Elisabeth Moss & Michael Stuhlbarg are terrific actors & deliver very strong performances in this uneven film. The script is all over the place, the tone if off and the film can't decide if it wants to be an edgy biopic or another Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? I'm a big fan of Shirley Jackson's writing & wanted to like this movie but found it so sloppily made and un-involving, it was a disappointment.
Add a Review
-
shark-4314 June 2020
-
pdbodyshop4 July 2020I kept watching this movie to see if it would get any better. It didn't. I only gave it a five because for the most part the acting was good.
-
ferguson-64 June 2020Greetings again from the darkness. "Thrillingly awful". That's how Rose describes the feeling she had from reading Shirley Jackson's 1948 short story "The Lottery." It's also a likely reaction many will have to watching director Josephine Decker's (MADELINE'S MADELINE, 2018) mostly fictionalized biography of the author known for her widely diverse novels, short stories and articles. The film is uncomfortable to watch and challenging to process, yet thanks to the performances and fascinating interactions, we remain enthralled the entire time.
As the film opens, Rose (Odessa Young, ASSASINATION NATION, 2018) is on the train reading Jackson's divisive story. We gain some insight into her personality as she allows a sly grin to cross her face, and then gets frisky with her husband Fred (Logan Lerman) in a train cabin. Soon they arrive at the home of Ms. Jackson (Elisabeth Moss) and her husband Stanley Edgar Hyman (Michael Stuhlbarg), a professor and literary critic. Shirley is suffering through a bout of depression brought on by writer's block, and though she's initially against the young couple staying with them, she slowly finds a use for Rose. It doesn't take long for us to realize everyone here wants something from the others. Stanley is worried about Shirley's mental stability, so he convinces Rose to take on the domestic chores. Fred hopes Stanley will bless his thesis so that Bennington College will hire him. Stanley seizes on Fred's ambition by having him take over some of his teaching load. Rose endures some harshness from Shirley, but the two ladies end up with an awkward bond which has Rose serving as a quasi-muse for Shirley's new novel.
The new novel is "Hangsaman", which Shirley actually wrote years before this story is set. It's about the disappearance of a college student named Paula, and it's at this point where the visions and/or projections begin. Things get a bit hazy for us ... and for Rose. At times, Shirley is downright creepy. Are we watching something supernatural? Is she a good with or a bad witch ... or something else altogether? At times, Shirley appears to be unraveling - and possibly bringing Rose down with her. But then we hear another of the razor sharp verbal sparring matches between Shirley and Stanley. These are works of art. Stanley needling her just enough to inspire more writing. Shirley fires off cutting remarks as brutal as any wounds a knife fight might cause. It's an advanced course in the creative mind vs the pompous academic. Stanley understands that allowing her to become unhinged is all part of the process, and will likely lead to her best work.
Multiple dynamics between characters creates chaos for viewers. Shirley and Stanley have their gamesmanship, while Shirley and Rose are going down an entirely different twisted path. And then there is odd relationship between pregnant Rose and husband Fred, and again between Fred and Stanley. And we haven't even gotten to what the outside world thinks of Shirley, and how Stanley's disclosed infidelities keep a fire burning inside Shirley, despite her humiliation. There is a lot to take in - domestic life in the era of "little wifey", the strains of starting and maintaining a career, and the inner-demons of the creative mind. One of the key elements that sticks out is how each character is striving desperately to establish their own identity, and given the times, this should be much easier for the men.
Sarah Gubbins' first feature film screenplay is based on the 2014 novel "Shirley" by Susan Scarf Merrell. Again, this is mostly fiction, albeit with nuggets of Shirley Jackson's real life mixed in. Of course Shirley's and Stanley's four kids are nowhere to be found, allowing for more focus on the contrasting featured couples. In fact, Ms. Young's Rose is the perfect "opposite" for Ms. Moss' Shirley, both in looks and demeanor. It's impossible to miss the similarities between this and director Mike Nichols' classic WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966) starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. That one had more yelling, but this one cuts just as deeply. One of the best ever onscreen jabs occurs when Stanley sourly describes Fred's thesis as "terrifically competent", and then adds in a disgusted tone, "There's no excuse for that."
