An Invitation Productions

An Invitation to THE INVITATION: Pages 41–48

November 10, 2020 Jim Penola Season 1 Episode 7
An Invitation Productions
An Invitation to THE INVITATION: Pages 41–48
An Invitation Productions +
Help us continue making great content for listeners everywhere.
Starting at $3/month
Support
Show Notes Transcript

In episode 7, host Jim Penola breaks down & analyzes the party game presented by David (Michiel Huisman) and its stealthily insidious goal of obliterating personal boundaries. | 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

Support the show

•••Shout-out to some of my lovely & amazing patrons: Rupa dasGupta, John Penola, Jane Penola, and Joseph Penola. ⚫ Get early access, extended episodes, and the Patreon-exclusive companion podcast "Ellipsis" only at Patreon.com/jimpenola ⚫ Follow us on Twitter: @AnInvitation and Instagram: @Invitation2Invitation ⚫ Email us: Invitation2Invitation@gmail.com•••

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


“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION


EPISODE #07.


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


LINK TO SCRIPT:

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


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



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



SILAS: “Hey, Arturo. Let’s see if it’s your time. Let’s go. Let’s do it. Let’s find out. Seriously. Right? Well, come on.”


CHRIS: “Fuck that, Arturo. You don’t have to do that.”


SILAS: “This really doesn’t concern you, Chris. This is about Arturo. Arturo has free will. It’s his decision. His.”


SILAS: “Don’t do anything that makes you feel uncomfortable, you know? No judgements.”


SILAS: “No, no. Look here. Do it or don’t do it. Do it or don’t do it.”


“Fuck, man, you really have to let people stop pushing you around. (Laughter) It’s a loaded gun, you fucking maniac.”
–Toby Kebbel (“Silas”), DESTROYER [26:20 – 26:56 mark]


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



Welcome to episode SEVEN 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 [41 through 48] – picking up in the aftermath of DAVID and EDEN presenting a Recruitment Video for the self-help group known as “The Invitation”, effectively killing the mood of the party.


As an additional refresher, GINA has just expressed regret for falling out of touch with WILL. Also, don’t forget that WILL pocketed some pills from EDEN’s bedroom from a few scenes ago… 


LET’S BEGIN



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



“ An Invitation to THE INVITATION ” – SCRIPT READING.



MIGUEL breezes by behind [WILL], carrying a plate of appetizers over to the table. Miguel gestures to the door with his head.


MIGUEL

No Choi?



TOMMY (REVERB FX)

I like this game.



END SCRIPT READ.



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



  • Intro.


Like the last episode, there’s so much here to unpack and discuss.


Though I want to try something *slightly* different this episode. I want to attack (in chronological order) the notable events, moments, and creative choices of these 7 pages. Afterwards, we can let them inform some of the deeper themes and motifs that occur.


  • WILL + SADIE <3


First of all, there’s a wonderful, silent shot that doesn’t appear in the script but – to me – is somewhat crucial to the final cut of the film. As soon as GINA exits the room after apologizing to WILL for not being around enough as a friend, the camera pans to the left, over the back of WILL’s shoulder, and pulls focus on SADIE – who is staring at him – which is creepy enough, but is made even creepier by the fact that she is now the only one still sitting in the living room where the guests were tightly packed together, watching the Recruitment Video.


This one shot is a concise, affecting bit of non-verbal narrative and a superb extension of the two characters’ original silent meeting when WILL caught SADIE’s glance from across the house while she was half-naked. This one quick shot does a lot to emphasize a persistent tension between the two that feels equal parts seductive and dangerous – implicitly driving and suggesting an eventual climax and/or resolution:


‘Where will this tension lead? Is it leading to consummation or confrontation?’ Maybe both. Maybe it will land somewhere in the middle… 


For now, we’ll have to wait and see.



  • PHENOBARB + WILL’s Social Decorum


The next big moment is more expository, and comes in the form of WILL interrogating his friend MIGUEL, who we can assume is a doctor of some kind (which is essentially confirmed by the film’s audio commentary). MIGUEL points out that WILL found (and stole) PHENOBARBITAL from EDEN’s room while also noting that it isn’t inherently lethal – [insert audio clip] “anything’s lethal if you take too much of it”


Part of what I love about this exchange is that it does what all the best exposition knows to do: it wraps necessary info (in this case, the specifics of EDEN’s pills) in argument and disagreement rather than perfunctory explanation. Not only is this more interesting for an audience, but it helps create narrative momentum and propulsive conflict. To that end, this approach is an overarching reason THE INVITATION (the film) is never boring and always compelling: because nearly every scene is anchored by a core difference of opinion, driven by WILL’s persistent suspicions.


I digress.


In real life, PHENOBARBITAL is traditionally used to treat epilepsy and seizures in children. It’s also been used to treat patients in rehab as an almost “transitional” drug to help wean addicts off the what they’re addicted to.


