poor things was as a vaguely patronizing. It's never uttered in the film, but I almost interpreted it. I interpreted the poor things as Bella and whatever the. What's her name, the second, the other girl they created Felicity. Like, to me in the film, they were the quote unquote poor things, but set in, but like that term being applied to them sort of patronizingly by, like, the men of the film kind of. Or some. I don't know, like I interpret, you know, because the. The people she was helping and the class disparity and stuff wasn't as much of the focus of the film. I didn't realize or I didn't attach the title to that. Yeah, so that's.
• 12:18
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's fascinating. That was not how I had interpreted the title, although I do think it's a very good interpretation. But my interpretation of it was also colored by. I saw, like, a note somewhere while I was doing research for that episode, that the title was in reference to the fact that the characters often refer to themselves and other people as things.
• 12:45
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 12:46
  Speaker B: Which was not something that super stood out to me when I read the book. So I actually kind of like Nathan's interpretation better. But, yeah, I think my interpretation was colored by seeing that specific note.
• 12:58
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 12:59
  Speaker B: All right, our next comment was from Steve from Arizona, who said, while I certainly enjoyed both mediums, I have to give my vote to the movie. It's a simple reason for I am a huge. Yorthos lanthimos. Did I say that right? Yorgos lanthimos Stan.
• 13:19
  Speaker A: At least I think I've always heard.
• 13:20
  Speaker B: Of things that way.
• 13:21
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 13:21
  Speaker B: Yorgos lanthimos Stan. And I really felt his vision helped enhance the book. Now, I really liked how the book was structured for, while you considered it akin to the Princess Bride, a very apt comparison. It took me back to a time when I read House of leaves for the first time.
• 13:39
  Speaker A: Interesting, because that is. I see. I've not read House of Leaves.
• 13:43
  Speaker B: I've never read House of Leaves, but.
• 13:45
  Speaker A: I'm aware of the concept of House of leaves, and I know it is kind of a weird. It's very much like an experimental, somewhat epistolary like y kind of thing, but it's the format, from everything I've heard, it's very, like, avant garde. Yes, it is playing with the form of what a book can be, essentially. But it didn't really. To me, it didn't really sound like. And I haven't read ahead in Steve's review here, but it didn't really sound to me like poor things really did that as much. But it is. Poor things is epistolary, right?
• 14:16
  Speaker B: Yeah. Poor things actually utilizes a lot of different kind of structures, which I think is what? Which is a lot of. There's a lot of epistolary elements in it. There are a lot of letters. The foreword is almost kind of structured like a letter as well, sort of. There are also excerpts from historical sources, quote unquote. And then there are, like. There's the structure that's more like a traditional narrative, but, yeah, point being that.
• 14:46
  Speaker A: It didn't sound, at least from your description, as. Cause I've always, you know, House of Leaves is one of those kind of notorious books for being like, this weird thing that, like, people, you know, kind of like, talk about, like, hey, like a novel. Like, when I say, I mean novel in the sense of, like a novel experience. Yeah. In the fact that it's very uniquely constructed and it didn't sound like poor things was as interesting as that, potentially. But it is combining multiple different styles, I guess.
• 15:16
  Speaker B: Yeah. No, I don't know. Like I said, I have not read House of Leaves and I'm not overly familiar with it, so I could not say. But Steve obviously feels that there's a.
• 15:25
  Speaker A: Direct comparison here, and I could imagine that. Anyways, continue.
• 15:31
  Speaker B: So Steve went on to say it was the first alternative, quote unquote constructed book I ever read, and I certainly felt cool reading it and being part of some club that was just more interesting than the rest of the posers walking around the campus at the University of Arizona.
• 15:49
  Speaker A: That is an accurate look. I'm glad you're aware that that was my understanding of every person who's ever read House of Leaves feels upon having read House of Leaves. So some good self awareness there.
• 16:04
  Speaker B: Okay, yeah. Being part of some club that was just more interesting than the rest of the posers walking around the campus at the University of Arizona while I wore a black shirt with black corduroys, alien head torch lighter in my pocket, and black backpack with a cd player pocket.
• 16:19
  Speaker A: Okay, well, I mean, everybody had a backpack with a cd player pocket.
• 16:22
  Speaker B: You really painted a picture for us there, Steve.
• 16:25
  Speaker A: I loved my cd player pocket in my backpack in high school. I was in high school, not college, I guess. I think Steve's a few years older.
• 16:31
  Speaker B: Than this, but yeah, I honestly felt artistic and in the know reading poor things. So I enjoyed the nostalgia trip to the days when I was a know it all college dork. I loved all the oddities, from the self portraits to the weird letter by Bella in the middle, the introduction, the side by side comparisons of Bible prophecies and modern applications to those prophecies, and the interesting appendix section as well. It felt like Alastair Grey went all in on a well constructed world and fully unique reading experience. Now im a know it all adult, so to speak, and I appreciate the oddity of Lanthimos eye pleasing spectacle. I honestly never liked Emma Stone in any of her movies, so I was rather surprised in her performance and enjoyed the maturation process of her acting acumen within the film as her character becomes more worldly.
• 17:23
  Speaker A: I don't know if I've ever seen something. I don't know if I've ever seen Emma Stone in something and not thought she was good.
• 17:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, I like Emma Stone. I've not seen every single thing she's been in.
• 17:33
  Speaker A: No, obviously not. But I'm trying to think of a single time I've seen her in something and thought she wasn't good. And I can't think of anything like, she's great in super bad. It's a very obviously very different movie. But even in Superbad, she was really good. It was one of her early roles. She's great in easy A. She's great easy a. Yeah, I'm stumbling on some other. But like everything I've ever seen her in, I've liked her in, obviously those. Again, those roles, not nearly as very.
• 18:03
  Speaker B: Different from this role.
• 18:04
  Speaker A: Probably not as complex or, you know, layered as the role in this film is. But again, I've always thought she was good in everything I've seen her in.
• 18:16
  Speaker B: Steve went on to say the idea of turning a rather victorian adjacent novel into a bizarre and colorful steampunk spectacle was genius, allowing the filmmakers to utilize any weird idea they thought would enhance the film. My take on the fish eye lens was maybe meant to jolt the viewer back into refocusing on the film. I feel so many times people stare at film but never actually examine it. So an odd use of lens helps so to, like, remind us that we're in the movie. I guess.
• 18:48
  Speaker A: I don't know if I buy that. I mean, maybe, but I don't know with this sort of film that I guess I could see what Steve's saying. I'm not sure that I. That it did that for me, other than to remind me that I was watching a film, which I don't.
• 19:07
  Speaker B: I think that was that what Steve's getting at, what's saying?
