An Invitation to THE INVITATION: Pages 72–79

In episode 12, Jim Penola explores THE INVITATION's sinister & inextricable ties to Los Angeles, the necessity of rigidly adhering to Will's (Logan Marshall-Green) point-of-view, and the striking deleted scene revealing Claire's (Marieh Delfino) fate. | 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 #12. (of 15) –[pgs 72 through 79]

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

LINK TO SCRIPT:

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

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

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

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

“It’s important for me to talk about that they were just like anybody else. That they came from every background imaginable. I think it’s important to point that out.

I wanted to describe for you what drew people in: that sense of belonging – that connection with spirit. And one of the things I relished was coming up and over that hill and seeing every walk of life just milling about and just the color and the humanity of it warmed my heart.

“It’s also important to talk about the sickness of the people. However it happened. There’s a sickness. You know, Jim Jones, by himself, can’t kill 913 people.

I believe that Madness can happen to anyone, you know, under the right circumstances, and if I don’t spend some time trying to explore that there’s no value to their deaths. They will have died in vain.”

–STEPHAN JONES, son of Jim Jones, RE: sickness of Jonestown victims, 1998.

...from TRUTH AND LIES: JONESTOWN, PARADISE LOST (2018)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/40-years-jonestown-massacre-jim-jones-surviving-sons/story?id=57997006

I was born exactly 10 years after the Jonestown Massacre:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mass-suicide-at-jonestown

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

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

Welcome to episode TWELVE 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 [72 through 79] – picking up after WILL’s explosive meltdown at the dinner table, finally letting his true feelings be known in grand fashion. As his anger reached a crescendo, the conspicuously absent CHOI finally arrived – undercutting much of WILL’s argument – leaving him humiliated and devastated.

LET’S BEGIN

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

“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ” – SCRIPT READING.

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

BEN

I would like a morphine drip if possible.

INT. WASHROOM 

WILL enters a small powder room.

…

…

…

PRUITT

Okay?

He walks WILL back toward the dining room, standing close behind him.

WILL walks in front of him, up the stairs. PRUITT seems giant to us.

(END SCRIPT READ.)

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

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

• INTRO: Infinity Mirror + Visual Symmetry 

 Where. To. Begin.

There’s a lot to get into, so get comfortable.

We’re entering the ENDGAME now. I’d say from here on out, we’re gonna be getting into the meatiest parts of the film and its ideas, which is really, really exciting – there’s just a lot to talk about, so it’ll be interesting to see how these final episodes unfold. If they’re anything like this one, they’re going to be dense but hopefully rewarding. Grab a hot cup of tea and join me. 

Firstly, how about that bathroom shot of WILL with the infinitely repeating reflections in the mirror? Proportionately speaking, I think it’s one of the more iconic and standout shots. As I’ve talked about before, I think the film wisely relieves its Claustrophobia Levels by having WILL exit the house numerous times throughout the script. Without those moments, the movie could have lacked a dynamism that helps keep the tension vital and dangerous instead of stale or boring. So, when we see that striking, memorable view of endless WILLS repeating – his beard still wet from splashing his face – it’s an earned metaphor for a guy who can’t get out of his head… a man who has been ruefully anchored to his own demons, thoughts, and memories for the entire film. This seemed to be an organically conceived shot in that the mirrors were not in the script and was later incorporated when production settled on this particular house.

Speaking of symbolic shots, there’s one from today’s pages that I love even more: when WILL re-enters the dining room, his friends silently stare back at him, seemingly paralyzed with caution. It’s a tenuous mix of love, concern, and trepidation. It’s also a perfect bookend to a similar shot from the last episode when CHOI’s arrival humiliated WILL. As you might recall, KUSAMA and Cinematographer, BOBBY SHORE, framed the sequence in such a way that visually separated WILL from the rest of the party… quite literally showing that he was cornered and isolated.

They recreate that framing towards the beginning of today’s scenes. Except now, the gradient of anger, disappointment, embarrassment is replaced by more of a shared caution from EDEN, BEN, MIGUEL, etc. It’s a subtle but effective bit of almost immediate and literal symmetry (even the camera angles from each scene are facing opposite sides of the dinner table), reminding us how distant WILL *still* is from the rest of the guests and from his friends.

This pair of shots through WILL’s eyes – the feeling of everyone staring at you – becomes a recurring visual metaphor for our fears related to Social Anxiety: the fear of being out-of-place AND *everyone noticing you’re out of place.* which of course only adds insult to injury. 😔

Quick Side-Note: I’ll make a point to put these shots side-by-side on our social media, so look out for that! [note to Jim: include either run-time stamp on each image or episode # stamp]

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

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

ANALYSIS: Does “The Invitation” transcend its genre?

Moving on… During the audio commentary for this part of the movie–specifically when WILL recalls his son TY–KARYN KUSAMA and PHIL HAY have a brief exchange where they address their goals and hopes for the movie, discussing how THE INVITATION’s strong emotional core was by design.

[quote]

“What I hope is distinctive about the movie… [is] that it has a soulfulness. Which is something I wanted to explore in spite of or despite the expectations of genre mechanics.” –says KUSAMA. 

PHIL HAY elaborates. Quote… 

“That was our fondest hope for the movie … was that we wanted to do it because we wanted it to be FIRST and foremost about emotions. And about real characters working their way through something very difficult emotionally.” –HAY. 

