An Invitation to THE INVITATION: Pages 65–72

In episode 11, Jim Penola addresses Will's (Logan Marshall-Green) climactic meltdown at the dinner table––discussing how the conspicuous absence of Choi (Karl Yune) functions as a terrific red herring but also gets to the heart of what Will's real issue is with his hosts: their erasure of his son, Ty. | Original Score by John Penola | Follow us on Twitter: @AnInvitation and Instagram: @Invitation2Invitation | Email us: Invitation2Invitation@gmail.com | <3

Transcript

 ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ”

EPISODE #11. (of 15) – [pgs 65 through 72]

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

LINK TO SCRIPT:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49bAscvFVQ6TTNfOERFSUgwbms/view

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ” – INTRO / Guiding Quote.

“Dear Mark and Paul,

The poet David Whyte wrote, “The fear of loss is the motivator behind all conscious and unconscious dishonesties.” I found there to be so much truth in these words. After my son died and I eventually stepped from the darkness back into the world, I brought with me a gift that I feel I am only beginning to understand. “The gauntlet with a gift in it,” as Elizabeth Barrett Browning so beautifully wrote.

I felt that my family and I had been tested and that we had survived, and this gift that I carried was the freedom to be honest with myself and with others — as there was nothing left to conceal. The protective shell that I had constructed around myself, my old life, had been torn away. I had been exposed, and I had nothing left to defend. The gift in the gauntlet was a new and raw honesty toward myself and toward the world.

Because, you see, the world had done its worst. What harm was left to be done? What remained to fear? What was left to lose that I could not survive? I felt extraordinarily liberated by this, protected by the calamity itself and perversely invincible within my own vulnerability. Deception, artifice and keeping up appearances took up too much energy — I didn’t have the stamina for my own pretence and little patience for it in others.”

–NICK CAVE – The Red Hand Files #97 (May 18th, 2020)

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

Welcome to episode ELEVEN of ’An Invitation to THE INVITATION’, a limited, chronological deep-dive of the 2015 SUSPENSE-DRAMA written by Phil Hay & Matt Manfredi and directed by Karyn Kusama.

I am your host, Jim Penola.

On this show, I start by reading a scene or scenes from the original script followed by an analysis of those scenes, subsequently discussing the differences between the screenplay and the final cut of the film. Ideally shedding light on all the unique components that contribute to the movie, and how each of those elements fit into the greater thematic ideas of the story.

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

Let’s begin with a reading of pages [65 through 72] – picking up directly after the bombshell revelation of CHOI’s voicemail on WILL’s phone. As we discovered on said voicemail, the conspicuously absent CHOI had actually arrived early at the party before anyone… 

LET’S BEGIN

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ” – SCRIPT READING.

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

...Slowly, WILL walks back inside, toward the dining room.

INT. DINING ROOM – NIGHT 

WILL enters. Seeing him, GINA smiles.

…

…

…

BEN

I would like a morphine drip if possible.

(END SCRIPT READ.)

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   –––––––––––––––––– 

• TRIVIA / "A benign birthday cake"

 FUCK. 

I almost feel like there should be a couple of minutes of silence after that to just let it be absorbed. 

Maybe the best way to start his episode is with the adorable and inventive fact that actor Jordi Vilasuvo (VILA-SU-SO), who plays MIGUEL, was the one to suggest his character be too embarrassed to have “Happy Birthday to You” sung to him. At the time of production, it was mere months before the most recognizable song in the English language became public domain. I’m thankful for this near-miss though because it keeps the story moving at a steady pace, it’s funny and creative, and it’s just realistic. For example, I know for a fact how much my older brother hates or has hated being sung to on his birthday, especially in public.

Trivia aside, the device of MIGUEL’s BIRTHDAY is great in the way it adds specificity to the evening – as if it was an added benefit & incentive of scheduling the dinner party when they did. More than that, it’s a clever way to throw in a quick inversion before the shit really hits the fan. We now know WILL is simmering with the info gleaned from CHOI’s voicemail, and the filmmakers play on that dread and anticipation in playful fashion by turning out the lights as soon as WILL comes back inside from the yard. “Is it power failure? Are DAVID and EDEN revealing their endgame? What’s next?” The answer is, as KARYN KUSAMA says, “a benign birthday cake.” It’s a smart and charming way to release tension and briefly lull the audience right as they’re about to be clobbered by WILL’s verbal bile.

