Skip to main content

Well, isn’t that an oogy mess?

Misery
(1990)

(SPOILERS) Misery’s the first time in Rob Reiner’s spotless early run where one becomes conscious of his limitations. It’s a thoroughly, commendably decent adaptation, one in which he elicits outstanding performances from his leads and pushes all the necessary shock buttons, but there’s never that crucial sense of an ability to go the extra mile to make it a truly seminal horror movie. Instead, what it has is a truly seminal villain. Otherwise, it has to settle for punching-above-its-weight journeyman status.

Kathy Bates won the Best Actress Oscar, of course, for Annie Wilkes, the most unnerving screen villainess since Nurse Ratchett in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. A performance subject to a thousand parodies, surely the highest of compliments. Bates’ abilities can’t be understated, but it is also a gift of a part, allowing her to run the gamut of emotions and employ some very particular vernacular. And wield a sledgehammer. There’s always something slightly unnerving about a movie where we’re so encouraged to root for a female character’s demise, particularly through violence; we’re with Murphy in his enraged assault in Cuckoo’s Nest, and we’re entirely with James Caan’s Paul Sheldon here, when he finally busts Annie Wilkes’ head in with a pig.

In some respects, though, Caan’s is the more impressive work; an actor known for his macho hot-headedness (certainly on screen), placed in a position where he’s entirely vulnerable. The actor perfectly digs in to the insolent deference to his captor/host. Given the rollcall of actors considered (most notably Warren Beatty), I think they unwittingly hit the jackpot by having to go way down the list (although both Gene Hackman and Michael Douglas would have been good choices).

I have to admit, I’d forgotten how the B-plot played out, building up the investigation of sheriff Richard Farnsworth (marvellously relaxed and likeable, and winningly complemented by Frances Sternhagen as his wife), at the behest of Sheldon’s publisher Lauren Bacall. Was Goldman subconsciously channelling Stanley Kubrick cruelly killing off Scatman Crothers in The Shining, a character who survived in King’s novel (in the Misery novel, it’s a state trooper who suffers Farnsworth’s fate)? If so, it’s curious that King was effusive in his praise for the adaptation, or perhaps he just didn’t make the connection. It’s a particularly unkind demise, nominally justified in order to provoke Sheldon to find the means of his own deliverance but cruelly bringing to an end the most relatable character in the film.

Goldman goes into some detail in Which Lie Did I Tell? on the back and forth that took place as a prelude to the hobbling scene; in then novel, it’s a particularly gruesome amputation by axe (and cauterising by propane torch – later, Annie indulges such incidentals as cutting off his thumb). Goldman duly incorporated it, blown away by the unexpected horror of the moment. It was only as the scene led to prospective talent turning the role down that he and Reiner (then just the producer) reconsidered. First George Roy Hill told him “Goldman, she lops his fucking feet off. And I can’t direct that”. Beatty, interestingly, said “he had no trouble losing his feet at the ankles, but know that if you did that the guy would be crippled for life and would be a loser”. During this time, they were taking straw polls of Castle Rock staff on whether it was too much; eventually, Reiner and producer Andy Scheinman did a final pass, replacing the axe with a sledgehammer, and Goldman was outraged that they’d ruined the movie (“And you know what? I was wrong”).

It’s curious that he gives “the audience would have hated Annie” as a reason for not doing it per the book; I think they do that quite effectively anyway. I’m sure there were many cheers in cinemas when Sheldon delivers the payoff line “Eat it till you choke, you sick twisted fuck!” Goldman’s adaptation as a whole is first rate and diligent, but rather like Reiner’s direction, it’s solid rather than inspired.

Indeed, the best part of the picture is, really, in terms of standing out at you, the performances – Barry Sonnefeld’s cinematography, in his last such credited before switching to calling the shots, is very nice, but it lacks the flourish he was providing the Coen Brothers about this time – and it’s easy to see why it has lent itself to stage adaptations. There’s the occasionally clunky moment where the actors are unable to overcome the limitations of the material, such as Annie dropping a helpful clue to her shady background (“That’s why I couldn’t remember all the things they were asking me in the witness stand in Denver”), and the shaking the urine bottle and then flicking the lighter fluid are a touch overdone, but again, such theatricality is almost designed for the live performance.

Notably, Misery was only nominated for the one Oscar it won. For Goldman, it marked the beginning of an in-demand renaissance (albeit, none of the results were on a par with his heyday). Reiner had already peaked. Caan proved himself employable. And Bates wouldn’t go wanting for work, but hers was more an F Murray Abraham win than leading to your classic idea of Oscar cachet. The film also cemented the sense that the best results from adapting King would come from his non-supernatural works, underlined by The Shawshank Redemption a few years later. More often than not, King’s horror novels just made an oogly mess.


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.

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…

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.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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

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.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.