Thursday, September 25, 2014

The Haunting of Hill House - The Project

*Doing an in-depth look at Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House was inspired by Angela's always fascinating Project Disney over at Angela's Anxious Life which in turn was inspired by a similar project at Picture Us Reading

My fascination with Shirley Jackson began 20 years or so ago when my Grandmother bought a biography of the author on a trip we were on.  I had read "The Lottery" in school though I don't think at the time I really got the full impact of the story itself., so the name was familiar to me.  If I remember correctly I had finished all the books I had brought and ended up reading this one and entered into Shirley Jackson's brilliant and tragic life.  In addition to a number of short stories Jackson also has a lighter book about life with her children, Life Among the Savages, that gives you a little peak at Jackson's private life.

But now for The Haunting of Hill House -

It's a short book, less than 200 pages, and really not a lot happens.  The premise is simple.  A professor with an interest in the super-natural decides to do a study to see how a group of people respond to a "genuinely haunted house".  Hill House suits his needs not because of the stories people tell but because no one says anything about it yet for years no one has lived in the house for more than a day or two.  Dr. Montague ends up with 2 subjects.  First there is Eleanor Vance - a woman in her early 30s who has given most of her adult life to caring for her demanding invalid mother and now lives with her demanding sister and sister's husband.  She is desperate for a life, for an adventure, for any taste of happiness.  On the opposite end of the spectrum is Theodora. Theodora of only one name who lives only for happiness, adventure and amusement.   With Dr. Montague and the 2 women is Luke who is a representative of the family who owns Hill House and is basically part gambler, part con-man and all charm.

If you're looking for a true horror book this probably isn't what you're looking for.  There's no overwhelming moments of pure terror.  There's not many scenes that are over the top terror.  What there is is a slow gradual build of fear with a handful of really beautifully make you never ever want to put your hand over the side of the bed creepy scenes thrown in.  This is a book that I always wonder why people say it's so scary and then I realize I'm reading the last 20 pages almost without breathing.  This isn't the book that will have you covering your eyes or trying not to scream.  This is the book that will suddenly jump into your head when you wake up for no reason at 2 in the morning and think that just maybe you heard something in the dark.

If you can get an audio version of this book I highly recommend you do.  While I had read the book before I really didn't get the humor in the book until I listened to the audio version.  I'm not suggesting it suddenly turns into a slapstick but you really get some of Jackson's dry wit coming through in the dialogue when it's read.  I actually giggled a couple of times - especially when Eleanor basically mocks Mrs. Dudley's warnings about no one being able to hear you scream.  The one I listened to was performed by David Warner and while I didn't love how he did the women's voices he did do a beautiful job of balancing sarcasm and fear.

So after the listening and the rereading it was movie time!  There's 2 movie adaptations.  Both called The Haunting.  One is from 1963 and the other from 1999.

IMDb
The Haunting (1963)
The Good:  Of the two movies this holds truer to the book.  We get a lot of Nell's thoughts in voice overs which is more in character with the book.  The creepiness is done right.  It's more about what you can't see than what you can.  I also thought that Russ Tamblyn was fantastic as Luke and loved his references to the property value of the house.  It brought a little of the sly humor that's in the book into the movie.

The Bad:  There was an element of romance played up between Nell and Dr. Markway (as Dr. Montague is in this movie) that jarred.  I could see why it was does from a plot perspective but it was so out of character for both of them that it annoyed me.  I didn't care for the casting of Mrs. Dudley as Rosalie Crutchley.  While Mrs. Dudley has one of the most well known lines in the book/movie I didn't think Rosalie had the necessary dourness to really do justice to them.



IMDb
The Haunting (1999)
The Good: The casting is actually remarkably good.  Catherine Zeta-Jones is as lovely and exotic and maddening as Theodora is supposed to be.  Lili Taylor does a fabulous job as the somewhat plain and worn down Eleanor.  The rather striking and elegant Marian Seldes definitely captures the correct foreboding tone of Mrs. Dudley.  The actual setting of Hill House is good to.  The rooms are over the top uncomfortably large with a plethora of carvings.  The atmosphere is definitely done right.

The Bad:  Then the movie starts actually happening and that's where it goes off the rails a bit.  While the first part isn't particularly awful it isn't particularly interesting either.  I was okay that they changed the premise of why the characters were in the house but the whole plot took a left turn into the rather cliche stuff jumping out of you scares.  Then we lost the road all together and the end bore very little resemblance to the actual book.

The Ugly: The special effects are bad.  Very very bad.  I know that computer animation has come along way since 1999 but this was just bad.  I'm pretty sure the special effects in the 1963 version were better.

Overall:  I'm not sure why Dr. Montague's name was changed in both movies (Markway in 63 and Marrow in 99) but that's not really a big deal.  The 1963 movie is a fun spooky movie and I really enjoyed watching that one.  The 1999 version not so much.  In both movies Hill House itself isn't able to be quite the character that it is in the book so I think you lose a little of the impact of the story. While the 63 movie is definitely enjoyable I think to get the really true feel of the book you should definitely try the audio.

And so Hill House has stood for 80 years and will stand for 80 more.

14 comments:

  1. I really liked this book (although the 1999 movie version mainly just made me irritated) and I LOVE most of Shirley Jackson's short stories. I know pretty much everyone has read The Lottery but she wrote so many more wonderful, lesser-known stories! She was truly a master at crafting deliciously creepy tales!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was definitely brilliant and so much of her work has been overlooked. The 1999 movie was just odd. Rereading this has definitely made want to retry her other books!

      Delete
  2. I had thought this was more in your face horror and am glad it's not. If I read horror books, I tend to prefer the quiet ones like this that kind of creep up on you.Thanks for the great review, Katherine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's definitely not in your face. The creep factor kind of slowly grows on you. If you haven't read it I recommend it though I actually enjoyed the audio more than the book.

      Delete
  3. I saw the earlier movie version on tv when I was very young. I also read The Lottery in school. Those are my only connections to Shirley Jackson's world. I have seen a biography of her around from last year by Susan Morell. I wonder if it is worth reading.

    I love how you did such an in-depth discussion of this title in all its forms. How great and thank you for your effort. It was enjoyable to read about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure about Susan Morell's biography but I think a biography of Shirley Jackson would be really interesting. The woman was brilliant but deeply troubled.
      I highly recommend reading more of Jackson's work. The Lottery is good but not her best!

      Delete
  4. A favorite book of mine and I also did not like the later movie. I need to find the earlier one. Life Among the Savages is great! I need to read it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking the same thing about Life Among the Savages! The later movie is rather awful which is too bad because I think there was some potential for it to be a good movie.

      Delete
  5. Great post, Katherine! I finished the book yesterday and liked it, but didn't love it. Wondering if I should have gone the audio route. Now to watch the movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you would really enjoy the audio JoAnn. I was surprised with how much I liked it and I think it increased my enjoyment of the book itself!

      Delete
  6. You've reviewed one of my favourite books AND talked about one of my favourite movies, too. The 1963 one, of course, by the same guy who directed The Sound of Music. I refuse to acknowledge the remake. Maybe if I pretend hard enough it will go away.

    Wonderful review. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So with you in pretending the 2nd movie doesn't exist! I definitely enjoyed the 1963 version much more and of course the book is great.

      Delete
  7. I'm reading the book now - about halfway through. Eerie, though not scary yet. I've seen the 1999 movie version, and have wondered how it differs from the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The basic bones of the 1999 movie are very similar to the story but then everything gets a bit nuts. I think the book is a little to subtle for more modern movies. I definitely find the book far more eerie and creepy than scary as well. Hope you're enjoying it!

      Delete