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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The guy practically lives in a Clue board.

Knives Out (2019)
(SPOILERS) “If Agatha Christie were writing today, she’d have a character who’s an Internet troll.” There’s a slew of ifs and buts in that assertion, but it tells you a lot about where Rian Johnson is coming from with Knives Out. As in, Christie might – I mean, who can really say? – but it’s fair to suggest she wouldn’t be angling her material the way Johnson does, who for all his pronouncement that “This isn’t a message movie” is very clearly making one. He probably warrants a hesitant pass on that statement, though, to the extent that Knives Out’s commentary doesn’t ultimately overpower the whodunnit side of the plot. On the other hand, when Daniel Craig’s eccentrically accented sleuth Benoit Blanc is asked “You’re not much of a detective, are you?” the only fair response is vigorous agreement.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

Do forgive me for butting in, but I have a bet with my daughter that you are Hercules Porridge, the famous French sleuth.

Death on the Nile (1978)
(SPOILERS) Peak movie Poirot, as the peerless Peter Ustinov takes over duties from Albert Finney, who variously was unavailable for Death on the Nile, didn’t want to repeat himself or didn’t fancy suffering through all that make up in the desert heat. Ustinov, like Rutherford, is never the professional Christie fan’s favourite incarnation, but he’s surely the most approachable and engaging. Because, well, he’s Peter Ustinov. And if some of his later appearances were of the budget-conscious, TV movie variety (or of the Michael Winner variety), here we get to luxuriate in a sumptuously cast, glossy extravaganza.

I am constantly surprised that women’s hats do not provoke more murders.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
(SPOILERS) Was Joe Eszterhas a big fan of Witness for the Prosecution? He was surely a big fan of any courtroom drama turning on a “Did the accused actually do it?” only for it to turn out they did, since he repeatedly used it as a template. Interviewed about his Agatha Christie adaptation (of the 1925 play), writer-director Billy Wilder said of the author that “She constructs like an angel, but her language is flat; no dialogue, no people”. It’s not an uncommon charge, one her devotees may take issue with, that her characters are mere pieces to be moved around a chess board, rather than offering any emotional or empathetic interest to the viewer. It’s curious then that, while Wilder is able to remedy the people and dialogue, doing so rather draws attention to a plot that, on this occasion, turns on a rather too daft ruse.