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.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look yourself in the mirror any more.

Hollow Man (2000)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven very acutely critiqued his own choices when he observed of Hollow Manit really is not me anymore. I think many other people could have done that… there might have been twenty directors in Hollywood who could have done that”. It isn’t such a wonder he returned to Europe, and to quality, for his subsequent films. If Memoirs of an Invisible Man failed to follow up on the mental side effects of being seen right through found in HG Wells’ novel and (especially) in James Whale’s film, all Hollow Man does is take that tack, with the consequence that the proceedings degenerate into a banal action slasher, but with a naked Bacon instead of a guy in a hockey mask.

It’s not every day you see a guy get his ass kicked on two continents – by himself.

Gemini Man (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ang Lee seems hellbent on sloughing down a technological cul-de-sac to the point of creative obscurity, in much the same way Robert Zemeckis enmired himself in the mirage of motion capture for a decade. Lee previously experimented with higher frame rates on Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, to the general aversion of those who saw it in its intended form – 48, 60 or 120 fps have generally gone down like a bag of cold sick, just ask Peter Jackson – and the complete indifference of most of the remaining audience, for whom the material held little lustre. Now he pretty much repeats that trick with Gemini Man. At best, it’s merely an “okay” film – not quite the bomb its Rotten Tomatoes score suggests – which, (as I saw it) stripped of its distracting frame rate and 3D, reveals itself as just about serviceable but afflicted by several insurmountable drawbacks.

I have a cow, but I hate bananas.

The Laundromat (2019)
(SPOILERS) Steven Soderbergh’s flair for cinematic mediocrity continues with this attempt at The Big Short-style topicality, taking aim at the Panama Papers but ending up with a mostly blunt satire, one eager to show how the offshore system negatively impacts the average – and also the not-so-average – person but at the expense of really digging in to how it facilitates the turning of the broader capitalist world (it is, after all based on Jake Bernstein’s Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

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.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.