Ultimately, MIGUEL seems to diffuse WILL’s concern about the drug, which is consistent with he and his partner TOMMY’s personalities. I really love these two characters, MIGUEL and TOMMY, not because they’re necessarily more realistic than any of the other guests (I think every guest is a relatable, accurate achetype of some kind), but because MIGUEL and TOMMY are so balanced and generally well-adjusted, their good-humored non-judgement is a reasonable, believable, and welcome counterpoint to WILL’s paranoia, which is comforting as a viewer. They’re more than comic relief, they’re a sort of sanctuary since they’re old and trusted friends as well.


They even seem to rub off on WILL when he’s around them. In the last episode, we saw WILL have a small emotional breakdown after reprimanding DAVID in front of all their friends.


Conversely, in this scene, we see WILL experience something akin to embarrassment when MIGUEL hilariously says to DAVID, [insert audio clip] “Will thinks you guys are on pills.”


WILL backpedals, trying to clarify, refusing to agree when DAVID suggests he thinks they’re crazy. It’s a small, quick interaction, but it’s striking because – while it may not be entirely sincere – it shows that even WILL (who clearly has no trouble speaking his mind or being forthright and honest to a fault) is *still susceptible to the obligations of social norms.*


WILL immediately reverts to his paranoia when he asks [insert audio clip?] “Am I alone here? This is odd, isn’t it?” and is met with “There’s no way tonight wasn’t going to feel a little strange. Or sad. Or… It’s just an overdue reunion of old friends… along with a couple of totally random weirdos.”


It’s another great quick back-and-forth because it’s the entire film in miniature: two equally valid points-of-view are presented and we, as viewers, are left to decipher which one rings more true to us.


It doesn’t even matter that things end up the way they do. Nor does it matter who is right and who is wrong, because (especially in this moment), WILL and TOMMY each have fair points and THEY’RE BOTH RIGHT given what they know at the time. I’d argue that, even by the end of the movie, this fact remains. 


The best we can do – as humans, as creatures of community and social responsibility – is listen to our own instincts. Those instincts might tell us ‘something feels off’ like it does with WILL. Or, they might tell us ‘Yeah, this is weird but ultimately harmless’ like it does with TOMMY.


Again, simply listening to and taking action based on our intuition is about as much as we can hope to do.


The trouble comes when those instincts are abused or manipulated, not unlike the way they are in the game of “I WANT”, but more on that in a bit.



  • DAVID + PRUITT – Downplayed Internal Conflict? // GEOGRAPHY of HOUSE.


In the script, DAVID and PRUITT’s exact relationship is deliberately obfuscated since the film maintains a singular, unrelenting Point-of-View (the potentially unreliable perspective of WILL).


In the last episode, there was an odd moment (which doesn’t appear in the screenplay???) where PRUITT seems to take umbrage with DAVID going to answer the front door after playing the Recruitment Video – PRUITT isn’t angry, but he quickly gets up from his chair like he wants to stop DAVID. It’s such a fast, easy-to-miss detail and I’m curious what other fans and viewers make of it. We seem to receive an extension to that moment during one particular passage from today:


[quote]From his vantage point, [WILL] can see DAVID talking to PRUITT in the kitchen. It’s hard to tell if the conversation is heated or just animated.[end quote]


In the final cut of the movie, this short scene plays out rather objectively as a light, funny moment between DAVID and PRUITT even though we CAN’T hear their dialogue. However, the ambiguity of the script version is highly intriguing since it suggests a potential conflict between these two men, who are obviously very close and have the meaningful, shared history of “The Invitation.”


I have my own ideas or theories on how these intimate moments between DAVID and PRUITT manifest, which we’ll get to in future episodes when they’re more relevant, but I really enjoy how these odd seeds are planted fairly early on, almost subliminally.



  • Boundaries, pt. 1 // “I WANT”


As has been well-established, THE INVITATION (the movie) is all about upholding social decorum (or not) and the dangers that presents in regards to self-preservation, as well as the perceived dangers of NOT upholding that status quo.


What’s especially interesting about this section of the movie is the way that recurring theme is transposed – even disguised – by the events of these pages (and/or minutes). For example, in the last episode, we saw how the Recruitment Video made the guests visibly and explicitly uncomfortable, causing a breakdown of even the most polite appearances.


As a result of that palpable alienation, we witness DAVID deploy a sort of Damage Control or Course Correction, almost as if he’s realizing that the “hard sell” isn’t going to work with this crowd, so he presents the group with a game that the “Invitation” crew played in Mexico called “I WANT” – which is a variation on “I NEVER.” He and EDEN and SADIE and PRUITT are, in essence, still offering the same thing as the Video they presented, except now it is quite literally gameified. 