• 19:08
  Speaker A: No, that doesn't feel like what he was saying there. To me, he said my take on the fisheye lens was meant to jolt the viewer back into refocusing on the film. So many times people stare at a film but never actually examine it. So an odd use of lenses helps. To me, that reads, and Steve, feel free to comment on this. To me, that reads as Steve saying that it's to try to jolt the viewer into actually engaging and analyzing the film, like kind of how we do on the podcast, as opposed to viewing it passively, whereas my interpretation or not interpretation, but what I was just talking about, which is a slightly different thing, which is that, to me, it reminds you that you're watching a film which actually kind of removes you from the experience, I guess. It does similarly jolt you into, like. It does similarly, like, kick your brain into like, thinking about what you're watching, but in different ways. I feel like. Whereas what Steve is saying is like, hey, you know, oh, this is weird. Think about why this is happening. Whereas to me, it's like, oh, this is weird. This is. I, like, reminder you're watching a movie. I guess they're similar. I feel like there's trying to draw.
• 20:21
  Speaker B: A shade of difference between those two things. It's probably just gonna depend on you as a person.
• 20:27
  Speaker A: Yeah. Cause, I mean, ultimately, I guess, ultimately, the outcome is similar in that it kicks your brain into thinking about what you're watching, whether or not that. I guess my point was that what I was saying is that it can kind of almost take you out of the experience, but taking you out of the experience thus reinforces the analyzing, or thus kicks you into a place where you're analyzing the fact or you're thinking about the fact that you're watching a movie, which ultimately ends up in the same place as what Steve is saying.
• 20:58
  Speaker B: So I guess we did, in fact, try to analyze it.
• 21:03
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. It feels meta in a way that doesn't really say a lot to me, necessarily, because I guess my point was that I don't know what kicking, like, jumpstarting my brain to remind me that I'm watching a movie. I don't know what that necessarily does with this, other than here's what would have worked. And actually, I think if they had done the ending, the other ending, the letter. If they had done the unreliable narrator, the. Oh, she writes a letter that says, actually, none of that happened. Here's what actually happened. It's nothing like what my husband said. If it had included. If the film had included that, then I think these moments kind of kicking you back out of the narrative and making you realize you're watching a film, because a film inherently is a bias to telling of events. That's what every film is. I think kicking you out in that instance would work, but since the film doesn't include any illusions to the idea that there's some other perspective or some other deeper, actual truth to these events that we're not witnessing, you know what I mean? I'm not sure that making us realize we're watching a movie does anything that's fair, other than, I guess, again, not that it doesn't do anything. What it does is it makes you, you know, it jolts you out of the experience slightly just to kind of bring you back into a place where you're thinking about the fact that you're watching a film and what it's doing and why and that sort of thing. I don't know. It's interesting.
• 22:40
  Speaker B: Steve did say, go on to say, at least that is what I got out of it. And then normally lanthimos uses angles and movement to illustrate power and control with certain characters. But perhaps he was implying the spiritual God was staring into this unfolding tale. Or it might be a subtle nod to people who have read the book, with Victoria reading the story and focusing on the weird and unexpected subversion to the story, making her stare in disgust and then writing something, preparing to undress her silly husband and then having to find the spot she left off after diverting her eyes away to write said note and then trying to refocus on the part she left off.
• 23:20
  Speaker A: That was a little confusing, but I think. I think roughly was kind of getting at what I was saying.
• 23:25
  Speaker B: Yeah, very similar.
• 23:26
  Speaker A: I think.
• 23:27
  Speaker B: I feel you can honestly come up with anything.
• 23:31
  Speaker A: Plus, I want to real quick on that. If you can come up with anything.
• 23:34
  Speaker B: I think it's kind of maybe not as effective.
• 23:37
  Speaker A: Not as effective as a device as you would want it to be if you can come up with literally anything.
• 23:42
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 23:42
  Speaker A: And I will say that I don't know if you necessarily can come up with anything, but if there are 8 trillion interpretations to the point it kind of muddles it or, you know, weakens it to the point where I don't know if it really means much of anything.
• 23:56
  Speaker B: But no, I would tend to agree. I think at that point, it's kind of a pointless device.
• 24:02
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. It's not to say that devices have to have, like, a concrete interpretation. There can be multiple interpretations.
• 24:08
  Speaker B: Most of the time they do not.
• 24:10
  Speaker A: No, definitely they can have multiple interpretations. But if it can mean literally anything, that's where it gets diluted to the point where it's like, well, then it's not really doing much.
• 24:19
  Speaker B: Why bother? Plus, I really loved the soundtrack by Jerskin Fendrix.
• 24:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's the guy playing that weird instrument at the party. I saw him. I saw him in the movie while we were watching. I paid attention for that.
• 24:33
  Speaker B: He felt like the weird brother to mark mothers bra or Jan Tierson. I don't know who any of these people.
• 24:39
  Speaker A: Yon Tierson is that name at least I recognize, but I'll try to see if I can anyways. Continue.
• 24:46
  Speaker B: I especially enjoyed the score during Bella's scenes with Blessington, which had a strange and enigmatic feel to them. It was dark and looming and at one point extremely uncomfortable. Now for me? Do you want to wait and see before I move on to the next point?
• 25:03
  Speaker A: Yes. Okay, hold on. So I'm pretty sure I figured out what. Who? Yon tearson. Yes. Jan Tierson did. Amelie. Scored for Amelie. Also just a composer, but I think that's the primary. Yeah, I think maybe his only, like, big credit, which is one of my favorites outfits.
• 25:23
  Speaker B: Now, for me, misogyny and misandry might as well be toothless terms these days. These terms do exist, but I just roll my eyes most of the time when people on social media start talking about this stuff. I find it hard to take any film critic seriously these days, considering the almighty clickbait and hot takes are what keeps food on the table for many of them.
• 25:47
  Speaker A: That's always been the case.
• 25:49
  Speaker B: That is true.
• 25:50
  Speaker A: Not clickbait, but obviously in the same way, but selling headlines and selling newspapers, it's always been the case that being controversial, being inflammatory, being, you know, whatever. Having a hot take about a thing has gotten you paid as a writer. Has gotten you attention as a writer.
• 26:09
  Speaker B: No, it's always the case. What is the quote from? There's a quote from fucking ratatouille where there's the food critic guy in Ratatouille.
• 26:21
  Speaker A: I've actually seen Ratatouille, so.
• 26:23
  Speaker B: Okay, so there's a food critic guy in Ratatouille.
• 26:26
  Speaker A: I'm aware of the premise.
• 26:26
  Speaker B: Okay. And there's a quote from him, like, close to the end of the movie when he's writing his big review that I don't know what it is, like verbatim, but it's something about how, like, critics are mean, because meanness is what pays the bills.
• 26:42
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yes. Yeah, yeah. And again, I will agree in the sense that it's amplified by the Internet and stuff. Like, a lot of these things have all been.
• 26:50
  Speaker B: A lot of things are amplified, dialed.
