An Invitation to THE INVITATION: Pages 79–88

In episode 13, Jim Penola finally tackles the brutal and stunning climax of THE INVITATION––touching on the film's long-gestating turn towards the horrific, Karyn Kusama's increasingly destabilized camera, as well as her striking, painterly visuals. | 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 #13. (of 15) –  [pgs 79 through 88]

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

LINK TO SCRIPT:

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

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

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

"Karyn [Kusama] did not set out to make a genre or cult movie, she set out to make a conversation piece about grief."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juz_mwqnPno&feature=emb_logo

"With Val Lewton, when he was making his movies, he said it has to work in two ways: it has to be the horror plot and then if you took the horror out it would still work."

“The horror aspects of it, they shock you in a good way I think. They shock you into a kind of awakening in a way. Of the real pain of these people. It really does. It’s almost like a dream of nightmares in the middle of the day you’re having.” –SCORSESSE.

 … https://twitter.com/FilmLinc/status/1296570258615144452

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

Welcome to episode THIRTEEN 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 [79 through 88] – picking up after WILL’s discovers an eerie video of DR. JOSEPH on DAVID’s laptop, seemingly planting the final seed of doubt in him as he re-enters the dining room to join the others. 

LET’S BEGIN

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

“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ” – SCRIPT READING.

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

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

INT. THE DINING ROOM

All heads turn to see Will.

He takes his seat with everybody.

…

…

…

He breathes in a few times. They yank open the door. 

(END SCRIPT READ.)

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

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

• #1.) Topic: A SEAMLESS TONAL SHIFT  – The Transition into the Film’s CLIMAX expresses a Seamless Tonal Shift…!

And so… the other shoe finally drops:

DAVID, EDEN, PRUITT, and SADIE’s true nature is, at long last, revealed.

I’ve now seen this movie so many times that my exact memory of seeing it for the first time continues to blur. I now only have a vague Placeholder Feeling of being shocked and blown away during this series of exponentially violent and malicious acts. A succession of events that are all so incredibly shocking unto themselves that even if just one of these things happened, it would be an irrevocable turning point.

Not surprisingly, WILL’s passionate and relentless discomfort (which has proven to be a type of survival instinct) sets off this macabre Chain Reaction that leads us into and forms the CLIMAX. 

The rapid, escalating nature of these chained events (not to mention their close proximity) is undoubtedly a reason why my memory is so hazy around this part of the film (besides the many overlapping viewings I’ve enjoyed). Beyond that, I’d say it’s also because I *still* feel shock and terror even now, which I can only assume was multiplied to the Nth degree in 2015 when I first saw it. 

The filmmakers' taut storytelling and maintaining of ambiguity finally pays off in all-too-real, stunning fashion. We now see, through clear eyes, that KUSAMA’s choices have been in service of maximizing the impact of these breathless series of murders: 

A few episodes back, I called WILL’s pre-CHOI freakout the film’s “First Climax” or “Pre-Climax” –– even its “False Climax” in the interest of teeing up today’s “TRUE CLIMAX” which is brilliantly staged and rendered, explaining the film’s delay of these events. To paraphrase Logan Marshall-Green from an older interview with COLLIDER: quote-unquote “nothing happens” in the first 2/3rds of the film (and he’s undoubtedly using the word “nothing” for emphasis), but it’s still an experience that somehow has your eyes glued to the story (by now, I hope I’ve been able to articulate why those 2/3rds are so effective, affecting, and masterful despite their lack of traditional, loud ACTION!! [“action” in call caps]). 

Therefore, the violent release unleashed by today’s events is less about justifying all the previous pages, nor is it necessarily about pay-off. I think the more interesting lens at which to look at it is as a genius and subtle Tonal Shift.

As Kent Jones from the Film at Lincoln Center podcast said at the top of today’s episode: classic horror director VAL LEWTON once pointed out: Horror stories must work in two ways – both as Horror tales and as Narratives (or Dramas) that would work just as well without the scary elements.

THE INVITATION is a part of this tradition. As I hope has been made clear by now: THE INVITATION is chiefly a dramatic depiction of grief with Horror accoutrement. KUSAMA happens to call it a Suspense-Drama but frequently acknowledges its Genre or Horror attributes as well. It contains multitudes! 

I mentioned Ari Aster’s HEREDITARY somewhat in passing an episode or two ago, in part because I think his films fall into the same category as THE INVITATION in that they brilliantly occupy this space or Horror and Drama simultaneously or alternately. MARTIN SCORSESE wrote an introduction for ASTER’s film MIDSOMMAR, saying the following about HEREDITARY specifically… [quote]

SCORSESE: “Like all memorable horror films, it tunnels deep into something unnameable and unspeakable, and the violence is as emotional as it is physical.”

https://thefilmstage.com/read-martin-scorseses-praise-of-ari-asters-hereditary-midsommar/

I realize this is a bit of tangent, but leave it to SCORSESE to get to the heart of an idea so clearly and concisely. 

So, YES, the climax from these pages and minutes *are* a payoff and they *are* inextricable from the dread of the first 2/3rds, but those are also more obvious or incidental traits… The TONAL SHIFT is easier to ignore. And just because it can seem imperceptible doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Contrary to our frequent gut reaction to changing a film’s tone: whether it happens briefly, permanently, or alternately –– it isn’t an inherently bad or wrong choice as some general audiences might believe, it’s just often incredibly hard to pull off.

Even when executed well, the relatively jarring nature of altering tone can still put people off as much as it might engage them.

High risk, high reward.

