#i’m also playing more of the arti campaign i have no idea where i’m going even when i watched playthroughs lmfao | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

spotsupstuff · 1 year

Note

What’s your thoughts on all of the scugs and their campaigns? I’m curious in general, but also wonder about peoples thoughts on the scugs if they dislike the campaign or vice versa

well- i haven't played through all of the scugs yet (haven't touched Riv or Saint at all) so i can't really speak on what i think about the campaigns when it comes to the gameplay itself. ya get me

for Monk: i really like the idea of a really chill campaign even though i don't fucking know why but i managed to have more rage inducing time with Monk than with Surv. i REALLY fuckin love Monk's story though. it's So Fucking Good, i'm such a slut for actions made out of absolute, endless and unquestionable platonic love between siblings (wink wonk at my takes on Moon and Nish). like that one post i wrote about the comparisons between Monk the brother/Surv the sister and Pebbles the brother/Moon the sister? that one line where i was like "he walks across the entire facility grounds of two iterators, dreaming of her, having faith in that she's still around."????? i LOVE IT SO MUCH -punches a wall- imagine you love your sibling so so much that even though they might be dead your faith in their ability to live on is so Fecking Stronk that you are dreaming of them, see them sleep in the corner of a shelter

for Surv: Surv is Surv, it's like trying to live without bread and water. can't say anything negative or really positive about the campaign cuz it's just so intrigated into my head as the Base for everything. just like bread and water, you love and appreciate it silently. can always count on it being there. doesn't mean it gets loved any less just because you don't put the thought of adoration upon it every second. it's just a constant note in the background of your life that offers comfort by its existence

for Hunter: i fucking LOVE... i Have played Hunter only after Spear and Arti though which, as defined by utuber user Ruby Rooz, is cheating (/lh) so i haven't had the same frustrations with the cycle limit like a pre-Downpour player (even though i'm pre-Downpour, i never finished any campaign back then). i had fun just kind of zooming by everything and idk man, NSH is my absolute favorite iterator so everytime i looked at the green neuron i just kind of smiled to myself cuz i kept thinking "he's right here, making the journey with me". Hunter's lore is what first captivated me and made me interested in RW (along with the buddhistic roots of the game's religion)! they introduced us to NSH, explained quite a bit about Moon's current position, what Hunter could mean to Pebbles makes me wanna -Pepe Silvia bit from Always Sunny in Philadelphia-

for Gour: i don't really have much to say about their campaign. i'd put it above Monk gameplay-wise but story-wise underneath them. running around collecting food is nice, i like how it deviates from the previous three in that the iterators basically don't matter at all. the most they matter is eating a neuron and yellin at Pebbles to LET ME OUT LET ME OOOOUUUUUT. it offers a different perspective from what we are used to and i really like when things turn 180° and just walk a completely different path from what is "widely accepted" (honestly a reason why i silently adore Shkika's Innocence so much). in Gour's eyes these godly machines are nothing more than just part of the background. unimportant. just another obsticle. something so important in one part of the world diminished into nothing important. no matter how holy someone thinks a thing is, to someone else it's going to be pointless (and, wonderfully enough, it goes the other way around as well.). Gour's most shining moment story-wise is reached once you think about it deeper and come to realise that what they stand for is a hint of variety of understanding the world. they expand the world very subtly. they make thinking about RW less claustrophobic. other than that i'm just "i just think they are neat" about them. i keep quoting the Ruby Rooz video when i think about Gour too- "who ELSE has the arm of a GOD capable of decimating most of the local fauna with one spear and strongly suggesting to those that it doesn't to promptly LeAVhe." also hot take but the big gamer peeps need to stop bitchin bout the tiredness factor of Gour. good challenge. nice variety. are you allergic to planning? have you not listened to Lyanna Kea, in her skits about Asian moms, telling you to have some Initiative for once in your life? because i am an OVERTHINKER and that one utube short, said in that way of speaking changed my fucking life and now i'm here living to my fullest with the local fatty. jokes on u, speedrunners, i've found joy

for Arti: murder is fun! :) scav tolls are not. :( ability to maim remains superior to everything else in this fuck of a game (affectionate). Garbage Wastes need to be stopped. this is probably my number one fav screen from the entire game (Metropolis kicks ass, the lore reveal in person of at least a Small piece of what it was like to be an Ancient makes me giddy)

for Riv: i recognize a threat to my safety in those eyes. i do not trust them. gameplay experience pending (i'm going to break something while travelling through The Rot, i already know it). the soundtrack Not Your Rain is one of the best fucking things i've ever heard come from a game (high praise) and everything that is happening to Pebbles in Riv's campaign goes right along my morbid angst needs. other than that Riv is also in the "i just think they are neat" category. i wish we could've gotten a clearer hint towards what's up with Riv and what iterator they met