• 26:51
  Speaker A: Up and amplified by the Internet by social media. But I don't think fundamentally it's really that different from the way things have always been. It's, you know, muck raking and yellow journalism and blah, blah, blah. All this stuff has always existed and has always been the most popular thing. Tabloids, all that stuff has always been the most popular forms of, like, popular journalism and writing and stuff like that. And I don't think it's really any different in modern, you know, the fact that you see these, like, clickbait articles about, like, how poor things is sexist or whatever is, you know, I don't think it's fundamentally different from the way people were writing reviews about wizard of Oz back in the day. Like some people, you know, because obviously for cause even nowadays they're like very measured, normal kind of what you would consider like more classical. I don't know if classical is the right word, but like more like less clickbaity hot. Take reviews of media. Tons of those still exist. In fact, I would imagine it's probably the majority of criticism, just as I think it was probably the majority of criticism and journalism back in the day. But the things that sell newspapers, the things that get clicks, are the hot takes. Yeah, the inflammatory headlines, all that stuff.
• 28:15
  Speaker B: Now, it's pretty presumptuous of me to downplay the opinions of others, but as I keep getting older, I see the very idea of film study and critique losing its death. I understand the viewpoints, but it can be honestly twisted in any direction.
• 28:31
  Speaker A: Been the case.
• 28:32
  Speaker B: I can call McCandless a simp and a white knight for desiring a woman more sexually advanced than he, or label him based because he let Bella make some of her own decisions. Or I could call him a pedophile for desiring a woman born sexy yesterday. I could even say Blessington is a misunderstood alpha male in a liberal woke hit piece against traditional gender and marital roles.
• 28:56
  Speaker A: Yeah, you could say all those things. Some people have, and those are different ways to interpret the film.
• 29:01
  Speaker B: I'm sure I'm wrong on this nihilistic viewpoint, me thinking that online critical analysis is just a public forum for fake outrage and discourse. But I'm a cynic, much like Mister Astley, which you can probably guess was my favorite character from the book.
• 29:17
  Speaker A: So I don't think you're entirely wrong. I think it's very much the case that some online critical analysis is just not very good. Not only not very good is literally like disingenuous and farming. Farming clicks by promoting, like, by fake outrage and discourse and stuff. Like. Like, I think that's very much the case, but I don't think that's a new thing. I think it's, you know, I think that's always been the case. I think there have always been people who have been controversial for the sake of controversy because that's what gets attention. I don't, again, I think maybe those things are more amplified now, or it's easier to see those things now because of the way the Internet delivers that stuff to you and all that sort of thing. But I don't think it's fundamentally different, and I don't think it's the same way I feel about movies anytime. I just I have a really. I really disagree with the rose tinted glasses that Steve, I'm gonna call you out specifically here. Steve tends to look at the world through. I don't think the world is that fundamentally different of a place now than it was a long time ago. It has gotten better in ways. It's gotten worse in ways. But I think fundamentally, laser focusing in on. Because the sentence that kicked this all off was, as I keep getting older, the very idea of film study and critique is losing its depth. Or I see the very idea, and I just disagree with that entirely. I think it's just as deep, just as interesting as it's always been. But there's more of it. So, yes, you have to go find the interesting, deep things, but that's always been the case. Now it's easier to find because you can literally just go on YouTube and find incredibly in depth, wonderful video essays about whatever movie you ever wanna talk or you ever wanna see for free, like, assuming you have an Internet connection or whatever, or something to watch it on. Whereas before, you had to hope you could find a magazine or a newspaper or whatever that had a really compelling, interesting critic who was writing a really good thing. And, you know, a lot of times, maybe in the past, those things would rise to the top more often than they do now. Know. But, you know, I think there's more of it now because the barrier for entry is lower. So, like, everybody has a hot take, everybody has a. You know, we're an example of that. Like, we're two people with a. You with a podcast, and I have a YouTube channel and all that sort of stuff that 50 years ago, most people wouldn't, you know, an average person wouldn't have or wouldn't have access to. But I think fundamentally, that media analysis, media critique is just as good as it's ever been and better in some ways. But yes, there's still. There's. I think there's more garbage out there. But I don't think that's a reflection of a decline in, like, the, like, fundamental quality of media analysis. I think it's a. It's merely an inflation of the amount of it.
• 32:11
  Speaker B: I agree. I will. Like, what I was gonna add to this is that, you know, like you said, there's a lower barrier to entry. Now we have the Internet. You know, anybody can start a podcast or start a YouTube channel or blog or blog or make a TikTok account or, you know, any number of things.
• 32:30
  Speaker A: That will get eyes. Yeah.
• 32:31
  Speaker B: Yes, and it will get eyes. And I think that it is probably true that there is a higher volume of criticism overall because of that low barrier to entry. But I think the ratio of good, thoughtful criticism versus, like garbage hot takes is probably the same as it's always been. It just feels like more because there.
• 32:54
  Speaker A: Is more overall because I agree there's definitely more garbage now. But I also think there's more good stuff now. Like I, again, you know, if, if, I don't know what the numbers are, if 90%, which I don't think this is true, but maybe it is. I don't know if 90% of like reviews, critical analysis, media analysis is garbage. I think that's always been the case. I just think it's the case that now there's a million people or what just make picking a round number, now there's a million people putting their, their critical, their analysis of film and media and stuff out in the world. So you're seeing 900,000 terrible takes versus 100,000 good takes. Whereas previously there was 10,000 people put, and again, these are just made up numbers, 10,000 people putting their, their analysis out there. And you were seeing 9000 terrible.
• 33:43
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 33:44
  Speaker A: Or 9000 people had garbage takes while 1000 people had good takes. So I think there's more good and I think this is more of everything now. And so, yeah, there's more good and more bad. And so you see more of the garbage because there's just volumetrically way more of it. But I think, I truly do think percentage wise there's, I don't think it's changed. I don't think, if anything, I think the average person is honestly probably better. Now this is an interesting, I don't know if I want to stake this claim, but it wouldn't surprise me, I don't know if the studies have been done, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody did some sort of analysis or something. And if the average median person has a better grasp of media analysis and criticism and media literacy today than they did 100 years ago, I'm talking everybody, not just people who put their opinions out there. Yeah, maybe because here's the thing. Back in the day, so many people didn't you only because the barrier for entry thing you only saw. And actually, okay, so maybe that is the case. Maybe, and I'm rethinking this, maybe it is the case that 100 years ago or whatever, 50 years ago, because the barrier for entry was higher, maybe the people, maybe it was a higher percentage of good. Like, like maybe the ratio of good to bad criticism was like 50 50 back in the day, and now it's like 80 20 or something like that. You know what I mean? Because more people can. But I truly wouldn't surprise me if the average person, regardless of. If they put their opinion out on the Internet or not, it has a better, like, media now is better at media analysis than they were 50 or 100 years ago, because the average person of me 50 or 100 years ago couldn't read. That's not true. But, like, you get what I'm saying? Like, I. There's so many, like, I don't know. I think that's an interesting question. I actually don't know on this. I'm kind of spitfalling.