I always think of Sam Raimi when I talk about this because he’s so fearless and practiced in his tonal gear-changes and overlaps. His sharp turns from Horror to Comedy (and beyond!) and vice-versa can be so over-the-top in terms of their content that they seem to announce themselves very loudly. The irony, perhaps, is that (despite these seemingly dissonant choices) when they’re successful, the *transition* of the tone itself is seamless.

And that’s EXACTLY what KARYN KUSAMA does during the climax of THE INVITATION.

Granted, the leap from Suspense-Drama to Horror arguably isn’t as vast a chasm as Comedy to Horror, but even still, KUSAMA’s task is arguably just as difficult (if not more so) because she somehow has to deliver on the promise of the first 60 minutes of dread and emotional violence. So, the fact that she *does* is a feat that cannot go unacknowledged. 

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

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

https://www.verywellmind.com/five-stages-of-grief-4175361

Not only is this the film’s True Climax (which is obviously notable), but this “True Climax” unfolds epically in rapid and breathtaking succession:

–WILL slapping the wine glasses out of the other guests’ hands.

–WILL accidentally hurts SADIE.

–BEN attempts to call 911.

1-2 punch of…

–GINA lying dead from apparent poisoning via the wine. ---> WILL WAS RIGHT.

–DAVID shooting Miguel (when things *finally* become horrifying AND clear as opposed to just purely horrifying). ---> DAVID REVEALS HIS TRUE NATURE.

–PRUITT shooting CHOI.

–SADIE stabbing TOMMY.

–PRUITT shooting BEN. 

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

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

• #2.) Topic: TERRIBLE ANTICIPATION  – The Palpable Dread of Shooting the Climax. 

 As if that wasn’t enough… the *Making* of the movie reflected the Movie itself in that the energy & mood of the filmmakers, cast, and crew all took a turn as the filming of the climax––of today’s scenes––began. As KARYN KUSAMA says: 

[quote] “This is where the experience of making the movie became much more… I would say just difficult overall. The party literally and figuratively was over. And now we were in the meat of the finale which was unpleasant. It was bad.” [/end quote]

 ...PHIL HAY elaborates, [quote] “could feel the dread of everybody: the cast and crew as we approached shooting these scenes later. We all were really enjoying being together.” –HAY.

 I can only hope that the cast at least was able to tap into that very tangible dread, but I hesitate to even mention that because the cliche´ of a director advising an actor “use it!” or “use that!” (as in, channel a real feeling you have right now into your performance) is a tired trope, and I wholly reject the idea of actors needing to be terrorized or manipulated or abused or talked down just for the sake of performance. Accountability over entertainment and storytelling is a must. 

 I don’t want to go on another tangent, but… 

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

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

• #3.) Topic: GENRE MODULATION – SUSPENSE-DRAMA takes a turn towards HORROR. 

 As impressive as the Tonal SHIFT is, I want to talk about the TONES THEMSELVES.

For much of this series, I’ve repeatedly touched on THE INVITATION’s Genre Agnosticism if you will – the way it is directly described as a Suspense-Drama by its director and how the film’s overall reception has led to it being accepted by Horror fans into the pantheon of Horror movies. 

Yet, until now – until today’s pages – those Horror elements have been largely implied, arguably to the point that the film (thrillingly) teetered between a Comedy of Errors and a Horror of Manners (to quote BRITT HAYES brilliant description of the film). Any lingering ambiguity about THE INVITATION’s tonal intentions have likely been annihilated after the events of the climax, and through the lens of Genre Modulation – the macabre domino effect of WILL’s outburst as we’ve just touched on illustrates the seamless transition KUSAMA achieves. 

Of course, THE INVITATION hasn’t hidden its use of Dread, Paranoia, and Tension in the least, but I would say it doesn’t (explicitly) become a Horror movie until GINA’s lifeless corpse is revealed and MIGUEL is shot in cold blood. 

The subsequent high-speed photography, muted sound effects, and hair-raising score all indicating that, much like the characters on screen, we have now been irrevocably locked into a nightmare with no escape. After relentless build-up, KUSAMA is FINALLY done being coy and MERCILESSLY drops us into Hell with these characters. As a big fan of more TRADITIONAL HORROR FARE … films like the original HELLRAISER, I love and will always love that movie's sheer inventiveness and influential, horrific designs. It is effective in so many ways, and I only bring it up as a point of juxtaposition. It is different, not better or worse. Whereas that film deals with borderline literal depictions of Hell and explicit torture scenes, the fear it instill is somewhat archetypal – the fright coming from a place of how unimaginable the circumstances and monsters are.

By contrast, THE INVITATION’s injection of terror comes from the believability and familiarity of the circumstances. Yes, we can IMAGINE ourselves being cornered by Clive Barker’s Cenobites, but it’s a mental leap and mostly irrational. Unlike THE INVITATION which burrows courageously into ordinary/common but devastating fears like claustrophobia + anxiety + grief, and layering them on top of extraordinary (but PRECEDENTED) events that are reminiscent of the Manson Family Murders and the Mass Grave of JONESTOWN. 

The cerebral and visceral amplify each other… are greater than the sum of their parts. 

THE INVITATION has been unflinching in its portrayal of mental anguish, so why would it be any less unapologetic when it comes to the corporal horrors that have, at long last, entered the fray? I think it goes without saying that the film isn’t gratuitous – it has no interest in gore for gore’s sake (not that there’s anything wrong with that necessarily), nor does it have sustained interest in cheap jump scares (though SADIE’s devilish re-emergence is superb in part because it’s anomalous) – much of it is about these elusive, intangible feelings of terror. 