for Spear: the most kickass motherfucker was made by the most fail cringe dumb fuck creature i've ever been forced to bear witness to and i am both perplexed and deeply delighted by this (i wanna square up with Suns so bad i cannot begin to explain how much i wanna kick their ass). Spear's campaign is rn my most fav one because of all the lore drops, so much new canon NSH content, the sheer Worldbuilding, the fact that there's been more iterators shown and that they felt like Normal People... the conversation about SoS betting on lizards, the reveal that NSH was the first one to bring forth slugcats as messangers, the conversations between Secluded Instinct and Wandering Omen are one of my most favorite broadcasts besides NSH's attempts to reach Moon. gameplay-wise, i love that Spear's campaign feels like upgraded Survivor campaign. you are faster now, there's more aggressive enemies, you are on no time limit, you don't have to bother with finding spears, you don't have to bother with Directly Taking A Corpse Into Your Hands and Eating it, you get to eat the fuckin carnivorous plants... -dreamy sigh- what more could one want. the whole lore pearl bringing to Moon was a headache without a stomach storage but that is such a little piece of it that i don't mind. the storyline pearl i could stand because i found it nice that i was forced to adapt to it. Moon's whole superstructure was breath-taking to see and i'm very glad that we got to explore an uninfected iterator while their antigravity and bugzappers didn't work. though it hurt to think about it cuz We Care Moon, i had a lot of fun slugging around her superstructure and using needle ladders to get around- OH YEAH i fuckin LOVE making needle ladders. i also really enjoyed the fact that you can make friends with the scavs like -snaps fingers- this fast thanks to the whole needle production thing. seeing Pebbles get angry like that was awesome. i'll admit that i really admire his anger and this sort of... "justice" seeking (?) he has going on that is heavily influenced by the game's/Ancient's religion. you can fight me on this but Pebbles is the least pathetic character in the entire game besides like Hunter, maybe NSH and Gour. i also got to meet the ugliest scav i've seen in RW so far and i'll prolly never forget the experience because i Just got thru the Underhang to the Wall (my first time going thru Underhang and using the grapple worms, i was dodging having to that for ages) and i was SO pissed and annoyed that i was just about ready to quit the game for that session but then i saw this ugly ass motherfucker just waltzing about and the sheer and sudden Horror and Affront of an Artist i've felt straight up snapped me out of my rage. LIKE GJLKDMKLSD that NEVER happened to me before Suns' design also kinda sorta actually plays into my little silly iterator color coding theory from two years ago which was fun to see! i'll still kick their fuckin ass Garbage Wastes need to be stopped. here are my fav screenies from my Spear playthru

for Saint i'm rn mostly like:

i don't fuckin know what why and how is happening and it feels like such a giant ass steppy from what i had grown used to with the base slugs that even though i'm very stern on myself with being open minded about everything all the time i'm having trouble adjusting to it kgjsalkmklsdgjklsd i don't trust myself with giving a solid verdict until i've beaten Saint myself. i'll prolly talk about it in my "finished the slug!" post when i do get thru 'em

finally rating of the campaigns: Monk - 7/10 Survivor - 8/10 Hunter - 9.5/10 Gourmand - 6.9/10 Artificer - 9/10 Rivulet - TBA Spearmaster - 10/10 Saint - TBA

#Spot says stuff #rw

17 notes · View notes

askamydaily · 5 years

Text

Does it Spark Joy?

There are many ways to get rid of things. But ... where to stash Marie Kondo?

Amy Dickinson

Jan 6, 2019

(Excerpted from my memoir “Strangers Tend to Tell Me Things”)

There is a book that promises a pathway for people to tunnel their way out when they are buried beneath their stuff. It is called the life‐changing magic of tidying up, by Japanese tidying expert Marie Kondo (the title of the book, which is all in lowercase, suggests that upper-case letters themselves are quite untidy).

Flummoxed and feeling overwhelmed by the tide of acquired possessions in which I was drowning, I purchased the book, like millions of other people, and dove into its tidying secrets. The author describes her lonely childhood, when she, at the age of five, first started her campaign to make the world tidier.

As I read this biographical account of her life and the evolution of her extreme tidying technique, it occurred to me that what Marie Kondo was really describing was her own lifelong struggle with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

She describes skipping recess at school, where, instead of playing outside with her peers, she spent her time rearranging the books in her classroom. Garbage bags were her best and constant companions as she tamped down her anxiety by filling them in her quest for tidy perfection. As soon she had perfected her own space (“perfection” is an important concept for her), she moved on to her friends’ rooms and the storage lockers at school. Marie Kondo strikes me as a very strange person. I do not want to be like her. I also do not want to be like the ruthless and tidy monsters who follow her technique and roll their socks and stack their clothes sideways in drawers and who throw so much away.

