Dissecting The Haunting, 1963 | Directed by Robert Wise

Hello, horrorphiles. Here we dissect the classic 1963 film, The Haunting directed by Robert Wise and based on the Shirley Jackson novel, The Haunting of Hill House. Starring Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson and Russ Tamblyn.

“Dr. Markway leads a small group of ghost hunters to a supposedly haunted mansion to conduct experiments to prove the existence of the paranormal. The group consists of Eleanor Lance, a psychologically tortured woman; Theodora, a lesbian clairvoyant who befriends Eleanor; and a hip young cynic, Luke Sanderson, whose family owns the house. The paranormal activity that ensues affects the group differently, leading each to explore his or her own insecurities and leaving viewers wondering whether the real terrors are not contained in the house but exist within the psyches of the characters,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

This is Dissecting Horror: Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature with Kelsey Zukowski and Steven Aguilera.

We hope you find it in your cold, black, withered hearts to join our Society of Grotesquery and Loathing and keep our podcast suffering onward:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dissectinghorror
PayPal one-time donation of any amount: https://paypal.me/dissectinghorror
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dissectinghorror
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dissectinghorror
Kelsey Zukowski: http://kelseyzukowski.com
Steven Aguilera: https://www.stevenaguilera.com

Photo credit: Slevin Mors

Transcript

0:10

Hello, Horror files. You're listening to dissecting, horror, examining the anatomy of fear and film, television and literature. I'm writer and performer Kelsey Zukowski. I am filmmaker Steven Aguilera. And this episode will examine the 1963 film The Haunting, based on the novel The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson. Covered in our previous podcast. This dissection will contain minor spoilers, Though these subjects aren't especially prone to spoilage, we are the horror whisperers, your champions of horror and keepers of the fear scape. On this podcast of Fright, some delights, if you will. I will. And we hope you will join us too, won't you? Dr. Mark Wei leads a small group of ghost hunters to a supposedly haunted mansion to conduct experiments to prove the existence of the paranormal. The group consists of Eleanor Lance, a psychologically tortured woman. Theodora, A lesbian clairvoyant who befriends Eleanor. And a hip, young cynic. Luke Sanderson, whose family owns the house. The paranormal activity that ensues affects the group differently, leading each to explore his or her own insecurities and leaving viewers wondering whether the real terrors are not contained in the House but exist within the psyches of the characters that, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, of all things. This 1963 adaption of the Shirley Jackson novel The Haunting of Hill House was released just four years after the book's publication. After seeing the film, Jackson told a reporter it terrified her. She, quote, couldn't believe that she had written this unquote. Off record, she wasn't thrilled with some plot changes, but she loved the Dudley Hill house itself. This film was directed by the versatile Robert Wise, famed for helming such classics as West Side Story, The Sound of Music, The Day the Earth Stood Still in 1979. Star Trek The Motion Picture. Did you see any of those? West Side Story. The new one doesn't count. No, in there as well. I've seen neither. So, yeah, I saw a Star Trek the motion picture many times, but none of the others. I don't think any of that. Well, no. I did see the day the Earth stood still, but I'm not into musicals, them I like I like Grease. West Side story isn't my favorite. don't even know what it's about. I assume it's like in New York struggling? Yeah, it's like a little struggle. Gangs, a little love story. It's sort of Romeo and Juliet and New York gangster setting, are Classic. Yeah. So, I mean, it's not bad for what it is. I think I've just seen too many versions of it now. So yeah, even when I could appreciate things about the newest one. But I'm just like, I just seen this story too many times before. Yeah, that's how I feel. Just looking at it. It feels like I have an aversion to stage plays, much less stage musicals. I don't know what it is. I, I respect actors who have that kind of training, and I, I definitely feel like they're someone that I want to work with who is dedicated and who has hone their craft. Having gone through that, but sitting through a stage play is to me is just fucking kill me. I hate them so much. I absolutely cannot stand the thought. It's for me that and weddings are the two things that I just cannot deal with. I'd much rather go to a funeral or something, but oh my God, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Super up your alley, like at my stage play. It would help if it were something along those lines. But generally speaking, there's a certain tension that I feel in a live performance that I don't like. It's a sensation that something could go wrong in any given moment. And also, there's a sense that it's not going to last forever. Like on a film. You're going to go through all this trouble. You might as well preserve it so people can watch it forever in the stage play. It's so fleeting. I feel like, Why would you go through all that work for something that it's just going to be gone after the night's over, but maybe that's something that's part of the appeal to others. I've had this conversation many times, but Yeah. So the haunting upon the