The Haunting of Hill House [Series]
Dec. 15th, 2018 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yuuagoSo! I finally got around to watching The Haunting of Hill House Netflix series.
A few thoughts, mostly spoiler-free:
If you're looking for an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, you'll have to recalibrate your expectations, because this actually isn't an adaptation. Or rather - it's an adaptation in only the loosest sense. There is a haunted house, and it's referred to as Hill House, and throughout the show there are little bits and bobs calling back to the novel, but they're more like easter eggs than anything else. The show has almost nothing to do with the plot of the novel.
However. It's a pretty good show in its own right! Worth watching if you enjoy horror. Pretty nice visuals, and lots of good scares. Really goes hard with the creepy aesthetic, and if you like the haunted house subgenre, this is definitely one to look at.
I feel like the show does a good job of unwinding the narrative piece by piece, doing it slowly rather than dumping everything on you at once. Since it isn't an actual adaptation of Jackson's novel, it means that those who are familiar with the book, or with the 1963 film adaptation, will have certain impressions of how the narrative is supposed to go, and those predictions won't necessarily be accurate. So, I found it pretty fun to follow the thread of the story and see where it would end up. In a lot of cases, it didn't go where I thought it would.
When I think about it, I'm not disappointed that it's not a straight adaptation. I like Jackson's novel, but I feel like it's the kind of thing that's easier to adapt to film than television; it seems like the sort of story that would be hard to stretch into a series. However, I do have some mixed feelings about using the title and the motifs in this way. As I mentioned, it has almost nothing to do with the original, so it seems kind of misleading to use that title and draw on the novel in the way that it does. It tends to be disappointing when you start watching a series, expecting one thing, and then it turns out to be something else. But then again, if it had a unique/unconnected title and so on, I doubt it would draw as much attention; I mean, I probably wouldn't have even watched it. (Or, well, I would've shoved it on the list of "stuff I will watch some day, maybe" and then never managed to get around to it.)
It does draw directly from the novel in some ways - not in terms of narrative or character, but in terms of quotations and aesthetic callbacks - so I guess it's good to be upfront about where that inspiration is coming from.
Verdict: It was good! Worth watching! Not sure if I would watch it twice, but that's because I'm not really a TV series person. If it's on your to-watch list, consider this a rec. Knowledge of the book not required in order to appreciate it.
For those of you who have seen it, do you have any thoughts on the "not really an adaptation" bit? Or anything else you'd like to say about the series - I'd like to hear that too. :)
A few thoughts, mostly spoiler-free:
If you're looking for an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, you'll have to recalibrate your expectations, because this actually isn't an adaptation. Or rather - it's an adaptation in only the loosest sense. There is a haunted house, and it's referred to as Hill House, and throughout the show there are little bits and bobs calling back to the novel, but they're more like easter eggs than anything else. The show has almost nothing to do with the plot of the novel.
However. It's a pretty good show in its own right! Worth watching if you enjoy horror. Pretty nice visuals, and lots of good scares. Really goes hard with the creepy aesthetic, and if you like the haunted house subgenre, this is definitely one to look at.
I feel like the show does a good job of unwinding the narrative piece by piece, doing it slowly rather than dumping everything on you at once. Since it isn't an actual adaptation of Jackson's novel, it means that those who are familiar with the book, or with the 1963 film adaptation, will have certain impressions of how the narrative is supposed to go, and those predictions won't necessarily be accurate. So, I found it pretty fun to follow the thread of the story and see where it would end up. In a lot of cases, it didn't go where I thought it would.
When I think about it, I'm not disappointed that it's not a straight adaptation. I like Jackson's novel, but I feel like it's the kind of thing that's easier to adapt to film than television; it seems like the sort of story that would be hard to stretch into a series. However, I do have some mixed feelings about using the title and the motifs in this way. As I mentioned, it has almost nothing to do with the original, so it seems kind of misleading to use that title and draw on the novel in the way that it does. It tends to be disappointing when you start watching a series, expecting one thing, and then it turns out to be something else. But then again, if it had a unique/unconnected title and so on, I doubt it would draw as much attention; I mean, I probably wouldn't have even watched it. (Or, well, I would've shoved it on the list of "stuff I will watch some day, maybe" and then never managed to get around to it.)
It does draw directly from the novel in some ways - not in terms of narrative or character, but in terms of quotations and aesthetic callbacks - so I guess it's good to be upfront about where that inspiration is coming from.
Verdict: It was good! Worth watching! Not sure if I would watch it twice, but that's because I'm not really a TV series person. If it's on your to-watch list, consider this a rec. Knowledge of the book not required in order to appreciate it.
For those of you who have seen it, do you have any thoughts on the "not really an adaptation" bit? Or anything else you'd like to say about the series - I'd like to hear that too. :)
Yuu. Fic writer & book lover. M/Canada.