One useful takeaway for me from this book was the question the author suggests everyone ask themselves when looking to release the grip of

possessions: “Does it spark joy?” Going through my mother’s things, I was able to apply this question, but I was surprised at how often an item sparked not joy but extreme sadness. Finding my mother’s briefcase, placed in a drawer beneath her typewriter, made me light-headed with grief. Both items were tangible reminders of how hard my mother had worked and how important working was to her.

Jane typed her way into college and a career as a professor. During my visits over the years, whenever I saw her leather briefcase full of student papers, I felt tremendous pride in what she had done. I decided

to keep both things, but I also promised myself that I would somehow box and bag my sadness, and that each day I would take at least one box or bag for donation (unlike Marie Kondo, who seems to pitch a lot away, I’m not big on sending things to the land ll).

My old friend Kirk traveled from Maine to help me sell some of my mother’s collection of bureaus, chairs, plant stands, bone-china cups and saucers, pails, baskets, picture frames, and assorted tinware. Kirk and Jane were close friends; the three of us shared a taste and sensibility about things, and we also loved and cherished stuff. He and I often laughed over Jane’s aphorism, “my stuff never lets me down.” (People, she implied, often did.) Kirk helped me to sort, tag, and price items for a yard sale. We had some business at our sale during the day and then left unsold furniture by the side of the road.

In Freeville, you can set something by the side of the road in the morning, and it will be gone by the afternoon.

I had furnished much of my Main Street house with (almost) perfectly good used furniture I’d found roadside.

I liked the idea that my things were landing in others’ homes. But there was one category of my and my mother’s possessions that stumped me: spindly chairs that were broken and couldn’t be repaired and other pieces of furniture that I simply didn’t like but couldn’t seem to part with. This included a small pine chest with a broken bottom drawer that my former husband and I bought at an antique store in 1985.

I had taken this pine chest from house to house as I had moved to London and back, and then around the country with my many moves. The chest had started to develop a burdensome emotional stink. I felt it was too old and fine to give away, leave by the side of the road, or take to the dump. Emily wasn’t interested in having it. I didn’t want to spend money repairing it, and I didn’t want to see it anymore. I wanted to lose it, along with all of my painful associations of early married life with my ex-husband, which the chest seemed to unleash. It most definitely did not spark joy.

My confusion over what to do with the pine chest led to a decision that some people might find distasteful but that worked for me. This is how I dealt with the never-ending suck of continuously rearranging the broken deck chairs on my emotional Titanic:

I decided to burn some shit in the yard.

I live in a place where many people heat their homes with wood, so out- door burning is an acceptable practice. I looked up the local statute and learned that in Freeville, burning is permitted but must be confined to a fire pit. Coincidentally, our daughter Clare had given me a small portable metal fire pit for Christmas. I decided that I would start the New Year with a personal burn.

New Year’s Day was cold and snowy. Perfect. I wanted my burn to be at a time when my neighbors’ windows would be closed so the smoke didn’t bother anyone. I started the fire with a tiny bit of newspaper (featuring my advice column—I liked that symbolism) and a twig-style plant stand that had started life as a tripod but was now a bipod.

I watched the plant stand go up in smoke until it was no more. Knowing that it wouldn’t languish in the dump or outside a hoarder’s trailer made me feel good. I moved on to my mother’s collection of broken chairs. One by one, I fed them into the flames and stood in the snow, enjoying both the heat from the flame and the feeling of lightness that accompanied it. Soon enough I started to feel a Marie Kondo–like need to rid myself of other things.

Throughout the winter, I conducted burns—of broken bookshelves and two-legged stools, sprung baskets, the stripped frames of once-wicker tables, and a heavy twig-style porch chair that I had given to my mother but was so uncomfortable to sit on it actually inspired contempt.

Yes—I burned the small pine chest. I burned extra copies of the programs from my mother’s funeral, along with the cardboard box they came in. I burned duplicate photographs of arty still lifes that I had taken in college and copies of Farm Life magazine from the 1950s.

When I was done, I spread the ashes on the winter-dormant bed of my mother’s back garden. I was free. I was tempted to also burn Marie Kondo’s book, but even I cannot burn a book. Instead, I donated it to the library’s book sale. I imagine the book changing hands and continuing to inspire or disgust people until it, too, lands in a garbage bag and is finally discarded forever by someone for whom it does not spark joy.

#Ask Amy #Amy Dickinson #Marie Kondo #Does It Spark Joy #The lifechanging magic of tidying up #cleaning #clutter

49 notes · View notes

evenstevensranked · 7 years

Text

#32: Season 1, Episode 7 - “Foodzilla”

Louis convinces Ren to let him do a live news segment on the school lunch lady for the Wombat Report. Unfortunately, his inability to be serious turns the story into a fiasco -- ultimately causing the lunch lady to quit her job.

