Shirley (2020)
Review of Shirley (2020), directed by Josephine Decker
When I heard Josephine Decker was going to be directing a biographical film about the writer Shirley Jackson, I just knew instinctively that this movie was going to be a time to watch. And I was right, this isn’t just a normal biographical drama about a writer. This quickly spirals into thriller territory. If you’re familiar with Josephine Decker as a creative and with her other films, you’d know immediately that she wouldn’t do a clean cut biography. And as our main couple meets with the eccentric Jacksons at their home in Bennington College, we quickly learn that this isn’t clean cut at all. It’s erotic, it’s got affairs, and we have some casual gay drama going on center screen. It’s a time, although I do wonder the level of fictionalizing that went on. A casual viewer might not be able to distinguish the truth from fiction in regards to these very real people’s lives.
The first time I read a Shirley Jackson short story was in the eighth grade, when my teacher handed out laminated copies of “The Lottery” and told us to analyze it. I remember being so fascinated with the story, and it was one of my catalysts to becoming a quote-on-quote real writer. No one is really a real writer, everyone is a writer, but I guess it would say it was one of those pivotal moments when I realized that writing was a powerful tool that led you to feel things.
I haven’t read any Jackson short stories since the eighth grade and I am now twenty-one. But I never forgot the magic I felt with that one short story, so when I saw this as an option to watch on Kanopy, I pressed play immediately. I was greeted with some familiar faces, like Logan Lerman, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Elisabeth Moss, so I felt that this was a solid choice acting-wise. And I was right.
I’ve said a lot already, haven’t I? Let’s dig into this review.
Content
Our story starts out in this film with a young couple, the Nemsers. The husband, Fred, is moving them to Bennington College because he is a lecturer, and they are due to begin their visit by staying with Bennington professor Stanley Hyman, who is married to the writer Shirley Jackson. The wife, Rose, absolutely loves Jackson’s work. On the train she’s talking about the morbid short story that I had once read in middle school, “The Lottery.” But when they meet the Jacksons in real life, things start to take a real strange turn, one in which we get really gay subtexts and a world that’s a bit darker than the one on the surface.
The Shirley in this film is neurotic, seemingly on the verge of a mental breakdown. She’s obsessed with her writing, and often cruel to Rose until she decides she’s the next object of her focus. As Shirley’s husband and even Fred sleep with their students, the wives begin to see each other, never actually sleeping with each other, but are still a little too intimate. Which is a bit hypocritical in the end because Rose gets very upset with Fred for cheating on her when she’s very much emotionally cheating herself.
We also get some interesting themes in regards to the way the women in the film are depicted and treated. Rose originally tries to audit classes at Bennington, but then Hyman tells her she should stay at home and do the chores with Shirley. Except Shirley doesn’t actually do as much as she should, leaving Rose to do the bulk of the work. Shirley is depicted in a way that is reminiscient of hardcore depression in her drunken manner. In real life, the Jacksons had four children, but here they are childless, Shirley cackling at meeting Rose and calling her pregnant (she was not wrong) and then calling herself a witch.
Despite these random inaccuracies, it’s a good movie. It’s not great, but it evokes the feeling that Jackson’s short stories tend to evoke. Lots of talk of doppelgangers, when Shirley in this film seems to have an alter ego: sometimes she is cruel, other times gentle. Perhaps this is a commentary on the act of creation, what it takes to be a quote-on-quote true writer. I wouldn’t call this a biopic though because of how it deviates from reality in such a blatant manner.
Overall Thoughts
It’s an entertaining film, but don’t call it a biopic. It reminds me of fanfiction when you don’t want the story to go in a certain way and so you just change it, except these a real living people who have long passed already. I don’t think this depicted Shirley Jackson in a way that’s particularly flattering. I would be upset if I was related to Jackson in any way because of the way her and her husband were depicted, as well as an erasure of your particular existence if you’re in the immediate family. It’s a slow burn that tends to pick up speed later on in the movie which may be unappealing to some.