I’ve used this word a lot over the course of this series, but today’s scene feels especially devastating… for two core reasons. 

One: WILL goes off. He unleashes his feelings with a vitriolic righteousness we haven’t seen until now.

Two: As if that explosiveness wasn’t enough, his meltdown is rendered hollow when CHOI shows up  – the innocent, even oblivious friend completely undermining the massive tear WILL just went on. It’s such a specific moment of devastation that it feels like there should be a German or French word for it – to have your entire argument (and by extension your whole world) incontestably shattered in front of an audience of your peers. Oof.

But why does WILL go off? What gives him the license or the right? Besides CHOI’S VOICEMAIL? We know he’s not the only one who thinks something weird is going on. So why is he the one to finally express it in front of everyone (besides him being the protagonist)?

Put simply, it’s because WILL’s world has permanently changed, and it changed long before this dinner party was a twinkle in EDEN and DAVID’s eyes.

I’ve had the guiding quote at the top of the episode banked for a little while now and have been looking forward to including it because it so beautifully captures WILL’s Kamikaze-esque actions in this part of the story.

He finally erupts because, as Nick Cave says, “the world had done its worst” to him – what are these weirdo, new age fucks gonna do? WILL’s already experienced hell. Been there, done that. For a bit more quick context, NICK CAVE lost his 15-year old son, ARTHUR, in an accidental cliff fall in 2015. Not quite as young as the fictional character of TY, but that almost makes his death more tragic aside from the fact that he was very, very real.

As we’ll find out in the next scene and episode, WILL’s become indifferent towards life. This indifference doesn’t create fearlessness as much as it creates a horrifying courage. It’s not that WILL doesn’t fear consequences or the repercussions of his actions – he just doesn’t fear them as much as he does the continued, lonely oppression of his thoughts. To again cite NICK CAVE’s “Red Hand Files” entry… 

[quote]

”Deception, artifice and keeping up appearances took up too much energy — I didn’t have the stamina for my own pretence and little patience for it in others.”

[/end quote]

So, when WILL’s own patience fizzles – when the mask he’s been trying so hard to uphold for the last SIXTY MINUTES disintegrates –  it’s appropriately climactic. And as I’ve said at least once before, these pages represent either a FALSE CLIMAX, a PRE-CLIMAX, or simply a WARM-UP CLIMAX… I use these words very deliberately because the script and film somewhat hinge on the viewers *thinking* they’ve just witnessed the point of highest action or at least the culmination of all the suspicion and paranoia. To quote MATT MANFREDI from the film’s audio commentary track…

[quote]

“Because we wrote the script, to me it always seemed obvious that WILL was right so it was important to create a big Red Herring: incontrovertible evidence that he is wrong.”

[end quote]

MANFREDI sums up in a sentence what it took me a paragraph to say: the dynamics of the scene are a function of a huge Red Herring. However, what I think separates THE INVITATION’s use of this kind of narrative misdirection is that it doesn’t relate to identity like it would in a Slasher film or a Whodunit – which, to me, has become the most well-known or common (even cliche´) type of usage.

Yet, in looking at the definition of the term, the description is far more apt in relation to THE INVITATION than it is for, say, Wes Craven’s SCREAM: Something that draws attention away from the matter being discussed or dealt with.

It’s almost hilariously on-point and accurate. THE INVITATION should be a textbook example of a Red Herring. WILL is freaking out  – frankly going out of his way to be at least a little malicious to be totally fair – but, as has been a recurring theme throughout the film, there’s truth to what’s saying (or shouting). More truth than ever in some ways. As his meltdown reaches its peak, the doorbell rings, and the infamous CHOI finally appears in the flesh.

It makes you wonder – had WILL’s explosion not rested so heavily on CHOI’s absence (after all, it’s what he leads with and what starts his gloriously uncomfortable rant) [insert audio: “Where the fuck is Choi?”] – would CHOI’s subsequent appearance still have undercut the real point of his speech?

Probably not, or at least not as much.

