A wonderful post about Stephen King, and the movies made from his books.
I was particularly gratified to read this:
I stayed up three nights running to read It. I did not leave a room without it under my arm; my mother could barely persuade me to put it aside during dinner, which I would then wolf down in ten minutes so I could power through the dishes and get back to reading. I can’t remember the last book that had my attention that completely. The Secret History, maybe.
It is a scary book and horrible things happen in it, but I couldn’t put it down because of the people — the characters, the human beings. King is a great plotter, but he’s a master of characterization in tandem with that: realistic reactions to unrealistic situations, natural dialogue in unnatural circumstances. The attraction of the horror genre is not just about freaking yourself out so bad that you have to sleep with a light on; it’s about trying to control something that you think, secretly, could maybe possibly happen to you one day, and reading as much as you can about it so you’ll know what to do.
“I couldn’t put it down because of the people” – that was exactly my experience with that great book.
But go over there and read her analysis of why some movies based on King stories are great – and why some suck. She puts it on the CASTING of the films, which I think is quite interesting, and I can’t really think of any exceptions.
Her paragraph about Timothy Hutton in The Dark Half is hilarious.
But why not just cast the George part with another actor, instead of one who can’t stick a Southern accent for more than five words in a row and whose idea of a scream of rending pain is actually closer to the gargle of a clogged bathtub drain? Because it is possible for an actor of Hutton’s physical stature to convince me of what he’s doing. Buscemi could do it. Buscemi would not back down from that shit even if the check bounced. Hutton plays it like he cheated on you, got caught, and is now crying about it and making you comfort him about how his parents got divorced and he’s a really self-hating person. This character kills people with a straight razor, Timbo. Get your damn back into it for five minutes.
Timbo … heh heh heh heh
I agree that casting is a problem, but it’s not the core of the King debacle. The problem is that most movie makers think they can cut every corner imagined, slap King’s name on it and make some bank. And, with some video store background to back me up, I can say they must be right to some degree.
It doesnt’ matter how much those movies suck, they are some of the biggest-renting titles on the shelves. Diary of Ellen Rimbauer and Rose Red, fuggedaboutit, they suck but rented like mad. And I think most actors know this. They know that a King product is going to be built entirely around his name and will otherwise blow. That’s why you can’t cast a King horror movie … generally. The ones that get bugets and a cast sometimes fall flat also. Dreamcatcher? Holy crap on a stick that movie stank like crap on a stick. But, in fairness, so did the book.
I take exception to this comment, I’ve given Uncle Steve a ration of shit of late, and I stand by it; his EW page is weak at best, On Writing is glib and condescending, and disagree with her opinion on both the book and his column. I find his stuff in EW highly entertaining and witty.
But it’s all about whose 42 cents is being given, eh?
I loved his On Writing myself – thought it was great. I dip into it often with my own writing. for inspiration, etc.
Yeah – I think part of the casting problem is that movie-makers miss that one of the main reasons why his good books really work is that they’re about the characters. NOT the horror. Or – you’ve gotta have both. You can’t skimp on the one, and expect the other to be there.
At least – as a King fan, that’s one of my major attractions to his books: those characters. Archetypes though they may be – they’re my “way in”.
This: “and disagree with her opinion on both the book and his column. I find his stuff in EW highly entertaining and witty” was part of my comment, lost in italics. Darn it.
Yeah, I liked On Writing and his EW columns.
I think that movie makers have issues translating almost any horror author’s works to film. I think the hit/miss ratio generally favors the miss. I look at the Clive Barker films and shake my head. They just can’t capture the mood, the scene and all that’s going on in his stuff.
Believe me, Cullen, if you read Sars’s other site (not Television Without Pity) http://www.thisisnotover.com, you’d take a LOT of exception to a lot of comments. But that’s a post for another day (and Sheila says no politics!)
I’ll give her that the casting on Pet Sematary wasn’t the greatest, but it was still the scariest movie I’d ever seen before The Sixth Sense. I don’t get scared by books AT ALL, so I was very blase’ about seeing the movie. Ha, me. I think I might have peed my pants at one point.