Special notice should be made for the music and cinematography. Composer Tamar-kali (MUDBOUND, 2017) pierces us with music often limited to plucks of cello and/or piano, adding a near-horror element to the frightening interactions we are watching. And with most of the film taking place in the creaky, book-filled house, cinematographer Sturla Brandth Grovlen (WENDY, 2020 and VICTORIA, 2015) expertly captures the harrowing glares of Shirley and the bemused smirks of Stanley in close quarters. The camera work adds to the constant immediacy of each moment.
Shirley Jackson's most famous full-length work was "The Haunting of Hill House" (1959), which was adapted into director Robert Wise's 1963 film THE HAUNTING, as well as another version in 1999. Most recently, it was the source material for the very popular Netflix limited series in 2018. Ms. Jackson did suffer with anxiety issues and agoraphobia, and her writing influenced many who came along later. While Mr. Lerman is a bit short-changed, the other three leads are superb in this film that likely will have very little appeal to the masses ... you know ... those people who can't find pleasure in almost two hours of misery and a head-scratching ending. The end result is a story about Shirley written in a manner that we can envision it as one of Shirley's own. -
LeonLouisRicci27 August 2021Based on a Book that Fantasizes about Real-Life Author Shirley Jackson, who Wrote 5 Novels and over 200 Short Stories.
Her most Famous Work is the Novel "The Haunting of Hill House" was made into a Feature Film Twice and a Mini-Series.
The First Film was"The Haunting" (1963) with Julie Harris.
As Stated, this is Not a Bio-Pic but has Elements of Shirley's Life that are True, like Her Marriage to Teacher (not Professor) and Literary Critic Stanley Hyman.
The Most Strikingly Real Thing about "Shirley" is Elizabeth Moss and Her Uncanny Transformation to the Appearance of the Real-Life Shirley.
She could be a Twin or a Clone, it is that Spot-On.
The Film is Interesting and Stylish Enough to Draw You in to the Story because it is Creepy and Haunting like the Author's Work.
And Again Moss is a Sight to Behold, Looking Like a Witch most of the Time and Acting just as Macabre.
The Rest of the Cast can Hardly Keep Up.
But are Given some Good Off-Beat Personas and Interactions with the Bizarre, Brilliant Shirley.
Just Don't Go Here to Acquire any Deep-Dive, although One can See the Similarities between the Real-Life and the Fictional Account.
Shirley Jackson Suffered Bouts of Amphetamine, Barbiturate, and Alcohol Abuse and was Over-Weight most of the Time.
Fans of the Author most Likely will Like this Peek at the Persona of Shirley Jackson.
Because it seems to Capture the Genius of a Gifted Talent's Struggle Against Who She Was and the Expected Conformity that was of Her Era.
All of that took a Toll on the Woman and She Died in Her Sleep of Heart-Failure at the Age of 48. -
TxMike16 October 2020"Shirley" takes place soon after the publication of Jackson's piece of short fiction, "The Lottery", published in 1948. While both the novel and film adaptation of "Shirley" document aspects of the writer's life, the central narrative of Rose and Fred Nemser, a couple who moves into the writer's Bennington home, is completely fictional.
Elisabeth Moss who also was a producer stars as Shirley Jackson, rude, crude and inappropriate most times but successful as an author of horror stories. I can't say I really enjoyed this movie, Shirley and her husband were not very nice people. But Moss does a wonderful job in the role and it is good to know something about her life.
I watched it at home on DVD from my public library, my wife skipped. -
SnoopyStyle17 January 2021Young married couple Rose (Odessa Young) and Fred Nemser (Logan Lerman) arrive at Bennington College to start his job. She is taken with famous author Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss). Shirley's husband Stanley Hyman (Michael Stuhlbarg) hires the young couple to keep their home.
The film is able to capture the instability of the various relationships but I had trouble zeroing in on the stakes for most of the movie. It's not until Shirley tells Rose the truth that some stakes are injected. Before that, the two marriages have different levels of dysfunction but it only threatens to reach other levels of dysfunction. For me, the movie meanders for the first two thirds and then blows down the door in the last act. There are better ways to build up the tension and the drama in a smoother way. -
Many of the works penned by author Shirley Jackson--such as The Lottery and The Haunting of Hill House--are now regarded as literary classics. But as so often happens, at the time and place of their creation they were far from that status. As such, this portrayal of Shirley Jackson is one of a depressed, almost manic (albeit brilliant) creator who chafes against the lack of life/respect given to a creative woman in the 1950s.