I wanted to include these insights because, for me, they validate my own very emotional response to the movie. Simple as it is: knowing the creators consciously sought to break our hearts as much as they sought to increase their beats-per-minute is deeply gratifying. They succeed! The intent and impact align which is not only worth commending, but a clear display of their skillset(s) rising up to their taste.

Additionally, soon after the previous quotes, KUSAMA asks:

“What does it mean to live in a state of denial? To me, our little genre movie is asking some big questions I hope.” –KUSAMA 

Firstly, she presents what could easily be the film’s MOST ESSENTIAL question which we’ll continue to return to. But I want to address another part of that quote. Even though it’s clearly said with some level of self-effacing or modest jest, I take a bit of umbrage with KUSAMA calling THE INVITATION “our little genre movie” because it’s slightly dismissive of the high level of prowess on display from everyone involved.

And part of me thinks that THAT less-than-glowing outlook has helped suppress gems like THE INVITATION over the years, because if the filmmakers can only see their work as a “little genre movie”, how is anyone else expected to see it as more than that?

And as much as KUSAMA is referring to the literal budget and limited resources of the film and its contained audience, there’s still the slight implication that it does not deserve a seat at the table of the best, most celebrated films. 

I know this podcast is obsessively tangled in the minutiae of each scene, but at the end of the day, the engine to this series will always be to make THE INVITATION a more Widely Recognized Masterpiece.  

We all know that STAR WARS is great and fun to talk about, we all know that Paul Thomas Anderson and Quentin Tarantino are incredibly consistent, relevant, and superlative directors. I’m a fan of all these subjects, and I'm not criticizing the range of fun to insightful criticism surrounding them. The point i’m trying to make is that if i was solely concerned about views, listens, numbers, engagement, hot takes – WHATEVER – I’d have spent the last year on one of these reliably popular (and therefore safe) subjects. That’s not what this podcast is about. It’s never been about that. It’s incredibly selfish and niche. It may never exceed more than a handful of listeners, but if it can bring this film and its creators just a little closer to firm cult status (no pun intended) or even the mainstream, I will feel like I have accomplished my goal.

After all: what makes the film transcendent and borderline Genre Agnostic is that KUSAMA & COMPANY don’t limit themselves – their SKILLS, IMAGINATION, or CAPACITY – out of misplaced obligation or fear. It would have been easy, sure, and safe – especially when Horror has such a strong association with camp value – but I think the end product is a testament to the way the cast & crew all recognized that THE INVITATION is a (sensitive, thoughtful) Character Study in Horror Drag. 

"Karyn [Kusama] did not set out to make a genre or cult movie, she set out to make a conversation piece about grief."

Which begs the question of Whether coloring outside of its expected lines has allowed it to be embraced, i.e. is it too Still & Introspective to be widely accepted by Horror lovers, but too Low-Brow to be accepted by critics and larger audiences?

But again, THE INVITATION is not a safe film (in any conventional sense), it’s ambitious and risky in its specificity. But it succeeds, in part, because (as PHIL HAY pointed out), THE INVITATION was always intended to connect and ache as much as it was meant to thrill and satisfy. I know this is a cheesy, dumb thing to say but I think it helps convey the point...  the first line of trivia on THE INVITATION’s IMDb page reads as follows:

[QUOTE] The director and the writers had complete creative control on the film, as it was independently produced without any involvement from major studios. [/END QUOTE]

So, THE INVITATION ends up being visceral AND nuanced. It is a rollercoaster ride that is arguably more climb than drop. But like any Coaster Lover will tell you: half the fun is the anticipation of that climb. It’s also a meaningful exploration or excavation of our impulse to engage with denial, and the ways that can stunt or poison us. That rare, dynamic combo of addictive tension and uncomfortably compelling characters makes the film not only novel in some cases but superlative.

The creators roll the dice by marrying these interests – but they make something unique & special in their relative gamble. They make something that doesn’t hide or DISOWN its genre hallmarks – doesn’t distance itself from them, isn’t ashamed of them – while simultaneously not being dogmatically bound to them either.

That’s not to say I believe in “Elevated Horror” or whatever term was being thrown around when Ari Aster’s HEREDITARY was first gaining buzz – because that’s kind of an elitist, condescending sentiment in my mind. Sure, there are good and bad Horror films (which, spoiler alert: good and bad movies occur in EVERY fucking genre), but saying “Elevated Horror” frankly kind of spits on the legacy and lineage that movies like HEREDITARY or THE INVITATION knowingly, proudly continue and stand on the shoulders of. You don’t hear the term “Elevated Drama” with each new Oscar darling. THE INVITATION is a good Horror/Suspense movie the same way MOONLIGHT is a good a Drama. 

This ultimately ends up being a discussion about what’s perceived as High Art vs. Low Art, but we can put a pin in that for later when the series wraps up.*

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

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

• ANALYSIS: The Uniquely Los Angeles Terrors of THE INVITATION:

For now, though… I wanna talk about how there are overtones and/or undertones of California’s grim history that feel like they’re congealing in today’s scenes by way of DR. JOSEPH’s return. They, of course, have always been there, but again, they feel like they’re finally culminating.

