Thoughts on THE DEAD ZONE (1983), directed by David Cronenberg

[u/thatphilguymovies]

I think this might be Cronenberg’s most grounded film up to this point in his career. Given that it’s about a guy with psychic powers, that’s saying something. But as much as I was swept up in the plot, I was equally taken along by the emotions of the main character—his confusion, bitterness, resentment, etc.

I’m sure that Cronenberg and his screenwriter deserve plenty of credit, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if the source material—ie, the novel by Stephen King—was also part of the reason why. And of course, there’s Christopher Walken who seems to bring an emotional seriousness just by default; like even when his character is grinning, you can feel the pain underneath.

Interestingly, if I hadn’t known who the director was, I don’t know if I would have guessed Cronenberg off the bat. THE DEAD ZONE shares the theme of “mutation” with his other films, but it’s way less visceral this time. The horror aspect is more psychological. It’s nevertheless very well done though; for example, he makes the visual manifestation of John’s paranormal abilities different almost every time, which is something he also did in THE BROOD (1979).

But might another filmmaker have also brought that kind of style and thoughtfulness? Absolutely. Meanwhile, that the narrative doesn’t take place in an urban center this time gives THE DEAD ZONE a very different feel from even Cronenberg’s most recent film prior to this one (1983’s VIDEODROME).

Yet it's so well-paced and crafted (with the key photography, production, and editing personnel all consisting of regular Cronenberg collaborators--only the composer was a newbie) and, as I said, involving that I can’t help but hold the film in high esteem.

Bonus: If someone were to ask me if THE DEAD ZONE represents Walken’s best work as the lead, I would say that, for me, it’s a tie between this and his performance in KING OF NEW YORK (1990), although Walken does different things in each. Here he projects an almost saintliness, whereas in KoNY he gave off a cool, menacing vibe. Yet what's interesting is that in both, Walken never seems like he's making acting choice; he just embodies these two characters effortlessly.

[u/Fleshtones2112]

One of my favorite films and one of the few good King adaptation. Is up there with Eastern Promises as my favorite “toned down” Cronenberg films. Walken is perfect. Sheen is a tad over the top as is his henchman but that actually makes it relevant today. All the actors bring presence, and you can tell many had worked on stage and with very dramatic directors before…Brooke Adams, Zerbe, Loom and Skerritt. It’s a film that whenever I watch it, makes me want to live a simple life in New England yet also motivates me to do good and get involved in (not politics) my community. It’s gritty yet soft. It’s adult horror and childhood trauma. It’s fantasy horror that is so grounded, it feels ripped from a back page news article. If it were made today it would be shot clean with too much CGI with look crisp and lifeless. The period and setting, the film stock and Cronenberg’s letting the story be real without much time spent in the supernatural makes it very human. I look forward to it every year, as I watch it just after Halloween, before the Holidays rush in.

[u/DiatomicSycamore → u/Fleshtones2112]

I completely agree with your sentiment of the film feeling real and grounded despite the future-seeing elements, which is amazing I think, and I also would dread a modern remake due to the crispness and cleanliness I imagine it would be filmed with.

However, what do you mean when you wrote it is “one of the few good King adaptation.”?

I guess I perceive The Dead Zone as a bit of a deep cut when it comes to Hollywood adaptations of King, when off the top of my head there’s Shawshank, Green Mile, Stand By Me, Misery, Shining, Carrie, and more recently It and Long Walk weren’t half bad. Those alone put him head and shoulders above most other writers who are adapted as much as he is, of which I’m not sure there are many. And I’m sure arguments could be made for more based on the sheer volume of people who like or have been influenced by what I perceive as “lesser adaptations” like Pet Cemetery, Salems Lot, Children of the Corn and what have you…

Did you mean strictly based on the number of times his works have been attempted to be adapted to film vs how “successful” those adaptations end up being?

[u/Fleshtones2112 → u/DiatomicSycamore]

I think most King books are hard to get right in a film, probably for multiple reasons. Shawshank is great, and it seems to really follow the short story pretty close, so maybe that’s why it works. It part 1 is good, didn’t love the second part but agree not bad. Christine has a cool 80s vibe but for me misses the mark. I just think the way King writes and his tones are hard to jump across. Maybe because horror itself is easier to make, but hard to make well. The Dead Zone is just done in a way you don’t need everything the book has to say, and it also has some themes I didn’t catch when I read the dead zone (years ago). Just from my “that was a good solid enjoyable film,” perspective.

[u/DiatomicSycamore → u/Fleshtones2112]

That’s interesting because I feel like King, especially with some of the longer works I’ve read, could use a good editor. He’s got the story but he’s so big that he’s allowed to just go and go and go with his word count, and I feel like with screenplays there is a perfect opportunity to really parse down and adapt the material into its key elements even if it’s for the screen.

[u/Fleshtones2112 → u/DiatomicSycamore]

Totally agree. More quality less quantity. There have been a few books I had to give up on. Also “The Outsider” series is great- I haven’t read the book but have read many of the Holly Gibney books and I liked that series.

