John Updike didn't write a "girl power" anthem. Honestly, if you go back and read the 1984 novel today, it’s a lot darker and way more cynical than the Cher-infused movie we all grew up watching on cable. The story of The Witches of Eastwick is actually a bit of a trap. People go into it expecting a fun romp about sisterhood and magic, but they end up staring into the abyss of 1960s gender politics and the destructive nature of suburban boredom.
It’s about three women: Alexandra, Jane, and Sukie. They’re divorced, they’re isolated in a small Rhode Island town, and they’ve accidentally discovered they have powers. But these aren't the kind of powers you see in a Marvel movie. It’s messy. It’s tied to their menstrual cycles and the weather. It’s organic. Then Daryl Van Horne shows up.
He’s the devil. Or maybe he’s just a really manipulative guy with a lot of money and a vulgar house. That ambiguity is where the real magic happens.
The Big Difference Between the Book and the Movie
Most people know the 1987 film directed by George Miller. Yeah, the guy who did Mad Max. That’s why the movie feels so high-energy and grotesque. You’ve got Jack Nicholson basically playing himself if he were an ancient demon, and he is chewing the scenery so hard it’s a miracle there was any set left to film on.
But here’s the thing.
Updike’s book is meaner. In the novel, the witches aren’t exactly heroes. They actually end up causing the death of a local woman, Jenny Gabriel, through a literal curse involving a heavy lead ball and a lot of ill-will. The movie softens them. It makes them victims of Daryl’s influence who eventually find the strength to kick him out. In the book? They just sort of drift apart and find new men. It’s a much more grounded, almost depressing look at how power doesn't necessarily make you a better person.
The movie changed the ending because, well, Hollywood. You can’t have Cher, Susan Sarandon, and Michelle Pfeiffer play unrepentant killers. The audience would have revolted. Instead, we got the iconic scene with the voodoo doll in the mansion, which is cinematic gold but miles away from the source material’s intent.
💡 You might also like: Why Love Island Season 7 Episode 23 Still Feels Like a Fever Dream
Casting Was Almost Totally Different
Can you imagine anyone else as Daryl Van Horne?
Before Jack Nicholson signed on, the producers were looking at Bill Murray. That would have been a completely different vibe—more "weird uncle" and less "predatory chaos." Even Anjelica Huston was considered for one of the witches, which is ironic considering she went on to play the Grand High Witch a few years later. The chemistry between the three leads—Pfeiffer’s innocence, Sarandon’s repressed intensity, and Cher’s sheer presence—is what keeps the movie from falling apart under its own weight.
Why We Are Still Obsessed With The Witches of Eastwick
Magic in Eastwick is a metaphor for autonomy. When these women are together, they create a "coven" not because they want to worship Satan, but because they are bored with the limitations placed on them by a judgmental small town.
It’s about the 1960s transition. The book is set in the late 60s, a time when the "Nuclear Family" was starting to crack at the seams. Updike was obsessed with the idea of the "post-pill" world. He wanted to explore what happened when women had more agency but were still stuck in these suffocating social structures.
- The Power of Three: In folklore, three is a recurring number for the "triple goddess" (Maiden, Mother, Crone), though Updike twists this.
- The Devil as a Mirror: Daryl doesn't actually give them powers; he just gives them the permission to use what they already have. He’s a catalyst.
- The Cost of Freedom: Every time they use their magic, something in the town breaks. It’s not a "free lunch" scenario.
Basically, it’s a story about the messy reality of liberation.
The Musical and the TV Failures
Believe it or not, they tried to turn this into a TV show. Multiple times. There was a pilot in 1992, another in 2002, and then a short-lived series on ABC in 2009 called Eastwick. None of them worked. Why? Because they all tried to make it Charmed or Desperate Housewives.
📖 Related: When Was Kai Cenat Born? What You Didn't Know About His Early Life
They stripped away the darkness.
The West End musical fared a bit better, mostly because it leaned into the spectacle. It had a soaring score and allowed the witches to literally fly over the audience. But even then, the core of the story—the uncomfortable, jagged edges of Updike’s prose—is hard to translate into a song-and-dance number.
The "Lemon" Scene and Visual Practical Effects
We have to talk about the cherries. And the puke.
In the 1987 film, the "tennis match" and the subsequent "disruption" at the church are masterclasses in practical effects. George Miller didn't want a CGI demon. He wanted something that felt tactile. When Veronica Cartwright’s character starts spewing cherry pits, it’s genuinely disturbing. It’s body horror hidden inside a high-budget comedy.
That’s the secret sauce of The Witches of Eastwick. It blends genres so aggressively that you never quite know if you’re supposed to be laughing or calling a priest. One minute they’re playing a whimsical game of tennis in the air, and the next, a woman is being driven to madness by a supernatural entity.
What People Get Wrong About the Ending
If you’ve only seen the movie, you think the witches won. They have the big house, they have their babies, and they’ve banished the bad guy. It looks like a win for the sisterhood.
👉 See also: Anjelica Huston in The Addams Family: What You Didn't Know About Morticia
But look closer.
The kids all have Daryl’s eyes. He isn't really gone; he’s just been redistributed. In the book, the ending is even more cynical. The women all find new husbands and move away, essentially returning to the very domesticity they were trying to escape. Updike was suggesting that the "magic" was just a phase—a temporary eruption of female energy that eventually gets paved over by the status quo.
It’s a bit of a bummer, honestly. But it’s a more "real" look at how social structures tend to reabsorb rebels.
How to Experience Eastwick Today
If you want the full experience, you can't just stick to one version. You have to see how the story evolved from a literary critique of suburbia into a Hollywood blockbuster.
- Read the 1984 Novel: Prepare yourself for some dated views on gender, but pay attention to the descriptions of the "natural" magic. It’s much more visceral than the movie.
- Watch the 1987 Film: Pay attention to the sound design. The wind, the crashing waves, and the score by John Williams (which is incredibly underrated and weirdly jaunty).
- Skip the 2009 TV Show: Seriously. It’s not worth the time. It turns a complex psychological story into a soapy procedural.
- Listen to the Musical Soundtrack: Specifically the London cast recording. It captures the "fun" side of the story better than anything else.
The legacy of these characters is visible in almost every "witchy" show that came after it. Without Eastwick, we don't get Practical Magic. We don't get the darker elements of Sabrina. It paved the way for the "adult" witch—the woman whose power isn't a gift from a wand, but a result of her own life experiences and frustrations.
Actionable Next Steps
If you're looking to dive deeper into this specific brand of "suburban Gothic," here is how to actually engage with the material:
- Compare the "tennis" scene: Read Chapter 4 of the book and then watch the movie scene. Note how the movie uses the ball as a symbol of Daryl's control, while the book uses it as a manifestation of the women's collective spite.
- Research George Miller's "Director's Cut" history: There were several battles with the studio over the ending of the film. Looking into the production notes reveals just how much the studio feared the "darker" ending of the book.
- Analyze the Color Palette: Notice how each witch is assigned a specific color in the film (Alexandra is green/earth, Jane is red/fire, Sukie is yellow/air). This is a classic cinematic technique that wasn't as explicit in Updike's text but helped define the characters for a generation.
The Witches of Eastwick isn't a comfortable story, and it shouldn't be. Whether it's the prose of a Pulitzer-winning novelist or the manic energy of a Jack Nicholson performance, it remains a biting look at what happens when the suppressed finally find a way to scream. It’s a reminder that power, once found, is rarely used as purely as we’d like to believe.