The 20th-century scars left by one-time California residents Charles Manson and Jim Jones, and even Marshall Applewhite of HEAVEN’S GATE are indelible in that I think the unconscionable legacies of these men set the modern precedent for our understanding of the lethality of cults… maybe even America’s intense morbidity, not to mention our seemingly bottomless tolerance for mass murder, and fixation on True Crime. A fascination that not only continues to this day but is maybe more feverish than ever due in large part to this medium of podcasts and podcasting. One thing Manson and Jones share aside from their horrific cult leanings is their time in The Golden State.

Phil Hay cites Manson and Jonestown by name in the audio commentary during today’s scenes, which most likely aren’t the only points of reference used to inform the screenplay, but they are the most ingrained in America’s consciousness.

There are intentional (or at least self-aware) Signifiers of this… 

For example, TOMMY overtly uses the word ‘Manson-y’ to describe SADIE. There’s of course the frequent talk of a ranch in Mexico that has strong echoes of JIM JONES’ remote South American compound. Then there’s the questionable drugs and ritualistic wine glasses, and more.

i.e. TOMMY overtly using the word “Manson-y” to describe SADIE,

The New Age jargon espoused by members of The Invitation, 

The international ranch or compound in Mexico,

WILL finding suspicious, questionable drugs,

The ritualistic wine glasses, and more.

These are included in the script as evidence in WILL’s favor, but they’re also landmarks or breadcrumbs for viewers leading back to West Coast America’s ghastly past. In other words, HAY and MANFREDI play on the audience’s knowledge or awareness of The Golden State’s cult-y history – using the horrific vocabulary established by Manson and Jones as shorthand for WILL’s unease.

Visually, all this can be encapsulated by a striking shot of DAVID lighting a red lantern in the backyard (a seemingly innocuous, if unsettling, moment that will pay off in stunning fashion). As he does this, we see the iconic bokeh—the flickering, blurred flares of Los Angeles—in the distance. Having spent a lot of time in LA County (specifically suburban Whittier where my cousin lives), this aerial view of the city is unmistakable, distinct, and beautiful. So when I see this same cityscape on screen, it is a reminder – a small but unmistakable signal – that the lore of this film is inextricable from the lore of Los Angeles (and California). 

As journalist JORDAN CRUCCHIOLA says: It's all the worst things anyone has ever said about Hollywood made to look as delicious as possible. https://www.patreon.com/posts/god-tier-vicious-37164259

These optical and verbal clues are indicating to us that the film not only operates in the tradition of narrative, filmic horror but stands atop & is inspired by non-fiction horror just as much… specifically American-born horrors… where the everyday people (like Jim Jones’ PEOPLES TEMPLE) as well as the seemingly untouchable: the rich and famous (like Sharon Tate) are BOTH sought out – both PREYED ON – all to suffer in the most unthinkable ways.

In short, there’s the cumulative feeling that no one is safe; regardless of class or social status.

What could be more frightening? Especially when such a thing occurs as a result of seduction or a false sense of security, under the gilded appeal and sexiness of the laidback Pacific Coast?

That’s why the characters of DAVID and EDEN are such good stand-ins for LA stereotypes: polite, welcoming, attractive, and generous… to a point. But ultimately? You are disposable to them. You are a rung for them to ascend.

Maybe this is a cliché, but even if it is, it’s still symbolic of a soullessness that isn’t exactly unearned by Hollywood which is of course a world that the creators of this film are well-acquainted with.

Composer Theodore Shapiro describes this vividly in the insert for the Film Score’s vinyl release… 

[quote]

“THE INVITATION perfectly captures something essential about life in Los Angeles,” said composer Theodore Shapiro. “Los Angeles is a city of incredible natural beauty and utopian visions, but also a city in which dread, grief, and the curdling of those visions can often lie just underneath the surface. The score mostly functions in the film as the voice of dread, haunted memories, and grief that sits underneath the surface of a dinner party in the hills of LA. The music follows the film in its descent from uneasiness towards true terror.”

[/end quote]

In essence, THE INVITATION’s setting is so effective because of the intrinsic juxtaposition (or even contradiction) at its heart – which is the warm, disarming beauty; the beautiful people and sensual landscape that houses an elusive insidiousness that constantly escapes your grasp, making you feel gaslit every time you try to express what feels odd or off about it.

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

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

• ANALYSIS: WILL v. KIRA. (script)

Unfortunately, ‘odd’ and ‘off’ are increasingly appropriate adjectives for WILL and KIRA’s relationship. Their private talk during these pages hits me harder than it ever has.

Reading the script in addition to re-watching the film highlights just how much I relate to WILL on more than one level here.

I had to underline the moment in the screenplay that reads, quote “He doesn’t respond”, because *I’ve been there.* I’m not an explosive person, I’m an implosive one… and more than one girlfriend has told me (in so many words) how they wished I would have fought with them instead of just shutting down. Which is of course another way of saying I’m not at good communicating, at least not verbally. BECAUSE THE PODCAST ALLOWS ME TO ARTICULATE MY THOUGHTS WELL IN ADVANCE AND IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. 

I had to underline that moment because I know that feeling – like anything I say will make things worse. Like it will be used against me. It will be ammunition with my name on it, stored for later or immediate use. And while I search for the right words, nothing comes out and I go dark… internally sulking and hating myself.

Probably mere days after I wrote these words for the podcast, I was reading ‘High Price’ by neuroscientist Dr. Carl Hart. The largely autobiographical book is endlessly riveting, but I was stopped dead in my tracks when I read the following passage…

[quote]

‘I sometimes catch myself thinking that I have revealed too much personal information to someone I care about and start worrying about how it can be used against me at a later date.’