I’d say KUSAMA relishes the opportunity to weaponize these, but as we now know: the cast/crew felt a VERY REAL dread leading up to the shooting of this sequence. The mood appropriately soured on-set since the literal and figurative party was ending. (the moods of the characters paralleling the moods of the actors)

So, I think it would simply be inaccurate to say the filmmakers took (perverse) pleasure in filming the script’s point-of-highest-action – KUSAMA has too much respect for the material, her audience, and her craft for that – but I *would* say the director, cast, and crew all felt a responsibility to render these scenes with truth, even if the discomfort in doing so was greater than expected. If nothing else, I’d say that discomfort was at least highly indicative of the warm, trusting community that was established on set. (Logan Marshall-Green and Emayatzy Cornidealdi confirmed that EVERYONE, cast and crew both, would frequently indulge in a SIMON SAYS-type game on set.)

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise since the Pure Morbid Poetry of it all is so brilliantly executed. 

Said another way: the gloves are finally off to show you *just* how terrible this Hell is. 

All of which is a typically long-winded way of (hopefully) conveying just how seamless, precise, almost invisible, KUSAMA’s Genre Modulation is…

–––>>> For an hour and 20 minutes, we have been in a primarily dramatic, suspense-driven narrative, and in the space of about 2 to 3 minutes, KUSAMA makes the move from something character and dialogue-focused to something guttural and horrific like the master she is. 

Again, the film has of course gently dipped its toes into Horror conventions during its first 2/3rds (seemingly prepping us), but the grace and skill with which we are so QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY and PURPOSEFULLY dropped into the deep end is why I’ve been able to devote a year-plus of analysis to this film… the prowess and unthinkable intensity of these scenes is something to behold. 

These chilling events, for me, define the film’s unwavering reign + control over multiple genres of cinema. They define why it is still a picture that effortlessly fits into any category assigned to it. They’re all correct because the director can modulate and adapt like few others can.

Even in relation to KUSAMA’s *DIRECT and very UNAMBIGUOUS* contribution to the Horror World (2000’s misunderstood but currently re-appraised JENNIFER’S BODY), THE INVITATION seems to take the craft honed on that earlier film and bends it in different directions that are less about Abjectly Surreal Horror (not to mention female agency  & cathartic black comedy), and more about the Horrors of being trapped––both literally in a Los Angeles mansion with a death cult and figuratively in one’s own, grief-stricken head. 

I’d even argue that KUSAMA’s Genre Modulation in THE INVITATION is an undeniable result of all her previous feature entries combined:

–The intimacy of GIRLFIGHT informs the authentic human drama.

–The atmosphere and texture of JENNIFER’S BODY obviously informs the palpable dread and blood letting. 

–Even AEON FLUX, a film *infamously* re-cut by its studio after firing KUSAMA, still has inklings of precision that no doubt sharpened the director’s abilities (AND unfortunately gave her 1st-hand experience regarding THE INVITATION’s portrayals of false appearances & inconsiderate, insidious intentions). 

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

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

• #4.) Topic: ANALYSIS / DIFFERENCES: Taking of Hands before Drinking Wine, etc…  

Transitioning a bit to some script vs. screen differences… As we learned today from the script read: the screenplay originally had DAVID asking his guests to take hands before drinking their wine. (DAVID

Everyone please take each other’s hands. )

As usual, it’s a small cut, but small deletions like this make the narrative extremely thoughtful and precise in the uncertainty it aims to cast over the audience… which is actually kind of amazing considering how close we are to pulling back the curtain on the implicit machinations we’ve suspected for so long.

Of course, the responsibility and weight of that precision is resting greatly on the actors and their performances here. Even after shedding all unnecessary or overt dialogue, the cast must still tell the story in a way that could have more than one interpretation.

As MATT MANFREDI notes on the audio commentary,  [QUOTE] “You still can’t give it away.” I love this bit from MANFREDI because it shows how ALL-IN––how fully engaged––the cast & crew were in making the film a constant, aching question. They never let up on the gas or lose interest in that essential paranoia and suspicion, even when some filmmakers might have the instinct to show their hand (so to speak) so as to shed light on the main character’s actions. KUSAMA and company reject that in favor of immersive chaos. As we talked about last episode, every directorial choice in the lead-up to WILL’s final outburst is to create a deeply empathetic, shared perspective with WILL––which means experiencing the doubt and impulsiveness that’s swirling inside him. A fortunate byproduct of this is that it, somewhat ironically, puts the audience in the perspective of the other guests when he freaks out, which is ideal, because their rising confusion and hysteria is crucial in establishing the horrific atmosphere. 

I think this is highlighted wonderfully by the “last looks” of the guests as they raise their wine glasses––GINA’s face communicates complete mundanity or neutrality, MIGUEL is basically chuckling at the grandiosity of DAVID’s words––everyone but WILL is ready to take the edge off from a mostly harmless, if weird, evening.

SO

When we see those same jaded faces start to elicit Fear mere moments later, it is our only reliable clue that we have truly entered a point of no return. The terror of the people on screen is giving us, the audience, permission to be terrified as well.

It’s also a credit to how committed KARYN KUSAMA and editor PLUMMY TUCKER are to keeping the audience unsure and destabilized the way they strip the scene to its most essential components while also being smart enough to show us just how unfazed the principal cast is before their world shatters. Again, that juxtaposition is where a lot of the Horror comes from in my opinion. 