opening and just immediately brings you into this haunting history of Hill House and its allure with the eerie, foreboding atmosphere and just this compelling mystery. I felt like the film handled the source material pretty faithfully, only with a few things slightly altered or left out, mostly being pretty minor and not really changing or diminishing the core of the story, which is this supernatural versus psychological character study meets doomed love story. If you were to view the House as this morbid, praying lover. I was actually surprised after having read the book how much of the book was still in the movie. Normally they have to really slash and burn, but what they did change really made it better, if anything. And it wasn't just some slapped on fix like a Band-Aid. It was it really worked quite well. And after having read the book, I picked up things watching the movie that I didn't notice in the movie before. But having read the book, I thought, Oh, okay, I can see why they they peppered that in. It made more sense. what was the guy's name? The getting something getting. I don't think I wrote it down, He's on the the commentary track and he sounds like the oldest motherfucker you've ever heard in your life. I mean, he has one of those voices that sounds like he was smoking cigars since he was 12 or something. And old school Hollywood types and very unpleasant to hear the sound of, you know, that much phlegm in somebody's mouth when they're trying to utter every other guys like 110 or something. But did you listen to the commentary track by chance? did not. it's what's the word? It's commentated by the writer, the director and the four main stars. 40 years after the film was made. So you don't really see that the fact that they were all alive. This was something like in 2003, I think, when they recorded it. But you got some direct insights of people who spoke to Shirley Jackson and collaborated with her, asked her questions about her story when developing the film. So, wow, what a resource they had at their disposal when writing that. Yeah. That's pretty interesting, too. Like being a part of, you know, even by a lot of horror authors and horror filmmakers, this film is still one of like more highly regarded, especially when it comes to like supernatural hauntings. So to be a part of something so iconic and then so many years later, looking back at it, I imagine has to be a really cool and sort of surreal experience. Yeah, it really stood the test of time. This film has something of a Hitchcock feel reminiscent of Psycho released three years prior, but with notes of Citizen Kane. In point of fact, I thought of this before discovering that Robert Wise was the editor of Citizen Kane. Yet it also carries a film noir ish kind of style with its sharp, dramatic lighting and camera angles while other times playing more like a stage production. definitely has like a sweeping, alive sort of energy to the camera work and cinematography that embodies the feeling of the house being alive. Yet it kind of puts you into that mindset of wondering what is real and what is not. With this just the work of allusions and representing this hungry, imprisoned sort of haunted funhouse feel, yet one that is constantly making you wonder if it's a trick of the eye, something off kilter, and the architecture, or just the character's own minds slowly losing grips. Yeah, it functions in stark contrast to more modern films. It relies on suggestion There are almost no special effects outside of perhaps a door closing or flexing a bit. Much is left to the imagination. It's more atmospheric rather than hitting one over the head with visual effects. In fact, not a single ghost is ever seen in this film, but are only heard yet. I find it far more effective than its 1999 counterpart. We also never see a single drop of blood. yeah, I think it's it's the subtlety really has power and it really develops a big part is as just a character study in these characters, especially for Eleanor, who is just so desperate and kind of off kilter and struggling with just this desperation of her loneliness and finding somewhere where she needs to matter and needs to belong where she's so willingly to go under this house spell, so to speak. And just the slow escalation of little, little things seeming off or eerie and there's, you know, a little bit of a exploration of this could be in an live presence. And that doesn't necessarily mean it will harm you. So it's just kind of like as they go into this more and the house, you know, slowly becomes more alive and and hunts them more and more. But, yeah, it's the subtlety really does add a lot, which is probably the biggest film of the 99 film, which will go into later. But think it's more about it. It is about the haunting and this evil presence, which I did really like, that it quote a house that was born bad. I liked that it focused on, as with the original source material that it held on to that sort of fascinating outlook of the house itself being a place of evil. I like that it was something that was just born of darkness rather than their, you know, our tortured spirits there that needs to be set free. But the house itself is just darkness itself and is a constant. And that's something more grand that you can't really conquer or indoor because it's something that just is evil. Yeah, it feels real. It feels grounded. So you believe it, allowing yourself to be more immersed in it. Otherwise you're just being clobbered with a bunch of silly graphics that don't really mean a whole lot. Just hearing, for example, a banging on the door and seeing a doorknob slowly turning is so much more terrifying than actually showing what's behind that door. Hearing the