[/end quote]

It was moving enough to see such familiar words & feelings written by a man leagues and leagues smarter than me, but I include it here because Dr. Hart is not only the Chair of the Department of Psychology at Columbia University – he is also a black man from Miami, specializing in guiding drug policy based on science. I am a white male illustrator from New Jersey, born decades after Dr. Hart. So, to discover what I see as such a deep, emotional overlap with a person I have no discernable similarities with – TO ME – speaks volumes about the universality of the human experience.

I am the beneficiary of a privilege that I frequently squander, meanwhile Dr. Hart had to work staggeringly hard to reach his level of success – overcoming obstacles I will never experience. And yet, we apparently share a cagey instinct that countless others likely possess as well. To quote the great James Baldwin: ‘You think your pain and your heartbreak are unprecedented in the history of the world, but then you read.’

But this impulse towards cagey-ness can be a form of self-harm because there’s a pernicious lack of self-expression that is destructive – a slow poison.

So, as much as we, the audience, might see WILL as the only character who is truly in touch with how he really feels, this brief display of silence illustrates KUSAMA’s most salient point from earlier: DENIAL IS THE REAL TYRANNY.  

I’m punishing myself for having put myself in that position to begin with, and hurting the other party to boot.

But credit where it’s due to WILL: he eventually does open up enough to admit that he’s “not okay” which is significant. That’s more than a lot of us can muster and say out loud. KIRA responds with “[insert audio] These people care about you” which is 100% true and is indicative of the social complexity of the story: they might genuinely care but that doesn’t mean they understand, try as they might.

 Even KIRA’s point-blank telling WILL that he needs help––though true––is a loaded thing to say. After all: growth and personal breakthroughs rarely happen when our spirit is unwilling and we’re forced into unwanted situations like, say, seeing a therapist. Said another way, healing is more likely to occur when it’s a choice made of our own volition.

Telling––or suggesting––that someone needs help is simply an inescapably sensitive topic, even when it’s said in good faith. I can think of the different people who have suggested the same to me in the past year… and I had a different emotional reaction each time based on who it was and the context of my relationship to them.

When my ex said it, I was at least a little bit hurt. It felt like the shallow appearance of care as an excuse to get in one final, not-so-subtle jab… which probably says more about my own relationship with the stigma surrounding mental health… try as I might to be an active warrior against that very stigma. I agreed with her anyway. 

When my mom said it, it felt genuine. I agreed with her, too.

When a musician I’m a huge fan of said it, it re-contextualized my ex’s suggestion, and I could re-frame it as an act of genuine care rather than an act of rejection and criticism.

Though I honestly still struggle to reconcile ALL of these.

The point being that – true to THE INVITATION’s cutting specificity – the complicated intricacies of our relationships don’t necessarily get easier to navigate as we get older, but are ABSOLUTELY made more difficult when the hurricane of grief – and its far-reaching, psychosomatic damage – is introduced. 

We don’t know what the status of WILL’s family is since they’re never mentioned (does he have siblings? living parents?), but since they’re not a part of this story, all we know for sure is that WILL’s only apparent shoulder to lean on – EDEN – couldn’t stay in their marriage. The torment of TY’s death ripped them apart, and at least slightly alienated them both from all their friends.

especially when talking to someone has been drained of their vitality. 

WILL saying “[insert audio?] I’ve been waiting to die since the moment it happened” is one of the most important lines of the movie. Part of the reason it works––part of the reason it deserves to be singled out––is because, while he wears TY’s death everywhere he goes (he’s not exactly hiding it), he’s NOT GOOD AT COMMUNICATING IT. It's another big reason I highlighted his initial silence.

The unfortunate byproduct of this is that WILL redirects his own pain at others, especially when he doesn’t see his pain being matched or equaled.

So, as much as his explicit admission is a type of breakthrough, it also helps explain his strident carelessness towards others. 

It cuts like a knife because it conveys the terrible indifference towards life that WILL has been repressing – keeping to himself – for the majority of the film. 

As WILL has shown us, it’s not something you can just shake off. The residual, pervasive effect of loss is only gradually scrubbed away at best. The lingering of it is part of what makes it feel so insurmountable and isolating. 

… 

One of my favorite details that ends up perfectly translated from script to screen is when KIRA finally walks back inside, muttering something inaudible to herself out of frustration.

That feeling of cutting yourself off, of stopping whatever you started saying, because it won’t change the other person’s mind? That’s an especially brutal form of (self-)defeat or just plain defeat. Realizing your energies are better off reserved for someone or something more reciprocal is not the kind of epiphany anyone wants to have, especially in that situation.

KIRA, along with maybe TOMMY, feels like the most well-adjusted character in the script (as I’ve stated before), so when she exits––it’s hard to watch because she’s been nothing but supportive and loving, and keeps getting shut out or denied. So if *she’s* starting to give up? You start to think that maybe WILL really is beyond reclaiming himself and looking forward.

KIRA’s small revelation that this isn’t the first time WILL has doubted her ability to help him just makes their entire exchange all the more crushing.

Like I’ve pointed out in previous episodes, WILL would rather suffer than risk the slightest appearance that he’s erased his son.

He’d rather burrow deeper into the comfort of his own guilt & pain than *ever* risk looking like the shimmering, empty simulacrum he sees EDEN as.