I might even argue that the real magic trick (they somehow pull off) is maintaining ambiguity whilst also ramping up tension YET MAINTAINING CLARITY. They truly make it look easy: between DAVID’s rapturous kiss on EDEN’s lips to EDEN herself appearing anxious & hollow as she pours the wine from the decanter, there are still plenty of clues as to what’s about to happen but none that can definitively sway viewers… yet, at the same time, these signals deepen and reveal nuances on repeat viewings. The balance is (honestly) remarkable. 

Whether the characters are realizing it or not, whether they’re in denial or not––the house has always been a giant casket that is now finally being lowered into the ground in the most excruciating way possible ...because NO ONE’s evening is going according to plan: not DAVID’s, not WILL’s, not PRUITT’s, not KIRA’s. No one’s.

Which is why the climax feels drawn out like an ache as well as compressed and relentless. This climax contains multitudes! 

Or maybe the better simile is that it unfolds like a sucker-punch in a bar fight: a sudden jolt of pain––so brutal-yet-surprising, even undeserved––that it causes shockwaves of disorderly emotion. One haphazard action begets another.

As MATT MANFREDI notes on the audio commentary, “You still can’t give it away.” Re: precision and modulation of performances. 

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

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

• #5.) Topic: VIVID WRITING TAPS INTO HORROR: The screenplay appropriately embraces Terror, etc. 

The writing is incredibly VIVID, SCARY, and EFFECTIVE during these pages. Hats off to HAY and MANFREDI for delivering compulsive reading on top of the tight structure and functionality that are their primary objectives. Hats off to KUSAMA and the CREW for executing all of that masterfully, in a way that not only lives up to the words on the page but renders them in a way that is simultaneously nightmarish and believable.

There are some notable details during today’s pages. For one… (and this took me a while to notice, and I didn’t even notice it myself, it was pointed out to me)

• The wine is poured from a DECANTER for the first and only time, NOT directly from the wine bottle, which is of course, highly suggestive and revealing. I’m glad that KUSAMA opted out of close-up or insert of this which absolutely would have been showing her hand. 

One of the most horrifying details of the script that I almost wish was included in the finished version of the film is as follows… on page eighty-four. QUOTE…

• DAVID shouts something guttural, unintelligible. PRUITT drags CHOI to the floor. SADIE is already plunging the knife into GINA.

END QUOTE… I mean, that is *ghastly* which is maybe why it’s not in the final cut. It is grim in a way that the filmmakers may have seen as unnecessarily oppressive on top of everything else which is already SO disturbingly breathtaking. Or maybe there wasn’t time in the day to get that shot. Or maybe it was cut in the edit bay. Or maybe it was cut at the script level. It is unknown. 

But I think this one sentence about SADIE attacking GINA (well after she has clearly died) is such an unforgettable detail because, for ONE, it illustrates the overlapping chaos of the moment so vividly (DAVID shouting, PRUITT grabbing stragglers, guests scattering in every direction, etc) and, TWO, it shows how MALICIOUS and UNHINGED SADIE is. PRUITT and DAVID have obviously already revealed that they are IMMINENT and INTENSE threats, but (at least comparatively) DAVID shows pangs of regret. Meanwhile, PRUITT’s violence is so deeply MEASURED and IMPERSONAL (making him scarier in a way). 

So, yes, they are all VERY DANGEROUS in their own ways, but I love how in one sentence HAY & MANFREDI perfectly emphasize (and put a bow on) how *UNPREDICTABLE* SADIE is and *has been* this whole time. It’s a trait that’s revealed its red flags periodically (the ‘I WANT’ game, SADIE seducing WILL by the pool, and of course SADIE attacking WILL after he destroys the wine glasses), so when she antagonizes a corpse––it is shocking, yes––but frighteningly supported by her behavior throughout the film. 

As KARYN KUSAMA points out, [quote]”Much of the violence is experienced from WILL and KIRA’s point of view, so sometimes we are seeing only fragments through half-closed doors and in darkened hallways. Some of the violence is implied, and hopefully becomes more personal and nightmarish because of it.”[/end quote]

Once more, we’re granted a telling insight into KUSAMA’s strong and thoughtful directorial sensibilities. She clearly favors a Consistent Pee-Oh-Vee as we’ve gone over before, but as it relates to the current topic, that nearly unbreakable tether to the PROTAGONIST creates an atmosphere of sensory terror and unknowability that transcends mere visuals. One moment I think of often for this reason is when CHOI crawls into the shadows out of sight, after being shot once, followed by a remorseless PRUITT––who is so remorseless and controlled that takes his sweet-ass time to follow the critically wounded CHOI––calmly walking over MIGUEL’s body to get to him. All we hear is a 2nd gunshot and we know CHOI (who came so close to missing the party entirely) is down for good. *That* is scarier than cutting away from WILL and KIRA’s perspective to see a bullet go in CHOI, because it’s closer to real life.

I wouldn’t dare call KUSAMA squeamish or unafraid to tackle explicit, even over-the-top, violence (again: look at JENNIFER’S BODY), she’s just someone who’s not interested in it simply for the sake of it… she wants to craft fear through implication, sound, and escalating cause-and-effect… which perfectly explains the absence of that moment of SADIE impaling GINA. 

But best of all, the writers and director are *still* doing character work––even amid the jaw-dropping terror of the film’s Final Act––establishing the kind of obstacles that WILL and KIRA still have ahead of them, often non-verbally: just look at the way PRUITT almost seems to calm DAVID after he shoots MIGUEL. We don’t hear any of what they say but their body language speaks volumes––PRUITT apparently suggesting to a visibly shaken DAVID that he should step aside and let him do the dirty work. (note: the only words I can make out as someone who very much can’t read is lips is “IT’S OK” from PRUITT / JCL.)