The episode opens with Louis and Ren walking home from school. He’s nagging her and asking “please?!” over and over. This is obviously setting us up to wonder what the heck he’s asking for. Side note: I love how even though I know they filmed the interior shots of the house on a set, I STILL like to think they used the real house from time to time, lol. This is another one of those instances. They’re walking out and about in the real world, up until they reach their front door. You can’t tell if they’re still outside or if they’ve captured great artificial “natural” light. Gahhh. You can also hear legitimate sounding wind and cars driving by, which is either great sound editing or... ya know, they were actually at the house. In which case.. IT TOTALLY IS THE SAME INSIDE!

Yeah, this is definitely (probably) my wishful thinking talking tbh. The more I stare at these images the more it looks like a set with bright lights... But still.

Anyway, nerd analyzation aside... Turns out Louis desperately wants to host a segment on the premiere installment of the Wombat Report, which Ren is in charge of. He says that he could make her a comic masterpiece, which is where Ren immediately shuts any prospect down. Naturally, she absolutely will not allow it because she thinks Louis is incapable of taking anything seriously. I don’t blame her. If only she could lighten up, though.. Louis probably could’ve delivered something great, hilarious and take it seriously. I would’ve loved to see that, tbh.

Literally a million scenes/lines from this episode were used in Disney Channel promos for the show. Including “You think I need to shave my pits?” “I rest my case.” which happens around this point of the episode.

Louis heads out to the backyard, where Eileen is attempting to do Tai-Chi. The only problem is that she can’t find the right music to help her relax. Louis confides in her about the Wombat Report situation, and she tells him if he really wants to do it, the only option is to take it seriously and present Ren with a professional idea. She invites Louis to try exercising with her “Do this with me! It’s called: Golden Chicken Stands on One Leg.” Louis gives up right away and says:

So freaking good. Louis Stevens is all of us.

Eileen eventually looks though Ren’s CD collection for better relaxation tunes and chooses Limp Bizkit. Oh my god. “The Limp Biscuits. That sounds relaxing” she says. bahaha I can’t.

The next day at school, Louis tries to figure out a good idea for a story and goes to Twitty and Tawny for help at lunch. Twitty suggests that he do a behind the scenes look at his band, The Alan Twitty Project! Ahhhh! This is the first ever hint at the band arc! :D He also says that his lead singer has mono. The number one sickness mentioned on teen shows that literally no one I’ve ever known in real life has contracted. We get another one of those lines used in promos here: Louis: “You think I’m just some goofball who can’t be serious?” Twitty and Tawny: “...........yeah.”

Right about now is when Louis gets the bright idea to do his story on the school lunch lady.. played by Wendy Worthington who’s been in a zillion things you’ve probably seen. Including “Tower of Terror” -- the single most horrifying movie to ever air on Disney Channel. (Well, except for “Don’t Look Under The Bed.”) There’s a decapitated corpse and doll in the film. Just sayin.

She’s honestly really good at playing a creepy lady, I guess. Also, the little girl is Morgan from Boy Meets World... which instead of a direct parallel, you could consider a 6 degrees of separation deal between this show and BMW. I mean, that’s kinda reaching... but.

Just for the laughs, here’s me on the ride at Disney World. I was... well, terrified of it, but oddly obsessed at the same time. Also, that is my uncle laughing at me to my right.

Louis presents Ren with a rough draft of his report “The Lunch Lady: Life Behind The Hairnet” which seems extremely promising. Ren thinks so too, and allows him to do the segment. We sort of get mirror talk that night... but not really. It’s just Louis practicing various ways to act on air -- another bit used in promos.

Okay, we’ve finally reached the debut of The Wombat Report! For some reason Ren can’t correctly pronounce “Wombat Report” and says “Wombat Waport” I never understood this until I asked my mother for confirmation today. Louis refers to her as “Bawa” (a.k.a Barbara Walters) at one point, so I always assumed this was a reference to her or something... turns out my assumption was correct. I apologize for being an uncultured swine.

They start off with a “Coming up...” intro that features a character named DaNica Henderson (played by Alexis Lopez from The Luck Of the Irish, whose sister is Bianca Lopez a.k.a Mandy “Always Gets Her Man” Sanchez! Holy crap!) To quote Season 3 Louis:

DaNica says “Ever wonder what happens to the fines you pay on overdue library books? I have a shocking report.” And the camera zooms out to reveal a fancy sports car in the librarian’s parking spot:

Like, wth?! lol. Imagine if the librarian saved up enough piddly overdue fines to buy a freaking lambo or something?! omg. What’s funnier is that I’m picturing the stereotypical, old lady librarian driving around in that car.