And that is the tragedy of WILL and so many in real life: he permits himself no happiness (real or fake) because he doesn’t think he deserves it. Because to him it’s as necessary as breathing. It’s a betrayal to the innocence that TY represented.

since that lack of verbalizing ends up being used against me anyway. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

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

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

• ANALYSIS / DIFFERENCE: CLAIRE REVEAL: Why It Works / Why It Doesn’t.

While we, as audience members might have complicated feelings towards WILL (which is certainly by design), one character that I think is relatively pure is CLAIRE since she at least had the self-respect and presence of mind to leave the party as soon as it was too much for her.

At long last, her fate is no longer a question–which equally applies to people who are new to the film as well as old fans who aren’t familiar with the screenplay.

 Furthermore, the greatest difference between script and film becomes apparent: the reveal that CLAIRE had indeed been assaulted (and essentially murdered) upon exiting the house. This is big. This is fascinating. I’ve been eager to discuss this since the beginning of the series because of how significant a difference it is, but also because I think there’s a case to be made for why it both works and doesn’t work. 

More accurately, why each scenario works for different reasons. I’ll headline this discussion by saying I think the filmmakers made the right call to delete this moment, which relates to a topic from a couple episodes ago about the *right* kind of ambiguity. Meaning: thoughtful, intentional ambiguity as opposed to empty nebulousness for the sake of it.

So...

WHAT WORKS ABOUT CLAIRE’S DEATH.

What I like about answering the question surrounding CLAIRE’s uncomfortable, mysterious exit is that it adds color to the insidiousness of the evening. Much like a deleted line from DR. JOSEPH that we’ll get to: there’s a clarity of intention that we get regarding DAVID, EDEN, PRUITT, and SADIE’s exact gameplan. Whereas the final film never elaborates on how important or *why* these 4 might want every guest to stay for their sinister finale, CLAIRE’s death suggests that there is some kind of rule or ritual that is vital to THE INVITATION’s tenets or principles. I like that, and I like that because it hints at a level of world-building rather than a shallow, blanket Rule of Death – though I totally see how it could occur as the latter to some. In other words, it informs the actions EDEN, DAVID, PRUITT, and SADIE as we near the imminent finale. Without CLAIRE’s confirmation of death (her body of evidence), the actions of “The Invitation’ers” seem more haphazardly lethal.

There’s also the chilling detail that’s lightly paid off from WILL and TOMMY’s outdoor conversation not long ago. As you may or may not recall, right before TOMMY approached WILL to lay his cards out emotionally and right after WILL and SADIE’s confrontation at the pool – there was a line or two in the script about a faint rustling in the distance. It’s of course easy to forget or shrug off, but after today’s reveal, it’s at least a little bit horrifying to know that that distant, unremarkable sound was undoubtedly CLAIRE – not only that, but her singular, deeply morbid way of communicating.

It’s also exciting to FINALLY be a step ahead of the characters after the almost suffocating anticipation of waiting for the other shoe to drop.

However… 

With all of that being said, I think the film succeeds largely by rigorously maintaining WILL’s perspective, which is… 

WHAT DOESN’T WORK ABOUT CLAIRE’S DEATH.

To start: the lack of clarity surrounding CLAIRE’s exit promotes discussion around the film, which doesn’t have much story function but *does* help the film linger in terms of asking yourself and others what may’ve happened to her after she left. Much like the chilling final shot of the film, there’s often more power in the implied destruction and chaos rather than in its explicit illustration.

Even that is ancillary though. CLAIRE’s DEATH would have, again, broken the firm POV of WILL which isn’t in and of itself bad. I think it probably would have been earned at that point. Yet, had this *huge* piece of info been retained, it would have deflated the tension somewhat leading directly to the film’s true climax. And while CLAIRE’S CONFIRMED DEATH would have firmly sided us, the audience, with WILL – it almost paradoxically, would have decreased our empathy with him since the viewer would be ahead of him in terms of key information. And empathy is MASSIVE for the next few moments and scenes since it creates transparency and understanding in WILL’s actions. It sheds light (quietly and visually) on what he’s about to do.

So while CLAIRE’S DEATH doesn’t fundamentally change the film’s level of unpredictability – I’d say that the question of “WHAT’S GONNA HAPPEN NEXT?” is still present and propulsive and urgent – the tone *would* shift slightly… in that instead of sitting with WILL as he literally sits with pushing his loved ones away, we would instead feel a dissonant kind of righteousness or vindication. That’s another interesting wrinkle in the film; even when agendas are, at long last, unsheathed – there is nothing even remotely resembling a victory lap or an ‘I told you so’ moment, but let’s save that for next week.

More than anything, it’s a matter of retaining tension which the writers and director fully admit. While HAY & MANFREDI say that including CLAIRE’S FATE helped them to structure the plot (which makes sense), KUSAMA’s relative distance from that original choice made it very easy for her to cut when the film made it to the Edit Bay in post-production.

Similar to the scene of DR. JOSEPH on DAVID’s laptop, this omission of CLAIRE’S FINAL SCENE not only keeps things on pace, it keeps the film purposefully in the shadows. As KARYN KUSAMA points out…

[quote]

 “I hope that maybe we don’t trust where Will is gonna go with all of this. Where anyone is gonna go with anything.”

