This is the sort of ghost story that invites conversation. We happily oblige it.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2018/12/10/qt3-movie-podcast-the-little-stranger/
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2018/12/10/qt3-movie-podcast-the-little-stranger/
Well, I didn’t like this as much as Tom, Kelly, or Mulkowski. But I do agree with Tom on the interpretation.
One problem I have with movies that are, um, ‘languidly paced’, is that my mind wanders and I miss details, or I am not paying enough attention to make connections. Like, I saw the blue ‘s’ scratches in the book, but I didn’t really know what I was looking at. And I totally don’t remember seeing the kid at the top of the stairs.
Like I said in my email, I really enjoyed the setup, and how there was a sense that something terrible was going to happen at any moment. But then something terrible does happen (with the dog), and after that, the tensions is kind of gone. I guessed early on what was happening, so there was no suspense for me. I kept waiting for some explanation, but I guess getting slapped for stealing an acorn is all the explanation we get.
I mean, I like Tom’s take on how class resentment is the motivator, and maybe if I lived in England (in the 1940s) I’d feel the motivation better. But I don’t, so I felt the motivation was kind of weak.
That’s perfectly understandable. It’s certainly not a very relatable movie, and being so slow can’t help. But as I mentioned, I really appreciate when a movie can present a concept or opinion that’s foreign to my own experience, such as the succession crisis in Death of Stalin or the theological horror of The Witch. Like Faraday’s seething desperation over class, those are things that have never been part of my own personal experience, but these movies present the experience at a powerful gut level that only movies can manage.
-Tom
That Kings and Queens age-naming thing is clinging on here - we’re in the new Elizabethan phase at the moment. The new cross-London rail project will be called The Elizabeth Line, Big Ben is the Elizabeth tower etc,
We love to look back while stumbling forward.
CANCEL BREXIT!
It seems like the latest actual named era in the UK had more to do with Thatcher than anyone in whatever castle your royalty rule England from. Buckingham Palace, or Castle Greystoke, or Tottengham Court? Something like that. I’m guessing that’s part of why you guys don’t name your eras after kings and queens anymore. They take back seat to your prime ministers. But, yeah, I suspect years from now, we’re going to look back on this as the Brexit Age. Ewww.
-Tom
Trade you May for Trump and a draft pick.
You can have the lot and I’ll throw in a gold-plated Rolls Royce.
Maybe the reason they don’t name eras after kings and queens anymore is because Elizabeth 2 has been queen for the last 247 years?
After watching this last night, I found an interview with the director. He seems to be non-committal in regards to the supernatural element. At one point, he focuses on the discussion of poltergeists, suggesting the psyche of this lower class child becomes fractured with jealousy and takes up residence in the house. This would seem to support Roderick’s belief that “something in this house hates us.” I was quite satisfied with this take until I listened to the discussion and now I wonder if Tom was correct in his suggestion it was all Farraday scheming, plotting, and murdering.
Either way, the overall story is still great metaphor for class schisms and the effect it can have on both sides. Either interpretation seems perfectly valid to me. I quite enjoyed it.