Wild Nights with Emily

Wild Nights With Emily (2018)

It was like an episode of 'Drunk History' (2013-9).

An awful Americanised period comedy, like a hammed up version of 'Murdoch Mysteries' (2008-) which has always been crazy cheesey anyway.

The timeline jumped all over the place and Molly Shannon showed the diversity that she has always had, that is to say, none.

It was based on the Writer/Directors one woman show and I think that there was too much comedy stage show left in it and not enough time spent converting it to a suitable format for film.

I couldn't get further than the first advert break, because it was just dull, patronising and silly all at the same time. I've seen better, more informative things from the five minute skits on 'Morecambe & Wise'. They were actually funny too!

Unscored as unfinished.

After watching this irreverent yet sincere tribute to poet Emily Dickinson, I had the urge to revisit Julie Harris in "The Belle of Amherst". Call me Old School, but I vastly prefer serious filmmaking to the facetiousness of this feature-length SNL sketch approach.

Certainly SNL alumna Molly Shannon as Emily and Susan Ziegler as her sister-in-law, who share the love that dare not say its name in this version of the Dickinsons story give amusing and often moving performances, but the film has no consistent style or tone, and the male characters are predictably straw men mocked for the self-centered Male Superiority attitudes. Even the movie's unreliable narrator, Mabel (Emily's posthumous editor), well-played by Amy Seimetz, is written with such a heavy hand by filmmaker Madeleine Olnek as to lose substance.

Set in 3 different time frames: 1860 for the main story, 1840 for the young Emily and Susan played by disconcertingly lovely actresses Dana Melanie and Sasha Frolova, and Mabel's current era after Emily's death, wherein she pontificates to packed audiences inflating her role in championing Dickinson's career, the movie unfolds in disconnected scenes, many of which might easily have been dropped for sheer dullness, and a couple of which (surreal in nature) clash with the matter-of-fact overall style. Unlike the usual exaggerated beauty of period movies, typified by everything from Merchant-Ivory classics to Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon", Olnek presents the show as if in a low-budget amateur dress-up production representing 2019.

Use of poetry on screen in subtitles as it is recited (and sometimes by itself) recalls Jim Jarmusch's recent use of same in "Paterson", a techinque I found artificial and forced, just as it seems here too.

If you're looking for a serious historical drama featuring stories from the life of Emily Dickinson, this is not your movie.

Instead, this is an ideal movie for those who love Emily and want to both laugh at some silly/comical interactions and learn about a side of Emily not as commonly known.

It plays a little like an episode of Drunk History, so go in with that expectation. If you accept it as that, you will walk away with a real appreciation for Molly Shannon's talent and a new appreciation for Emily Dickinson.

Starring... molly shannon, susan ziegler as emily dickinson and susan gilbert. Beautiful poetry, written as sonnets to "someone", with the name removed at some point. This version of dickinson's life and loves is much more blatant, with kissing and physical closeness occurring on camera. And a brief appearance by "kate", who stays with emily, making susan jealous. Although the character of kate doesn't appear in davies' film quiet passion. Susan would later marry emily's brother austin, ostensibly so they could be close. Cards at the end tell us that susan's daughter would write a book, confirming the truths and loves of emily's dickinson. Written and directed by madeleine olnek. This seems to have started as a play, performed in several houses around the country, according to wikipedia. It's well done, although a little confusing, with the frequent shifting back and forth in time. Mostly good!

On the positive side, there was some interesting information about Dickenson's poetry being "cleaned up" after her death, to blot out things that might suggest "Unnatural Passions". And the secondary leads, Amy Ziegler as the beloved sister in law Susan and Amy Seimetz as the scheming Mabel, were very well acted and created three dimensional characters.

On the negative side, this simply did not work at all as a movie. Going from a play to a movie is often difficult -- think how many times the late great Robert Altman tried it and consistently failed. The characters were inconsistent; the dialog was often stilted and unnatural; the attempts to liven up the poems were appalling. The humor was all over the place, and even when the humor was successfully funny, it seemed out of place.

Molly Shannon as Emily did best when doing funny non-reactions to the universally buffoonish men in the movie. For most other emotions, she did not get them across to me, I'm sorry to say, since I've liked her in the past, as in 'Year of the Dog'.

I wish I had liked it better, but instead I kept wishing it would just end.