|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 20, 2018 9:16:45 GMT
Only read The Lottery. Good sh*t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 3:21:06 GMT
I have only read The Haunting of Hill House. I enjoyed it. Well written. It built up to an ending that was not entirely satisfying. I love the movie, though. Comparison to Matheson's Hell House are inevitable. I think Matheson's is a better and scarier novel. Don't like the movie so much. Due for a remake. What about the ending didn’t entirely satisfy you? I thought that by ending it full-circle, not giving a real conclusion to the stories of the, er, other characters, it left you wondering—but that made it even scarier. I go back and forth on the movie: so much of it is very well-done, but it gets bogged down in these longueurs (Wise has some amazing visual sequences, but then directs, say, the scene with Nell and the sister as if he’s never made a movie before), and I find Julie Harris’s constant whining ridiculously annoying. I find the book’s Eleanor much better. I’m interested in seeing how this new Netflix series is going to turn out. You prefer Hell House? Interesting; it’s not a take I’ve seen before. I haven’t read it, but I have seen the movie, which I just find dull as dishwater (notwithstanding the lovely Gayle Hunnicutt). I agree that someone could probably do a good job remaking it, though. Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I completely missed this til I was cleaning out my emails.
I think the film did a better job of portraying the build-up to the finale. The novel seemed to just end. After a very strong first half, the second half lost a lot of momentum and by the time it ended it felt so empty to me.
I nearly gave up on the film after the scene with the sisters early in the film. I felt like I was watching a soap opera. Once the film shifts to Hill House is where it becomes something special. For a film that is not violent and has no gore, it is a beautifully constructed piece of horror. I rank it up there with The Shining as my favorite haunted house films.
I do prefer Hell House by Matheson. I have read both novels at least three times. I think Matheson appeals to the typical Hollywood fan in me. It is not subtle hardly at all and contains some gruesome events, violent sexual imagery and disturbing ideas. The film is something of a cult classic. I can't say I'm on board with that. I did not enjoy the film hardly at all. I think the only part of it I did like was the cast. It's an odd, strangely directed film.
I do like like haunted house novels. Any suggestions would be welcome.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Oct 7, 2018 16:16:03 GMT
I have only read The Haunting of Hill House. I enjoyed it. Well written. It built up to an ending that was not entirely satisfying. I love the movie, though. Comparison to Matheson's Hell House are inevitable. I think Matheson's is a better and scarier novel. Don't like the movie so much. Due for a remake. What about the ending didn’t entirely satisfy you? I thought that by ending it full-circle, not giving a real conclusion to the stories of the, er, other characters, it left you wondering—but that made it even scarier. I go back and forth on the movie: so much of it is very well-done, but it gets bogged down in these longueurs (Wise has some amazing visual sequences, but then directs, say, the scene with Nell and the sister as if he’s never made a movie before), and I find Julie Harris’s constant whining ridiculously annoying. I find the book’s Eleanor much better. I’m interested in seeing how this new Netflix series is going to turn out. You prefer Hell House? Interesting; it’s not a take I’ve seen before. I haven’t read it, but I have seen the movie, which I just find dull as dishwater (notwithstanding the lovely Gayle Hunnicutt). I agree that someone could probably do a good job remaking it, though. Hell House the film was unsubtle fun, but Matheson's claims that his novel was in no way influenced by Jackson's strike me as bull, pure and simple. His book was actually close enough to hers to warrant a plagiarism charge, and it has always somewhat surprised me that her estate didn't lodge one. My main liking for the film comes from its use of the far-too-undersung Clive Revill, and the chance it gave to Roddy McDowall for the all-too-rare non campy acting turn. It has flaws aplenty, though I have to admit the climactic reveal of the source of the horrors still creeps me out on subsequent re-watchings.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 14, 2018 18:04:12 GMT
dirtypillows, have you ever read S.T. Joshi’s comments on Jackson? Joshi is an expert in what he calls “weird fiction,” with a particular emphasis on Lovecraft, and, though there’s a lot (A LOT) on which he and I disagree, he’s an interesting and sometimes perceptive critic. I was reading his The Modern Weird Tale (Google preview here), and I was completely baffled by one thing he wrote: “…[Jackson’s] world view is more akin to the cheerless and nihilistic misanthropy of Bierce than to Machen’s harried antimaterialism.” I don’t see that at all in her writing. There’s a misanthropy, and a definite, simultaneous distrust of tradition and democracy (“The Lottery” is more than enough to testify to all of this, and also Haunting of Hill House), but there’s always a hearty sense of humor. It’s a cheerful misanthropy, if anything. You’ve read more of her work than I—would you say you agree?
