An Invitation to THE INVITATION: Pages 30–41

In episode 6, host Jim Penola discusses the double meaning of the film's title, the complex discomfort of David's recruitment video, and the "false promises of beauty" expressed by the script. | Original Score by John Penola | Additional Audio Production by Brandon Sheer | Follow us on Twitter: @AnInvitation and Instagram: @Invitation2Invitation | Email us: Invitation2Invitation@gmail.com | <3

Transcript

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

“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ”

EPISODE #06.

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

LINK TO SCRIPT:

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

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

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

“I feel like part of what the movie is grappling with is the seduction and the sort of false promises of beauty.”
–Karyn Kusama
(The Director's Cut: A DGA Podcast – episode 18) [11:20 = time code]

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

Welcome to episode SIX 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 [30 through 41] – picking up immediately after an internal flashback in WILL’s head is interrupted by a scream from another part of the house. (the living room).

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

“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ” – SCRIPT READING.

INT. BEDROOM / HALLWAY

ON WILL’S FACE

…

GINA

We can talk later, Will. I just wanted you to know I’ve been thinking about you.

WILL

Thanks. I know. I miss you.

She heads back into the party.

For a moment, Will watches Kira, across the room, as she laughs at someone’s joke.

END SCRIPT READ.

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

• Intro

Yeah.

I’ve been looking forward to discussing this scene for a while now. It’s a big one, which is probably somewhat obvious.

The fact that the title of the movie now has a double meaning is absolutely delightful, and even the name “The Invitation” as spiritual self-help movement is just PERFECT.

I find it funny/interesting that the name “The Invitation” is actually, in my mind, more elegant and appealing of a name than “The Secret” which is *not* fictional and yet is the more shallow, cheesy, and fake-sounding of the two (in my opinion). However, “The Secret” isn’t a death cult as far as I’m aware so it’s got that going for it (I digress.) The point being that it’s a very clever, realistic detail that relates back to the essential premise and opening of the movie, and I just love titles with double (even triple) meanings.

But that’s just one small aspect of a significant turning point in the film, and in my mind, a transition into the next act (though that term is surprisingly nebulous and up for interpretation).

There’s soooo much more to discuss so let’s get right to it… 

A lot of the implied dread from the FIRST 30 PAGES and/or FIRST 25 MINUTES of the movie has risen to a head. The noxious gas of the intermingling, estranged guests is quietly exploded by the striking of the match that is The Recruitment Video.

It’s a slight relief to be able to exhale a little bit as a viewer (at least temporarily), but at the same time, the now inescapably dour mood of the party has to be reckoned with head-on. There’s no going back as much as DAVID will attempt Damage Control. It can’t be ignored or shrugged off – well, it can (especially if you’re BEN) – but now the general creepiness is not up for debate. DAVD and EDEN made things weird for *everyone* and while they didn’t *want* their guests to not “get it” or be uncomfortable, they did *intentionally* gather the entire party around for this moment (as opposed to a casual viewing in the corner with 1 or 2 guests). 

“It’s really a science” / “Practical” / “Grounded” (David) – kind of laughable! There’s certainly no real evidence of this. We just have to take David at his word.

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

• Language and Jargon.

Hay and Manfredi’s dialogue is really spot-on as someone who’s been involved in these kinds of self-help seminars and groups. They tap into something very subtly powerful, which is the way the sometimes-vague, uplifting jargon of these New Age organizations is also disaffecting – pushing anyone who doesn’t know it to the fringes. 

As HAY and MANFREDI say on the film’s audio commentary, “Language alienates people who are outside of it.” The terminology that’s created for these groups almost makes you feel bad for not knowing it, and simultaneously wants to intrigue you enough to get to know it. It appears to be translucent & enticing by design.

To bring it back to the guiding quote from the top of the episode, KARYN KUSAMA (in her 2016 DGA interview) says…

 “I feel like part of what the movie is grappling with is the seduction and the sort of false promises of beauty.” [INSERT AUDIO]

This theme pops in a variety of ways, but as it relates to verbal communication specifically, alluring jargon can be its own false beauty that is meant to seduce and ensnare… especially in a video that, as CLAIRE points out, feels like it’s selling us something. Though I’d encourage listeners to actually notice if that’s true or not because I find the answer to be very unsettling. We’ll return to this point, likely in episode 07...

Full Disclosure: I participated in the successor of EST (which is directly referenced by the character of BEN as you may recall). EST was essentially rebranded and remade as The Landmark Forum which is what I did years ago. Not only that, I completed its two follow-up programs: The Advanced Course and The Self Expression and Leadership Program or SELP.