They segue to a sports report by the underused Artie Ryan. Yesssss. He’s interviewing Twitty about a recent basketball game. This scene cuts to Louis, who’s on next, telling Tom (who of course is the AV guy/cameraman) that he’s just gonna wing the interview with the lunch lady. Not good. When it cuts back to Artie’s segment, we get another one of those backends to a random sentence from Twitty: “...Let’s just say it’s the last time I played without a cup.” Oh my god. Chill, Disney. Twitty takes this on-air opportunity to say that his band is looking for a bassist. Artie leans in like “Hey! I play bass!” lol. This is so great because Artie goes on to join The Alan Twitty Project/Twitty-Stevens Connection! Again, very cool to see the band arc starting to form. Gotta love solid continuity.

It’s time for Louis’ report and, well... this is just one of those absolutely iconic scenes ya gotta embed:

youtube

“It’s FOODZILLA! Tokyo is dooooomed!” (At least, I think that’s what he’s saying.)

..........as you can see, Louis started off his live-streamed interview sort of okay? And then it all just went down in flames pretty quickly. Only Louis Stevens could take an interview from a simple question, to a full out food war between the news crew and the Lunch Lady. It’s actually pretty hilarious, but you just cannot help but cringe at the fact Louis f’d up… again -- Much like his meltdown in Wild Child. But, I’m ranking this disaster higher because I find it less horrible than tarnishing the name of his own family and jeopardizing Eileen’s campaign on television. It’s a lil less cringy than that, which makes it funnier. I love how he shouts “MAN DOWN! I’ll try to get’cha out! I’ll try to get’cha!” as if they’re literally at war, which is too much lol.. and also predicted Shia’s future...? (Again, I’m reaching, but STILL.) That ending shot scene of Ren fuming with anger was also used for promos. Actually, you can just check out this promo video I posted recently to see every moment I’ve mentioned so far and then some.

To Ren’s surprise, everyone (including Principal Wexler for whatever reason) loved Louis’ segment and thought it was hilarious. DaNica refers to it as “phat” which definitely dates the show, lol. Just like that, Ren switches gears and tells Louis to prepare another segment. Wow. Unfortunately, at lunch that day.. all the kids start taunting the lunch lady by screaming “FOODZILLA!” at her. This one kid was the first one to shout it, and I always thought he was Khleo Thomas (Zero from Holes) lol:

The lunch lady is obviously mortified and runs away into the kitchen. :( Louis and Ren feel incredibly remorseful. When they get home from school, they tell Eileen everything and she forces them to go to the lunch lady’s house and apologize. (This is also the “You are a horrible little person” bit. As seen in that darn promo I linked.)

They go to her house later that night, and she reluctantly invites them in. We learn that her name is Elsa Schotz, and she “shows them who she really is” by yodeling for them. I don’t know how that’s supposed to reveal her true colors, but ok. We find out that she came over on a boat from Europe to become a professional yodeler, but sadly no one cares about yodeling in America — which is most definitely extremely factual. Have you ever heard a Top 40 yodeling hit? Honestly, why would ANYONE travel to America of all countries to pursue a yodeling career? She was already in Europe! That seems like something you’d go to Germany or Switzerland for??? I feel like this is a career endeavor you’d research where it’s most lucrative before moving to another country? Anyway, once she found out that yodeling work literally does not exist in the US, she started cooking at the school for money. But, now she’s depressed because she’s being made fun of.

This information somehow leads to Louis and Ren giving her a makeover??? I never realized it before, but that almost makes no sense? The kids at school weren’t making fun of her for the way she looks, but rather, because of her crazy outburst. I’d be so insulted and confused if I were Elsa. Is the makeover just a way to... somehow distract from the Foodzilla thing? Idk. She forgives them in the end though and her new-look gives her a confidence boost.

Where’d they get that outfit? Did she just happen to have something snazzy like that in the back of her closet? or did they seriously glamify her uniform?

They were pumped for the kids at school to see the “new and improved” Elsa Schotz, but she doesn’t show up the next day. Turns out she struck up a relationship with the school janitor and they eloped to Las Vegas to get married. Still a better love story than Twilight.

And that’s pretty much it! The short return after the last commercial break is Louis yodeling for Eileen while she does her Tai-Chi.

This episode remains super memorable. Probably because how many freaking scenes they used on commercials! It also aired a lot as well. Like, wow. But other than the actual Foodzilla scene, the rest of the episode is just a little bland and slightly random at times haha. It’s still good though. It’s nice to see Louis and Ren work together to help Elsa in the end.

Thoughts?

Twitter | Facebook | Instagram

#rank #even stevens #louis stevens #shia labeouf #disney channel #old disney #nostalgia #old school disney #ren stevens #christy carlson romano #wendy worthington #foodzilla #season 1 #band arc #the twitty stevens connection #the alan twitty project #artie ryan

3 notes · View notes

latestnews2018-blog · 6 years

Text

The Director Of 'Room' Returns With Another Stylish Adaptation. Is Anyone Paying Attention?