On the film’s commentary, KUSAMA has a key insight… 

[quote]

“It’s the emotional sort of agony that he’s (WILL’s) in that makes everyone truly uncomfortable. It’s not even the fact that what he’s saying might be true.”

[end quote]t

Though WILL’s accusations and criticisms are undeniably tough to hear, especially with the entire party together in one room, the tragedy of the scene is that he’s not heard – in part because he poorly conveys what are actually very sound points.

–Everyone’s acting polite because of the generous spread and wine.

–This was billed as a reunion of old friends but 2 strangers show up and are treated like they’ve always been a part of the group.

Unfortunately, WILL is furiously impenetrable – completely uninterested in a dialogue or conversation since he’s clearly made up his mind on the matter. In other words, his demeanor is so over-the-top that it’s obfuscating the content he’s trying to express. His friends and other guests feel so attacked that they probably can’t reasonably listen to what WILL is saying, and I don’t blame them.

As the filmmakers point out on the aforementioned commentary track, this explosive event – despite it essentially being a monologue – still relies very heavily on the supporting cast putting in just as much effort as the lead… *especially* factoring in KUSAMA’s proclivity for wide shots.

Thankfully and unsurprisingly, the cast delivers – silently expressing everything from hurt to exasperation to anger and every possible variation therein. Frankly, the scene wouldn’t work without those precise emotions and reactions. Logan Marshall-Green and his castmates are deeply symbiotic in this scene: elevating and heightening each other.

Like director and puppeteer FRANK OZ has said of working with Mark Hamill as Yoda on THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK… 

[quote]:

I have said it before and I'll keep saying it until my mouth gets duct-taped shut, Yoda is believed because Mark engages the character with authenticity . Without that, there would be no Yoda as we know him.  

[/end quote]

The reason the audience believes in and invests in the puppet on Hamill’s shoulder is because of his completely straight performance. He doesn’t play it like it’s an SNL or late night sketch. He plays it dramatically, with all the joy, confoundment, humor, and humanity that comes with that.

Likewise, a big reason WILL’s emotions register with the audience is because we see how his behavior affects the people closest to him. Without so much as a word, we witness shock, hurt, and disappointment across the faces of WILL’s dear friends and peers. It’s heartbreaking, and places the viewer firmly in WILL’s shattered headspace by the scene’s end.

One of the ingenious ways KUSAMA expresses this is by visually isolating WILL: cross-cutting between close-up of a painfully vulnerable MARSHALL-GREEN and a wide of the remaining cast staring at him, again: their hurt and disappointment on full display.

If the events themselves aren’t enough to make you empathize with WILL, certainly this excellent bit of staging is. The protagonist quite is literally cornered, caged – giving him little recourse other than to surrender to EDEN’s assurance that they’re all family. After the failed attempts to ingratiate WILL via the “I WANT” game and the performative, generous hospitality he mentioned, he finally seems to concede at the humiliating cost of being right.

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

• ANALYSIS: Silence is golden.

 --->>> “Until you turn it again.” –HAY.

I’ve talked a lot about how HAY and MANFREDI intricately and deliberately weave an alternating trail of evidence favoring both WILL’s POV and that of his friends trying to alleviate him (which is the ideal way to keep viewers engaged & guessing), and in today’s scene we get the most potent, caustic iteration of that pattern yet… --->>>

WILL lays out the totality of his feelings to everyone at the dinner table:

-Where’s Choi?

-Who the hell are these weird guests?

-What’s up with the Phenobarbytl? 

-Why is everyone acting so polite?

Part of what enables WILL to go off like this is that he feels he finally has all the proof to back up the instincts he’s been observing in himself all night.

Yet, just when things look like they could get violent, a knock on the front door is heard mid-argument and it’s of course CHOI who explains himself immediately. Oddly enough, the characters nor the audience really care that much about his actual explanation at this point… which is ironic given how big a deal was made of his tardiness.

There’s nothing EDEN, DAVID, PRUITT, SADIE, or even WILL’s trusted friends could have said to calm him down, so when CHOI shows up mid-argument, it’s the ultimate rebuttal to WILL’s vehemence. CHOI is so tragically perfect (or tragically convenient?) in his timing that the entire party goes silent because they all know there’s nothing to say – CHOI’s mere presence is so humiliating (yet paradoxically miraculous since it confirms his safety) that any words would be overkill. CHOI’s arrival says it all in cutting fashion.