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 15, 2018 4:39:26 GMT
dirtypillows , have you ever read S.T. Joshi’s comments on Jackson? Joshi is an expert in what he calls “weird fiction,” with a particular emphasis on Lovecraft, and, though there’s a lot (A LOT) on which he and I disagree, he’s an interesting and sometimes perceptive critic. I was reading his The Modern Weird Tale (Google preview here), and I was completely baffled by one thing he wrote: “…[Jackson’s] world view is more akin to the cheerless and nihilistic misanthropy of Bierce than to Machen’s harried antimaterialism.” I don’t see that at all in her writing. There’s a misanthropy, and a definite, simultaneous distrust of tradition and democracy (“The Lottery” is more than enough to testify to all of this, and also Haunting of Hill House), but there’s always a hearty sense of humor. It’s a cheerful misanthropy, if anything. You’ve read more of her work than I—would you say you agree? Oh, I definitely think that Shirley Jackson gave in to her cheery side, more often than not. I think that her wonderful, very funny book "Life Among the Savages" can attest to that. Anybody who refers to their children as "savages" is almost certain to have a good sense of humor. She reconciled herself to the world around her and her point of view overflowed with a good nature. Even in "The Lottery", while the events that take place are sinister and horrifying, the tone is really kind of detached. I don't think Shirley Jackson was a misanthrope, she just was true to her vision and others judged her. I trust Miss Jackson's instincts and perceptions absolutely.
|
|
TheSowIsMine
Junior Member
@thesowismine
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,684
|
Post by TheSowIsMine on Oct 21, 2018 15:33:17 GMT
I didn’t like Haunting on Hill House, but We Have Always Lived in the Castle is amazing.
|
|
jinx
New Member
@jinx
Posts: 33
Likes: 4
|
Post by jinx on Nov 24, 2018 1:21:11 GMT
My first Shirley Jackson book was Life Among the Savages. I was completely stunned when I read The Lottery. I couldn’t believe it was the same author. I read Raising Demons, which was a sequel to Life Among the Savages, The Haunting of Hill House and We Have Always Lived in the Castle. She is an amazing author who can write humorous books and can scare you out of your skin. I know! You can scarcely believe it's the same author! Her best known piece is cold to the bone, and then you read "Life Among the Savages" and it is absolutely hilarious. I think she was just a really perceptive individual, who could, very astutely, see the amusing and the horrifying equally clearly and sometimes coming from the same places. I loved "Life Among the Savages" and you would never assume in a thousand years that the 'savages" in the title refers to her four young children! There exists not a boring page throughout! Have you, by any chance, read her short story "The Night We All Had Grippe"? Oh my God, it is funny. It is probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite Shirley Jackson short story, followed by "An Ordinary Day, With Peanuts" and "Mrs. Melville Makes a Purchase". "AOD,WP" is probably my all-time favorite piece of literature, as it manages to be amusing and disturbing at the same time and for the same reasons. The twist ending is the dilly to end all dillies. Rod Serling would have been knocked over, I have no doubt. Actually, that's kind of how I regard Shirley Jackson, as a Rod Serling accompanied by the essential mystery of feminine charms. The Night We All had the Grippe was in Life Among the Savages. It’s my favorite story in the book.
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 9, 2019 1:47:14 GMT
merricat said Constance would you like a cup of tea? no no said merricat you'll poison me. merricat said Constance would you like to go to sleep? down in the bone yard ten feet deep. I heard they are/were making a movie with that boring actress from American horror story 1 and 3 playing merricat. I actually wont think she will be boring in this if this is to happen and if they do choose her. and get this -- Marty McFly's father will play Uncle Julian!!!! that is actually how I pictured UJ. premiering in California Film Festival sept 22 or something. I saw the pics on the imdb site and they exactly match my imaginations of the story [minus the 'today' objects like cell phones. ] I had back when I was in high school in 1993! Marty McFly's father was really great to in a bartleby adaptation, really funny!
|
|