New Post has been published on https://latestnews2018.com/the-director-of-room-returns-with-another-stylish-adaptation-is-anyone-paying-attention/

The Director Of 'Room' Returns With Another Stylish Adaptation. Is Anyone Paying Attention?

A high-profile Oscar nomination should, in theory, guarantee immediate good fortune, assuming that person chooses his or her next projects wisely.

Lenny Abrahamson, who made the Best Director nominee roster for 2015’s “Room,” seems to have done all the right things. His next act, “The Little Stranger,” opening Friday, is an adaptation of a well-received 2009 novel by Sarah Waters that put its own spin on the Southern Gothic horror tradition ― just the sort of thing that could lure genre faithfuls and arty cinephiles alike.

Despite Abrahamson’s Oscar foray and the popularity of Waters’ novel, the marketing behind “The Little Stranger” has felt muted at a time when non-franchise movies can’t afford to slacken their advertising crusades. Making matters more precarious, the film is opening in something of a death slot: The end of August misses out on both the summer blockbuster wave and the glitz of the upcoming awards season.

To go from headlining the Oscar derby to crossing your fingers in hopes that people will pay attention to your work sounds defeating. But when I talked to Abrahamson, he was relentlessly Zen. Maybe it’s his cheery Irish lilt, which lends every sentence an air of optimism. Or maybe the film industry’s fickleness is old hat for Abrahamson, who broke through a few years back with the small, eclectic indies “What Richard Did” and “Frank.”

“The Little Stranger” reunites him with Domhnall Gleeson, who played a wannabe musician in “Frank.” Here, Gleeson is Faraday, a doctor in 1940s England treating a family whose decaying 18th-century mansion creaks and leaks in all the wrong places. The house’s odd, ghostly occurrences require the bulk of Faraday’s attention, and he is steadily drawn into a mystery that evokes shades of his own childhood. Co-starring Ruth Wilson, Charlotte Rampling and Will Poulter, “The Little Stranger” is more of a psychodrama than an outright horror show ― and were it released a month later, Abrahamson might have seen his name again featured in Oscar prognostications.

I asked him about that and about one major change he made to Waters’ novel.

Let’s start at the end of the “Room” experience, by which point you’d made off with an Oscar nomination. We like to think of doors swinging open in the aftermath.

Carpets being rolled out.

Yes. Given the popularity of the novel, was the “Room” experience what you anticipated it would be?

No, it was more intense than I thought it would be. People had told me, with an Oscar campaign, “Oh, don’t forget to eat” and “You’re going to be absolutely exhausted.” Someone said, “Are you thinking about moving the family out to LA?” I said, “What are you talking about?”

But it is just absolutely full-on for six months. I was pretty much traveling for six months, with the occasional trip home to see everybody and then back. Before that, I’d never had a film in that conversation, so I didn’t quite know how it operated. And then it’s very intense because, much as you might like to think you won’t get obsessed with it, you’re so embedded in that world.

“It” being who’s up, who’s down, might you win, might you not, might you be nominated, might you not. And you think, “I’m not that sort of person. I’m above that.” And yet we all are affected by the environments we’re in, and it’s impossible to resist the big pressures in culture. Globally, in terms of what society you live in, you think your thoughts are all your own, but very little of what you think is actually yours. That’s something I always think about. But when you’re in such a pressure cooker like that campaign, it becomes your life for that period of time.

So I was surprised about how involved in it I got. You’re looking up [prediction site] Gold Derby, and you’re like, “I can’t fucking believe I’m looking at Gold Derby. Who am I?” [Laughs]

Paul Bruinooge via Getty Images

Ruth Wilson, Lenny Abrahamson and Domhnall Gleeson at the “Little Stranger” premiere in New York on Aug. 16, 2018.

We shouldn’t believe anyone in Hollywood who says they aren’t invested in their own Oscar odds.

At the end, actually, it was a funny thing, because you’re spat out of the other end, back into civilian life. It takes a little while to remember: “What am I doing this for? Why am I doing it? What do I really want out of it?” And that question becomes sharper when you’ve had success like that because the possibilities are suddenly much greater, so you can sit at home as a fledgling filmmaker going, “Would I do a big movie if I was offered it? Or would I say I would never do a big studio movie?” It’s very easy to refuse something that has not been offered to you.

When you come out the other side of a film like “Room,” which catches a wave, you really do have to sit down and think about what it is you really do want to do. Other people will have views as well, and certainly doors absolutely opened. They opened throughout the process. Scripts came. I got to read everything, and I still do, which is great.

But that little naggy voice has always been the one that eventually I’ve listened to and why I’ve made the odd choices I’ve made in the films that I’ve chosen to do. I’ve never been strategic. It’s always been like, “Oh, I want to do that because I want to do it.”

What was the appeal of “The Little Stranger”?