• 35:38
  Speaker B: I think it's a really interesting question. I would hesitate to wholly agree with you just because I do feel like I see a lot of. I do feel like I see a lot of people who talk and very clearly are not. Do not have high levels of media analysis and media literacy. Media literacy in particular.
• 36:05
  Speaker A: Yep, I agree.
• 36:06
  Speaker B: But my other, you know, kind of.
• 36:10
  Speaker A: Were you gonna go to a different thing or. Sorry, I just wanted to jump in on that real quick. I agree with that. My point is that you see more people with terrible media literacy. Oh, God, I lost my point. Oh, shit. I had a really good point. Hold on. I agree you see more of those people, but this is what it was. I agree that I think it, because I see those people, too. And we joke all the time about how media literacy is dead. But I think that's because the. The algorithm, social media algorithms are literally designed to engagement bait and rage bait. And it's not people that are doing that. It's literally the algorithms doing that. And so I think you see more of that shit. But I think in. I would not be surprised if in totality in, like, what is actually being produced. Like, if you were somehow able to, like, sift through all of the garbage algorithmless, that you would see a, like, that, it wouldn't be so out, like, disproportionately media literate or whatever. I don't know. Because I think you're being fed the stuff that is the most media literate, because that is what gets farms the most engagement by the algorithm. Sorry, I didn't mean it. I just.
• 37:21
  Speaker B: I mean, yes, that is also certainly true. But what I was gonna say, it's not really a but to your point. But I was also gonna say that my other lukewarm take is that I don't think every hot take, garbage take that you see is disingenuous oh, no. I think that there is a lot to be said to when you factor in, like, education and, like, the average person's education, which is not super great.
• 37:55
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, I would agree with that. I think it's a very small minority, actually. I think it's larger maybe now than it ever has been, because it does generate more traffic. But I still think it's a vast minority of the content that is disingenuous or literally just farming engagement. When I say that you see more of it because it generates engagement. What I'm saying is that the algorithms are prioritizing that because it gets more clicks. Not that. Not that. There's, like, way more of it. In general, I think the algorithms push it because it farms engagement. But I think generally, most people are accurately relaying their feeling, their. Their genuine feelings and opinions on things. I. There are definitely people out there that are just rage baiting and engagement baiting whatever totally exists. And it's not even, like, you know, rare. It's just. I don't think it's even close to the majority. Like, I think it's, like, a small minority of the content out there is, like, being disingenuous about, like, what they actually believe and just writing shit to get clicks. I don't think that's most stuff, but I think it is some stuff.
• 39:07
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
• 39:10
  Speaker A: Yeah, we can move on.
• 39:11
  Speaker B: Sorry.
• 39:12
  Speaker A: Yeah, I'm sure we'll get derailed again, probably.
• 39:17
  Speaker B: Okay, so Steve went on to say I laughed over the outrage some right wing blogger had about kids witnessing a sex scene in the movie.
• 39:25
  Speaker A: Oh, yeah, I saw that.
• 39:26
  Speaker B: Even though it was quite obvious they were not even in the same room. Probably shot on a different day and stage. But, heck, the blogger knew their audience was never going to watch this film, so might as well take a shot at Hollyweird and embellish in the outrage.
• 39:38
  Speaker A: Absolutely. That scene where the kids are watching her sex is.
• 39:42
  Speaker B: They're very clearly they're not seeing that. My overall take is pretty much the same as yours. It's more of a deconstruction of the born sexy yesterday trope and a coming of age story, so to speak. Much like when I was a young teen, I desired the hedonistic pleasures of the flesh and food. Nowadays, I complain about sex and violence that has no real place in a story, which I kind of felt the overly long sex sequences in the film grinded the film to a halt. I mean, give some credit to Emma Stone, for as a very hands on producer, she let that stuff stay in the film. I think people forget the fact she had a pretty sizable role in the making of the film while concluding this film was the result of the male gaze.
• 40:23
  Speaker A: We talked about that in the prequel. Specifically, I played her quote about that.
• 40:27
  Speaker B: Yeah, I apologize for the overly long review, but this was a top five film for me this past year, sharing various spots between Oppenheimer, perfect days, the zone of interest, and the holdovers, depending on how I felt some days. I'm glad you took a look at it, and it's always welcome to hear intelligent people take a stab at dissecting an interesting story. Anyway, thanks for the review.
• 40:48
  Speaker A: Yeah, it was. Yeah, it's interesting. I don't know where I would put it. I haven't actually seen any of those other movies, so I couldn't. I couldn't compare it to those. I do. I desperately do want to watch Oppenheimer and zone of interest and the holdovers. Actually, I haven't actually. I don't know what perfect days is, but I do want to watch those. But yeah, it was not. Yeah, I did not, as I kind of mentioned in the episode, I did not enjoy it nearly as much as I thought. And I would not put it like I was expecting to love it and to put it amongst some of my favorite movies that I've seen in the past five years. And it didn't. I don't think it even cracked the top ten of my favorite movies I've seen.
• 41:28
  Speaker B: I thought it was fine.
• 41:29
  Speaker A: Yeah, it was like a perfectly fine, good movie.
• 41:31
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 41:32
  Speaker A: It just didn't make a lot of on its own.
• 41:34
  Speaker B: Yeah, it didn't really make a lot of waves for me personally.
• 41:37
  Speaker A: It didn't stick with me. I could rip off five movies easily that I thought over the last 510 years were way more memorable than that.
• 41:48
  Speaker B: All right, I believe this is our last comment from Patreon, and it is from Minty Cell, who said, okay, I had to finish listening to the episode before coming here to comment. I always wanted to subscribe again, but went through a bit of a financial rough patch. Thanks, vet bills when my cat got sick. Hope your cat's heard.
• 42:10
  Speaker A: I hope. Hopefully, you know, that can go several ways. We've been there, so.
• 42:15
  Speaker B: Yeah. But here I am again because I desperately wanted to comment on this movie. I have a lot of feelings about this movie. It was my favorite movie of last year. It made me so happy. The visuals, the story, the characters, and yes, the sex scenes, they made me happy. A little disclaimer that I haven't read the book. So this comment is about the movie and my feelings regarding the discourse that surrounded the movie. A bit of background that I am a librarian by profession and I work mostly with comic books. I'm sure you've heard of the shit show that book banning and censorship for librarians has been in the past two years.
• 42:52
  Speaker A: Yes, absolutely.
• 42:54
  Speaker B: That has even reached our hometown.
• 42:56
  Speaker A: Yes. Has it? Did I something.
• 43:00
  Speaker B: There's something going on right now. There are coalitions.
• 43:05
  Speaker A: Really?
• 43:06
  Speaker B: Opposing coalitions. Friends of the library. And I don't know what the fuck wads.