*JUST TO BE CLEAR* I’m not bad-mouthing these kinds of programs. I’m being very serious when I say I found my experiences to be deeply moving, helpful, and yes grounded. Some of the people I met along the way were incredible and I even get a little emotional thinking about them. (which is why I can’t help but laugh at DAVID’s line about The Invitation being more “scientific” especially when there’s nothing to back that up in the video & we have to take him at his word.)

I don’t regret my New Age-y phase at all (and in some ways, it’ll always be a part of me which I’m grateful for) – it’s why I went through 3 different classes when the *vast* majority of people stop after 1. That said, because they don’t advertise, and because the lexicon is so specific, as a participant you’re expected to *be* the advertisement… which can become extremely vexing and overbearing when you just want to learn, and your sessions keep getting interrupted to discuss how you’re going to tell your communities how they should sign up.

Maybe it’s evolved since my time, but when I was there, a large and unfortunate amount of time was devoted to essentially being coached into how to present your amazing new self to friends and family. It was by far the worst part, and why I can empathize SO strongly with EVERY character in this scene. But we’ll get to that in a minute.

I don’t want to get bogged down by the details… nor do I want to talk shit… 

The point is that YES, these kinds of seminars of “modern self-healing” (or whatever the best term is, I’m still working on that) can very quickly become quite cultish. If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t have been so many “we’re not a cult” jokes. Seriously. In other words, I know firsthand how blissful, insidious, and strange these movements can be, which is why I think using them as a means to explore human relationships & grief is brilliant.

The film THE INVITATION, as opposed to the fictional movement, (from now on, I’ll have to make that distinction) does an extremely good job of making this situation believable & tactile – even realistic. Thankfully, there aren’t many (if any) pop culture references in the film which I think would be tonally off, but the quick mention of EST brings the scene and the movie into reality *just enough.* I wouldn’t call EST a household name/reference, but for those who have a familiarity with it, it’s an extremely effective bit of shorthand. It conveys the essence of what the filmmakers are exploring (which is the sometimes creepy pervasiveness and popularity of self-help & New Age thinking) while, again, bringing it into the real world. And according to the CULTS podcast, California has the most in the US, historically/statistically.

These creative choices all intersect to help create a very natural, human environment, so that when things get even a little weird, it is deeply felt. Nothing is particularly exaggerated and, as per the film’s intention, everything is presented in a neutral (or close-to-neutral) fashion.

By playing things close to the vest in terms of plot and character motive(s), the film keeps the principal cast AND the audience on equal footing… which creates enormous but compelling tension and discomfort.

So often viewers have information that the characters on-screen don’t have (which of course creates its own unique form of intensity), but by keeping the cast and the audience in a nearly identical place of unknowability, Kusama squeezes out every drop of paranoia and uncertainty that she can. (which is all in the service to the dark propulsion of the film.)

So, when we see the gradient of reactions to the laptop video, we *feel* them in a unique way since our caution is matched by the people on screen. 

In a rather ingenious move of foresight, KUSAMA filmed the Recruitment Video *first* (before anything else with the principal actors) and frantically cut it together so the cast could watch it on set when the cameras rolled. So, yes, the actors’ reactions in the film are their reactions seeing it for the first time.

They were NOT staring imaginatively at a blank screen which I love.

It’s a choice that paid off because, frankly, had they been looking at a blue or green screen overlay, I think they would have been more inclined to not necessarily oversell their emotions but be more explicit with them, whereas the conditions created on-set by KUSAMA allow for a beautiful & authentic tableau of real listening (& reacting).

Those reactions become singularly relatable since viewer nor cast member have a plot advantage. As a result, viewers are not-at-all told *how* to feel. Which is unusually gratifying because it displays a respect for the audience and their intelligence.

Honestly, when watching the film for the first time, possibly without realizing it, it felt incredibly real to me on an almost-primal level (and still does) – probably inciting flashbacks of being in DAVID and EDEN’s shoes especially (as weird as that sounds). I think it implicitly revived memories of nervously presenting my “New Age Self” to people after doing Landmark.

I know it’s an unflattering comparison, but as much as DAVID and EDEN become villains, I recognize and appreciate their vulnerability in this scene, while they’re still harmless (at least at this juncture). This scene is huge in regards to how they start at Point A and arrive at Point B. Their behavior is oddly consistent if extreme.

In the last episode, I remarked on how much I relate to WILL and how cathartic I find his entire arc (or lack thereof) to be.

That fact remains (and will remain), but the more I dive into this film and this podcast, the more I realize that I actually relate to DAVID and EDEN *very much* as well (as not-awesome as that might sound). But, again, this is a massive credit to the three-dimensional writing of those characters by Phil Hay & Matt Manfredi and the nuanced performances by Michel Huisman & Tammy Blanchard.