“The Little Stranger” had been sitting there for quite a while. I’d been working on it way before “Room,” and I’d read the novel before “Frank” and “What Richard Did” — way back. And I’d really been obsessed with it as an idea and a piece of writing. I came out of the other side of a successful literary adaptation really not wanting to do another one. But we — myself and Lucinda Coxon, the great screenwriter behind it, and the producers — had been working on it. They waited for me through “Room,” and I thought, “I still really want to do this, and if I don’t do it now, other stuff will take over and I won’t get back to it.”

I just ultimately did it because I really, really love it. I know it’s an odd choice in a way, but I don’t know what good thing isn’t an odd choice.

Were you offered a big studio movie?

Nobody came and said, “We want you to do the next ‘Star Wars’ or something like that.” But I certainly read lots of big, meaty things. I don’t really want to do that stuff. I saw somebody was doing a list of who Marvel’s going to tap in the next five years, and I found my name on those lists. And it just makes me laugh because I can’t imagine doing it. But it wasn’t like anybody came and said, “We’re going to pay you loads of millions of dollars to do this,” and I said, “Away with you.” But I think I probably would have said, “Away with you.”

I was asked by my agents, “Do you want to put your name in the hat for X, Y and Z?” And I said no. And it wasn’t a difficult decision to make. It wasn’t, like, deeply courageous, with me going, “Oh, I desperately want to, but I feel it’s wrong.” I just know what I’m into. And it tends to be the case that the people who do things well are the people who love those things. I always laugh when art-house filmmakers say, “I want to make a popular movie. I’m sick of not making any money and living in obscurity.” You think, “It’s not easy to do those films. It’s really hard.” And there are people out there who have lived and breathed that stuff since they were kids, so they’re always going to be better.

But I did read lots of stuff. I could look at some films and say, “Well, that could be in the conversation for awards.” But it was time to make “The Little Stranger,” and that’s what I chose to do.

Focus Features

Charlotte Rampling in “The Little Stranger.”

What’s the biggest thing you turned down?

I can’t really say, but there were projects where I was talking to friends and saying, “I can’t believe I’m saying no to this.” Listen, I’m not a saint. Had something come in that I was profoundly compelled by more than anything else, I would have done it. So the things I turned down, even though they were juicy and delicious and big in the independent world, just didn’t feel right for me. So I didn’t have any soul-searching moments.

And I never do that thing where you go, “I could have done that,” because it’s a shitty thing to do. You didn’t do it and you might have fucked it up. When it’s gone, it’s gone, and I don’t think about it anymore. And there also isn’t a lot of magnificently great stuff out there. Any filmmaker will tell you that.

Did “Room” make as much money as you thought it would?

I don’t know. It did do pretty well. It made way more money than it would have made had it not gotten into the Oscar conversation and won a [Best Actress] Oscar for Brie Larson.

Even though it was based on a celebrated novel?

The novel was really helpful as well. But it’s still hard to get people into a cinema for a film they know is about a kid and a mother in that situation. Much as [film distributors] A24 are incredible marketeers, it’s still hard to persuade people to do that. But a lot of people did go see it around the world and continue to watch it. It will have a long and happy life. It’s a really tough market to get challenging stuff seen.

That’s a perfect segue to “The Little Stranger.” On the surface, the movie has familiar genre elements, specifically in the supernatural horror realm. But it really isn’t as familiar as it might seem. Maybe that’s a marketer’s dream. You can dupe people into thinking it’s a more conventional movie than it is. We’ve seen a handful of arty horror titles do that lately.

I think it’s a risky strategy. I’ve gotten on extremely well with Focus Features [the studio releasing “Stranger”] and I had final cut on the film, so the film is the film I wanted to make. But no director has charge over the marketing. They’ve made a decision as to how they go out there. They haven’t gone full horror in the marketing, and I think that’s very wise of them.

But at the same time, it’s extremely difficult to make a trailer for this film and not have people expect more jump scares than they’re going to get, short of going for a festival release and a slow build where the word about what the film is like is the first thing to hit people. When you go out wider, which is what they’re doing, the worry is that you get a lot of people going, “Hang on a second, that’s not a horror film.” Much as you’ve hoped in the trailer to somewhat soften those expectations, it remains to be seen whether that strategy is correct or whether we should have gone for a slow build. But that’s easy for me to say. I don’t have the pressure of making that decision.

I like the festival route. It’s a filmmaker-friendly route, and you tend to be reviewed by the more sophisticated reviewers first. That sets a precedent. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this film, whether audiences go, “Wow, that took me on a journey I wasn’t expecting, hurrah,” or whether they go, “I wish it was a bit more scary and a bit more gory.” I don’t know.

The marketing is one end of it, but it’s also opening on a weekend that’s always precarious for movies. The end of August is not always the most advantageous time to make a splash at the box office, at least not in America.

I feel the same. Why do you think that happens? I’m interested to know what it feels like from the outside. It’s a hard weekend because people are on holiday?