For a very basic overview, this film focuses on Shirley (Elisabeth Moss) and husband Stanley Hyman (Michael Stuhlbarg) taking in young couple Rose (Odessa Young) and Fred Nemser (Logan Lermer) as boarders. While Fred works hand-in-hand with Stanley at his university professorship, Rose is left to deal with the odd, often-unhinged Shirley at home, equally beset by bouts of intense creative and madness/depression. When a girl from the university goes missing, Shirley uses that as the impetus for a new novel, along the way uncovering truths about Rose's marriage and upcoming motherhood.
The hallmark of "Shirley" is how it constructs its titular character. For most of the film, Jackson is portrayed as a nasty, snarky woman without a nice word to say to anyone. But as certain events unspool and viewers learn more about her existence (such as Stanley's infidelities), we come to sympathize with her plight (at least to a certain extent). It was certainly not easy to be a "woman creative" in that time period, and this movie really digs into those themes. This is of course contrasted with Rose's characterization, which starts off as "perfect wife" but ends up looking a lot more like Shirley than ever anticipated.
Unfortunately, those great themes are quite scattershot throughout the film. The thread connecting reality to Jackson's new novel actually works against the proceedings by creating confusion as to what exactly is transpiring. While I understood the goal of that choice, it simply didn't work all that well. As such, it takes far too long to really figure out what exactly this picture is all about.
As usual, Moss's performance is excellent. She is truly one of the best actors to grace the big (or small) screen at the moment. Young is also terrific as Rose, who must deal with some pretty heavy revelations of her own.
Overall, I considered "Shirley" to be a solid film that delves into a lot of interesting themes about writing, creativity, time periods, and gender. It's a bit too messy to be truly great, but the material, acting, and high production value never render it boring, either. -
ozjosh035 July 2020I really don't get it. Director Josephine Decker supposedly wants her film to illuminate the life and work of author Shirley Jackson. The actors spent time researching and immersing themselves in the lives of Shirley and of Stanley Hyman. But the film's story is only ever vaguely representative of their lives and personalities. Huge liberties have been taken. To give just one example, this Shirley and Stanley are childless, and seemingly tortured about it, whereas the real Shirley and Stanley had four children. In the end, one can only wonder what the point of this film is. It's no kind of tribute and it neither illuminates, nor explores Jackson's life and work when there's only a passing resemblance to the known facts. Decker actually seems more interested in spinning a story about the creative process, and how all-consuming, twisted and destructive it can be. That's all very well. But Decker's notions have little to nothing to do with Jackson. So why not just admit that her story is fictional? Pretending that it is some kind of biography, however loosely based on facts, just seems dishonest and ultimately exploitative. Ethical issues aside, it also has to be said that Decker's exploration of her Shirley's creative process involves long stretches of extreme tedium, some seriously contrived dramatic scenarios and a great deal of shameless scenery-chewing, albeit by a couple of very fine actors. Given that the melodrama revolves around an academic, his frumpy wife and their young house guests (and attendant sexual tensions) there are whole scenes that play like an uncomfortable homage / parody of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? If only it were even half as amusing and engaging.
-
What a better way to honor Shirley Jackson's legacy than to make you feel like you are in one of her books. The handheld camera and editing plus the wonderful score takes you to that place, where you don't know what's real and what's not and in any other movie this could be disastrous but in this one it works perfectly. The expectations of womanhood and marriage are a very common topic in film, here its addressed in a very creative way, as did Shirley herself, though the metaphor of this lost girl, showing us how Shirley and Rose were lost and overwhelmed by their duties as wives against their true desires. However, all of this only adds to what's for me the highlight of the movie: The outstanding performances of the cast. Stuhlbarg brilliantly portrayed this scumbag philanderer who also loved and admired her wife and her talent. Odessa Young was fearless, giving Rose this many layers and keeping up with the rhythm of the unsurprisingly marvelous Elisabeth Moss. This is (again) Moss's show, she never lets you go, you always have to follow her at her most despicable and at her most vulnerable, without letting you forget that there's strength in this extremely troubled woman. A deeper voice, a mischievous gaze, a battered posture... She knows how to take you places.
-
k-602987 June 2020Shirley is a biographical drama film, directed by Josephine Decker and stars Elisabeth Moss as novelist Shirley Jackson as well as Michael Stuhlbarg, Odessa Young and Logan Lerman. Shirley is based on the novel of the same name by Susan Scarf Merrell. It currently has a score of 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and first premiered at the Sundance film festival in January.
