![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
We Have Always Lived in the Castle
Apr. 30th, 2021 07:52 am“If only we had blackberries,” I mused mournfully, about a third of the way through Stacie Passon’s We Have Always Lived in the Castle. “Blackberries would be the perfect accompaniment for this movie.”
Julie looked at me. “We do have blackberries,” she said, and I paused the movie to achieve the perfect thematic snack.
In We Have Always Lived in the Castle, blackberries serve as a murder weapon. Six years ago, all the other members of Mary Kate (Merricat) and Constance Blackwood’s family were poisoned at dinner by arsenic mixed in with the sugar they sprinkled on the blackberries. Constance was accused of the poisoning, and although she was acquitted at the trial, the experience left her too frightened to leave the property. And with good reason: when Merricat goes to town once a week for supplies, the townsfolk are almost uniformly hostile.
Merricat’s distinctive narration is so central to the book that I wondered how it could be adapted for the screen. In the movie, that narration is limited to brief voiceovers bookending the story, and the result is a movie that is very faithful to the book in its actual events, and yet in some ways very different, simply because it is not so tightly focused on Merricat.
In particular, the movie made me feel for Constance. Merricat adores her older sister, and as far as she’s concerned the height of human happiness would be to live with Constance in the Castle for the rest of their lives, so as far as she’s concerned, Constance’s agoraphobia is the best thing that could have possibly happened.
In the movie, however, seeing Constance without the filter of Merricat’s gaze, we see how this has circumscribed her life: the trial, the notoriety, the fact that every day she has to listen to her uncle (the only survivor of the poisoning) musing over that fatal event, a nightmare she can never escape. (There’s an absolutely wonderful scene where Uncle Julian sweeps a visitor into the dining room where the poisoning occurred. This is in the book, of course, but it gains extra impact to see it in the flesh: Uncle Julian’s gusto, the visitor’s well-bred attempt to conceal her keen interest.)
In the book, Merricat views her cousin Charles’ arrival as an invasion, the entrance of a vile interloper. In the movie, though, you can see why Constance is enchanted by him - not just by him as a person but what he represents, a chance to get away from house that is the stage set for the worst day of her life.
Plus, you know, he’s played by Sebastian Stan, and there’s a scene where he emerges from the bath and has a chat with Constance, a towel around his waist, his chest still glistening from his bath… Sure, you kind of have the feeling he’s bad news, but it’s absolutely understandable that Constance is tempted anyway, because that bad news is offering an escape and it comes in such an attractive package.
( Some spoilers, discussing difference between book and movie )
Julie looked at me. “We do have blackberries,” she said, and I paused the movie to achieve the perfect thematic snack.
In We Have Always Lived in the Castle, blackberries serve as a murder weapon. Six years ago, all the other members of Mary Kate (Merricat) and Constance Blackwood’s family were poisoned at dinner by arsenic mixed in with the sugar they sprinkled on the blackberries. Constance was accused of the poisoning, and although she was acquitted at the trial, the experience left her too frightened to leave the property. And with good reason: when Merricat goes to town once a week for supplies, the townsfolk are almost uniformly hostile.
Merricat’s distinctive narration is so central to the book that I wondered how it could be adapted for the screen. In the movie, that narration is limited to brief voiceovers bookending the story, and the result is a movie that is very faithful to the book in its actual events, and yet in some ways very different, simply because it is not so tightly focused on Merricat.
In particular, the movie made me feel for Constance. Merricat adores her older sister, and as far as she’s concerned the height of human happiness would be to live with Constance in the Castle for the rest of their lives, so as far as she’s concerned, Constance’s agoraphobia is the best thing that could have possibly happened.
In the movie, however, seeing Constance without the filter of Merricat’s gaze, we see how this has circumscribed her life: the trial, the notoriety, the fact that every day she has to listen to her uncle (the only survivor of the poisoning) musing over that fatal event, a nightmare she can never escape. (There’s an absolutely wonderful scene where Uncle Julian sweeps a visitor into the dining room where the poisoning occurred. This is in the book, of course, but it gains extra impact to see it in the flesh: Uncle Julian’s gusto, the visitor’s well-bred attempt to conceal her keen interest.)
In the book, Merricat views her cousin Charles’ arrival as an invasion, the entrance of a vile interloper. In the movie, though, you can see why Constance is enchanted by him - not just by him as a person but what he represents, a chance to get away from house that is the stage set for the worst day of her life.
Plus, you know, he’s played by Sebastian Stan, and there’s a scene where he emerges from the bath and has a chat with Constance, a towel around his waist, his chest still glistening from his bath… Sure, you kind of have the feeling he’s bad news, but it’s absolutely understandable that Constance is tempted anyway, because that bad news is offering an escape and it comes in such an attractive package.
( Some spoilers, discussing difference between book and movie )