The deluge of summer blockbusters has tapered off, but we’re not quite into the prestige of Oscar season and the festival circuit yet. So those last couple of weekends in August don’t have much of an identity. You can’t hang your movie on any particular trend or M.O.

So I’ll tell you what [the studio] would say, because we’ve had these conversations. I think they would say they have had success with films in this very slot, that they’re trying to break away from the gridlock of post-festival awards season, which seems like an artificially crowded time. It’s gotten crazier and crazier. And I buy that because I saw how hard it was with “Room.” We did get it through, but it was so hard.

I think what they feel is this is a weekend where the film can have something of its own space. If it were me, what I would argue for would be either a small release post-festival or possibly an early 2019 release, just after the madness. So we’ll know in a couple of weeks. But also, a distributor’s idea of what success is and a filmmaker’s idea are different. I want people to appreciate the film that I’ve made, and I want its audience to find it.

Whether that audience is large or small.

Whether that audience is large or small. But it’s a big enough film, this one. Although I was always super clear about what I was making: “This is going to be a hybrid. It’s going to look like one of my films.”

The thing I find that’s kind of tantalizing is I do think there’s a sizable audience for the film, but messaging it correctly to get to them is the tricky part. It would almost be easier if there were no ghost story. You would talk about this film differently. But once you add that little dimension, it’s a huge gravitational pull. As soon as you mention that genre, it’s there.

People assume it will be a crowd-pleaser type.

Even though you had final cut on the movie, when you showed it to the studio, did you feel like they appreciated what you showed them?

I think it varied depending on who saw it. As human beings, they all had different tastes and different reactions. People recognized the quality of the film and were very supportive of that. I think if they could wave a magic wand and add just 15 percent more genre, they wouldn’t be able to resist. Having said that, they’ve been extremely supportive of what I’ve done.

Jeff Vespa via Getty Images

“Room” stars Jacob Tremblay and Brie Larson and director Lenny Abrahamson attend the Palm Springs International Film Festival Awards Gala on Jan. 2, 2016.

The festival circuit provides the word-of-mouth rollout we were talking about, as well as a portal into the Oscar conversation. Slotting it right before that comes with the implication that this is not an Oscar movie. With just a couple of weeks’ difference, you’d automatically get shoved into the awards derby, even if nothing comes of it. Coming off of “Room,” what did you make of being sent the message that you’re not quite right for Oscar contention this time?

I mean, listen. Do I think it’s an obvious Oscar film? I don’t think it is. And I never thought it was, even when I was making it. So that itself doesn’t bother me, and I do think it’s kind of silly how we have created this system. It’s nobody’s doing — it’s just the way it evolves when you’ve got such a powerful thing as the Oscars. Everybody feels that’s a mechanism to get more challenging films before a real audience.

It’s like the equivalent of boxing being a way out of tough communities. That’s your shot. For smaller, more challenging films, that’s your little catapult. But it’s so attractive that you end up with this huge glut of films in one place. I think something’s going to change, I really do. The Oscars are in a funny space at the moment.

Clearly, with this new popular-movie Oscar.

Hmm, yeah. Let’s not even get into that.

Let’s talk about one big detail in your version of “The Little Stranger.” Because the book is told exclusively through Faraday’s perspective, it ends far more ambiguously than the movie.

Yeah, that’s true. What we did with the movie — and not because I wanted to make it easier, but because it felt more satisfying in film terms — was to put the pieces of the puzzle all there. The film does incline you towards a certain interpretation, probably more than the novel.

I would argue the movie isn’t really ambiguous at all, even though it has a certain haziness to how everything comes together. Why’d you chose to go that route?

I had a very strong feeling about what it was in the novel, but I know people have been very uncertain. And Sarah [Waters] herself said she was surprised that it was considered as ambiguous as it was. We also shifted the emphasis a little bit with that last shot. There’s something very powerful in the idea of looking at someone both as the person they are and as the child they were. The film allows you to maintain the tension between those two entities.

In our lives, those two things are deeply mixed up. Maybe it’s the odd moments in therapy, when you suddenly go, “Oh my God, that’s why I behave like that. That’s the unresolved shit that’s caused all this trauma and trouble.” Faraday doesn’t have that insight into himself, but we allow the audience to feel the tension between that rather damaged and longing and baffled child and the lost, unloved character that we meet as an adult. That, for me, is the emotional center of the novel, but we want to make it explicit in an image at the end in a way that isn’t there in the novel.

What was Sarah’s reaction to that?

She sent me the loveliest email after she’d seen it and said she absolutely loved the end. I just saw something released on social media, which is a quote from her, and it’s really positive. I know her as a person — she’s not someone who would just say that. She genuinely feels, I think, that the novel and the film are the same thing, but the film does its work in a slightly different way.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

0 notes