Elisabeth Moss surely has to be in contention for best actress this year with two great performances in both Shirley and The Invisible Man, for me, her performance in The Invisible Man just trumps this one but her performance as Shirley was still interesting to watch as Moss has an incredible range of emotions and expressions that can create a creepy vibe throughout. Michael Stuhlbarg and Odessa Young both give fantastic performances but Logan Lerman puts in a great performance as Fred Nemser and is always interesting to watch in any role however his ark feels predictable throughout and feels like the outsider of the main 4 despite giving a great performance.
Admittedly the plot is scattered with Decker creating a film that makes you think whilst not exactly keeping you entirely engaged. Shirley is unlike anything Decker has ever done, creating a thrilling fictional biographical film with an unsettling atmosphere that keeps you on edge throughout the entire 107 minute run time whilst not always being as interesting as it should. However, that's what Shirley does best, the unsettling atmosphere is exceptional through Odessa Young character Rose Nemser and the weird, intriguing and creepy interactions that happen between the 4 main characters only act to draw in the audience more and provide the film with a more interesting base.
Shirley feels like a film that deserves more than one watch to fully appreciate, however, for the first viewing the story feels scattered and confusing at times as the creepy atmosphere takes control of the film but doesn't end up scarring the audience at all. I must admit, I haven't read any of Susan Scarf Merrell's novels so the film didn't gravitate towards me the way it has with others.
The shaky cinematography and rough editing creates an uneasy environment that doesn't always work but when it does it's great, the scenery outside the house is beautiful to look at but once you go inside the house the uneasy atmosphere takes control and begins to make you think more about the thoughts running through the characters minds and the controlling nature of Michael Stuhlbarg character will makes for uneasy viewing for some audiences.
It's hard for me to recommend this movie, if you like creepy period films than this is the one for you but if, like me, you haven't read any of Susan Scarf Merrell work then this probably won't appeal to you. However, the greatest thing about this film is the technical aspects and how it gets into your mind with the camera lingering on faces to create a creepy tension throughout.
A review about Shirley is hard to write, the film technically is great but won't appeal to mass audiences like other big Hollywood films. I can appreciate Shirley for what it is, a psychological mind bender that gets into your head and makes you think like the characters but for me, Shirley isn't a film that exactly interested me like it should have even though it was well acted and intense from the very start. Shirley is probably too niche to attract the Academy's interest in Moss but The Invisible Man definitely should.
Shirley is often uncomfortable and bold, darkly funny and ridiculously well-acted but feels somewhat predictable for the first two acts and feels like it needs more than one watch to fully appreciate which I unfortunately I don't have any intentions to do so any time soon. -
jackfulton1214 November 2020Just.... Strange. Kind of a weird train wreck to watch. Elisabeth Moss is a great actress and delivers as usual, but it's a little hard to get on board with the story, because you want the "good" characters to stand up for themselves and the "bad" characters are just pretty mean. Upon further recent (this is supposed to be based on the Haunting of Hill House author Shirley Jackson), there is no evidence that the real Shirley Jackson was so evil. This movie version of Shirley tears people down for sport. It leaves a bad taste in my life when famous figures are skewered in movies that promote themselves as biopics or "based on the life of" or "inspired by a true story." Skip this movie and read a Shirley Jackson novel instead!
-
evanston_dad13 August 2020"Shirley" really messes with you.
The film that is, not the character, though she messes with you too. About half way through this fictionalized account of the writer Shirley Jackson, I decided that I hated it and everyone in it and didn't know if I would finish the damn thing. And then by the time the movie was over, I really dug it and what it had to say. I guess that's why I'm so reluctant to ever bail on movies mid-way through -- you can't have a full impression unless you watch the whole thing.
"Shirley" isn't a bio-pic, and thank God for that. Shirley the writer isn't even the main character; that honor falls to Odessa Young in a fantastic performance as the pregnant wife of a young faculty member who is boarding with Shirley and her professor husband. She's dismissed for being young and female, and at first is the target of Shirley's hateful vitriol. But as the movie evolves, we come to understand that Shirley isn't tormenting the girl as much as she's trying to help her, warning her in her whackadoodle way of what's in store for her is she allows herself to be brushed into a corner by a man's world. The film has a tone that's really hard to jive with, or at least it was for me. It's like a horror movie, even though nothing especially horrific is ever happening. Elizabeth Moss plays Shirley as so crazy from the get go -- a witch stalking her own haunted house -- that I was afraid the character would have nowhere to go. But by the end, both Shirley and her young protege have learned something about each other and themselves. The last scene, in which the world of insanity becomes more normal and desirable than the world of the supposedly sane, is brilliant.