• 43:11
  Speaker A: I knew there was a friends of the library group, but I didn't realize there was a. Huh?
• 43:15
  Speaker B: Yes. The friends of the library are opposed to. As far as I understand it, it's a group of people that primarily don't even live here.
• 43:24
  Speaker A: It's always the case.
• 43:25
  Speaker B: Yeah. Who are trying to get books taken off the shelves. Anyway, familiar story here in America, we.
• 43:32
  Speaker A: Should raise money for friends of the library or something. I didn't realize that was a thing.
• 43:37
  Speaker B: I don't know a ton about it. I just heard about it like by way of another person. Anyway, Minty Sal went on to say, and so my opinion on this is very colored by these experiences. I've also been in fandom spaces for 15 plus years. God bless soldier. And I've seen them devolve into harassment filled cesspools where queer kids yell at other queer kids for writing the wrong kind of gay person or the wrong kind of gay smut.
• 44:04
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 44:05
  Speaker B: I tell you guys this because I think it really shows the place I'm coming from with my thoughts. Without further ado, here they are. The discourse surrounding this movie, to me, is indicative of a bigger problem online, of deep puritanical thinking couched in leftist language.
• 44:20
  Speaker A: Speaking my language now, I've seen it.
• 44:22
  Speaker B: Grow and grow for years now, from my tumblr days to Twitter and to the mainstream. And as a queer person, I feel dismayed and horrified that it has been allowed to grow so much. I see it in people claiming sex scenes serve no purpose in film and people saying kink doesn't belong at pride, that all queers should be family friendly. And it bleeds into even bigger issues where politicians feel comfortable saying that a YA novel with a mild age appropriate sex scene is child pornography, or that even mentioning a character is gay in a comic book or novel is also child pornography. And even further in terf ideology that wants to claim the trans body, especially trans female body, is inherently sexual in anything trans bodies do is a predatory attack on the rest of society. All of these steam from the same source. And while most of the sex scenes in poor things are of heterosexual sex, they still suffer from this puritanical thinking. So to me that just raises even more alarms about what queer sex suffers in our overall societal consciousness. Of course im not claiming that poor things is a perfect movie entirely without critique, or that the sex scenes in it were perfectly executed, but the response to them is just a mere symptom of a wider problem that makes me worry for the future. Meanwhile, the mere existence of the movie gives me a little hope that movies are still willing to put human sexuality front and center in all its messy, complicated facets for audiences and that audience want to see that as well. If poor things, good reviews and audience scores are anything to go by, I'm constantly disgusted that we live in a culture where a woman getting eaten out and having orgasms gets more think pieces about what's wrong with society than the violence we depict in media. We have come to accept a head getting chopped as normal, but sex is something that needs to fade to black or not be shown at all. And this bothers me and I feel it should bother other people. This isn't to say I don't like violent scenes in movies tv cause it's not about that. It's about how one is more accepted than the other and how fucked that is. I see it at my job all the time. I would warn a parent that a particular comic book is too violent and sometimes the answer is I don't care. But is there sex? It blows my mind every time. By the way, that review that said we never see period blood, I was under the impression that doctor Godwin had removed Victoria's uterus when he pulled the baby out so she wouldn't have a menstrual cycle. But in the medical drawings of the operation, it looked like the baby and the uterus were together. And anyway, I thought that review was gross for equating femininity to do period blood as it did.
• 47:01
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's a whole different thing. Yeah.
• 47:03
  Speaker B: Anyway, this response is so long. I'm so sorry, but brilliant episode. I will have to read the book.
• 47:07
  Speaker A: Sometime without rehashing the whole thing. I largely agree.
• 47:11
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 47:12
  Speaker A: With everything you said. Pretty much entirely. Yeah. I don't really have a lot to add without digressing into a whole different thing, but yeah, I like I said, I would largely co sign pretty much everything you said, but to your last point there, I think it is interesting. I hadn't thought about the cause. There was that one review and I think it was the vulture review. I think that, again, from my understanding, seemed like it was coming from a good place. I could be wrong about that. I don't actually know anything about the author. I just yeah, it seemed like it, or at least was attempting to come from a fairly progressive place. I hadn't thought about the fact that, yeah, she very potentially he would have removed her uterus, maybe upon.
• 47:52
  Speaker B: Yeah, I didn't think about that either, but I guess possible.
• 47:54
  Speaker A: I don't know. Yeah, it would make sense. I'm not actually sure, but yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I also thought the same thing about that review, about the mentioning that we don't see period blood. So I'm like, well, okay, it seems problematic in a different way, but all right, sure, to be insistent that it needs to be there for some whatever. Yeah, again, I don't know. I haven't read that review in its entirety, so within context it may make sense, but maybe not. But again, largely cosign your point there. Menti sell and support all librarians anyways, except for the ones that suck. But you seem like an awesome one.
• 48:32
  Speaker B: All right, so then Facebook, we had zero votes for the book, one for the movie. Twitter, one for the book, one for the movie. Instagram, four votes for the book and three for the movie. And threads, zero for the book and one for the movie. And on Goodreads, we had one vote for the book and a comment from Miko, who said, I had no idea there was any discourse around this movie. Seems like another good reason to stay away from Twitter. This was one of those films where I felt like I should have gotten something deeper out of it, but I just didn't. It also didn't come across so much funny as weird, and I would have preferred it to be shorter. While I liked the visuals and the general look of the movie, the peephole lenses were a bit too much for me, too. However, I still enjoyed the real historical setting of the book more. The understated nature of the operation made it feel real and the story worth investing into. The movie's setting is more fantastical, futuristic, and suddenly it's not our world anymore, especially when you compare it to the book that is meticulously crafted to work as a historic document. With over three dozen pages at the end of notes, maps, and pictures, plus plenty of letters. I enjoy this kind of faux history tale that also plays with the format and the frame story, so I have to vote for the book. And bonus points to the audiobook for having two different narrators, a man from a candle's chapters and a woman for Bella's letters.
• 50:00
  Speaker A: Cool. Yeah, no, I agree. One of the sentences that stuck out to me at the beginning of that was, this is one of those films where I felt like I should have gotten something deeper out of it, but I just didn't. And then that was kind of where.
• 50:10
  Speaker B: I felt pretty much how I felt about it.
• 50:12
  Speaker A: Very similar.
• 50:13
  Speaker B: It was good.
• 50:14
  Speaker A: It was good. And it's. And, you know, I got. It's not that I got nothing out of it. I was like, yeah, no, I see what you're doing. That's fine. But it wasn't like, yes, that's brilliant. Like, it wasn't. You know, it was just like, yeah, no, it's good, it's good. I get it. Like, yeah. Yep.
• 50:28
  Speaker B: All right, so our winner, surprising me was the book by a hare.
• 50:35
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 50:35
  Speaker B: With interesting nine votes to the movie seven.
