Elisabeth Moss in “Shirley”
‘Shirley’: Moss gathers plenty of big moments in this troubling narrative
Directed by: Josephine Decker
Written by: Sarah Gubbins, based on the novel by Susan Scarf Merrell
Starring: Elisabeth Moss, Michael Stuhlbarg, Odessa Young, and Logan Lerman
“Shirley” – “Welcome to our hallowed end of the earth, my boy. Welcome to Bennington.” – Stanley Hyman (Michael Stuhlbarg)
Fred (Logan Lerman) is the boy in question, as he and his wife Rose (Odessa Young) move to this small town in Vermont’s southwest corner, within a stone’s throw of the New York and Massachusetts borders, for a job. Fred is Stanley’s new teaching assistant at the local college, and the happy couple breaks bread with about a hundred others at the professor’s large farmhouse. Strangers with drinks and plates of food whiz by Fred and Rose, like high-powered Audis and BMWs nearly clipping two wide-eyed hitchhikers standing on a busy stretch of Autobahn asphalt.
It’s all a bit much.
However, director Josephine Decker nestles into a place of calm in a crowded living room, peeks her camera between two guests, and settles on a woman holding a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Shirley (Elisabeth Moss) candidly complains about her first date with Stanley (who resembles Robin Williams in “Awakenings” (1990)) and then tersely refrains from discussing her next literary work.
She says, “A little novella. I’m writing, ‘None of your goddamn business’.”
Now, Stanley may teach at a university, but Shirley carries dramatically more fame than her husband. She’s revered and feared horror-author Shirley Jackson, who wrote the classic dystopian story “The Lottery”.
Sarah Gubbins bases her screenplay on Susan Scarf Merrell’s novel “Shirley”, which is a fictionalized tale of Ms. Jackson, Stanley, and the said young couple living under one roof. You see, Stanley convinces Fred and Rose to stay, but life becomes uncomfortable, dreadful, or a half-dozen similar descriptors in between.
“Shirley” isn’t a horror film. It’s a troubling drama; an unpalatable, upsetting movie spun in the close quarters of two hosts mired in dysfunction and disdain.
Since the fellas spend most hours from sunrise to sunset in classrooms and courtyards, Shirley and Rose root at home. Unfortunately, our author flounders in front of the typewriter, so she acts out, like an impish Nurse Ratched without a poker face, against her naive, new playmate.
These women couldn’t be more different.
Rose is a modest, polite cheerleading type with streams of grace and good manners, and she probably never heard a cross word spilled in her direction. Meanwhile, a teenage Shirley most likely avoided high school football and basketball games, because the sight of peppy halftime cheer-routines may have driven her into silent rages. Today, after years of suffering prolonged bouts of bedridden depression, quickly finding callous thoughts and comments for anyone within eyeshot, and ignoring her daily appearance, Shirley faces a Molotov cocktail – in the form of a kind 20-something woman - living in her house.
Decker’s picture explores Shirley and Rose’s journey, and these combatants could forge a détente, a friendship, or become sworn enemies. No matter the direction, this concoction demands our attention. Young faces a difficult task as Rose, since her pacifist character copes with dizzying, wearisome verbal gunfire. Meanwhile, Shirley now shares space with an unspoiled lump of clay that she can shape with her twisted bullets, and Moss feels at home playing this subdued loose cannon.
Sure, Shirley rips into meanspirited diatribes on occasion, but she often swallows her anger. Moss feeds long pauses and condescending stares at the camera, as her creation seems to scream bloody murder on the inside. This talented, in-demand actress is quite effective at internalizing Shirley’s frustration in a mesmerizing, complex performance. Shirley may make new enemies, but sometimes, she has legit reasons.
Since Stanley and Shirley were real, living and breathing human beings – who died in 1970 and 1965, respectively – how much truth is portrayed on-screen?
As previously mentioned, the film is based on Merrell’s novel, but are Stuhlbarg and Moss accurately playing Stanley and Shirley?
At a Jan. 2020 Sundance Film Festival Q&A, Moss says, “It was a lot of reading about her (and her work). It was a lot of exploring the relationship with Stanley as well. That was really important to us.”
Stuhlbarg adds, “I thought (the movie) was one thing when we started, and the next step was realizing it was based on fiction, the novel. Then, we were taking it in a very different direction from there, so it was like three times removed from the original people.”
The answer is muddy, and the movie feels cloudy anyway, especially in Stanley and Shirley’s house. Frequently, it seems that Decker purposely fogs up the camera with a slight dew that leaves a grayish, muted mist on the screen, or maybe it is lingering cigarette smoke. Since we’re living in a time warp of a real writer in a fictionalized story, the dreamlike effect seems relevant, or in Shirley Jackson’s case, a nightmare.
At one point, Rose wakes up in the middle of the night, walks into the kitchen, and sees the distressed author staring into the refrigerator.
Shirley says, “I had a crazy dream. Mud oozing from the fridge, (and) big worms coming out of the crisper…as fat as fingers.”
Yea, we believe it.
(3/4 stars)
Jeff – a member of the Phoenix Critics Circle – has penned film reviews since 2008, graduated from ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and is a certified Rotten Tomatoes critic. Follow Jeff and the Phoenix Film Festival on Twitter @MitchFilmCritic and @PhoenixFilmFest, respectively.