Michael Stuhlbarg is George to Elizabeth Moss's Martha, and oh my goodness is he gross, never more so than in a scene where he close talks to Odessa Young with bits of egg stuck all over his beard. He gives a good performance even if he is unbearable -- an insecure academic terrified of his wife's talent who deals with his insecurity by trying to keep her trampled underfoot. Logan Lerman rounds out the cast's quartet as the straight laced ambitious intellectual who doesn't actually have any serous intellectual thoughts and who's a snot to boot.
"Shirley" was unpleasant to experience in the moment but a very rich and rewarding film to mull over afterwards. It's certainly not ordinary, and that alone makes it worth watching.
Grade: A -
nancyhotz7 June 2020I read other reviews and completely disagree that this was a horror movie. Certainly not a biopic. Closer to somebody's idea of a feminist film, where everyone is unpleasant and motivations are obscure.
-
Opinate9 January 2021If you are desperate to see some good acting or a period drama you might like this, but if you are a fan of Shirley Jackson's work or think you are going to see a biopic of her life you might find it on the offensive side. I did.
I would have liked to see a real biopic of Shirley Jackson but since this is pure fiction and it was not at all flattering I found it difficult to enjoy. To take a real-life figure who is not in the far-and-distant past, a woman who has living children and close descendants and to use them to garner attention for your not terribly original film is crossing a line of good taste into exploitation.
Everyone giving this a positive review should read some of the reactions from Shirley's children about their fun-loving mom who drove them to cub scout meetings and put three squares on the table even as she was making great art. Especially those thinking you are anti-feminist somehow if you dislike this movie - I could argue the opposite since it destroys a ground-breaking female writer's reputation - all I have to do is read how many people here believe this movie is a biopic to know that.
The movie itself is a confusion of 'reality' and fantasy (not in a good way) and I came away feeling like the writer couldn't come up with a good enough (book) or script without throwing in Shirley Jackson as a cheap way to get sales. The movie made me feel the same way Ed Wood or The Disaster Artist did - why spend all that energy making a film just to sully someone else's image? Why not just make something original?
The music choices were simply bizarre, as if throughout the filmmakers are trying to remind you Jackson is a horror writer. They did not match the often maudlin scenes. The plunking piano during the sex scene - strange. The nods to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and The Yellow Wallpaper are obvious and felt a little cheap and, well, derivative.
Moss is excellent as are the other actors, and the statements made about women in that period were good and just, but in watching the movie I felt like I was engaging in totally false gossip about a writer who is far superior to the one who wrote this movie. Perhaps it is fitting in these times of obscuring the truth, but slanderous nonetheless. -
But the filmmakers decided to make this film anyway despite a flawed script. Dismal directing and over-the-top performances. This film is so damn boring unless you are interested in looking at close-ups of Elizabeth Moss without makeup emoting strange faces at the camera in scene after scene. Just didn't work.
-
nogodnomasters4 July 2020The film is inspired by the life of Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss) who wrote horror stories. Her husband Hyman (Michael Stuhlbarg) teaches at the university and has numerous affairs. Hyman hires Fred (Logan Lerman) to help him. He comes along with Rose, his pregnant wife (Odessa Young). The relationship are not normal even for abnormal relationships. At times I felt I was watching a scene out of Virginia Woolfe. Shirley starts to write again and Rose helps her. She uses the disappearance of a local college girl as her subject.
I felt there were missing scenes and deleted dialogue, i.e. something I missed. I wish I had read the Wiki-biography before I watched the film.
Guide: F-word, sex, nudity (Odessa Young) -
tuskoflove23 August 2022This story was really strange. It gets a 7 because it kept me intrigued, but I can only summarize it as bizarre. The plot can best be described as a scrapbook from a famous writers life. There's no real driving force in the movie, and while the movie kept me interested, theres no possible deeper meaning long after you watch it. It's one of those indie films that plays a bit too much with story cuts and sex scenes. Perhaps Im just unfamiliar with Shirley Jackson's work and it is in the style of one of her books, but to an unenlightened viewer, expect to be confused and expecting something to happen next that never comes.
-
nunya655211 June 2020At first, I was bored. It seemed pretty straightforward. Wrong! And at the end I'm left wondering, was this all just an imagining for her character for the book?