• 50:38
  Speaker A: I was also surprised.
• 50:39
  Speaker B: Yeah. Cause, you know, a lot of times when we do something where it's not commonly known that, yeah, this is one.
• 50:44
  Speaker A: Of those ones where people were like.
• 50:45
  Speaker B: Wait, it's a book. The movie will win pretty handily just because people are more familiar with it. A lower barrier to entry to a film. But the book did win this time.
• 50:54
  Speaker A: Sweet. All right, well, time to move on. Now, we do have a learning things segment, and this week we're learning a little bit about Shirley Jackson.
• 51:05
  Speaker B: No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world. Shirley Jackson was an american writer primarily known for her works of horror and mystery. Her career spanned over two decades, during which time she wrote six novels, two memoirs, and more than 200 short stories. Jackson was born in 1916 in San Francisco. She did not have a particularly happy childhood. She spent most of her time writing, and she didn't have many friends.
• 51:37
  Speaker A: Relatable? Not for me, but I'm just saying, I assume for people.
• 51:44
  Speaker B: She also had a strained relationship with her mother. I had to include this quote, who she would later describe saying, quote, she was just a deeply conventional woman who was horrified by the idea that her daughter was not going to be deeply conventional. Got him. When she was in high school, her family relocated to Rochester, New York. Jackson initially attended University of Rochester, but she was unhappy there and later transferred to Syracuse University, where she got a degree in journalism. She was also involved with the campus literary magazine to no one's shock, which published her first short story, Janice, which was about a teenager's suicide attempt. Nothing to worry about there. I'm sure everything's fine here.
• 52:37
  Speaker A: Yeah, we're good.
• 52:38
  Speaker B: She married her husband, Hyman. Jackson Hyman? Yes.
• 52:43
  Speaker A: Wow.
• 52:44
  Speaker B: That actually is a name. Not a common name anymore, Hyman. She married him in 1940, and they eventually settled in Bennington, Vermont, where her husband was an instructor at Bennington College, and they would go on to have four children together. According to Jackson's biographers, her marriage was plagued by Hyman's infidelities, notably with his students, and she reluctantly agreed to his proposition of maintaining an open relationship.
• 53:16
  Speaker A: Oh, no.
• 53:18
  Speaker B: He also controlled their finances, despite the fact that after the success of the lottery and later work, she earned far more than he did. She was the breadwinner for their family through her writing, which is pretty badass. That's hard to do. Speaking of the lottery, it was first published in the New Yorker in June of 1948. It established her reputation as a writer and prompted hundreds of responses from readers and garnered unequivocally positive critical reception. She continued to write and publish successfully throughout the 1950s. Another of her most well known works, the Haunting of Hill House, was published in 1959. However, by the time of its publication, Jackson's health was suffering pretty badly. She was a heavy smoker, which resulted in chronic asthma, joint pain, exhaustion, and dizziness, leading to fainting spells, which was attributed to a heart problem. Near the end of her life, Jackson also saw a psychiatrist for severe anxiety, which had kept her housebound for extended periods of time, and which her doctor treated with perpetuates. Gotta love that mid century medical science. Yeah. She also felt isolated living in Bennington. She didn't feel like the people who lived in the town really liked her. And she self treated that with alcohol.
• 54:43
  Speaker A: Yeah. No. Classic mid century housewife. You know, who also writes.
• 54:48
  Speaker B: Yep.
• 54:49
  Speaker A: Iconic literature.
• 54:51
  Speaker B: Despite this, she continued to publish during the first part of the 1960s, and her final novel, we have always lived in the castle, was published in 1962. In 1965, Jackson died in her sleep in her home at the age of 48.
• 55:06
  Speaker A: Holy cow.
• 55:07
  Speaker B: Yeah. Not old at all.
• 55:10
  Speaker A: I mean, if you're. I mean, she's an alcoholic addicted to barbiturates. I say addicted to arbitrage. Her doctor put them on them. Barbiturates and a chain smoking.
• 55:19
  Speaker B: Oh, and I forgot to mention the amphetamines as well.
• 55:23
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 55:23
  Speaker B: Which she took for weight control.
• 55:25
  Speaker A: Yeah. That'll burn you out, just like on every possible controlled substance known to man.
• 55:30
  Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. Her death was attributed to a coronary occlusion due to artiosclerosis, arteriosclerosis, arteriosculosis, whatever. Or cardiac arrest.
• 55:42
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 55:43
  Speaker B: Today, Jackson is considered to be a staple in western canon. The haunting of Hill House is often cited as one of the best ghost stories ever written. And you can still find the lottery on many a high school literature syllabus.
• 55:56
  Speaker A: Yeah. Although neither of us read it.
• 55:58
  Speaker B: No, neither of us have read it. But at this point I'm afraid to because I feel I know how it ends and I feel like having the ending spoiled. I don't know anything take away the effectiveness of it. Anyway, in 2007, the Shirley Jackson awards were established, and they are awarded for its outstanding achievement in the literature of psychological suspense, horror, and the dark fantastic.
• 56:22
  Speaker A: Wow. The dark fantastic.
• 56:24
  Speaker B: Yeah. And my last note here, I thought this was really fun. Jackson has been cited as an influence by a diverse set of authors, including several Tfil alums, Stephen King, obviously, Neil Gaiman, Richard Matheson, who wrote I am legend, and a stir of echoes, Sarah Waters, who wrote Fingersmith, which was adapted as the Handmaid. Yeah. And Joanne Harris, who wrote shock a lot.
• 56:53
  Speaker A: Huh? There you go.
• 56:54
  Speaker B: Yeah. Very interesting set of people.
• 56:57
  Speaker A: Yeah, for sure.
• 56:59
  Speaker B: Some which make more sense than others on paper.
• 57:03
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right, that's a little bit about Shirley Jackson, but now we're going to learn a little bit more about her final novel. We have always lived in the castle.
• 57:17
  Speaker B: My name is Mary Catherine Blackwood. The Blackwoods have always lived in this house, and we will never leave, no matter what they say or what they do to us. Never. Father built this gate to keep us safe, but it could not protect him. My mom says you and constancy, right? Only witch people here believe constance killed father. One of the true, genuine mysteries of our time. There is such a thing as God. Good taste. Have you ever tasted arsenic? What are you doing? I heard father in his room. I feel him coming back. We have always lived in the castle. Fantastic title, by the way. Just want to put that out there.
• 58:03
  Speaker A: Reminds me of.
• 58:05
  Speaker B: That's like a top five, maybe top three title for me.
• 58:09
  Speaker A: It's really good.
• 58:09
  Speaker B: It's really good.
• 58:11
  Speaker A: What's that one? There's a series. Oh, man in the high castle.
• 58:15
  Speaker B: I thought that was man in the hightower.
• 58:17
  Speaker A: I pretty sure it's man in the high castle, but maybe it is tower. I don't know. Because there's the dark tower.
