We Have Always Lived in the Castle
Apr. 30th, 2021 07:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archer“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.
In the book, the threat of violence against the girls is implicitly present, but never fully materializes. Even when the townfolk invade their home, the girls escape unscathed and untouched, and hide out safe in the forest till the invaders have gone. Afterward, Cousin Charles (revealed as a money-grubbing relation, who tried to break into their safe during the melee) wheedles for Constance to let him in; but the girls giggle together, safe in their kitchen stronghold, and eventually he gives up and leaves.
In the movie, the threat is realized. They are roughed up by the townsfolk (including an old beau of Constance’s) before they make their escape to the woods, and Cousin Charles, not content with knocking, actually breaks down the door and attacks Constance, only to receive his comeuppance when Merricat bashes his head in with a teapot.
In a way these are only cosmetic changes. The change that really puts a different twist on the story is the suggestion, absent in the book, that the family did something to deserve being poisoned by Merricat. Constance thanks Merricat - she says something along the lines of “You knew how horrible Father was to me,” in a way that suggests sexual abuse, although that’s open to interpretation.
In the book, Merricat comes across as rather fae - otherworldly, unbound by morals, willing to do whatever it takes to keep Constance in the Castle with her. Merricat in the movie seems also somewhat otherworldly, but ultimately it’s the otherworldliness of an avenging angel, who does whatever it takes to protect her sister.
In some ways I think that’s a less gutsy choice than the original novel: one of the things that gives Jackson her staying power is her refusal to accede to the comforting fiction that there is any kind of rhyme or reason to the bad things that happen. But although Passon’s movie is telling basically a different story than Jackson’s, in the end I I enjoyed it just as much, although for different reasons. I do like a good vengeance.
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.
In the book, the threat of violence against the girls is implicitly present, but never fully materializes. Even when the townfolk invade their home, the girls escape unscathed and untouched, and hide out safe in the forest till the invaders have gone. Afterward, Cousin Charles (revealed as a money-grubbing relation, who tried to break into their safe during the melee) wheedles for Constance to let him in; but the girls giggle together, safe in their kitchen stronghold, and eventually he gives up and leaves.
In the movie, the threat is realized. They are roughed up by the townsfolk (including an old beau of Constance’s) before they make their escape to the woods, and Cousin Charles, not content with knocking, actually breaks down the door and attacks Constance, only to receive his comeuppance when Merricat bashes his head in with a teapot.
In a way these are only cosmetic changes. The change that really puts a different twist on the story is the suggestion, absent in the book, that the family did something to deserve being poisoned by Merricat. Constance thanks Merricat - she says something along the lines of “You knew how horrible Father was to me,” in a way that suggests sexual abuse, although that’s open to interpretation.
In the book, Merricat comes across as rather fae - otherworldly, unbound by morals, willing to do whatever it takes to keep Constance in the Castle with her. Merricat in the movie seems also somewhat otherworldly, but ultimately it’s the otherworldliness of an avenging angel, who does whatever it takes to protect her sister.
In some ways I think that’s a less gutsy choice than the original novel: one of the things that gives Jackson her staying power is her refusal to accede to the comforting fiction that there is any kind of rhyme or reason to the bad things that happen. But although Passon’s movie is telling basically a different story than Jackson’s, in the end I I enjoyed it just as much, although for different reasons. I do like a good vengeance.
no subject
Date: 2021-04-30 12:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-05-02 04:52 pm (UTC)In the movie, although Merricat's actions also damaged Constance, she did have genuinely protective motives: their parents were evil, Cousin Charles is violent. So the ending is not quite as "I can see that this ending is happy for YOU but OH BOY is it not happy for anyone else!"
no subject
Date: 2021-04-30 02:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-05-02 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-04-30 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-05-02 04:41 pm (UTC)Of course in a way we know why Merricat did it (she wanted Constance all to herself forever), but that explanation doesn't feel sufficient.
It seems to be very difficult to keep that level of uncertainty going for a whole book or movie - even for a creator who is working from Jackson's template; there's an ominous pull toward explanations.