The same reactions we saw when DAVID brought out the laptop in the last episode basically repeat as if everyone got mindwiped (or is SO desperate to move on & forget) that they don’t realize they’re being herded into an alternative, but nearly identical, type of trance.


TOMMY is cracking jokes again, GINA’s extroversion gets lured out, and CLAIRE’s quiet hesitation is right on cue.


DAVID preys on this. Yes, he wants to win back the room, but more insidiously, he wants to command it, too – by virtue of leaving his guests in an unguarded emotional space procured by the game.


Personalities are exploited to the extent that boundaries are deliberately broken down: SADIE declares an unearned love for *everyone* in the room, most of whom are strangers to her, then kisses GINA without asking. Subsequently, DAVID enthusiastically enables GINA’s request for drugs, even when she gives him an out. All of which is cheered on by TOMMY.


As Phil Hay says on the film’s commentary track:  “Inhibitions are their enemy, boundaries on their enemy.”


Said another way: the participants of THE INVITATION (the spiritual, self-help movement) have adopted a brash, hedonistic lifestyle that is almost offensively arrogant in its lack of shame. And if you don’t get it or don’t want to engage with it, you’re being a lame party pooper.


So, YES, much revelry is had – probably the most yet – which isn’t inherently “off” or bad, and it’s especially welcome after the heavy laptop video, but it will come at a price. By engaging in the game, by (implicitly) agreeing to its rules, the guests are extending an invitation (no pun intended) to the WANTS that are NOT so playful and hedonistic.


AGAIN: DAVID / EDEN / SADIE / AND PRUITT are – to simplify – sugarcoating the tenets of “The Invitation” in an amusing & engaging social activity instead of a passive video promo, which means that all the heavy, vaguely sinister ideas introduced in episode 6 are still there, lingering, lying in wait…  (To be continued…)



  • Boundaries, pt. 2 // DESTROYER // “BEING WITH” Exercise + Landmark (Adv. Course)


Going back to the critical theme of Boundaries: this fascinating motif is echoed in KUSAMA’s follow-up to THE INVITATION, 2018’s DESTROYER (also written & produced by Hay & Manfredi).


In one of the film’s finest scenes, a flashback to when lead character ERIN BELL was deep undercover with a gang of thieves, we see the gang leader SILAS pressure another member of the gang, ARTURO, into a game of Russian Roulette.


Right off the bat, there’s the immediate parallel of a game (albeit an insanely lethal one) being presented in a group setting. Ultimately, ARTURO subjugates. He survives the game, but soon realizes there were 3 (THREE!!) bullets in the gun. ARTURO is traumatized while his bully, SILAS, laughs if off like an asshole.


Yet, the deeper comparison comes in the form of how our actions change when our peers are our audience.


Arturo could just say “no” to the game when it’s first presented, but what would happen? Would he get made fun of? Chewed out? Verbally abused? Kicked out of the gang? Physically beaten? I can’t help but think of a quote I inserted a few episodes ago: “THE FEAR OF OFFENDING IS GREATER THAN THE FEAR OF PAIN.”


It’s a uniquely (and tragically) human dilemma. We usually know immediately when we want to abstain from something, or when something feels wrong or incompatible with us, but we don’t want to deal with the pushback of admitting it.


We don’t want to risk being ostracized, nor do we want to appear weak. WE ALWAYS WANT TO LOOK GOOD.


To further complicate things, there’s also a certain mindset that I’m sure comes up in many cultures where we are (somewhat) conditioned to “power through” a difficult situation because it will… ‘build character’ or it will be ‘rewarding’ or ‘be instructive’ whatever we’ve been told by a people of authority or people we trust.


Ultimately, “I WANT” in THE INVITATION and RUSSIAN ROULETTE in DESTROYER both illustrate (in their own ways) our irrational, emotional, and un-intellectual behavior under the *very tangible*  and therefore *very rational* and *very real*) pressures of social situations, whether that situation be a party, a casual hang, or a formal dinner gathering.


We’re definitely not done with this specific topic or this particular parallel between THE INVITATION and DESTROYER, so keep them in mind, and keep in mind each movie’s relationship to gameifying and subsequently abusing our social tendencies.


These scenes convey the constant push-pull of Anxiety versus Reality. We wager which will be worse and act accordingly. 


THE INVITATION: Claire wagers that she’ll be worse off if she stays and plays “I WANT”, so she leaves despite friendly-yet-firm pushback.


DESTROYER: Arturo wagers that playing the game of Russian Roulette is worth the reward of looking strong and masculine rather than risk appearing weak in front of his friends and fellow gang members, even if he risks his own life.


Ultimately, he ends up vulnerable anyway as he runs off into another room, weeping, likely permanently damaged… 


In both situations, each character risks death by engaging in their respective games. By exempting themselves, it’s not that they win – THEY LIVE. By removing themselves from the game altogether – THEY STAY ALIVE.