• 58:23
  Speaker B: Maybe that's what I'm thinking of.
• 58:25
  Speaker A: I'm pretty. Yeah, it's man in the high castle.
• 58:27
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 58:28
  Speaker A: Which is by, um. I think that's Philip K. Dick, right?
• 58:32
  Speaker B: I think so.
• 58:34
  Speaker A: Fairly certain it is a yes. Philip K. Dick. Yeah. Anyways. But it's a similar style. Like, it reminds me of that.
• 58:48
  Speaker B: We have always lived in the castle, 1962 mystery novel by aforementioned author Shirley Jackson. And as we have said, it was her final completed novel before her death in 1965. She did have one that was incomplete when she died, but this was her final completed published novel.
• 59:06
  Speaker A: The man in the High Castle also came out in 1962.
• 59:09
  Speaker B: Look at that. A year for castles.
• 59:12
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 59:13
  Speaker B: The novel explores the theme of persecution of people who exhibit otherness, which is a repeated theme in Jackson's works overall. In his 2006 introduction of the Penguin Classics edition, novelist Jonathan Letham stated that the recurring town is pretty well recognizable as North Bennington, Vermont, where Jackson and her husband encountered strong, quote, reflexive antisemitism and anti intellectualism.
• 59:43
  Speaker A: Were her and her husband jewish?
• 59:45
  Speaker B: I don't know. I did not find anything indicating that, and I did not do tons and tons of digging, but I don't know if that is the case or there to generally. Generally. Or maybe it was a case where people associated one with the other because racism and antisemitism and all those things go hand in hand. Anti intellectualism. I don't know for sure.
• 1:00:15
  Speaker A: Her husband was jewish.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 1:00:17
  Speaker A: Jewish intellectual Stanley Hyman.
• 1:00:19
  Speaker B: The novel also explores Jackson's struggles with agoraphobia. Written in deceptively simple language and told by an entirely unreliable narrator, the novel implies that the two sisters may choose to live forever in the remaining three rooms of their house, since they prefer each other's company to that of any outsiders. We have always lived in the castle was named by Time magazine as one of the ten best novels of 1962, and the lead paragraph has been called the best opening paragraph of any novel.
• 1:00:53
  Speaker A: Wow. Have you started it yet?
• 1:00:55
  Speaker B: I have not. I have read. I have read this before. Okay. But it's been.
• 1:01:01
  Speaker A: That's a lot of hype. Delete. I would be hard pressed to open it for the first time and be.
• 1:01:05
  Speaker B: Like, I got anticipation. So the final note here is that aside from the 2018 film that we'll be discussing, the novel was also adapted as a stage play in 1966, and then again as a musical in 2010. I cannot imagine a musical version of this but go off, I guess. But to your question, I have read this before I read this, I want to say I think it was pre podcast, but shortly before we started doing the podcast, 2016, early 2017, maybe. And I really enjoyed it, but I remember very little about it.
• 1:01:45
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 1:01:45
  Speaker B: So I'm very excited to revisit.
• 1:01:48
  Speaker A: Sweet. All right, well, now let's learn a little bit more about we have always lived in the castle, the film Mercat.
• 1:01:57
  Speaker B: It'S our cousin, Charles Blackwood. He looks just like father. Has he said anything about leaving? He is our cousin, and he will go when he is ready. His presence is a strange new spell.
• 1:02:11
  Speaker A: We have many plans to make. That chair is my dead brother's chair.
• 1:02:20
  Speaker B: I'm going to put death in all their food and watch them die. He was a very wicked man, our father.
• 1:02:33
  Speaker A: We have always lived in the castle is a 2018 film directed by Stacey Passant, who. I added some accent to that, but I don't know if it's there. Stacy Passon, who primarily has done tv, actually directed episodes of American Gods, the Punisher, Dickinson, House of Cards, Halt and Catch Fire, and the morning show, among others. So a lot of pretty prominent, like, well known shows in there and has done a couple films before that. But those were, like, the films she. It was a couple, like, small films that, like, independent films that nobody had ever heard of, I think. Whereas all of these tv shows she's directed on, you know, pretty prominent.
• 1:03:13
  Speaker B: Yeah. Pretty big names.
• 1:03:14
  Speaker A: Yes. And the film was written by Mark Krueger, who wrote on this, again, also primarily a tv person who wrote on the show salvation and Teen Wolf.
• 1:03:25
  Speaker B: How does that keep coming up?
• 1:03:26
  Speaker A: I don't know. The film stars Taissa Farmiga, Alexandra Daddario, Crispin Glover, and Sebastian Stan, among others. But those are the primary four players. The film has an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 63% on Metacritic, and a 5.6 out of ten on IMDb. I could not find any budget or box office numbers for this. Did some searching.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker B: Did this have a theatrical release?
• 1:03:57
  Speaker A: I think so. Because I maybe not.
• 1:03:59
  Speaker B: Don't remember this being, like, I. I don't remember this.
• 1:04:03
  Speaker A: Maybe it was only in, like, the UK or something, because. So this. We'll get to it. But this was, like, filmed in. In Ireland and stuff. And maybe. And I think maybe the. Some of the production companies involved were. I don't know. But I could not find a box office or budget. I don't know where it was released then, if it wasn't, because it. I didn't see anything about it being like, a Netflix movie or anything like that. You know what I mean? Like, I didn't see anything about it being for a specific streaming platform. So I don't know. So the film is actually announced as being in development as early as 2009, and at that time, Mark Krueger was already attached as the screenwriter. Then in 2010, Michael Douglas's production company, who was developing the film, Michael Douglas himself, actually was set to star in the film along with Rachel McAdams and Saoirse Ronan, which is interesting. Then nothing happened for six years as far as I could find. And then all of a sudden, Sebastian Stan was announced in 2016 to be starring in the film along with Taissa Farmiga, Alexandra Daddario, and Willem Dafoe. And then literally, according to Wikipedia, a few days later, Crispian Glover was cast, replacing Willem Dafoe as Uncle Julian. Blood Blackwood originally posted, apparently it was supposed to be Willem Dafoe. So we would have had two in a row there, maybe playing similar characters. I don't know. He's a guy in a wheelchair in the trailer. From what I've seen of Crispin Glover's character in this filming took, there wasn't a ton of information about this film that I could find. So pretty short.
• 1:05:31
  Speaker B: I feel like this film is like. Doesn't exist.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker A: Well, it's wild. Cause it's got some pretty big names in it. Yeah, I mean, tell you, Sophia.
• 1:05:38
  Speaker B: I mean, and especially Sebastian Stan in 20 in 2018.
• 1:05:42
  Speaker A: Alexander Dadario.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker B: Come on.