However, this couple *does* become lethally antagonistic, though never in a caricatured, mustache-twirling way… and that’s in large part due to the naturalism of this scene.

RIGHT NOW, they’re just two people who want to share something they *really* believe in with people they *really* love… at the same time, they undoubtedly know how off-putting (or worse) the outcome might be. It’s risky and scary to show this video since their friends might not “get it.”

That’s a complex situation and complex emotion to handle for everyone involved, which is why the initial response from most of the guests is to make a quip or joke. Everyone knows how weird it might get and they’re bracing themselves.

Frankly, I know how nerve-wracking that kind of vulnerability can be. In some ways it’s the payoff to EDEN’s conversation with BEN in the kitchen (before slapping him). She’s not just *talking* about her transformation anymore, now she’s *showing* where she got it from….

She’s putting it out there with DAVID (and Sadie and Pruitt) in an explicit way: “ *this* is where we were, *this* is what we were doing, *this* is why we were in Mexico.”

The whole scene is incredibly telling since it forces everyone to step out from their individual and finely constructed veneers for a moment. DAVID, EDEN, SADIE, and PRUITT all reveal themselves to be followers of “The Invitation” (& true believers at that) who are quick to defend the thing that helped them. 

EDEN is maybe the most interesting of their clique because I don’t think she’s lying (at all) when she says… 

[INSERT AUDIO CLIP] “Finding this saved my life.”

Like the kitchen scene with her, WILL, and BEN: there’s an emotional tightrope to being a New Age participant in that you *genuinely* want to share & extend your lust for life to the people you care about, nor do you want to have that feeling invalidated when you inevitably start spitting out jargon. It’s one thing to have your new, healing self rejected by a stranger, but it can be the most affecting to have that rejection coming from people you know & love.

That’s why I adore this one line from EDEN, achingly delivered by Tammy Blanchard: 

[INSERT AUDIO CLIP] “Look at the way you’re looking at me!” 

It’s so heartbreaking because, in one desperate sentence, she conveys everything I just mentioned. She just wants her closest friends to be happy the way she is or *at least* acknowledge the authenticity of her own well-being ...and they are cold, withdrawn, and alienated instead. It is the last reaction you would want if you were EDEN.

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

• Group Exchange.

The entire group exchange is chillingly real. Even if there was no blood or gore in the film, this would STILL be a *type* of horror movie because of the way the discourse naturally ricochets from enthused, morbid curiosity to reticence to shock to anger. All these emotions are given the space to believably unfurl because of the way the laptop video slowly ramps up, and because of the variety of personalities in the room. The groundwork in establishing each guest in the first act pays off here in that everyone reacts uniquely AND consistently with how we know them:

For example, I love how BEN is joking about being easy to convert at the start of the scene but is ultimately stunned into silence by the end, reverting to his pattern of *wanting* to say something but stopping himself & medicating with food and alcohol instead.

GINA is playfully fascinated but becomes unapologetically indignant. 

TOMMY and MIGUEL have a similar, joke-y energy in the beginning, except that they land in a diplomatic zone of non-judgement and defusal.

Of course it all leads into WILL’s curt, brooding inquiry with PRUITT, DAVID, and EDEN as he gamely parries with each of them.

Again, nothing is particularly heightened or exaggerated, but like any party that is abruptly screeched to a halt by an argument, IT IS FUCKING UNCOMFORTABLE, and like most parties, certain people seem to gravitate towards certain roles: Some people double-down, some get super quiet, some leave, some try to be peacekeepers, etc.

I frankly love that the film is confident enough to embrace the unsexy but ultimately rewarding, compelling drama of discomfort and manners. It’s riveting and rarely explored this thoroughly or this well.

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

• Indictment or Critique? Horror of Baggage.

I’d hesitate to call this scene an indictment of New Ageism (though it doesn’t paint a super kind portrait either) ...yet, as mentioned earlier, its language is eerily accurate, especially the deleted lines from the script about choosing and choice. (FOR EXAMPLE… DAVID: “... “ )

It makes me wonder what experience Hay, Manfredi, and Kusama have in this world, or what research they did. There’s of course no shortage of cult history worldwide, though California has the “highest number of cults in the nation” [according to the CULTS podcast by Parcast Network]. Perhaps most notably, there was James Baker a.k.a. Father Yod on the Sunset Strip, among others.

I would guess that the writers have never been involved in this world as active participants, and more likely have known friends & acquaintances who have been involved (especially being residents of Los Angeles)… but that’s just speculation and curiosity on my part.