question, what is that or whose hand was I holding is far more terrifying to me than actually showing any sort of computer generated monster, regardless of how well it's done. Less is more, especially in this genre. In fact, these are the most chilling moments in the film for me. And I think that if, one of us was to experience something like this, I think that is more closer to what you would be seen or experiencing. Most likely just those little things that seem off or that creaking the door or pounding or, you know, the realizing that you think you're holding your friend's hand and it's just this chilling aura coming over you. You don't always see it. And I do think that makes it a little more true to life and realistic and the overall suspense and haunting and the sort of dwindling in mindset into madness is able to take more more of a power like it feels, it feels more realistic and kind of puts you into sort of the psychological aspect of a haunting. And I like how they don't hit you over the head with things like Eleanor having a crush on the doctor. They let you fill in the blanks and put the pieces together and feel a sense of pride even in figuring out what's really going on. Despite what's on the surface, it makes you look deeper and is more interactive and interesting as an audience experience. And I like how Theo's lesbian aspect is more unspoken. Not because I find that offensive, actually quite the opposite, to be perfectly honest. But it's not preaching or trying to force some messaging at us. It's just there and we pick up on it and there's sexual tension and it's all just so much more interesting when presented that way. Yeah, absolutely. Like, you don't have to make a big deal. You can have that representation and have a character who has a sexuality without there is a certain amount of sexual tension that that really works, but it doesn't, they don't make it her whole identity or like a big deal because now it shouldn't be This is a person, you know, Every once in a while someone will say a line with such a sting on it and they'll punctuated with with music, but it sends a shiver through my spine. I just go, Wow. It's like cuts me to the bone and happened like four or five times in the film. The delivery of poignant dialog is way more powerful than any CGI ghost, and it doesn't cost anything. To produce, though is perhaps more difficult to achieve in a in a writing sense. this may not sound as sexy as an explosion or some sort of gore fest, but in fact, it really is much more effective, chilling and fascinating. In our previous podcast about the novel, I described how strange and foreign it was for me to read a character's thoughts, which is not something done in screenplays without the use of voiceover. But weirdly enough, in this film we actually have Eleanor's thoughts being expressed in that way, presumably a carryover from the novel. But voiceover is often considered a lazy form of screenwriting. It's better to show than to tell, but it seems to work well enough here. I think you kind of need it a little bit to get especially Eleanor is mindset. There's there's certainly ways and different avenues you could take to show what she went through and where she's at. And especially as you know, her hold on this house and that desperation. But I do think that the voiceover is fairly essential here. It's getting us to understand what she's going through. as in the novel, we are witness to the entrancing spell that is immediately put under. Even if she experiences that dash of fear and realization that it might be smarter to run from this dark dwelling upon her last chance as one that has her claws in her and might be futile. And just as in the book, I like that there was that one moment where she realizes I want this, but this might not be the smartest thing. This is my last chance to kind of run away and get out of there. And just as quickly as I thought comes, it leaves. So that was a nice kind of lining up to the source material. But ultimately her loneliness and need to find a place where she might belong wins out and furthermore offers the house a satisfying subject to hunt. Much of the film is Nell's unravel in madness, her heightened desperation, and this taunting and cruel dance with death she embarks on. As with the novel, there is a futile hope where there is a certain erratic, sort of desperate nature to know. But I think for most people, I guess it kind of depends on the viewer. I can see some people where she might come across as whiny or nagging and they might not invest in her as a character. But I think overall you you feel for her. And even if you know it's doomed, you have a certain amount of hope that if the rest of the world kind of has rejected her, she's never found her place or acceptance. Maybe this macabre, sinister little house could be where she finds her happiness even in death. And the one thing I felt the book handled a little better with just her character and mindset was amid something that is hard to convey in film, but kind of that ethereal, daydreamer fantastical, childlike quality that she had where she was constantly escaping and imagining something far more accepting and majestic than what life has left her with. There are sprinkles of this, but I think the level of fantastical desperation and sour in her isn't shown in its full depth. Again, pretty small thing because they do illustrate how she is a little off kilter. She's not. She's definitely been lonely and lost and she really doesn't have anything. She, you know, says nothing's really happened to me. So almost even something horrible happening to her would be this exciting adventure that she's waited for her whole life. So there are there