It’s wildly successful due to the unique, lived-in chemistry of MICHEL HUISMAN and JOHN CARROLL-LYNCH, and because neither of these actors play the villainy of their characters. They play their imperfection – they play the deep, complicated hurt they possess. 

And then the monsters within them reappear as fast as they were hidden and compartmentalized. KUSAMA knows how to show you just enough of their humanity to remind you that––to borrow a quote from these pages––”they’re just people” (itself a mantra that applies to how vulnerable we all are) but not without ALSO reminding you they are extremely lethal and motivated. Those realistic multitudes, in those doses, make everything scarier. 

Two murderers sharing a human, perhaps tender, moment right before they resume their killing spree is a perfectly surreal-yet-believable interaction. 

But the whole sequence (particularly right after MIGUEL is shot) beautifully done––with the best use of slow-motion I can honestly think of, and with all sound effects drowned out to let Theodore Shapiro’s fragile, skin-crawling score sink its talons into you. 

And sure enough, SADIE lives up to her MANSON-ian namesake when she attacks WILL and KIRA with a knife on the ground floor, just missing them in the film’s one real (but earned) Jump Scare. Again, note her flailing, shrieking presence and what a contrast that is to PRUITT and DAVID. It’s why I appreciate the storytelling––horrific as it is––of her stabbing GINA in the script… just because it emphasizes and reiterates the *kind* of danger she is. 

She’s a Wild-Child Ball of Kamikaze Terror––frail and light, sure––but her wiry speed and agility nearly balance out her shortcomings. 

It’s up to the viewer what’s more or most scary.

Is this detail 100% necessary? Of course not. It may’ve been filmed but cut in the edit bay or it may have never been filmed––either as a deliberate creative choice or as a practical one. At the end of the day, KUSAMA still manages to quietly reveal character at a point in the film when it would have been easy to brutishly and ostentatiously power through the action. Rather: she keeps the POV tight and the scares suffocating––ALL while never losing sight of the fact this is still a SUSPENSE-DRAMA film, which in this case means that is still character-driven or based. 

Speaking of which, the body count is HUGE during this sequence, at least to the extent that the first 2/3rds of the movie *basically* had none. It goes from *ONE* largely ambiguous death that doesn’t really count (CLAIRE) in 80 pages to at least *FOUR* in about 10 pages. GINA / MIGUEL / CHOI / and BEN ALL go down––not to mention TOMMY, who may or may not be permanently out of commission. GINA, of course, was poisoned. MIGUEL was shot once, CHOI was shot twice, And BEN was stabbed then shot once.

Speaking of gunshots, that means the 6-shot revolver has been fired 4 times. Interesting. We’ll return to that. 

–1 bullet for MIGUEL.

–2 bullets for CHOI.

–1 bullet for BEN.

–1 bullet for WILL.

–1 bullet for EDEN. 

It is one of the greatest climaxes I’ve ever seen put to film. (note: was this film shot digitally or shot on film? both?)

(pg 84) DAVID shouts something guttural, unintelligible. PRUITT drags CHOI to the floor. SADIE is already plunging the knife into GINA.

–––> holy shit, that is horrifying.

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

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

• #6.) Topic: VISUALS / CINEMATOGRAPHY – Chiaroscuro of the Dining Room.

 It’s only in retrospect, having now written and produced 12 episodes, that I’m a little surprised how much I’ve not talked about the visuals in this movie overall. Maybe it’s because this podcast was always designed to go deeper than the obvious, but as someone whose background is in illustration and fine art, it’s striking to me. But that will change at least briefly for today if nothing else, because I want to acknowledge not just cinematography in general during the climax but probably one shot in particular.

But first, I again want to commend the tasteful use of high-frame rate and slow-motion––it’s incredibly earned, yet also reflects the way our brains seem to process traumatic events as they happen in the present  moment (how often have you heard someone say “it seemed to happen in slow motion”?). But on a practical level, this simply allows the viewer or audience to gain some clarity amid the chaos while also letting the emotional weight, terror, and reality *really* sink in. KUSAMA and editor PLUMMY TUCKER cross-cut between key close-ups, wisely letting the characters various states of shock tell the story… their faces bathed in BOBBY SHORE’s warm shadows and rich ambers.

However, the one FRAME in particular I want to cite is a glorious WIDE SHOT after DAVID shoots MIGUEL, wherein WILL, KIRA, and BEN scatter to the right of the frame and PRUITT goes to the left side––everyone radiating like an imperfect cymatic pattern (with DAVID, EDEN, and SADIE as the shot’s static figures). 

The characteristically gentle PRUITT walks directly in DAVID’s line of fire, his palms turned up & towards him in a show of peace. Meanwhile, at the right-hand fringes of the frame, WILL, KIRA, and BEN all move away in various shades of panic.

With the sordid dinner table as their central, binding point, we’re seeing the two opposing parties move in either direction from it––elongating an almost invisible tension that is heightened & emphasized by the aforementioned slo-mo.

Better yet, the Dynamic Poses and Body Language of each character on screen say so much––the staging of their bodies perhaps the most Baroque thing of all: 

On the Right Side of the Frame, WILL is seemingly stunned and/or numb, yet shows signs of being in Protector Mode, needing to be pulled back by BEN, who quickly disappears from the frame, except for his forceful hand around WILL’s forearm (at least the latter of the two has the presence of mind to not linger or be a hero). KIRA meanwhile is still on the ground, crawling backwards in shock as she starts to look behind her, away from the violence and towards WILL. 