... perhaps showing that the best way to [quote-unquote]”win” is not to play.



  • “BEING WITH” Exercise + Landmark (Adv. Course)



Returning to PHIL HAY’s quote about inhibitions being the enemy of THE INVITATION’s participants and true believers, I wanted to explore that idea and the framework of the “I WANT” game as it relates to an exercise from LANDMARK that I once did.


LANDMARK has an exercise, not a game, called the “BEING WITH” exercise which, if I recall correctly, took place within their 2nd of 3 main courses – called, uncreatively, THE ADVANCED COURSE, the follow-up to THE LANDMARK FORUM.


In the “Being With” exercise, two large single-file lines run parallel, with each line facing each other so that each person has a partner to face or look at, like a mirror. For a few minutes, give or take, you are instructed to simply look in the eyes of the random person directly across from you in silence. You can smile, you can be neutral, you can cry, you can blink – you can essentially have any emotional reaction you want as long as you don’t speak or look away – hence the name “Being With”.


As this happens, the other half of The Advanced Course looks on and observes, then they get to do it. Afterwards, there is a discussion of thoughts, insights, and what it felt like for people in general.


I can remember being in the first group to participate in the “Being With” exercise, where I was paired with an older gentleman with black and grey facial hair. LANDMARK can have very large groups, especially in places like NEW YORK CITY, where I did all 3 main courses (The Landmark Forum, The Advanced Course, and the Self Expression & Leadership Program or S.E.L.P.). I mention this because, while I made friends and became familiar with a lot of other participants, I never spoke to or knew the man across from me during this exercise. I remember him being neutral the entire time whereas I remember trying to lightly smile while my eyes welled-up and became glassy. It’s an awkward and uncomfortable and oddly emotional experience – one that seemed to crystalize as I watched the 2nd group go up to do what I had just done. The biggest takeaway I can recall is how “Being With” illustrates or can illustrate the false narratives we tell ourselves based on another person’s emotions or facial expressions.


So, how does this relate to “I WANT” from THE INVITATION? Well, both show a deliberate termination of boundaries, even in the [quote-unquote] “safety” of a party or a controlled seminar. Again, I’m not explicitly bad-mouthing LANDMARK in any way (which is why I tried to describe this situation to the best of my memory), but it would be foolish to ignore PHIL HAY’s observation that the elimination of boundaries are a significant goal of both THE INVITATION and LANDMARK.


To what end?


As I just stated, I was quite moved by the “Being With” exercise and got something out of it – nor do I regret it. However, that doesn’t mean there’s not an insidious component beneath it all… which is the vulnerable (even weak) state that removing inhibitions or boundaries causes. And when we’re weak and vulnerable, we as humans are like wet clay that are easy to shape and manipulate.


This is yet another complicated scenario because when we’re vulnerable: whether that means having angry, happy, or sad tears, it’s hard to separate our emotions from our more pragmatic, practical mind. Things get messy very quickly. 


A lack of boundaries is provocative – it can provoke sudden, emotional responses (good and bad) with little forethought which is of course dangerous because that can lead to arguments, discomfort, resentment, lack of empathy, and in this case: manipulation. Not unlike the core of many thematic conflicts, it is an expression of power. 


DAVID introduces “I WANT” like a trojan horse, under the guise of a fun, group activity when he knows, simultaneously, that it will also put him in an advantageous position. He is leading the game and the group which:



  1. puts him back in control,
  2. allows him to assert power over his guests, and
  3. lets him regain his grip on the trajectory of the night’s events.


 Like I mentioned before, this is a sinister notion, and really lends itself to THE INVITATION’s horror-leaning tendencies. The eventual physical violence is merely an extension of the emotional-violence-and-manipulation established in this scene and scenes prior.


Part of the reason the bloodshed stings the way it does, when it finally occurs, is because the seeds are quietly sown in the seemingly innocuous space of the living room. Not just an innocuous or neutral space, though… but a sacred one: DAVID unhesitantly takes advantage of the shared love of longtime friends, the familiar space of the house they all know, and twists the knife of the game right under everyone’s nose as they’re indulged and therefore blinded by lust, drugs, alcohol, even nostalgia and the novelty of being reunited.


The confident arrogance of DAVID is even more infuriating when you consider that he is, in some ways, just as much of an interloper SADIE or PRUITT. Yes, he lives in the house now and is EDEN’s new partner, but he’s meeting many of the guests for the first time like SADIE and PRUITT are. He has no (pre-)existing rapport or relationship with the individuals OR the group as a whole. He gets a pass because he’s kind, handsome, generous, and has been essentially adopted by EDEN.


And he uses every one of these details to opaquely work towards his goal. The most chilling aspect of which might be that he believes he is righteous in carrying out.



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

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




  • “ 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.”



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

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

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