Adding a layer of complexity to things is the fact that no one is against WILL – no one is actively fighting him or rooting against him. As KUSAMA notes… 

[quote]

“The right thing to do was allow everyone to be right and that made the experience a lot more complicated.” 

[end quote]

A.) “It’s interesting how WILL just goes scorched Earth here and he’s kind of making sense but he’s loud and yet it makes everyone forget when his legs get chopped out from under him in 2 seconds… everyone forgets that he’s kinda right. Whether CHOI’s here or not.” –MANFREDI.

All his conversations with his friends over the night have revealed that he is deeply loved and cared for. Therefore, when WILL’s argument basically disintegrates before our very eyes, no one is gloating… because everyone wants his success, recovery, and healing (even DAVID and SADIE in their own ways).

CHOI’s sudden addition to the dinner becomes an unexpected Lose-Lose scenario… 

Obviously, everyone is happy that CHOI finally made it to the house and is OK, but his timing is perfect and terrible. Perfect because it couldn’t come at a better time to defuse WILL and provide inarguable evidence as MANFREDI noted, but it’s Terrible because it highlights just how sad and upset everyone is at how intense things have become. The complexity and depth of the conflict has everything to with the fact that most of the people at the party are dear, dear friends and only want the best for each other.

Furthermore, had CHOI not arrived at that specific moment, WILL might have escaped the imminent trauma of the night. KIRA was in the midst of dragging WILL out of the house after all [insert quote: “we’re leaving” // “I’m not going anywhere”]. Maybe their exit would have caused a domino effect. Even if it didn’t, WILL would have left a massive crater in the tone of the dinner – an emotional hit n’ run – not exactly the ideal conditions for people wanting to continue to revel.

WILL conveys an epic breakdown that rings false (at least optically) because of CHOI’s sudden entrance, but even without the inherent drama of CHOI showing up, WILL still accosted damn near the whole party. His righteousness isn’t unfounded, but it’s undermined by his acidic verbal jabs.

Like I mentioned earlier, his means of airing grievances is so prickly that it works against him almost instantaneously. There’s a demoralizing irony to this in that it supports the social contract of having to remain civil even when the much bigger issue of a sinister undercurrent risks overtaking everyone. However, if nothing else, WILL’s indignation is extremely cathartic. It’s a huge, long-gestating release that likely relieves the viewer or viewers after an hour of relentless tension and clandestine snooping. Like PHIL HAY says…

[quote]

“This is one of those moments where the protagonist is actually saying the things that you really want him to say. As an audience member you’re really agreeing with him.”

[/end quote]

This is very true. For that reason, it’s probably a lot of people’s favorite scene (including Hay). The flipside to this catharsis is that WILL’s kind of being an asshole, getting progressively more fired up, failing to maintain his composure. MANFREDI calls it [quote]“the bad wedding toast: one of those meltdowns you feel both lucky yet sad to be present for.”[/end quote]

As a result, all his friends can really see is him delivering on the promise of his lack of healing (or the promise of his persistent hurt) that he’s possessed all evening. 

Again, it’s Lose-Lose, which is why the atmosphere and silence by the end of the scene is so fittingly heavy, possibly oppressive.

Even when KIRA says “We’re leaving”, TOMMY stops her and insists she let WILL process what just happened because he realizes how incredibly agonizing this must be for him. He recognizes the profound embarrassment and shame he’s likely experiencing. He’s had an extremely difficult night to begin with and it just got a lot worse – he was mortified in front of EVERYONE.

I love how this reinforces the deeply kind and empathetic TOMMY we broke down in the previous episode: while everyone else is too shocked to speak, TOMMY still is able to understand how crushing a moment this must be for his friend. He’s definitely still angry and disappointed, but that doesn’t stop him from speaking on WILL’s behalf and in his defense. I find it genuinely moving.

In previous outbursts, WILL could walk away while his friends quietly processed his behavior. But now? He’s just had his legs chopped out from under him on a grand stage … since one of his main complaints was immediately proven wrong. What began as WILL’s BREAKING POINT becomes WILL’S BOTTOM, his NADIR.

That’s a huge difference from previous disturbances.