• 1:05:44
  Speaker A: Yeah, Alexandra Dario was pretty big too at that point. So, yeah, I don't know. This is interesting, but. And Teresa Farmiga has been in quite a bit of stuff over the years. She's in a bunch of american horror story and scream queens, I believe, or whatever it was called, was like her big thing. It was like a tv series. Like a horror tv series.
• 1:06:05
  Speaker B: And Crispin Glover is crisp.
• 1:06:06
  Speaker A: Crispin Glover is Crisp McLover, who's in back to the future and then all of the weirdest movies you've ever seen. Other than that, pretty much. He's an interesting guy. Anyways, so filming took place in Ireland from August of 2016 to September of 2016 to August 8 to September 9 of 2016. Unhappy apparently. Now we're going into some IMDb trivia facts real quick. I think I have one. Exactly. Apparently unhappy with previous adaptations of Shirley Jackson's work, which included the horribly panned 1999 film the Haunting. Jackson's eldest son, Lawrence Hyman worked as a producer on the film to ensure that the film kept the book spirit. Basically was very involved to make sure that the film was a good adaptation of his mother's work, his late mother's work.
• 1:06:56
  Speaker B: I'll be the judge of that, Lawrence.
• 1:06:59
  Speaker A: And then getting us into reviews, which there were literally none on Wikipedia, which was kind of wild. So I went to rotten tomatoes and read some of the blurbs from both the positive and negative reviews on there, which it did get quite a. There was like 70 reviews from pretty mainstream things it was wild to me that none of them were on Wikipedia because they always are, and none of them were. Keith Garlington, writing for Keith in the movies said, quote, it's a well made gothic thriller with a surprisingly rich human element. Roxana Hadidi for Pageba wrote, quote, the film adaptation of we have always lived in the castle understands Shirley Jackson's novel as a tale of male abuse and female rage, end quote. Rachel Leishman wrote, writing for the Mary Sues said, we have always lived in the castle is visually stunning, a fresh look at the Shirley Jackson story, and has a slow building dread that will stay with you. Then Jennifer Zelay. Zelay, I'm not sure how to pronounce that. S Z A L A I. Writing for the New York Times said, quote, under Stacy Passons precise direction, this gothic fable of isolation and violence expertly treads a fine line between tragedy and camp. Courtney Howard for Variety said, quote, pass on sharply channels the author's atmosphere of dread, paranoia and isolation, making the past feel prescient. And then a couple more negative reviews. These were rotten reviews on rotten tomatoes. Writing for NPR, Andrew Lapin, who I believe is a somewhat controversial critic in terms of his takes. I could be wrong about that. I just, the name Andrew Lapin, somewhere in my head as a, as a critic that people tend to like, disagree with, I could be wrong about that. I don't know. Again, it's just like in my head somewhere, I think that might be the case. Said, quote, pass on makes the creepy stuff too low key, less a case of building dread than growing in patience, end quote. And Robert Abel, writing for the Los Angeles Times, said the movie, though, which was adaptate. The movie, though, which was adapted by Mark Krueger, is all surface polish and play acted oddness, from the cloying symmetry of the Staley composed shots to the cartoonish depiction of some awfully complicated, nigh perverse family relationships.
• 1:09:22
  Speaker B: All right.
• 1:09:23
  Speaker A: End quote. So again, it had like an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes. I just picked out a couple of the more interesting from more prominent. I picked some of the rotten reviews that were from like, well, yeah, NPR in Los Angeles times, just to kind of get some alternative views in there. So. So, yeah, as always, if you want to do us a favor, you can have our Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, goodreads, any of those threads, all those places interact. We love to hear what you have to say about stuff like we just did for poor things. But yeah, you can interact and give us your opinions and we'll read them and then make fun of you. We primarily agree with people. I was just, just kidding. You can also do this if I hang over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever you're listening to us. Drop us a five star rating. Write us a nice review that also helps get this podcast out there more. Or you can have over patreon.com. thisfilm is lit. Support us there for two, five, or $15 a month. Get access to bonus stuff at each of those different levels. Katie, where can people watch? We have always lived in the castle.
• 1:10:24
  Speaker B: I actually don't know if this got, like a home media release, but you could check with your local library or a video rental store. Worth a shot.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:10:34
  Speaker B: Otherwise you can stream this with a subscription to a lot of different places. Prime Video, hulu, peacock, AMC, roku, voodoo, tubi, canopy, Pluto TV, shudder or plex.
• 1:10:49
  Speaker A: Like, every streaming service other than Netflix.
• 1:10:51
  Speaker B: Yeah, pretty much. And if you can't do any of that, you can stream this for between two and $4 on Amazon, YouTube, Apple TV, or Fandango at home.
• 1:11:02
  Speaker A: There you go. Yeah, no, I'm excited for this one. Cause I realized I've never actually seen or I've never read a Shirley Jackson story, and I've never seen a Shirley Jackson adaptation. Famously. Now, haunting at Hill House is supposed to be very good. Yeah, that's a. What's his name? That guy. Oh, my God. The guy. We did doctor sleep and. Oh, no, all of the stuff is very good. Doctors. Mike. Mike the. Mike. The catholic guy. Mike Flanagan. Mike Flanagan. Mike Flanagan. Mike Flanagan done haunting at Hill House. He did the midnight society doctor sleep. The. The one that I really liked that was about the. I don't want to say what it's about because it's a spoiler for that series, Midnight Mass. Great series. If you have not watched it, it's on Netflix. He did the haunting of Bly Manor, which is supposed to be very good. He did the fall of the House of Usher, which we would want to. We wanted. That just came out recently that we were talking about watching. He did hush, which is a great movie that I really enjoyed. He did Gerald's game, which is, I believe, maybe down on the docket somewhere eventually, way in the future.
• 1:12:19
  Speaker B: Spoilers.
• 1:12:20
  Speaker A: Sorry, way in the future, which is another Stephen King, right? Yes. Adaptation. So, yeah, Flanagan is kind of like the modern horror auteur, the go to guy for the most part. And yeah, he wasn't involved in this one, but he's done some other Shirley Jackson stuff, but I haven't seen it. So yeah, I'm really interested to check this one out.
• 1:12:41
  Speaker B: Yeah, I am fascinated because, like I said, I really enjoyed the book when I read it a handful of years ago. Excited to revisit that. And I'm just boggled at the movie because I feel like it doesn't exist and it has, like, a hell of a cast.
• 1:12:58
  Speaker A: No, it's a really great cast. The director's interesting, again, she primarily worked in tv, but, like, good tv. Like, has directed a lot of really good tv. The screenwriter's not really done much of anything other than some tv stuff that, like, not. Not really good tv from what I know. I don't know. Very interested to see what this is and how it. How it shakes out because, yeah, it looks really interesting and I'm excited for it. So come back in one week's time. We're talking about. We have always lived in the castle until that time. Guys, gals from memory, pals and everybody else, keep reading books, keep watching movies.
• 1:13:31
  Speaker B: And keep being awesome.