Anyway, The Moss delivers again. She is one of the best actresses of our times. Truly. Worth watching just for her portrayal alone. -
edrizio_delacruz21 February 2021As other reviews mentioned, it's a slow burn with not much happening. It's really much better depicted as a slow drama, certainly not a thriller. The characters are very unlikeable and while that's often written by design, it does very little to drive the plot forward.
-
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
This was a pretty unusual experience due to the knowledge I possessed before watching this movie. It's the first flick I see from Josephine Decker. Sarah Gubbins has her feature film debut as a screenwriter, so obviously, she's new to me as well. However, the most significant detail is that I didn't know a single thing about Shirley. I had no idea about its plot or even what genre did it belong to, and (like with every other movie) I didn't watch a single trailer. Elisabeth Moss (The Handmaid's Tale, The Invisible Man) was the only reason I added this film to my list a few months ago.
I had no idea Shirley was an actual biopic of the real-life horror writer, Shirley Jackson, not even by the end of the movie... and this is the biggest compliment I have to give. It doesn't feel like a biopic because it breaks every barrier set by the genre's limitations. It isn't filmed (DP: Sturla Brandth Grøvlen) like a biopic. It isn't edited (David Barker) like a biopic. Its screenplay isn't similar to one of a biopic. Even the score (Tamar-kali) is far from being a biopic standard. Conclusion: by going blind into this film, it's near impossible to label Shirley as a regular biopic.
How is this a good thing? Well, from the very first scene, the uneasy atmosphere is exceptionally established through Odessa Young's character, Rose Nemser. The latter seems like any other 1950's "wifey", but in her first appearance, she shows that her true self is hiding beneath the well-behaved, well-educated persona. It's hard not to feel enthralled by the weird, intriguing, sometimes creepy interactions between the four main characters. The rough editing helps generate a certain level of discomfort like something doesn't feel quite right. Shirley and Rose's relationship contributes to the strange vibe that permeates the movie.
Shirley is isolated from society and refuses to go outside. Her books are filled with disgusting, thought-provoking, horrific stories that people love to read. But these are the same people who assume how she must be like in order to be able to write such twisted stories. Rose has more in common with Shirley than what their personal book covers may indicate, and these two carry the narrative in a quite captivating, emotional manner. The former is the central character, the one that goes through the biggest development. The latter doesn't change who she is, but gradually shows a different, more vulnerable side, as the (brilliant) last shot of the film (one long uninterrupted take) proves.
Elisabeth Moss was already in contention for several nominations due to her outstanding performance in her previous movie, but with Shirley, she makes sure she doesn't go unnoticed in 2020. Moss has such an incredible range of emotions and expressions that make her shine every time a multi-layered character is handed to her. However, Odessa Young is the surprise here, what a breakthrough! Excellent performance from her, definitely one to keep our eyes on for the next few years. Michael Stuhlbarg is phenomenal by interpreting Stanley, a man who can be sweet and kind as easy as he can be threatening and scary.
It's a film that warrants more than one viewing. Not only due to the perplexing narrative that mixes up Shirley's imagination (there are constant flashes of her visualizing what she's writing) with the real-life story, but also because the characters' relationships are not that simple to understand. All of this can either be looked at as a positive or negative aspect. On one hand, I was always interested and focused on understanding everything related to the story and its characters. On the other hand, the movie can feel aimless during the first half of the runtime.
Undoubtedly very intriguing filmmaking. Josephine Decker delivers an auteur piece (for which she already received an award) that might polarize the general audience due to her remarkably unique biographical work. However, for someone who didn't know anything about the film going in, that first half that I mention above can be really difficult to analyze. Eventually, everything receives their respective explanation, some more efficient than others, but the path to get there isn't linear or smooth in any way, shape, or form.
Also, Logan Lerman's character, Fred Nemser, feels left out compared to the other house residents, and his arc is probably the most predictable and least exciting part of the movie. Technically, each component is as unique as each other. From the editing to the cinematography, passing through the score and the production and set design. Everything elevates Sarah Gubbins' screenplay and Decker's directing in a way that never stops being entertaining and extremely satisfactory for any cinephile.