certainly are elements other than overall the character exploration and just what they explore in her mental state and how it degrades more and more as it goes on is really strong. I just kind of felt again in the book, as happens a lot, they are able to go into just that little extra depth that kind of showcases that a little more. there are moments where she does get a little to emotional and I feel a sense of wanting to slap her or just shake her and make her snap out of it in some way. It triggers me a little bit, but not to the point where I started hitting her character. I turned on her. But there were a couple of cut scenes, one where on her way to the house, she stops at like a restaurant or a gas station that they shot but they didn't use in the film or explored more of her, her other desires or other facets. I'm not quite sure. This was not something that I watched, but it was explained in a YouTube video. But I really get that there's an economy in filmmaking where you have to just be ruthless and slash and burn and not include everything. But that is a shame that they loved that scene. But I do understand because that was also, again, it was a small thing you still get there for, for a boating atmosphere, you get that horrible things happen. It happened at Hillhouse, but I think that was it sounds like it might have touched on something similar to that. When she stops, I think it was at a diner in the book and everyone is just immediately like, there's nothing here for you. Why would you ever come here? Stay away from Hillhouse? And even just in their own life, even people who live in this adjacent town just seemed so solemn and miserable. So I think that that kind of added a little bit of a dreariness and also just kind of like Shirley Jackson's depiction of like the human experience, which is she doesn't necessarily view in the most positive light, you know, just very lonely and no one will really be there for you and just kind of this like dreary, ongoing existence. So I think in the book that did set up a little bit more of the tension and ominous atmosphere and okay, what if people who haven't lived here but still have heard the stories are so wary of it? You know, it just kind of builds up more like, what are we going to be getting into? I think that's the key. It would have built up this foreboding about what we're going to happen in and painted a picture that even before we see the house that we knew it was going to be something definitely worth being worried about, but nothing really supernatural happens until 40 minutes into the film, and yet we're still engaged because of the characters. The setting and the story are so good in the building of mystery and tension. This film, I think, was about the same length as the 1999 version. But as we'll get into in our next podcast, these couldn't be more different films, and I can't wait to really tear into that one because I think in a way, the messiness of the 1999 version, it doesn't ruin the 63 version. It only makes it better it emphasizes how well they did that job. With so fewer resources and the limitations they had technologically and whatnot worked in their favor for sure. Yeah, I think it definitely, again, subtlety and it had while it was this supernatural, haunting and this this overall force of this house, it put a lot of emphasis on the psychological and the human experience that I think makes it so compelling for that hour plus where you might just hear little bumps in the night, little things happen. But it's it's more that kind of really looking into this mindset and this loneliness and where it can kind of lead you to. So it was it's more focused on the character and bigger story rather than jump scares and the CGI effects coming out at you. So yeah, the subtlety really adds a lot and I think it has a little bit more of a poetic, meaningful spirit. The scope of this film feels more intimate than the epic scale of the 1999 version, almost stage play like. But I think that lends itself better to this subject matter being more claustrophobic. Yeah, it definitely feels claustrophobic. Like the entrapment of this house. And there is this sort of gothic beauty to it, but it's also something that really digs its its claws into you as well. But yeah, I definitely agree. There's things I like about the grander of the 1999 version, but this one. It feels a little bit more true to life because it's not so above and beyond scale and it's more true to the book in that we have rooms with no windows. There's a sense of you could get lost in this environment instead of forming powerful moments through interesting characters and creative elements today, the idea is to show the most over-the-top effect possible make it bigger than big. Case in point, the recent Star Wars sequels or recent Star Trek. So here, like I mentioned before, just having a squeaky doorknob turning is just weirdly so much more effective than the entire house collapsing in on itself, the pure production cost of one compared to the other. You would think that somebody would go, Aha, we should probably focus more on these little story beats that actually are chilling rather than dealing with making this horror film into a Star Wars film or something that doesn't really fit what actually scares people. Yeah, and I think those are those little moments that's really just successfully building up tension and mystery. And I think that it kind of like digs more into kind of the basis of almost fear itself, you know, that it's not it's almost the anticipating and the unknown and knowing something horrible could be around waiting in the shadows in the darkness versus, oh, something's attacking me in my face. Sure. In the moment that