Timothy Hutton story: When he was filming The Falcon and The Snowman, he came to my hometown to interview whichever one he played — I don’t remember which one it was — who was in the federal prison there. He stayed at our local Holiday Inn where my friend works, and was a total JERK. He FREAKED when he found out there was no room service (because that’s what ALL small-town Holiday Inns have, duh) and was a total asshole to the staff. Which, I’m sure, made them want to treat him all the better.
Well, I agree completely; not just with King’s work, but just about any “picture”. Luckily, most often, they get the casting right. But there are times when I (so poor dolt who knows nothin’ ’bout makin’ no movies) just can’t get over the choice of actors for particular roles. I guess they just want the “name”… More often than not, it seems to happen with “Timbo”… coincidence? Sorry to the Timbo fans, but I really think he should try selling insurance or something. :)
Bummer, although I guess I’m not surprised.
I actually thought he was great in Ordinary People. One of the most startling movie debuts of all time. But since then he has slipped off the face of the earth. There’s something … kind of “off” about him. Like his mind is not quite right, or something (which was perfect in Ordinary People but not so great in other parts)
I really liked Beautiful Girls – but that was more because of Natalie Portman and the other people than him, specifically.
Yeah – I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say something that would piss me off in the PJ O’Rourke post – turns out, all I had to do was just sit back and wait.
Boring!
No politics.
Onto more important things like: what the hell is wrong with Timbo???
I had not gone back to the comments on the P.J. thread today. Man, I had missed Another Sheila’s story and that was a shame, what a great tale!
As for the the non-topic, they kept their composure pretty well, methinks. Not like other places.
Oh, Cullen, I know they comported themselves very well. It’s me that is the hot head, and I’m overly sensitive. Which is why I can’t talk about … the dreaded topic.
I know – isn’t Another Sheila’s story great?? Why does it not surprise me, that he would be so friendly and nice? And so open?
He just seems like good people. Insane and wild. But good people. :)
Oh, I know that you know that I know you know they know we know. That’s why it’s so much fun here.
Agree with her emphasis on casting in King movies. Vehemently disagree about “On Writing.” Disagree about the Hutt-bashing (and second Red’s mention of “Beautiful Girls,” which is a great film).
Another problem with King movies is that, for all of his very descriptive writing, he knows when to let the reader fill in the blanks. When reading, we’re too busy “creating” the monster and the mood to have time to critique it. On the other hand, watching film, we have enough critical distance to say, “this monster or that effect looks cheesy.” We’re not as wrapped up in the mythmaking process, and the internal critic is able to come to the fore.
Case in point: I thought “The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon” was extremely suspenseful and well-written. However, translating that on film would destroy the psychological terror in the story, because it’s not about “the monster in the woods”, though that’s what everyone would focus on. (“The Monster looks fake, this is dumb, let’s go watch Dukes of Hazzard 4 again.”)
That said, some stories of the beloved King were just dumb. But a very select few. Which is a helluva better track record than most horror/fantasy/suspense writers.
“The attraction of the horror genre is not just about freaking yourself out so bad that you have to sleep with a light on; it’s about trying to control something that you think, secretly, could maybe possibly happen to you one day, and reading as much as you can about it so you’ll know what to do.”
Truth. That’s exactly it. Didn’t you find yourself, when you read Cujo, deciding exactly how you would arm yourself to attack that dog? I did.
I loved The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and I actually think it would have been a stronger book without the monster-in-the-woods thing.
I thought the TV version of Salem’s Lot was scary as hell. I was in college when it came out (yes, many, many years ago) and we all watched it on the TV in the dorm lobby. My roommate was away that night, and in the dark I had to listen to the tick…tick…tick of the lightbulb cooling. It scared me even though I knew what it was.
“The Shining” with Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duval was OK, and I could stand “The Dead Zone” with Christopher Walken, but I always really prefer the books.