In the end, Shirley is undoubtedly an auteur film from Josephine Decker, who delivers a remarkably unique biopic that breaks every limitation imposed by the genre. By going in blind, Sarah Gubbins' screenplay may feel strange and aimless throughout the first half, but the intriguing relationships between the main characters and the weirdly captivating narrative are more than enough to create a creepy yet engaging atmosphere. The interactions between Elisabeth Moss, Odessa Young, and Michael Stuhlbarg are as fascinating as their characters, especially Odessa's. All actors are terrific, but Moss guarantees that she doesn't go unnoticed this year, and Young will certainly be in talks for the year's breakthrough performance. Technically, the score is definitely a whole other character, incredibly impactful sound design. On one hand, the shaky cinematography and the rough editing help create the uneasy environment of the house, but on the other hand, they might feel a bit too disorienting and uncomfortable. It's hard to recommend this movie. If you're a fan of Shirley Jackson, this is her biopic, even if it doesn't look like one (the greatest compliment I can give the film). If you value technical aspects, Shirley has a lot to love. However, if you don't belong to one of these two groups, I can't recommend it without first offering a warning that it just might not work for you...
Rating: B+ -
Pairic9 May 2021Shirley: Biopic about Shirley Jackson, set around the time she was writing Hangsaman. Shirley (Elizabeth Moss) is in the throes of depression when a young couple, Fred and Rose Nemeste (not West) come to stay with her and her professor husband Stanley (Michael Stuhlbarg) In Vermont. A story about infidelity, a missing girl, suspicions. A dark atmosphere builds up in the house, Rose (Odessa Young) tries to help Shirley around the house, does research for her, even spying on others, becomes her muse. Fred (Logan Lerman) is an assistant to Stanley and is bullied by him, his work unfairly criticised. But Fred joins in with Stanley in having affairs with students. Tensions rise, the house has a real Gothic atmosphere, it seems to inspire and yet trap Shirley. The possibility of a real killer stalking the nearby woods adds to the frisson that descends on Shirley and Rose. Perhaps a tad too melodramatic at time but certainly worth watching. There is a resonance with Things Heard & Seen. Directed by Josephine Decker from a screenplay by Sarah Gubbins. On Netflix. 7/10.
-
deloudelouvain23 August 2020I was looking forward to watch this movie. Since Elisabeth Moss superb acting in the series The Handmaids Tale on Hulu and in the movie The Invisible Man I'm a big fan of her. So I was expecting something similar from her in Shirley. The truth is the acting was good, like expected, and not only from her but also from the rest of the cast, they all delivered, but unfortunately it was not a guarantee for a good movie. In fact it almost bored me to death. I kept watching it in the hope something significant would happen but besides endless boring conversations nothing happens at all in Shirley. Not only was it boring but also much too long. If you're not going to tell a good story at least have the decency to keep it short. I would rather watch paint dry or grass grow then watching this movie again. What a disappointment!
-
Alexander_Blanchett24 February 2020Did I just watch the first Best Actress Nomination of 2020? Elisabeth Moss could go that far if they Play it out correctly. She gave an amazing Performance in this intersting written film About Inspiration, desire, and Ambition. The film was very fine crafted and directed and gives us a mixture of "The Hours" ( in certain regards) and "Misery" (ok thats Maybe a bit far stretched ). The other Performance besides Moss are very good too. First of all the Always underrated Michael Stuhlbarg. Absolutely note worthy Performance. He really developed his character in Detail. Ist shocking that he is already underrated for it. Also a very good performacne was given by Odessa Young who Held herself very well against acting heaveyweights like Moss and Stuhlbarg. Logan Lerman was a bit pale and can generally do better. Perfect Vehicle for Elisabeth Moss to shoot her into Oscar stardome and the beginning what could be a very good cinematic year for her.
-
jbryanmartin4 May 2021I often look at IMDB ratings in deciding whether to try a film that's available online. In this case, I'm glad I ignored them. There are lots of 1-3 star ratings with comments about the film being boring and falling asleep while watching. I guess if you're looking for car chases, superheroes and cgi, it's not your cup of tea. But I enjoyed it. Not a great film, but a very good one. It's about the relationship between two women, and peripherally their relationships with their husbands. People who found this boring would be bored by works from the writings of Tennessee Williams and Somerset Maugham. If you want flash and bang, watch something about John Wick or the Fast and Furious. I enjoyed watching Elizabeth Moss, who I consider to be one of the finest actresses of her generation, as well as a fine supporting cast. But if you want to see something about the human condition, enjoy this film.
-
Actors are good, but this movie is all over the place.