1976, Brian de Palma directs “Carrie,” the first novel by Stephen King. Since more than 50 directors adapted the master of horror’s books in more than 80 films and series, he is now the most adapted author still alive in the world.
Stephen King fans are a different breed. They run the gamut of horror fans, masochistic literati, and genuinely unhinged. They’re also passionate and creative. For better or worse, Stephen King’s body of work litters across pop culture so profoundly you’re only fifteen seconds away from some kind of King reference. His personal story as a prolific author often gives way to his most famous works (“The Green Mile,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Misery,” “The Mist,” “The Stand,” etc.), but this film never stops lionizing its subject long enough to give us a more profound impression of the myth himself. “King on Screen” feels more like a gang of close friends remembering the good ‘ol days on-screen with tangents, deviations, laughs and smirks. Only when it hones in on genuine conflict does it draw more interest.
First, I have to start by acknowledging that Stephen King is not in this movie. The producer and director explained in the Q&A afterward that King did not participate, but he did witness a cut and write them a letter offering his blessing. How could he not? This movie delves deep into King’s successes, skipping over his darker times to show us something most people are familiar with: King’s influence on pop culture.
Director Daphné Baiwir said they reached out to every collaborator of King material they could find. They managed to interview a close-knit group of friends personally familiar with King through their work or friendship: Mick Garris, Lewis Teague, Greg Nicotero, Taylor Hackford, Tom Holland, and Frank Darabont. This generation of filmmakers talks about the golden era of King’s work. Darabont himself is a font of wisdom and inspiration when it comes to adapting Stephen King’s work. They reminisce about the studio fights, the production deals, and the could-bes of King’s most famous adaptations, which take place early in the film. They discuss “Stand By Me,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” and “The Green Mile” mainly. This section draws a lot of interest since it’s only in hindsight do most of these movies withstand the test of time. Their reminiscence sometimes feels nostalgic, and Hollywood inside baseball the rest of the time. Then there’s the next generation.
There are interviews with younger directors of more recent adaptations, including Josh Boone (“The Stand 2022”), Todd Williams (“Cell”), Vincenzo Natali (“1922”), and Mike Flanagan (“Doctor Sleep,” “Gerald’s Game”). This generation of men grew up on King and King adaptations. Each of them gets a chance to remake works by King. Unfortunately, only Flanagan talks about the challenge of remaking such beloved works. The rest are more color commentary or nostalgia for King films. It’s a bit trite and wasted when you have such resources at your disposal.
However, this movie’s at its absolute best when it comes to “The Shining.” The notorious hate King bears for this most famous adaptation of his work gets explored fully with Hollywood insiders of the Old Guard. They break down the stark contrast between Kubrick and King, the working conditions of Kubrick, and the reasons why King would dislike such a prominent film. This section bore the most interest as it’s the most conflicted. It squares away Kubrick’s adaptation and King’s novella with relative ease, explaining they are two different takes on the same idea. Still, it’s interesting to understand the unhappy picture painted by King in his adaptation. Too bad he doesn’t get screen time to speak for himself, and we have to piece together an old feud between his close friends.
While the movie wants to have its cake and eat it, Stephen King is too prolific to profile in a film about its adaptations. There are over eighty adaptations of his works in television and film, and interviewing everyone involved would make for a docu-series only the most devout King fans would love. Considering the film is bookended by a short film so jampacked with King references (over 300 in under ten minutes) that it feels like speaking a foreign language. The movie diverges and digresses frequently. With no strong throughline, it feels meandering at times and lionizing at best. The worst sections feel like directors stringing together platitudes about Stephen King’s stories transcending time. This is a nice sentiment but bears no real meaning when put together so thoroughly for so long. Its best moments come when a more human picture of the writer is transparent: his alcoholism, his accident, his distaste for Kubrick. These are what make him human, and despite what the movie wants us to think, King was not a fortune teller or a god.
This movie belongs only to Stephen King fans who like to nitpick over his work. The rest of us might be tempted to dive into his influence on pop culture, but it doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know or couldn’t find out on YouTube. Ultimately, its thesis statement comes in the last thirty minutes; by then, it’s too late. Simply remembering Stephen king adaptations fondly is not enough to entice a general audience, and I would not recommend it unless you’re deep down the rabbit hole already, in which case it’s just new cannon fodder for King fans to quibble over.
“King on Screen” recently had its World Premiere at the 2022 Fantastic Fest
I saw it today. A revelation to me of how many SK adaptations there have been, but the relentless succession of talking heads was exhausting, even when they were as genial as Frank Darabont.