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

• ANALYSIS / DIFFERENCE: Deleted line (script)

Getting into a notable divergence between script and film, the following line’s deletion highlights the essence of WILL’s deep, deep hurt in today’s scene… 

WILL

I meant something when he died.

Don't erase… we haven’t even said his name tonight!

You’re trying to erase him. Ty was real. It was real.

It is real. 

“We haven’t even said his name! You’re trying to erase him.”

It’s wise to cut that line in that it arguably puts too fine a point on the root of WILL’s anger.

Though I almost wish it stayed in the film because it emphasizes WILL’s POV even more: he’s not only struggling with the loss of his son but with his perceived erasure of his son on behalf of EDEN, which would multiply ANYONE’s pain. It’s almost a form of gaslighting: “Why won’t you say his name? I’m the only one acknowledging how fucked up I still feel and *I’m* the crazy one?”

Yet, as has been consistent with nearly all of the filmmakers’ editing choices: removing this line sharpens the film while maintaining the right kind of subtlety and ambiguity. 

We don’t need to hear WILL explicitly state the core reason for his pain, because he says it without saying it. “It meant something when he died” is enough. That’s enough.

Every time I hear this part of the movie – this part of WILL’s monologue – the nuance in MARSHALL-GREEN’s performance – , it’s hard for me not to get emotional. For starters, LOGAN MARSHALL-GREEN goes FULL GRIEF and it’s a brutal and beautiful sight to behold.

For so much of the film, he circles the fringes of rage and hurt (you could say one is a mask for the other), so when he finally loses his balance, it’s a type of sorrowful release even if it’s hard to watch.

And I can’t help but view it through the lens of my own failed relationships, and how part of the reason those are still so difficult for me to reckon with is because of the meaning I’ve attached to them and what I make it mean now that they’re gone. Ultimately, WILL’s fear of erasure becomes incredibly insightful, because I think it speaks to a broad human fear of that same thing… 

We, as conscious living organisms, have a sort of intrinsic fear not just of death and loss (which are of course towering in their certainty), but of emotional erasure. What I mean by this is the eradication (or evidence) of the experiences closest & most meaningful to us. I think Erasure is a huge human fear because it’s so closely tied to our relationship with memory, not to mention our relationship and obsession with legacy: we place massive value on whether or not we’ll be remembered when we’re gone as well as who remembers what *while we’re still alive.* WILL has been in massive amounts of pain in general, so when the best, most special parts of his life (i.e. his son TY) appear to be ignored? He’s in a tailspin.

My eyes instantly well up when I hear WILL say “It meant something when he died” because he’s PLEADING with his ex to honor not just the memory of their beloved child but the memory of the 3 of them as a family. WILL’s mourning of his son TY is at the forefront of his grief and pain, but because of that, along with the presence of KIRA and DAVID (the new partners of WILL and EDEN), it’s easy to think WILL isn’t still mourning the loss of his spouse, too.

I think he is.

How could he not in some way? That doesn’t mean he wants EDEN back or that he doesn’t love KIRA. It just means he’s still coming to terms with the partially spiritual, partially literal death of his family. 

PHIL HAY confirms this…

[quote]

“Eden is erasing their son. That’s how he (WILL) sees this.”

[/end quote]

Unfortunately, it’s another reason WILL’s explosion falls on deaf ears: because he quickly descends into the most personal parts of his distress, making it easy to dismiss the things that affect *everyone* at the dinner. MATT MANFREDI emphasizes this further… 

[quote]

“It’s interesting how WILL just goes scorched Earth here and he’s kind of making sense but he’s loud and yet it makes everyone forget when his legs get chopped out from under him in 2 seconds… everyone forgets that he’s kinda right. Whether CHOI’s here or not.”

[/end quote]

Again, it’s the belligerent attitude that WILL adopts (i.e. his volume) that makes his argument an uphill battle regardless of CHOI’s presence. Even before CHOI arrives. But I mention the MANFREDI quote because, *even as a viewer*, it’s still easy to forget that: yeah, Will’s kinda right. There’s a lot of validity to his sentiments. That validity is functionally obliterated of course since it's barely, if at all, acknowledged. 

