F/F Friday: Wild Nights with Emily
Jul. 24th, 2020 08:04 amDespite my love of Emily Dickinson, I put off watching Wild Nights with Emily because some of the reviews gave me pause. But it came to Kanopy last week, and I’ve got access to Kanopy through my library, so of course I had to watch it, and I’m glad I did because I found it for the most part delightful.
The movie has two main stories. First, there’s the story of Emily Dickinson’s lifelong love affair with her sister-in-law, Sue Dickinson, who married Emily’s brother Austin (the movie argues) in order to remain close to Emily: Sue and Austin build their house right next door to the house where Emily lives, and Emily and Sue wear a path through their backyards sending notes back and forth by means of Sue’s daughter.
Second, there’s the frame story, in which Austin’s mistress Mabel Loomis Todd gives a speech about Emily Dickinson’s work, which Todd edited and arranged for publication after Dickinson’s death, while obscuring her own illicit connection to the family. Why was she over at Emily Dickinson’s house all the time? (To conduct her illicit affair with Austin.) To play piano for the reclusive Emily, of course!
Emily and Sue’s love is the heart of the movie, of course, but I also got a lot of enjoyment out of Mabel’s sections. In this telling, she’s a sort of confidence trickster, always putting herself at the center of Emily’s story and keeping just a step ahead of her marks as they begin to notice puzzling discrepancies in her story. Why was she the only possible editor for Emily’s work if she never even met Emily face to face? Well, uh, because Emily almost never saw anyone face to face! Because she was a reclusive spinster who had never known love!
She’s not a nice person, but it’s exhilarating to watch her spin this spiderweb around her audience. You can see why her story of Emily Dickinson took root, even though in later years Sue’s daughter Martha (who acted as messenger girl for much of Emily and Sue’s correspondence) gave speeches about Emily and Sue’s closeness. Mabel got in first, and moreover, Mabel is a showman. All Martha has is the truth on her side.
I did have a couple of quibbles with the movie. The first is that the actresses playing young Emily and Sue sometimes struggle with the dialogue: they sound a little wooden, an effect which is more noticeable because the actresses for middle-aged Emily and Sue make the 19th century cadences sound so natural.
The other quibble (and this is the reason I hesitated to watch the movie in the first place) is that the movie is so intent on positioning Sue as Emily’s most important, indeed practically sole supporter, that it sometimes gives other people short shrift. This is more noticeable in the portrayal of Helen Hunt Jackson, whom the movie portrays as a rival to Emily, a poet whose conventional verses find easy acceptance in comparison to Emily’s more modern poetry. There’s no hint in the movie of the fact that the real-life Dickinson and Jackson knew each other from school, and Jackson in fact urged Dickinson to publish.
(I’m also not sure if the movie’s portrayal of Emily’s sister Lavinia is accurate, but it is eccentric and hilarious, so it didn’t give me quite the same feeling that they were committing a character assassination.)
But overall, I really enjoyed the movie. More period pieces like this, please!
The movie has two main stories. First, there’s the story of Emily Dickinson’s lifelong love affair with her sister-in-law, Sue Dickinson, who married Emily’s brother Austin (the movie argues) in order to remain close to Emily: Sue and Austin build their house right next door to the house where Emily lives, and Emily and Sue wear a path through their backyards sending notes back and forth by means of Sue’s daughter.
Second, there’s the frame story, in which Austin’s mistress Mabel Loomis Todd gives a speech about Emily Dickinson’s work, which Todd edited and arranged for publication after Dickinson’s death, while obscuring her own illicit connection to the family. Why was she over at Emily Dickinson’s house all the time? (To conduct her illicit affair with Austin.) To play piano for the reclusive Emily, of course!
Emily and Sue’s love is the heart of the movie, of course, but I also got a lot of enjoyment out of Mabel’s sections. In this telling, she’s a sort of confidence trickster, always putting herself at the center of Emily’s story and keeping just a step ahead of her marks as they begin to notice puzzling discrepancies in her story. Why was she the only possible editor for Emily’s work if she never even met Emily face to face? Well, uh, because Emily almost never saw anyone face to face! Because she was a reclusive spinster who had never known love!
She’s not a nice person, but it’s exhilarating to watch her spin this spiderweb around her audience. You can see why her story of Emily Dickinson took root, even though in later years Sue’s daughter Martha (who acted as messenger girl for much of Emily and Sue’s correspondence) gave speeches about Emily and Sue’s closeness. Mabel got in first, and moreover, Mabel is a showman. All Martha has is the truth on her side.
I did have a couple of quibbles with the movie. The first is that the actresses playing young Emily and Sue sometimes struggle with the dialogue: they sound a little wooden, an effect which is more noticeable because the actresses for middle-aged Emily and Sue make the 19th century cadences sound so natural.
The other quibble (and this is the reason I hesitated to watch the movie in the first place) is that the movie is so intent on positioning Sue as Emily’s most important, indeed practically sole supporter, that it sometimes gives other people short shrift. This is more noticeable in the portrayal of Helen Hunt Jackson, whom the movie portrays as a rival to Emily, a poet whose conventional verses find easy acceptance in comparison to Emily’s more modern poetry. There’s no hint in the movie of the fact that the real-life Dickinson and Jackson knew each other from school, and Jackson in fact urged Dickinson to publish.
(I’m also not sure if the movie’s portrayal of Emily’s sister Lavinia is accurate, but it is eccentric and hilarious, so it didn’t give me quite the same feeling that they were committing a character assassination.)
But overall, I really enjoyed the movie. More period pieces like this, please!