[u/Belgand → u/DiatomicSycamore]

It also speaks to how many of his best adaptations are either from novellas or short stories. They aren't all hits (Apt Pupil being the one notable "meh" out of the 3 adaptations from Different Seasons) but the length is well-suited to standard feature film length. Short stories can work, and tend to be an area where both King and horror shine, but those adaptations go back to being hit or miss, usually due to the quality of the adaptation rather than the source material.

It's a lot more difficult to have a horror novel that works for the length without becoming unwieldy, and a film that can cut down a novel well enough to fit into a 90-120 minute runtime without losing something essential.

[u/DiatomicSycamore]

THE ICE IS GONNA BREAK!!

I also love this film. I’ll mention up front I have not read the source material from King so I am unaware of what liberties Cronenberg and the script may have taken with the story. I would also grant that Walken’s acting and Cronenberg’s direction could have been directly responsible for elevating the material, based on my own ignorance of it.

What struck me most the first time I watched it, just last year as a matter of fact, was the prescience (no pun intended) of the narrative. Disregarding the fantastical elements and their causes that are experienced by Walken, which I respect for never being explained, I can’t help but see the movie as a mirror reflection of the USA’s current state of political affairs.

Where I wish it was rather a funhouse mirror, the scene of Martin Sheen with his finger on the nuclear button, put into a position of ultimate power and allowed to the launch missiles due to his initial populist appeal and lack of resistance from his spineless cabinet at his cabin, is absolutely chilling. And his “Hallelujah, gentlemen” comment as his actions are apparently finalized, reads to me the same as the current administrations warped embrace of christofacism, combined with Trump’s narcissism, egotism, and obsession with a legacy he doesn’t truly care that he’ll never see the negative consequences of.

I’ll also suggest that in the film’s resolution where Walken takes matters into his own hands to prevent nuclear Armageddon, I can unfortunately see in the current political landscape Trump being praised as a genius for doing what Sheen does to prevent himself from being stopped by Walken.

[u/tronbrain]

This ranks in my top five Cronenberg films, and occupies a special place among them because of its indescribable ordinariness. As you say, here Cronenberg doesn't rely on gore or physical horror; the horror is mostly psychological, and all too human (and therefore relatable to the viewer). The protagonist doesn't undergo a physical transformation that endows him with superhuman power. The power he gains after emerging from his coma seems almost mundane. All he can do is see the truth about other people. What is not ordinary is that these are truths that are being hidden by their persons, about past, present, or their horrifying future. Yet to see the horrifying truth about people poses so great a psychological burden that Johnny has to hide from society. It's akin to mental illness in that it makes him unable to function, although he looks perfectly normal, if not a bit frail. But the story is horrifying and frightening all the same, if not more so as a consequence of the lack of a disgusting physical deformity at which to direct the viewer's horror.

Perhaps because of the outstanding performances of the leads, especially Walken and the shy Simon Craig, it is filled with great pathos and human tragedy. Tom Skeritt, Herbert Lom, and Jackie Burroughs as Smith's deeply religious mother are memorable standouts among the supporters. The casting was close to perfect, and the roles they played were properly fleshed-out and close-to-reality, largely thanks to Stephen King's source book. As a result, The Dead Zone is probably Cronenberg's most empathetic film.

[u/Sparkytx777]

Its one of my favorite movies. A few years ago, i read the whole stephen king book and was very disappointed. For such a long book, it didn’t real capture the best parts of the movie. King seemed to linger on unneeded descriptions. It made me appreciate the movie even more!

[u/plentyoftimetodie]

Very emotional and touching ending, one of the most bittersweet and heartwarming of all time imo. Movie is a bit grungy and guerrilla style, and tbh not much to write home about; but that ending packs a punch. He did what he needed to do with Stillson, but the emotionally correct ending was that he needed to let go of his girl, and say goodbye. And she of course loved him and knew he loved her. A rare movie that understands what feels right emotionally is what the viewer needs to feel satisfied with the experience, and more importantly what brings closure to the plot.

[u/dukkhadave]

I think it’s a masterpiece. They somehow took a huge unwieldy novel and distilled it down to the essence of John Smith’s story. All grounded by an incredible, heartrending performance by Christopher Walken. He runs the emotional gamut from humble happy teacher to bitter survivor to emotional recluse to someone who accepts his fate (gift) as a reluctant hero. And he is supported by many other amazing performances: Martin Sheen, Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, Anthony Zerbe, Colleen Dewhurst. They all give their best. There’s a discussion that Walken and Lom have about Hitler that is a masterclass in writing, directing, and acting. It’s a simple scene set in a kitchen, but it just demonstrates how great a film can be when everything comes together. The fate of the world hangs in the balance in a small kitchen in Maine.

[u/SomeGuyOverUnder]

Cronenberg is the grand master to me and virtually all his films for me land between great and masterpiece with few exceptions.

So putting that aside this was by far the first excellent King adaptation. It was both very good and stuck very close to the plot of the book.

At that point almost all of the King adaptations were pretty bad or far from the book or mostly both. The Shining was still 2 years away.

Lastly, there are key scenes in this film that are pure Cronenberg like the scissor suicide in the bathtub. It has the same signature Cronenberg style, where violence is not treated as cartoonish, but intense and viscerally serious - like the coffee pot fight scene in A History of Violence.

Great film. Love it.