All that said, it’s interesting how – as vaguely spiritual as THE INVITATION’s vocabulary is (as in the fictional movement) – it is stealthily poisonous, too. Especially in the script, there’s talk of “renouncing” depression (instead of accepting and working with it). That, to me, reads as a red flag. Which is why I’m guessing that detail was removed from the final cut… so that the filmmakers could keep the question of “HOW DANGEROUS IS THIS PARTY REALLY?” as difficult to answer as possible.

It speaks to the unwavering precision of the final film. It can’t afford to be any less precise than it is because it all hinges on The Question being as ambiguous as possible for as long as possible. We have to be constantly shifting allegiances. We have to acknowledge WILL’s side and we have to understand EVERYONE ELSE’s and we have to be doing so with regularity, from scene to scene. This creative/narrative philosophy gets drilled deeper and deeper with every page, which is why I always bring it up and sound like a broken record. After all, this creative mantra is the source of the film’s anxious, maddening high. All the questioning & second-guessing is the engine barreling us towards oblivion or relief. Or both.

It’s a very tall creative order that requires making every character POV reasonable and believable to some extent.

As is well documented, plenty of movies (especially Horror movies) have the barrier of the on-screen characters doing or saying things that the audience wouldn’t do. I’m not talking about so-called plot holes or logic gaps (which critics like PATRICK H. WILLEMS have rightfully, eloquently dismantled). I’m just talking about silly character choices that are usually made as a means to a satisfyingly (gratuitous) gory end. 

That’s why I think the *film* THE INVITATION is so interesting through the lens of the Horror genre (specifically), and why it transcends it somewhat, because every character perspective is valid and holds up under scrutiny. Each character’s choice to stay or leave the party makes sense. Likewise, nobody is plainly, cartoonishly devious.

Obviously, no one is walking around in a hockey mask or wielding a chainsaw either. The presence or lack of certain tropes doesn’t make THE INVITATION better or worse than other genre films but it does separate it.

Therefore, the primary fright and unease comes from the sick game of trying to decipher motives while simultaneously parsing through emotional baggage. It’s an unsettling combo unto itself that just so happens to dovetail into traditional, abject horror & terror by the film’s end.

Again, nobody is outright dumb or uncharacteristically gullible for staying at the party. In fact, those that stay probably have the highest social intelligence and compatibility, but we’re not quite there–thought keep it in the back of your mind going into the next episode or so.

The movie is simply pointing out how shielding our true feelings and not wanting to offend goes against our own best interest much of the time–how we can inexplicably prioritize our social obligations over our own health & well-being. (because we don’t want to offend or “rock the boat”)

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

• Recurring Theme of Suffering vs. Mercy

// Will vs. Coyote… (nature)...mercy?

// Dr. Joseph vs. Young Woman, Annie, with Cancer… (hospice/hospital)...mercy?

Another huge component of today’s massive scene is that it might be the First of Numerous Parallels that illustrate what’s likely THE theme of the film.

In the audio commentary, KARYN KUSAMA lays it all out…

(quote) “What is the notion of suffering and pain? When is it acceptable making the decision for others’ pain?” (end quote)

We first saw this in WILL’s killing of the coyote in the opening scene of the film. A notable reaction to this was DAVID’s line about mercy... [INSERT AUDIO CLIP]

Now we see this theme under very different circumstances in the recruitment video:

Dr. Joseph guides a young woman named Annie with cancer towards a... debatably peaceful death. As we see, her breath gets more and more shallow which doesn’t seem painless, but as BEN notes, she at least seems to be surrounded by loved ones in a scenario she likely chose.

So… what IS the notion of suffering? When is it acceptable choosing to end another living being’s pain? Especially when pain must first be endured to terminate it permanently?

The easy answer, it would seem, is that it’s acceptable in instances of mercy, especially when it involves an animal and not a human. But that doesn’t necessarily make things less complicated. Arguably, it makes it more complex. I personally don’t have an answer to this. I’m still wrestling with it. I would imagine that’s KUSAMA’s intent: To present a difficult question for audiences to absorb that makes the foreground drama & violence of the film *that* much more indelible and hard-to-shake.

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

• “I know. You don’t think I know? It’s just that easy for you?” 

FUCK.

I could do an entire series on this one line alone.

This is probably my favorite line of the entire movie. Amazingly, it’s not in the screenplay which you may have noticed. In script form, it’s extremely functional (it just stops at WILL’s “I know.”), but the final cut of the film speaks to the exceptional direction on display: KUSAMA capitalizes on & extends the emotion, crafting a miniature-and-personal climax – putting the perfect period (or exclamation mark) on this brutal, vital scene.