Then, on the Left Side of the Frame, there’s the Unholy Quartet of DAVID, PRUITT, EDEN, and SADIE.

PRUITT and DAVID extend the previously mentioned visual tension by incrementally moving away from their petrified targets––crafting a taut, unseeable tether between them––at the same time, EDEN is literally framed (housed!) between the two of them… her hands raised above her waist, frozen in shock and regret. THEN, completing their loose, geometric constellation is SADIE lying motionless on the floor. Taken as a whole, their bodies suggest the basic silhouette of American Colonial-style House. SADIE a horizontal x-axis while DAVID and PRUITT create the vertical y with their bodies, and lastly, their extended, slightly diagonal arms creating the quote-unquote “roof.”

I don’t wanna lose you completely, but this series *is* a deep dive, so we might as well go there… 

Within that very literal framing is EDEN, alone with a corpse at her feet (SADIE), in a house of DAVID, PRUITT, and SADIE’s making––the most lethal and outspoken ones of the evening having created the conditions for this tragedy to unfold, with an increasingly ambivalent EDEN torn between them. 

The metaphor is there. It’s optional but it’s there. Earlier in the series, I believe I called THE INVITATION a type of Haunted House movie (specifically in regards to WILL’s haunted mental space made real by his old home).

The microcosm of DAVID, PRUITT, SADIE, and EDEN in this shot kind of supports that reading in that we are now watching, in real time, as this house expands its tragic resume´ in ways that make TY’s death look downright pleasant. Up until now, TY was the only real ghost (in addition to perhaps the ghosts of EDEN and WILL’s former, happy selves), but presently ghosts are being made faster than we can mourn them. 

https://caravaggio.org/martyrdom-of-saint-matthew.jsp

Essentially, this stealthily grandiose shot is a Tableau in Motion or perhaps a Moving Painting. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I’m reminded of the works of CARAVAGGIO when I see this sequence.

There seems to be embracing of Chiaroscuro––or heavy contrast of light and shadow––on display here. A trait that helped define CARAVAGGIO’s paintings and the Baroque era he influenced. That contrast, or Chiaroscuro, combined with the telling facial expressions, distinct silhouettes, and the overall impressive sum of disparate figures creates a modern and appropriately dramatic KEY FRAME. 

Earlier in the film, we got more functional frames like the pair of shots from WILL’s POV that expressed his isolation and distance. There was also the aesthetically pleasing (but still thematically relevant) shot of WILL’s reflection repeating infinitely in the bathroom.

Conversely, the distinct image of THE INVITATION’s two opposing groups now engaging in a widening and violent divide unleashes an artistic sensibility and geographic awareness that has been slightly repressed until now. While the film maintains its unmistakable color palette and nocturnal atmosphere–– it’s as if KUSAMA was waiting for the most piercing moment of the story to let loose her strongest visuals yet––briefly tearing away from the film’s persistent claustrophobia to show us who and what is at stake. 

Speaking of claustrophobia and waiting for opportune moments––I’d be haunted if I didn’t at least touch on the way that tight camera style evolves during these climactic scenes. I wouldn’t say it’s abandoned completely, but it does adapt to the action on-screen. As KARYN KUSAM writes in her DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT for the film, [quote]”...once the violence erupts, so does the camera’s style: racing with characters as they run for their lives, coming up behind their necks, registering every panicked breath.”[/end quote] sigh… I just love her writing. 

She’s of course right! Up until these crazy/intense moments of desperate fleeing and running, the movie was almost entirely relegated to being on sticks or a tripod: maintaining control and precision within the frame, often expressing the madness and dread of the story through editing, sound design, and music rather than the picture itself. Conversely, now we’re seeing hurried hand-held shots that can’t help but viscerally REACT TO or CHASE the kinetic, dynamic bodies on-screen.

I always think of that great shot of a KAMIKAZE SADIE seemingly appearing out of nowhere, chasing WILL and KIRA into the spare room. The literal human-touch of the camera in those hair-raising seconds stands in such strong contrast to the rest of the film’s measured and still compositions. It almost looks like the camera operator is just as surprised by LINDSAY BURDGE’s madly sprinting, flailing body as the other actors are. 

But it’s appropriate and purposeful. The camera direction FINALLY leans into the emotion of the characters after resisting for so long––after letting the other tools of the medium primarily do it––because now the question of whether or not the house and its occupants are safe and/or trustworthy has FINALLY been answered. Therefore, KUSAMA and company can go to town without the risk of revealing too much or the risk being too on-the-nose or overt. It’s “KUSAMA UNCHAINED” and it’s incredibly satisfying. 

A PODCAST ABOUT FILM and THE CONSEQUENCES OF DENIAL. 

A LTD. PODCAST SERIES.

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

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

• #7A.) Topic: The characters are people, not fodder. – … 

One thing I’d like to retroactively touch on is the conscious structure to have WILL be visited individually by each of his friends throughout the movie. We’ve talked about these scenes as they happen and the unique things brought to the table by each character and the actor portraying them, but I want to highlight the STRUCTURE of this choice which I really appreciate––it’s almost like Scrooge being visited by the various Ghosts of past, present, and future throughout A CHRISTMAS CAROL. Given the fact that we established that THE INVITATION is a type of (psychological) Haunted House movie, I don’t think it’s an inappropriate simile. The literal ghosts of WILL’S MEMORY take up about the same amount of real estate as the flesh-and-blood ghosts of his slightly estranged friends and loved ones, each of them offering their own insights specific to their relationship with WILL.

