Skip to main content

You are either in possession of a very new human ability... or a very old one.

The Dead Zone
(1983)

(SPOILERS) I wouldn't call myself a Stephen King fan, or particularly a Cronenbuff, although there's material I rate by both (and in the latter's case rate very highly). The Dead Zone arrived at the onset of a glut of King adaptations, and as Kim Newman and Alex Jones suggest on the Blu-ray commentary, it was the first version of his work to really publicise itself as a King piece first and foremost (published in 1979, it was his first hardback to hit Number 1 on the bestseller list, which may partly account for it). Which isn't to say it doesn’t feel like Cronenberg made it – there's a certain dovetailing of interests here – but that the previously vaunted movie adaptations (Carrie, The Shining) were overshadowed by their auteurs.


Cronenberg doesn't do that anymore than Carpenter tipped the balance of Christine – also 1983 – which has led some to suggest that the difficulties of translating the author got the better of them. I'd argue, however, that The Dead Zone's a considerably more successful adaptation than Christine. But where that picture came together very quickly, The Dead Zone's progression to screen was more difficult. Jeffrey Boam wrote the initial screenplay for Lorimar, only for its film division to be shut down and the never-a-good-idea Dino De Laurentiis to snatch it up. He promptly threw out Boam's draft, commissioned King for a script, then threw that out and one by Andrei Konchalovsky too, before returning to Boam. En route, Stanley Donen and Michael Cimino had shown an interest, but things came together when by then former Carpenter producer Debra Hill came aboard and married the different creative elements. 


Boam said of his process with the new director "David is a good writer but he is a very quirky writer and couldn't write something as mainstream as The Dead Zone". Boam had already pared down the novel, eliminating extraneous subplots, and this process continued with Cronenberg. If there's a downside to this, it’s that the plot itself is exposed as starkly episodic; Johnny Smith (Christopher Waken) – Cronenberg had difficulties with the name as he didn’t think anyone would be called that – is hit by a milk truck and begins experiencing visions when he awakes from a five-year coma. Then he's called upon to help find the Castle Rock killer. 


Only then is he introduced to the main meat of the movie: Martin Sheen's would-be senator Greg Stillson, whom Smith foresees pushing the button when he ascends to the role of President. You don't notice that as a handicap in The Shawshank Redemption, as the episodic nature was in its DNA (the passage of decades); here, the Castle Rock Killer could have as easily been the focus of the picture as the senator (Jones commented that when he first saw the film, this middle section interested him the most). Despite that, as Boam suggested "I think that movie holds together as a real movie, It’s not just some kind of weird concoction of Stephen King's".


Boam notes in that interview that "David gets most of the credit" for how good the movie is, but I'd argue the glue that holds it together is Walken's performance The lead player is a defining factor across the director's '80s output (James Woods, Jeff Goldblum, Jeremy Irons) and it's also, perhaps not coincidentally, the strength of most of the most celebrated King adaptions (Carrie, The Shining, Misery, Shawshank and The Green Mile, even the ensembles of Stand by Me and It). 


Smith: "Bless me"? Do you know what God did for me? He threw an 18-wheeled truck at me and bounced me into nowhere for five years! When I woke up, my girl was gone, my job was gone, my legs are just about useless... Blessed me? God's been a real sport to me!

The director's first choice was as offbeat as his decision – for him – to film someone else's adaptation of someone else again's novel, rather than stick to making his own work: Bill Murray. But Walken's intense brand of otherness is a perfect fit for the material, his separation from everyday reality ensures there's a sense that events unfold the only way they possibly could (the actor would pepper the decade with detached or rewired heroes encountering untapped realms, notably in Brainstorm and Communion). It’s down to Walken – who quotes Poe's The Raven and Sleepy Hollow, though he'll later play the headless horseman rather than Ichabod Crane – that we feel the inevitability of Smith's fate; Cronenberg can only underscore its chilly embrace with the surrounding perma-winter.


Smith: When it happens, when it comes, it feels like, I dunno, it feels like I'm dying inside.

There are elements arising from Boam and Cronenberg's contractions that lead to slight confusion; the absence of the novel's brain tumour makes the justification for the title somewhat lumpy in terms of erudition ("It was like… a blank spot, a dead zone" says Johnny of his vision, leading to his doctor telling him this means he can change the future). Then there's the "conjugal" visit of Sarah (Brooke Adams), the ex who moved on while he was in deep sleep; it takes place like a morbid sealing of fate, to consign him further to oblivion, and so doesn't cast her in a very positive light. Smith doesn't so much grin as bear his one-night of togetherness (I rather agree with the assessment of Newman and Jones that it's Adams' performance that makes her as sympathetic as she is, fighting against the character on the page). 


Also surprisingly sympathetic, but for different reasons, are Lom's doctor and Anthony Zerbe's businessman, both tending to be cast as bad guys (although the latter has had the occasional exception confirming the rule since, such as The Matrix sequels). Lom's character's holocaust background provides a "Would you have killed Hitler if you'd had the chance?" sounding board for Smith's decision. He doesn't do much vacillating, though, perhaps because he has an overpowering utilitarian ethic or simply because he seen enough of his visions proving accurate to be more scared of not doing something. 


Stillson: The missiles are flying. Hallelujah!

Of which, Sheen underlines his post-Apocalypse Now move to supporting player as a religious nutcase bent on nuclear annihilation; it's a relative rarity to get a justified (attempted) political assassination in the movies (or anywhere), and you aren't likely to come away thinking Smith made the wrong choice. And yes, anyone watching this today is bound to make Trump comparisons, but anyone watching any dubious politician in any movie is bound to make Trump comparisons.


You can still see the limitations of Cronenberg's craft here at times (as can you in his subsequent The Fly, where the interior nature occasionally veers into the unflattering realisation that this is all about three actors on a hermetic studio set). As much as he's dealing with exteriors and emotions and can't rely on Howard Shore to shore him up, and as much as regular cinematographer Mark Irwin delivers the goods – that famous tunnel shot, used for the UK quad poster, remains extraordinary – the climax leaves Smith bleeding out, post-attempted assassination, in a room conveniently emptied but for his ex and her hubby. 


The Dead Zone took box office bronze in a year overflowing with King adaptations (Christine placed silver and the least cerebral Cujo won the gold), but really there was only a million or so between them. Thus, while it was far from the high-water marks of De Palma and Kubrick, it managed to point the way for the more thoughtful approach that would characterise the most acclaimed King movies. It's worth remembering that, for all their high profiles, it's been qualitatively a pretty arid zone when it comes to his more genre-skewed fare. They have frequently ended up as TV series or botched projects, which is why there's no shortage of fare to improve upon (thus remaking Carrie, the first and one of the best, was entirely pointless and rightly floundered). 


As for Cronenberg, his flirtation with Hollywood would effectively be over soon after it began, retreating from The Fly into less accessible fare. Whether he makes another big screen movie is anyone's guess at this point, but this represented the strongest indication prior to the early '90s that he could happily forsake obvious genre trappings (the picture isn't really a horror, it resists being a fantasy, and it's a stretch to label it science fiction). The Dead Zone isn't a masterpiece, but it's a rewarding piece.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.