[/end quote]

Think back to the issue of revealing CLAIRE’s death – like I said earlier, it would have created a knowledge gap, a disparity, between WILL and the viewer thus robbing DR. JOSEPH’S MONOLOGUE of its tension – of its question and mystery – if we knew, with certainty, his intentions.

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

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

• ANALYSIS: DR. JOSEPH v. JIM JONES: Exploiting Our Need/Attraction to Community... (insert GUIDING QUOTE)

Though the more overt cult aspects of the film haven’t been discussed in a while, and the last time they were, it was more in relation to generally benign (or *arguably* benign) modern New Age sects – the reappearance of DR. JOSEPH makes this a fitting place to re-examine the film’s relationship to this fascinating, yet frequently tragic, topic.

I want to explicitly touch on perhaps the most notorious American cult which is Jim Jones’ PEOPLES’ TEMPLE. Whereas the MANSON FAMILY gained notoriety for who they killed and how, JIM JONES gained notoriety for the sheer *volume* of deaths that were Encouraged, Overseen, and of course How. The term “drinking the kool-aid’ (while technically a misnomer), came directly from JONESTOWN and the PEOPLES’ TEMPLE.

I don’t want to be flippant about either of these instances. They’re both travesties for their own reasons, but even still, I can’t help but feel an uncomfortable dissonance when thinking about how your average person could name at least one victim in the Manson Family murders but couldn’t name any that happened under Jim Jones’ watch (myself included). I’d probably wager that that has a lot to do with celebrity worship among other things, not to mention our unfortunate tendency to publicize killers over victims which continues to this day… but perhaps this tendency speaks to one of the film’s notable byproducts: which is the way it humanizes the various victims of cult ideology, from its acolytes to the their families.

JONESTOWN, as its colloquially (but not officially) known, obviously lives on in infamy (the guiding quote from the beginning is from a 2018 documentary titled TRUTH AND LIES: JONESTOWN, PARADISE LOST) – and that infamy provides the skin-crawling template for THE INVITATION, because it is thoroughly burned into the cultural memory of the United States. 

After all, the Mass Murder-Suicide that took place in JONESTOWN was the largest loss of American Civilian Life in a deliberate act until 9/11. Over 900 people died, 304 them children. And, in a strange, unsettling bit of coincidence: the JONESTOWN MASSACRE took place on my date of birth – November 18th – 10 years to the day before I was born. Maybe this helps explain my obsession and connection with THE INVITATION? Who knows… 

But, again, I wanted to finally bring JIM JONES a little more into focus due to the re-emergence of the character of DR. JOSEPH, himself a leader in his own toxic movement. Last we saw him, he was in a Recruitment Video for The Invitation, where he seemed *somewhat* harmless if creepy (let’s not forget that he essentially guided a woman towards her own death in said video).

In *today’s* scene however he speaks in monologue, directly to WILL – directly to the audience by extension – which multiplies his baseline creepiness AS WELL AS his strange, heart-on-sleeve demeanor.

As FILMCRITHULK points out in his excellent video essay, The ABCs of CINEMATOGRAPHY (19:30 mark) – framing a character or actor in such a way that they are directly looking into the camera lens is often very unnerving (even exhausting), no matter what the genre is, so using this *very* striking technique well requires clear intentions and sparing use. Thankfully, KUSAMA – unlike say TOM HOOPER who has notoriously abused this mechanic and for misguided reasons – understands the power of breaking the 4th wall.

But KUSAMA doesn’t save this technique for a very important moment in the story just because it’s a very important moment (which would probably still work), she does so because it firmly and directly drops the viewer right back into WILL’s Point-of-View, which is vital to keeping the audience on board with his actions. As HULK says in the aforementioned essay, [quote] “Usually when someone’s looking directly into a camera, the camera should represent the PeeOhVee perspective of the main character so that we can understand it’s happening ”in turn”??? “to them”??. This way, there’ll be a purpose to the unnerving effect of having someone on-screen look directly at us.” [end quote]

True to its consistently great form, THE INVITATION 100% adheres to the traditional, well-placed usage described in that essay. Furthermore, its purpose couldn’t be more deliberate because it wants us to empathize with WILL, which is *particularly* important at this juncture because he’s about to make his boldest choice of the entire film: one that would simply occur as frustrating, repetitive, and redundant (forcing us to sever both our empathy with him AND our investment in the story) if we didn’t see and *experience* its cause. If we didn’t experience *why* WILL’s survival instincts were re-ignited… *why* his uncertainty creeps back in.

To reiterate the quote from a bit earlier: the essential purpose of this scene is to not trust where WILL *or anyone else* is going. 

Think back to the issue of revealing CLAIRE’s MURDER. Like I said earlier, showing CLAIRE’s CORPSE would have created a knowledge gap, a disparity, between WILL and the viewer––not only that: it would have robbed DR. JOSEPH’S MONOLOGUE of its tension (of its question & mystery). If we knew, with certainty, the exact subtext of his speech on the laptop, the power of its ambiguity would be virtually nonexistent. Deflated. 

The filmmakers risk a lot by waiting so long to show the true nature of their characters, but it’s a gamble that's about to pay off, and we’ll talk more about why next episode.

For now, I wanna emphasize how instead of distancing the audience from WILL (even when it means they’ll be on side) that KUSAMA instead DOUBLES DOWN on the world through his eyes.

She does this twice in quick succession:

1. when WILL lies down next to TY in the “Living Memory” scene, and
2. when WILL opens the laptop and listens to DR. JOSEPH.