would probably be scary as well. But there is something more about the craft of building up that mystery and tension and actually a little bit of a departure. But I really like the the first paranormal activity that I think it did that really well. I think it also helped. I saw it at one of the early super early screens when you had to like demand this and you're at your theater. So there wasn't a lot of hype or expectations built up around it. But I thought the first one did that very well. It was fairly low budget, it was more minimal and but it builds up that tension and that like just every moment. It was so much of that anxiety of like, something's going to happen any minute, any minute. And you would see that little moving of blankets or the door creak or whatever it might be. And I just remember I was in a theater full of people who would all immediately freak out and even almost feeding off each other's energy, where I felt that tension and almost that fear more than I do in many other films. So there definitely is something to that where sometimes the suspense is more powerful than the reveal. There is a story I've probably told this before, but I'm going to tell it again. There's something to be said for putting a cap on one's resources when you don't have a lot of budget or production value to work with, it forces you to be more creative. And in the case of was it the same year? When did The Mummy with Brendan Fraser come out? It was like 98. I that sounds about right. Somewhere on there. Well, that one Steven Summers had, I think it was $50 million or 40 million, and I really love that movie. It's one of my faves, especially from that era and the sequel. They gave him double the budget, but it was half as good. And then he did Van Helsing, where they doubled that budget again, it's like 180 million or something like that. And it was like one fourth as good as the previous one. So it seems like in this case where they had budget and technology restraints to make the 63 one, it really forced one to engage the audience's imagination instead of literally showing. And that's, I suppose, an example of where show don't tell doesn't work. And I think in a horror that could have the opposite effect where you don't want to show too much, you just want to suggest, suggest to don't tell. I don't know if there's a new phrase I can make of it, but the 1999 version is they just threw everything at it. They had every resource at their disposal and it just did the exact opposite of what they were going for. It was not scary, unless you're below the age of ten, that movie was not scary. I have a random point that occurred to me last night. I had a weird moment of clarity. It never really hit me before to this degree, but we've all seen plenty of movies in black and white, and we're used to it, and I love the feel of it, especially when applied to subject matter that fits it stylistically. But it struck me that we're watching something completely devoid of color, just black and white and shades of gray. if you really think about it, it's weird that we watch something with all the color taken out of it and it's still acceptable. The state doesn't happen. In reality, And although filmmakers didn't have much choice in the beginning, in the case of this film, for example, it was actually intentional. They could go either way. yeah, I think it definitely adds to the style and sort of that classic ghost stories sort of feel and it kind of also ties in to one of the, one of the sentiments from the Book of Almost Hell House being this kind of mixture of dream world and reality, It's like it sucked the life out of it. So there shouldn't be any color in a movie like this, One interesting note I found just been looking over sort of a little bit of the history and the making of the film Is Julie Harris, who played Eleanor was actually suffering from depression while she was filming this, and she actively, throughout their time on set, actively isolated herself from the rest of the actors, which some of them felt that it was just like, Oh, she's just antisocial. She doesn't like us. But it was just that it was really just her trying to stay effectively and that character who felt so alone and isolated and losing her mind. And I think it definitely showed in her performance. But also that's something I've done to an extent as an actor. If you're just playing a character who is just alone and losing their mind, especially when you're losing your grips on sort of what's real and just your mind being totally preyed on. You know, a lot of no even on film in, you know, material that's very dark and, you know, draining like that. It's usually a lot of fun working on films. So, you know, like there have been times where I'm like, okay, I'm joking around having too much fun with people. I need to stay in this like, dark, depressing place. So I need to just pull myself away and stay in that place. So I just thought that was kind of like an interesting no, but it probably even more so that some of that might have come from her real life experience with suffering from depression at the time of filming. that's one of those where my inclination is to yet again reference the Shining and Shelley Duvall and her going through a similar experience. I saw her, I don't know how old it was, but it was some footage of Shelley Duvall, how she looks now, or maybe was like ten years ago, but she looks like really different and she's apparently still struggling with issues, but that's, that's like this element of suffering for your art and you, you create something that's so, like, beautiful and lasting. But there is also this line for actors and of course, a lot of that wasn't her choice. But I also