Gratifying as that structure of spotlighting each guest is (which not all storytellers do)––especially when played with such authenticity by THE INVITATION’s lovely, diverse ensemble––it does serve a purpose outside of coloring in the vibrant, interesting history of this friend group. In fact, it grimly pays off in that we actually feel something, or at least more than we might otherwise, when these characters have their lives violently taken from them. 

MATT MANFREDI cuts to the heart of this idea on the audio commentary when he says the supporting characters are “not fodder.”

PHIL HAY goes into a little more detail, saying [quote] “I think that something we tried to do, both in the script and in the film, is to make sure that all the characters had a moment of focus so that we could feel like they had their own relationship with WILL. Their own lives. Their own personhood. Because that was just very important to us. That everybody had a sort of dignity in the story. This is not a story where people are hopefully not playing roles within a genre... They’re truly meant to be their own people.” [/end quote]

For a film that is so interested in our humanity or lack thereof, or the ways that ourhumanity can be stripped away or abused––it’s nice to see the creators pay measurable service to that idea by respecting its characters enough to actually render them as characters and not just recipients of bloody, violent acts. 

Speaking of personhood… 

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

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

• #7B.) Topic: “THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE.” – Dual Meaning of Empowerment (“we can beat them”) vs. The Film’s Refusal to Portray 2D Villains.

Before wrapping up, I wanna talk about 1 or 2 short but I think KEY lines. First: as WILL and KIRA try to reconcile their survival instinct with their logic in their temporary hiding spot, WILL comforts his partner by saying… [quote]

WILL: “We have to get ready. We have to do whatever it takes. They are just people.”

I find this to be stealthily significant: in literal terms, in context of the characters, it’s a desperate (but still genuinely empowering) reframe of the nightmare they’re in. In the slightly more metatextual sense––and to bring it back to a recurring figure of today’s discussion––it’s a fascinating reiteration of the film’s almost Scorsese-esque refusal to judge even its most monstrous figures.

Last episode, I included a few quotes from JIM JONES’S son, STEPHAN (pronunciation?), who saw JONESTOWN flourish beautifully before its horrific end… and lived to tell about it. STEPHAN was careful to note how all of JONESTOWN’s residents were ‘just people.’ Those are HIS WORDS. The way I interpret that sentiment is that they weren’t caricatures or unrelatable, disconnected acolytes. They were simply people whose longing for community was abused and manipulated in one of the most evil ways imaginable. 

So, I really don’t think it’s a stretch or reach to extend the meaning of what might seem like a slightly throwaway line to some. WILL is psyching himself and his partner up when he says “THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE” but it’s also a subtle reminder of the film’s deliberate portrayal of its antagonists: EDEN, DAVID, PRUITT, SADIE… they’re committing sickening deeds, yes, but it’s not because of some supernatural possession, some cartoonish revenge plot, or anything else that would give them a pass or make their actions laughably oversimplified.

The film makes it clear that these are people who have been through shattering life experiences and were brainwashed when they were most vulnerable. Does this excuse their behavior? Of course not, but the film’s delicate depiction of people who have suffered and the lengths they will go to not suffer anymore is frankly very mature and intelligent––never overexplaining but giving us enough room to infer and truly feel the periphery of an otherwise insular story. That complexity is something that will become even more apparent as we get closer to the end of the fim. 

In any case… shortly after the “THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE” line, KIRA says… 

[quote] “We’ll fight. I’ll help you. If...” [ellipsis][/end quote]

So, this line is deleted from the final cut which is notable. I can only assume, and I could be wrong, that the unspoken half of that sentence is “I’LL HELP YOU. IF YOU GET HURT”… or “I’LL HELP YOU. IF THEY ATTACK.”

Is she implying she’ll put him out of his misery if necessary? If he’s fatally wounded? If so, that’s another reiteration of a HUGE theme of the film, which is: When is it acceptable and NOT acceptable to decide for others? WILL seems to accept KIRA’s implicit offer, so CONSENT unsurprisingly is a major component of this topic. I’ve been waiting eagerly to discuss this again, but I think it’s best saved for next week in the penultimate episode (you’ll know why), and then we can go more in-depth on adjacent issues like mercy, obligation, and malice. 

 Aside from that, I’m curious what the thought process behind this line from KIRA was and if I’m right about it being an echo of this pervasive idea. In context, it doesn't seem far-fetched that this is what WILL’s partner is suggesting. So, even though this detail was cut, the dread it emphasizes is still very much present in the finished movie. 

It’s bad enough to be *trapped* with people who are actively trying to murder you––it’s bad enough to have to survive that. What’s worse is when those conditions *force* you to not only *escape* the unthinkable, but to *do* the unthinkable––whether that means rising to their horrific level of violence and destruction or, God forbid, turning that same energy in on yourself or your loved one. 

But as the film says, these are just people. Good, bad. Protagonist, antagonist. 

However, they *do* share something more specific, especially in today’s scenes, and that is that they’re all just scared and they’re all in pain, they’re just expressing it differently. As PHIL HAY notes when talking about the raising of the wine glasses… [quote] We know that they’re [THE CHARACTERS ARE] reaching this moment of truth. To me, that extended feeling of dread – of just imagining these people they’re moments before (at least some of them know) they’re gonna die – they’re scared.” [/end quote]

THE INVITATION is, among other things, a meditation on how grief and guilt can corrupt us––in both ordinary and extreme ways––though the intensity of that initial seed of agony is remarkably common, even identical. That excruciating guilt can eviscerate us internally like it does WILL or it can insidiously radiate like it does with his many foils. But in either case, that emotional shrapnel still rages in both directions––it just happens to differing degrees. 