All that WILL’s friends can see is a man in grief – a man possessed by it – who was just proven wrong… and they use that mistake against him. To justify why they think he’s wrong about *everything*, not just CHOI. I don’t think they consciously mean to do this – to cast this blanket on him – but the horrible conditions of the situation enable them to anyway. 

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

• ANALYSIS: CHOI’S ARRIVAL (!!)

The essential disconnect between the airless tension in the dining room juxtaposed by CHOI’s innocence & apologetic vitality somehow makes the moment all the more cutting. Because it is a collision of 2 completely different worlds that now have to reconcile each other. The guests are still very much sitting with WILL’s caustic outburst because it’s *SO* fresh, to the point that they can’t even attempt any kind of pretense with CHOI. Meanwhile CHOI doesn’t even know what he stepped into. 

To cite the filmmakers once more, KARL YUNE (who plays CHOI) has the strange task of being a character that we hear more about than we see. That’s a fascinating and tricky dynamic in that the character is largely assembled by the audience’s imagination (likely thinking they won’t ever see him period), so when he *does* show up he’s in the weird position of very possibly not being the person we’ve mostly created in our heads. All that being said, I love KARL YUNE’s energy and performance. My favorite thespian adage is “no small parts, only small actors” and I think he encapsulates this notion wonderfully. Not unlike the catharsis that comic relief provides, CHOI’s late appearance (paradoxically heartbreaking as it is) and his whole demeanor is a precious respite to the punishing cringe of WILL’s overwhelming crisis. Even the simple act of PRUITT serving CHOI dinner is almost hilarious in its banality amid such turmoil. 

But I say paradox because in some ways this is a best-case scenario: CHOI is alive and well and has a perfectly mundane explanation for his absence, but it comes too late. It’s well after WILL has exposed exactly how hurt and enraged he is.

There are a million contradictory feelings silently, invisibly floating through the air… clogging the air… and under the circumstances, they’re all valid. Yet again, THE INVITATION shows us how disinterested it is in granting the audience easy, digestible emotions and how endlessly curious it remains in wrestling with and magnifying the complicated emotions that are sadly inescapable… making them all the more necessary to tackle in the stories we write, tell, and absorb.

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

• MISC notes: MIGUEL’S B-DAY // BAREFOOT DAVID // BANAL PRUITT.

Actor JORDI VILASUSO (I probably butchered that pronunciation, I apologize Jordi) came up with the idea of MIGUEL being too embarrassed to hear the birthday song which is a brilliant bit of actor input, especially considering how embarrassing I know this is for me and my siblings on each of our birthdays. The preceding moment of the lights going out is a clever bit of playful misdirection in that it comes on the heels of CHOI’S VOICEMAIL and therefore has instantly ominous overtones, but that feeling is just as quickly inverted when we see a luminous yet benign birthday cake beind led to the table.

Film production just narrowly missed the opportunity to legally include it. Actor suggestions!! :)

The actors are all present (what’s nice about a big screen viewing)... particularly in the wide shots that Kusama favored.

• DAVID is barefoot!!! First time we can see that?? If so, it’s tucked wayyyy off in the far right of the frame as he puts his left leg on the dinner bench to drink from his glass. Such a great piece of character: he’s a calm, comfortable, modern Los Angeles hippy!

• Banality/mundanity of PRUITT serving CHO

#WillWasRight

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

• OUTRO.

“An Invitation to THE INVITATION” is written, produced, and hosted by me, Jim Penola.

Original Score is by John Penola.

FOLLOW US ON Twitter @AnInvitation (no underscores) [Social Media password = LMGisKing] and FOLLOW US ON Instagram @Invitation2Invitation

That’s “Invitation, the number two, Invitation” with no underscores.

Likewise, EMAIL US @Invitation2Invitation@gmail.com with questions and comments.

Special Thanks to the filmmakers and to our (lovely) featured actors this episode

in order of appearance:

REBECCA SPIRO as GINA

CHRISTINA ROMAN as EDEN,

SUMMER MASTAIN as KIRA,

MIKE BARNETT as BEN,

TIGHE KELLNER as TOMMY,

and RYAN SMITH as CHOI.

Lastly, special thanks to the Penola family for their support.

Please spread the word if you enjoyed this episode, and we’ll see you next time.”

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––   ––––––––––––––––––