These simple-but-specific POV shots express a few key things:

1. WILL is living in the past, implicitly wishing he could stay there. (HAY directly suggests as much, even saying it was something that didn’t dawn on him until his 1st viewing of the movie).

1. WILL is carefully listening to DR. JOSEPH. He is clearly hearing everything he is saying, and more importantly, everything he’s *not* saying.

Whereas the interaction with TY is intimate (even surreal), the moment with DR. JOSEPH off-putting… as it unnerves both the protagonist and the audience, re-Aligning CHARACTER and VIEWER, locking them in a shared perspective… a view that seems to say, “this guy and his acolytes can’t be trusted.”

And like I said a minute ago: DR. JOSEPH is already inherently creepy, but he’s also not a principal character, so while his ideas may implicitly loom over EDEN and DAVID and company, his character at this point in the script must, a.) just barely lift the curtain on The Invitation’s true agenda, and b.) serve as a quick reminder of who he is.

That’s not necessarily easy, but KUSAMA and her team do it, and they do it by placing the audience zero degrees from the eyeline of the person speaking on-screen – *effectively* ratcheting up the creep factor to necessary levels of discomfort *while* re-introducing a small but significant player. 

If this sounds like a lot of choices overlapping at once and it sounds like accomplishing a lot in a small amount of time… that’s because that’s exactly what’s happening. Due to the nature of the filmmaking medium (which by definition includes many separate mediums intersecting simultaneously), movies juggle *countless* choices at any given moment – yes, even bad ones or ones you don’t like.

Camera, camera angle, lens, lighting, color, music, sound mixing, performance all factor in. The thoughtful nexus of these choices by people that care is usually what makes a great film.

The PEOPLES TEMPLE re-located more than once, most famously to South America, where JONESTOWN was formed (formally known as the PEOPLES TEMPLE AGRICULTURAL PROJECT). But I don’t want to get too bogged down by the wealth of information that is readily available, not to mention pretty widely known.

As unsettled as we might be by TOBY HUSS’s excellent performance as DR. JOSEPH, it’s important to note the stillness that his character never waivers from. He’s an interesting counterpoint to the magnetic oratory skills and blustering charisma of JIM JONES, but his disarming zen energy (zenergy?) is still indicative of the way these figures position themselves as accessible and welcoming. As STEPHAN JONES (son of JIM JONES) said at the beginning of the episode, ”what drew people in” was “that sense of belonging – that connection with spirit.”  ...so while leaders like Jones, Manson, and fictional ones like Dr. Joseph initially lure participants in with a certain warmth and accessibility, I’d argue they’re able to *keep* their members because of the communities they carefully establish, maintain, and manipulate. It’s an abuse of a deeply human instinct that STEPHAN JONES gets to the heart of very quickly: “connection” and “belonging” are a necessary, vital part of being alive in that they make life worth living, so when those needs are exploited in cults, it’s suddenly not so unthinkable that the members were or *ARE* ordinary, complicated people and not born villains. To again quote STEPHAN: “It’s important for me to talk about that they were just like anybody else. How they came from every background imaginable.”

Perhaps beyond the corporal fear embedded by the Manson Family murders and the Jonestown Massacre: the deeper fear (especially with the latter example) might be how susceptible we are to being placed in those situations to begin with.

To cite STEPHAN JONES one last time:

“I believe that Madness can happen to anyone under the right circumstances.”

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

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

• ANALYSIS / DIFFERENCE: DR. JOSEPH’s deleted lines & Useful Anticipation. (script)

In the script, things are a little more on-the-nose: DR. JOSEPH has a wine glass and speaks deleted lines (that were probably shot but removed in the edit) which shed some intriguing light on the behavior of DAVID, EDEN, PRUITT, and SADIE. DR. JOSEPH says “each one you gather to us increases your blessing” which, on one hand, I like because it informs the strict “lockdown” behavior that’s especially enforced by DAVID and PRUITT. It also helps explain CLAIRE’s mangled body in the bushes.

But I admire the filmmakers for ramping up the anticipation for as long as humanly possible by way of purposefully obfuscating the words of The Invitation’s off-putting leader.

They undoubtedly cut these more explicit lines from DR. JOSEPH because they want to tee the audience up for WILL’s outburst in the next scene. They want the audience to be right there with WILL as the rest of the characters are about to enjoy what they think is a post-meal aperitif.

Because It all comes back to empathizing with WILL.

KUSAMA wants the uncertainty to penetrate us – like the choice to leave CLAIRE’s fate a mystery or almost any deleted bit of a dialogue – the absence of DR. JOSEPH’s full speech is in service of planting destabilizing doubt but NOT definitively swaying the viewer in one direction or the other either. 

Consistent with the film’s M.O., it’s an incredibly delicate balancing act, especially when it’s sustained for this long, but when the True Climax is as chaotic and / terrifying / petrifying as THE INVITATION’s is… that delay or mitigation of audience certainty is an extremely powerful currency. 

Unlike the JJ ABRAMS or JONATHAN NOLAN schools of thought that place mystery for mystery’s sake above actual storytelling – either planting a big question that doesn’t yet have an answer worked out by the writers, or changing a plot point since viewers figured it out before it was revealed – THE INVITATION has an answer. Not only that, it has a beginning, middle, and end. It is self-contained.