WILL *really* loses it for the first time (and there will be more instances). He’s been vulnerable in small doses and in one-on-one interactions, but here he full-on breaks down in grand fashion and in front of *everyone.*

I obviously don’t know if this line was an ad-lib from Marshall-Greem or written later by Hay or Manfredi or what the story might be, but it fucking devastates me every time. LMG’s charged, desperate delivery is the reason I will follow him into battle now and forever.

His reading is just so caustic and fragile. Aggressive and wounded. It is WILL in a nutshell. It is the totality of his pathos in a single moment. He’s recklessly spitting venom all over the room but directing the brunt of it at EDEN and DAVID… The cost of which is his own stability.

But you can’t blame WILL for this wild reaction: it’s a known, accepted fact that he’s been through (and honestly is still going through) tragedy. More than that, he’s basically occupying one giant trigger which is the house, that itself is populated by the smaller triggers of his ex, friends, etc.

Those are lethal conditions that tee up WILL for DAVID’s somewhat brazen attempt to speak for WILL. DAVID no doubt had good intentions but made the mistake of crossing a line.

Speaking personally, this is a hard detail to write or talk about. This line from WILL has never really left my head in the 4 or so years since I’ve seen the movie, and it’s only taken on more resonance as I get older. It’s just such an incisive expression of heartbreak. As much as we all grieve in different ways, which we very much do, I’m morbidly fascinated with what I think WILL is so upset by here: which is the (imbalance of OR) disproportionate emotional investment between people. For example, the way WILL is still suffering and the way EDEN seems to have rigorously scrubbed away every iota of her pain (related to their son) with an “Invitation”-shaped toothbrush.

Of course she’s really just grieving differently and DID grieve traditionally as well, and just because she’s not wearing her negative emotions on her sleeve like WILL doesn’t mean she doesn’t have them. This is the emotional complexity of the story that the filmmakers unflinchingly beckon. Sometimes, we so strongly want to demonize others (not the least of which our exes) for not suffering as much as we are or not suffering as OBVIOUSLY as we are. But that doesn’t mean they’re not struggling in their own way.

As I think many would agree, so much of life’s pain comes from these kinds of complicated, interpersonal relationships where there is no clear right or wrong, where we have to figure out for ourselves what our values are and what is best for us, and where we need to create boundaries. In daily life, it can be incredibly hard to reconcile. So when we see this kind of depth & specificity in fiction–in story form–it vindicates those struggles. Validates them. Tells us we’re not alone.

Stories like THE INVITATION tell us that it’s OK to still be struggling for what seems like an eternity, like WILL.

And they tell us that *it’s OK* to find contentment in the ruins of your old life, like EDEN. That it’s not a betrayal to the ones you’ve lost. That you deserve happiness.

To be 100% crystal clear, *I* am saying these things, too.

*I* am saying that it’s OK if you’re still struggling. So, so many of us are.

And *I* am saying that you also deserve happiness if you’ve suffered a loss of any kind.

POST-SCRIPT:

To make one last disclosure before wrapping up the episode: since starting this podcast, I have wondered and wrestled daily with how personal I should get when talking about this movie and its themes. 

It’s been truly wonderful to talk about the mechanics of the story, the plot, and characters, but an organic, unplanned byproduct has been how genuinely therapeutic it’s been for me to go deep on the subject of loss – how gratifying it’s been using one of my favorite films as an access point for that very difficult conversation.

On one hand, I want to maintain a relatively consistent, maybe academic-ish tone (side-note: I am acutely aware of how self-serious this podcast is which I’m not thrilled by but I suppose it’s the nature of the topic and of doing this without a co-host).

On the other hand, I also know how powerful, moving and sometimes more interesting injecting one’s self can be. As screenwriter ED SOLOMON says, “You can never be an expert on what others want to hear. But you’re the world’s foremost authority on your take.”

To that end, thank you for being a part of this ride and for giving me & the series the space to work through these questions and dilemmas and growing pains.

To anyone who has listened to this podcast in any form for any length: you have my deepest thanks. If it’s not obvious already, this project has been a massive labor of love (and I feel like I truly understand that term in my bones now, maybe for the first time). It’s a lot of hard, almost entirely solitary work, but it is so rewarding and special to me. So THANK YOU for your time. I mean it.

I’m going to continue to figure out how best to approach “An Invitation to THE INVITATION” and if you have any thoughts on the matter, don’t hesitate to reach out via social media or email.

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

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

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

• “ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ” – 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) 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 the Penola family for their support.

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

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

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

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