Whether your mental hand grenade is causing minimal or heavy damage––to yourself, to others––you are still accountable for the damage you cause.

As author JEN SINCERO has said... [quote=]“You are not responsible for being fucked up. But you are responsible for staying fucked up.” [/end quote]

We’re all scared. We’re all in pain. Especially nowadays. And before I make yet another sweeping generalization about humanity, maybe recognizing that shared baseline is enough to keep the pin inside our emotional hand-grenades a little longer. Because as THE INVITATION unfortunately recognizes: not engaging with our internal state in good faith has a way of backfiring––not only on ourselves––but on the people in our immediate area.

WILL is an (inverted) mirror for his hosts and vice-versa.

DAVID and EDEN simply arrived at the end of their toxic, grief-stricken fuse a little faster… and the consequences of that acceleration will get worse before they get better. If they get better. [//END]

not keeping the pin in our emotional hand-grenades can tragically lead to not keeping the pin in our ACTUAL hand-grenades.

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

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

If we can recognize that baseline commonality instead of harming others

Flawed, Good or bad, they’re all just people. 

But again… we’ll revisit this in a deeper way soon.  

Until then, 

KIRA’s line is deleted! 

Episode #15: when EDEN is laid to rest outside, she is bathed in blues???, much like the flashback to TY’s room… intentional????

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

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

• Topic: GUIDING QUOTE (better for EPISODE #14 since that is when EDEN and DAVID have their private talk)

– Grief can only be endured? [EVERGREEN!!]

... And [grief] can’t be remedied, it must be endured. And it’s the endurance weirdly enough that becomes the remedy.” 

–PATTON OSWALT.

‘Grief cannot be fixed, it can only be experienced. And unless you allow yourself to experience it, it will stay.’

–COLBERT.

EDEN and DAVID originally tried to endure but were essentially brainwashed into circumventing their pain. They were tricked into thinking there’s anything but the deeply unsexy and long-term residence of simple (but tiresome) endurance. 

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

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

• Topic: MISC NOTES… 

• LA TIMES article… How to Say ‘No’ to a Party Invitation.

–––> Jules Hirst = Etiquette Coach (co-author of the book, ‘The Power of Civility’).

https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-07-23/how-to-say-no-to-parties-during-covid-19-pandemic

And on the other side of the debate, some people reading this might be wondering why we should care about etiquette at all in these situations. Doesn’t a pandemic take precedence over politeness? Yes — but that doesn’t mean manners are now irrelevant.

“Whatever the CDC and government officials are telling us, these are guidelines to keep us alive and keep us healthy,” Hirst said. “Manners are a guideline so you still have friends when this is over.”

• The wine is poured from a DECANTER for the first and only time, NOT directly from the wine bottle, which is of course, highly suggestive and revealing.

• 5 STAGES OF GRIEF = MULTI-PART CLIMAX…??? The five stages of grief model postulates that those experiencing grief go through a series of five emotions: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. Although commonly referenced in popular culture, studies have not empirically demonstrated the existence of these stages, and the model is considered to be outdated, inaccurate, and unhelpful in explaining the grieving process… 

–DENIAL (

–ANGER (“David, don’t!”)

–BARGAINING (

–DEPRESSION (

–ACCEPTANCE (saying goodbye to EDEN, taking KIRA’s hand)

• WILL trapped in a room with all of his and TY’s old things – an on-the-nose metaphor for WILL being trapped in the past? Trapped inside his head?

• The writing is incredibly VIVID, SCARY, and EFFECTIVE during these pages. Hats off to HAY and MANFREDI for delivering. Hats off to KUSAMA and the CREW for executing it masterfully in a way that lives up to the writing and heightens it. It is one of the greatest climaxes I’ve ever seen put to film. (note: was this film shot digitally or shot on film? both?)

• The body count is huge during this sequence. It went from *One* largely ambiguous death (CLAIRE) in 80 pages to at least *Four* in about 10 (GINA / MIGUEL / CHOI / BEN), not to mention TOMMY being maimed if not down for the count completely.

• WILL: “We have to get ready. We have to do whatever it takes. They are just people.”

–––> Such a great, interesting, easy-to-miss(?) detail: in literal terms, in context of the characters, it’s a genuinely empowering reframing of the nightmare they’re in. In the more metatextual sense, it’s a fascinating reiteration of the film’s Scorsese-esque refusal to judge even its most monstrous characters. 

• KIRA: “We’ll fight. I’ll help you. If...”

–––> If WILL gets hurt? If he gets cornered? Is she implying she’ll put him out of his misery if necessary, if he’s fatally wounded? If so, it’s another reiteration of a HUGE theme of the film, which is: when it’s OK and when it’s NOT OK to decide for others. Is it ever OK? WILL seems to accept and appreciate the gesture from KIRA regardless.

Is KIRA’s line deleted????

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

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

• OUTRO.

[MUSIC (“Jerry and Elaine”) FADES IN / OUT.]

“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)

SUMMER MASTAIN (reprising her roles as SADIE and KIRA),

TIGHE KELLNER (reprising his role as TOMMY).

CHRISTINA ROMAN (reprising her role as EDEN).

MIKE BARNETT (reprising his role as BEN).

and RYAN SMITH (reprising his role 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.”

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

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