There’s no impulse to “save” a plot point or character moment for a sequel or 2nd or 3rd season. It’s a complete story and therefore doesn’t have the disadvantage or the tempting crutch of perpetually teasing its most compelling questions. All of which is to say that THE INVITATION’s brutal anticipation is finite and thus manageable and thus always compelling––the filmmakers know this, and because of that, they know that they can turn the screws of doubt as intensely (and for as long as) possible. The climax and its subsequent ending are a precise, foregone conclusion that they get to have fun teeing up. 

Any audience has a limited threshold of patience, but KUSAMA exploits this in an effective way. She builds USEFUL ANTICIPATION in that the agonizing mystery 1.) Has a known endpoint, and 2.) Has a conclusive point-of-view and something it wants to impart to the viewer. 

The maddening ambiguity of THE INVITATION gets you high instead of frustrates you because you know it’s not a franchise or a series–IT WILL HAVE A DEFINITIVE ENDING.

As the so-called “Golden Age of Television '' seems to march on, I’m deeply appreciative of films like THE INVITATION exactly because it is such a deeply concentrated experience, as opposed to the sometimes flaccid baiting of plot many of us have become used to that has very little to do with actual storytelling.

Granted, THE INVITATION never had the pressure of a legendary franchise like STAR WARS nor the astronomical budget and expectations of a prestige HBO series like WESTWORLD – but, all the same, it illustrates where the most truthful concerns of these directors lie.

Some, like ABRAMS, value hooking their audience with pure, shallow delight and meaningless questions. 

Others, like JONATHAN NOLAN, value staying one step ahead of their audience at ALL costs. 

And then some, like KUSAMA, might seek some of the goals as the first two, but without sacrificing actual depth and substance… and not for the same misguided reasons. 

She is able to maximize her impact because (among other things), she doesn't have the tiresome onus of making a never-ending story that sells theme park tickets or the mandate of filling 10 hours of story per season.

Most importantly, she actually has something to say about the human condition and knows how to say it in an affecting, indelible way.

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

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

• ANALYSIS: BEARDED WILL in LIVING MEMORY.

Going back to WILL’s quote-unquote ‘LIVING MEMORY’ scene, wherein he recalls TY’s room as it was before it was repurposed, I’d be remiss if I didn't at least acknowledge how WILL remains bearded throughout the sequence. In his mind’s eye, he maintains the look and clothing of his present self. It’s hard not to imagine this being a very deliberate choice, given how much of the film revolves around WILL failing to reconcile his past and present selves. This is exaggerated by the strong, unmistakable change in mood + lighting as the room shifts from DAVID’s exacting ‘just-so’ study to the messiness of a child’s bedroom flooded with natural light.

Similar to WILL’s confrontation with SADIE by the pool – this quiet, non-verbal moment is bathed in blues. Once more, it’s an intense contrast to the pervasive earthtones and ambers used throughout most of the film. 

It might in fact be the only true DAY-TIME scene of the movie, not counting the unsustained, frenetic cuts portraying the day TY died, making it even more notable. 

The image of a haggard, Present Day WILL lying down next to his idealized child is simple-but-loaded. A conventional flashback (not unlike EDEN’s suicide attempt from the film’s 1st act) would have been serviceable. 

Alternatively, a version where a stoic WILL essentially *observes* the flashback (not unlike when he recalled himself and EDEN embracing in the bathtub) actually would have been extremely effective.

Yet, I think the final choice as it appears in the finished film is the greatest statement the creators could convey regarding WILL’s arc or lack thereof and almost completes this informal trifecta of evolving flashback sequences. WILL goes from passive observer to active participant. But I wouldn’t say it marks a transition necessarily or any real healing. Rather, it simply denotes the one memory WILL wants to keep. The one he actually seeks out. Whereas, all the others he’s assaulted by. This is the first and only time where his past and present selves conflate, where their interests actually align for once.

And the beard signifies that he’s not even recalling or being reminded of a specific event (since BEARDED, GRIEF-STRICKEN WILL obviously didn’t exist when TY was alive). Instead, he’s summoning an idealized feeling – a loose silhouette of TY and what he represented to WILL – which is joy, innocence, and purpose (which we’re especially wont to do when a loved one’s absence creates void or trauma in our lives).

Indeed, the writers confirm that there *was* discussion around whether or not LOGAN MARSHALL-GREEN would shave for this part of the film and they agree that it is objectively more interesting to have him appear as he ultimately does. 

Even the term “LIVING MEMORY” (as KUSAMA refers to it) is a perfect description of the scene, because of the surreal qualities it takes on that eschew traditional flashback portrayals.  Rather, we’re AGAIN being embedded by the filmmakers into WILL’s mental state– grafted onto WILL’s consciousness––which a more straightforward but also more impersonal narrative device would have diluted. 

Perhaps ironically: the longer we sit in the perspective of another person–whether they be fictional or real–the more likely we are to reflect on our own flaws, biases, mistakes, and beliefs. And when that happens, we’re reminded that stories don’t *just* have to be entertainment, but they can be a conduit for self-examination & growth, too.

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

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

• 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 featured actors this episode:

SUMMER MASTAIN (reprising her role as KIRA)

REBECCA SPIRO (reprising her role as GINA), 

CHRISTINA ROMAN (reprising her role as EDEN), 

and JESS KELLNER as DOCTOR JOSEPH.

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.”

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

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