SummaryRenowned horror writer Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss) is on the precipice of writing her masterpiece when the arrival of newlyweds upends her meticulous routine and heightens tensions in her already tempestuous relationship with her philandering husband. The middle-aged couple, prone to ruthless barbs and copious afternoon cocktails, b...
SummaryRenowned horror writer Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss) is on the precipice of writing her masterpiece when the arrival of newlyweds upends her meticulous routine and heightens tensions in her already tempestuous relationship with her philandering husband. The middle-aged couple, prone to ruthless barbs and copious afternoon cocktails, b...
Decker succeeds in transporting viewers inside the mind of a tortured genius. With its mesmerizing cinematography, a deliciously waspy script, and fantastic performances, Shirley is a smart and intricately woven look at a woman’s struggle to create in a world telling her to be something else.
Mocked by her peers, mistreated by her husband, and burdened by mental illness, Jackson lived with the psychic evils that lurk in her writing. But for Decker, what’s important about Shirley’s misery is how she used it to fuel her work.
All praise to Elisabeth Moss, who brilliantly plays Jackson as a volcano on the verge of eruption, and director Josephine Decker, whose experimental "Madeline’s Madeline" reveled in leaving folks in a twist.
Shirley is probably too niche to attract the Academy’s interest in Moss – how has she never been nominated? – but it’s a big, messy, masterfully itchy performance and yet another notch in her belt.
Shirley sometimes feels as unfocused as the stymied protagonist at its core, but its point of view remains crystalline throughout: As Shirley tells Rose early in their friendship, best to be born a boy. “The world is too cruel for girls.”
Moss, brazen and witty and seeming to push herself to the very edge of control, is a galvanizing presence, convincingly wild even as she’s trapped in a hothouse of sometimes dubious ideas.
Shirley, by contrast, coats her in gothic excess as if glazing a ham, and of her humor scarcely a shred remains. As a sworn devotee of “Airplane!,” I found myself praying that once — just once — she would utter the words “And don’t call me Shirley,” thus rending the veil of gloom from top to bottom. Sadly, it was not to be.
I have greatly admired Elizabeth Moss since she clawed her way up the ladder on Mad Men about a decade ago. I think she will go down as the next Bette Davis or Katherine Hepburn, seductive without being sexy. Her performances have a rhythm that pulls you in and gets you to hang for hurdles that are both chronic and acute. As an example, at 1hr5min of this movie, she resolves to go a party in defiance of her philandering husband. Out of the blue she is forced to wrestle with agoraphobia in a way that is hilarious in a very subtle way. The next scene she is seductively exploring her own ****, it is seamless in a way no other actor could attempt. the acting here is all solid, the photography is understated and the direction is extremely well done in an obscure non signature fashion. A very good movie.
'Shirley' is not your regular biopic. Through this exuberant representation of Shirley Jackson and Stanley Edgar Hyman, director Josephine Decker tries to explore the dark side of intellectuals; however, their intentions never seem clear along the way. It's very welcoming to watch these new takes on the genre, but the plot's loss of focus turns the film into a very dense experience, and not in a great way.
Elisabeth Moss continues to expand her range as this cantankerous horror writer (based on Shirley Jackson). Her character is smart and verbally vicious, but also immensely troubled. When a young couple moves into their house, unusual things happen in several directions. This is primarily an exercise in putting complex characters in uncomfortable situations. As the relationships evolve, the drama abounds. Director Josephine Decker has created moods and people who are sometimes compelling and other times just frustrating. It's an unusual character drama with Moss' performance creating the most interest.
I must start by saying that whoever put the thriller tag on this film should be fired right away.
Then the writers should reconsider how they could create such arrogant and pretentious characters.
I hardly want to deal with those kinds of people in my daily life, let alone in a film.
But I totally understand characters that behave like that and they definitely shouldn't create problems when watching a film, yet when they don't help the story to progress, it's quite clear that the interest in following them decreases considerably. And when the story is that inert, you have a big, big problem.
The issue is not that the performances are bad because they're not, especially that of Elisabeth Moss, the issue is that the characters are not really attractive.
I also read the film fictionalized a lot of what it portrays, but to be honest I can't say anything about that considering all I knew about Shirley Jackson is The Haunting of Hill House.
Shirley is a film that has ambition and talent but none of them fits in the best way and and while it could've been a much more disappointing film, it's far from what I expected due to the good reviews it received.
Here's another weekend without a movie theater. There's still new content on demand and with streaming services. We finally got around to the new film on Hulu, Shirley, starring Elisabeth Moss as renowned writer, Shirley Jackson. Is Shirley as thrilling as Ms. Jackson's stories?
Biopics about writers can be difficult to make cinematic because the writing process is so internal. While Shirley is about the writer and the writing process, it is hardly a biopic in the normal sense. The film focuses on a young couple who move to the Vermont college town where Shirley and her husband Stanley, played by Michael Stuhlbarg, live. The young husband, Fred, played by Logan Lerman, has a position as Stanley's assistant, and the wife, Rose, played by Odette Young, plans to audit some courses at the school, but her plans change as Stanley needs someone to manage the home because Shirley cannot. The couple plans to stay with Stanley and Shirley temporarily until they find their own place. As Shirley's eccentric madness fills the home as she begins to work on her new novel, thrills ensue and consume Rose.
Josephine Decker, who directed Shirley, does a good job of balancing themes. There is a focus on the relationships between the husbands and wives that deteriorate due to selfishness and mistrust. The film depicts how those relationship can affect mental health, which becomes more important as the film moves along. The connection between Shirley's writing and her mental state permeate the movie and affect the characters in interesting ways. Sometimes it can get confusing, but I suppose that was the point. The film wants to feel like one of Shirley Jackson's stories, and there is something thrilling about it - to a point.
Aside from some confusion due to directorial choices, my biggest problem with Shirley is Elisabeth Moss. Moss is a good actress, but like many actors, she has a go-to bag of tricks when she plays her characters. That deep, crazed stare she has. She's got a tremble and a soft, calculated speaking voice. While I get that Shirley has mental issues and she's ****, Moss's portrayal of her feels like a caricature. It is outsized and false. I wish she would have reined it in. Moss is particularly jarring when compared to Michael Stuhlbarg, who is very good but equally calculating as Stanley. The unfortunate part of this is that Moss's portrayal took me out of the movie completely.
Ultimately, if you like Shirley Jackson's writing, it may be interesting to see this slice of life biopic/thriller. The director attempted to create a movie that feels like a story written by Shirley; and, even though, it has its thrilling moments, the movie can be confusing and off-putting. Unfortunately, Moss's over-the-top acting pulls focus of the film and does a disservice to it overall.