think of like Heath Ledger and The Joker. I feel like that was just absolute masterpiece. But he isolated himself and really gotten to this dark place. And there were other factors, of course, like addiction. But there are these cases where you're like, they committed so much to that character and that dark mindset that it seems like they couldn't really pull back and get their mental health back, which is horrible, of course. Yeah, I've been wanting to take acting classes just so I can get in the mindset of an actor and figure out what they need from a director in getting direction. Like how can I best communicate? And I think the best way to understand that is if I was an actor myself, which I'm not. It's one of those fields where somebody with no experience can just show up and just be charismatic enough and be able to communicate well enough to turn in a really good performance, which is a kind of a slap in the face to people who have really studied the craft for a long time. There's a lot of technical stuff you need to learn. It's a little different on stage versus film, but it's not like drawing or something where you actually have to really, really you could you can let it just jump into it and be great at it. And I think, Who's it? Mark Wahlberg refuses to take any acting lessons or do anything with a coach because he doesn't want to ruin like the spontaneity of it or something along those lines. So there are certain actors this have there's so many different ways you can approach it. And, you know, just things like how do you cry, stuff like that. I I'm still boggled over. I don't I don't get how that's done. While it's extremely easy for some people to just turn it on and turn it off like that. So I guess each has their strengths and each has their own insecurities. depends on the role for sure. I think like kind of the darker, more emotional material. I mean, if you're someone who can just turn on those emotions because a lot of it is pulling from real life experiences, which I guess it depends on what your real life experiences are and how quickly you can act on those. But yeah, that is, that is interesting almost from the Wahlberg perspective there I could see how an element almost like the more practiced or rehearsed maybe becomes like less genuine because you are just expressing things true to the human experience. So I could there's definitely something to honing your craft and really fine tuning those skills and how you can portray things genuinely, especially the heavier emotions. I can almost see how how there is something to just being natural and and true to how you would react in that moment as it comes to you. This movie is called The Haunting, but the question remains haunted by what it's implied that the house is just evil. But beyond the structure itself, it seems to be infested by some sort of separate entity. Since we hear a child's scream along with a deep male voice that may or may not be Ukraine. there's also a scene where someone ghostly is holding Eleanor's hand in the dark. none of this is explained, but it's still intriguing. And this is what I realized. We have something called a MacGuffin, which Hitchcock popularized. This is something like an object or event in a story that serves merely as a trigger for the plot. It is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but actually rather insignificant, unimportant or irrelevant in itself. For example, the the ring and the Lord of the Rings, the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark, or the plans for the Death Star in Star Wars. Here, the House itself and the reasons for it being haunted are not really the point and kind of don't matter. Instead, it's the reason for putting these characters out there and moving their story forward. it's sort of a rare case where I normally always want to know, Oh, what does this darkness look like? What is its origins like? I want the ins and outs of any monster usually, and I think it's because it is this bigger, like evil itself, this bigger entity of this place, which was a theory that inspired a lot of other horror works that came after this. So I think it's just this looming and how it puts forward some of those questions of it could be this, it could be this. But yeah, it kind of really doesn't matter. It just this evil entity and force is there, and that ends up being more of how they explore this loneliness and desperation and human struggle and mental illness and how it kind of escalates to what ends up being a very tragic end. True to the book, these are also very deep questions like what happens after death and so forth, which I my low expectations don't think that a Hollywood movie could really satisfy with an answer. It's best for people to fill in the blanks themselves. Or what is apprehensive about that may be different for each person. Some people might be going to hell, other people, it might just be lingering limbo as a ghost. Other people, it could be just being lonely, who knows? So it's kind of like you don't want to show things with special effects. You want to leave that to the imagination. Same thing here. Just just let it be and set the tone and the atmosphere and show that it is scary to these characters, live vicariously through them and hope it comes off. If you would like to join our Society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, please subscribe and give this podcast like Comment your wretched thoughts below along with what you would like us to expose in future episodes. Keep our podcast suffering on by finding it in your cold, black withered hearts to support us on Patreon. a link to our PayPal is also below for one time donations of any amount. It was nice knowing you