Cujo
(Stephen King, 1981)
VS
Cujo
(Lewis Teague, 1983)
After many a late night video taping of such classics as Carrie and Christine, I finally bought my first Stephen King book, aged thirteen, from a Sunday afternoon antiques fair. It was an omnibus edition of perhaps King’s three most famous stories; The Shining, Carrie and Misery. I remember fondly how I pawed my way through it, finishing Carrie in a matter of hours. Even at that age I realised that King was not simply a purveyor of schlock horror like his inferior counterpart Dean Koontz, but rather a master of story telling and character building.
It is something of a shame, therefore, that the films made of his stories are rarely a patch upon the original works. Yes, Kubrik’s The Shining is a true piece of cinematic mastery, with a visceral terror that few have surpassed, and the TV movie of IT is a wonderful showcase for Tim Curry’s inimitable talent. However, where directors have failed is in trying to capture the compassion and familiarity that King creates in every one of his characters, even those fated to death within moments of their introduction.
And thus, upon finishing King’s story of madness and claustrophobia, Cujo, I decided to revisit a film that I have not watched in perhaps a decade.
In Cujo, King introduces us to his usual array of characters; the failing writer (in this case an advertising artist), the curiously perceptive child, the portly cop… It’s certainly familiar ground. In this venture, however, King strays from his usual tale of the supernatural and delivers a truly terrifying story of the decent into madness of a loving family pet who is tragically bitten by a rabid bat. The lack of other-worldly undertones makes Cujo all the more haunting, as throughout the story, one feels that this time round, these events really could happen.
The personification of Cujo himself is beautifully formed, and makes his plight all the more tragic. Indeed, when the story is over, King reminds us that it was through no fault of his own, and merely a sickening twist of fate that brought about Cujo’s end.
The nauseating feeling of claustrophobia throughout the final two hundred pages of the book is perfectly written, with the few reprises of characters outside the fated car seeming like a real breath of fresh air. Perfect pacing and narrative from a real master of not just the genre, but of literature itself.
And so to the film. Lewis Teague does a good job of creating the atmosphere of tension, and the plight of our car-bound heroes. Horror veteran Dee Wallace (The Howling, Critters) delivers a career defining performance as Donna Trenton, and the relationship she creates with her son, Tad, is utterly believable.
Unfortunately, where Teague falters is exactly where every other director of a King-based movie does so; we simply do not know enough or care enough about the characters to make the story as hard-hitting as the book. In Cujo, Teague makes the bad people bad, and the good people good; there is no reason behind motives, and no redemption of the ill-fated. The happy Hollywood ending also completely undermines the point of the book.
Cujo himself is portrayed, quite unfortunately, as a typical movie monster. We don’t see his compassion and loyalty as we do in King’s writing, and as such the empathy one feels for him is lost.
It is something of a shame, therefore, that the films made of his stories are rarely a patch upon the original works. Yes, Kubrik’s The Shining is a true piece of cinematic mastery, with a visceral terror that few have surpassed, and the TV movie of IT is a wonderful showcase for Tim Curry’s inimitable talent. However, where directors have failed is in trying to capture the compassion and familiarity that King creates in every one of his characters, even those fated to death within moments of their introduction.
And thus, upon finishing King’s story of madness and claustrophobia, Cujo, I decided to revisit a film that I have not watched in perhaps a decade.
In Cujo, King introduces us to his usual array of characters; the failing writer (in this case an advertising artist), the curiously perceptive child, the portly cop… It’s certainly familiar ground. In this venture, however, King strays from his usual tale of the supernatural and delivers a truly terrifying story of the decent into madness of a loving family pet who is tragically bitten by a rabid bat. The lack of other-worldly undertones makes Cujo all the more haunting, as throughout the story, one feels that this time round, these events really could happen.
The personification of Cujo himself is beautifully formed, and makes his plight all the more tragic. Indeed, when the story is over, King reminds us that it was through no fault of his own, and merely a sickening twist of fate that brought about Cujo’s end.
The nauseating feeling of claustrophobia throughout the final two hundred pages of the book is perfectly written, with the few reprises of characters outside the fated car seeming like a real breath of fresh air. Perfect pacing and narrative from a real master of not just the genre, but of literature itself.
And so to the film. Lewis Teague does a good job of creating the atmosphere of tension, and the plight of our car-bound heroes. Horror veteran Dee Wallace (The Howling, Critters) delivers a career defining performance as Donna Trenton, and the relationship she creates with her son, Tad, is utterly believable.
Unfortunately, where Teague falters is exactly where every other director of a King-based movie does so; we simply do not know enough or care enough about the characters to make the story as hard-hitting as the book. In Cujo, Teague makes the bad people bad, and the good people good; there is no reason behind motives, and no redemption of the ill-fated. The happy Hollywood ending also completely undermines the point of the book.
Cujo himself is portrayed, quite unfortunately, as a typical movie monster. We don’t see his compassion and loyalty as we do in King’s writing, and as such the empathy one feels for him is lost.
However, that said, Cujo is a decent enough horror movie, and as a stand alone flick, it does a good job – a hefty number of scares, and some great makeup effects on the job. Alas, it’s no successor to the King.
Book - 4 Stars
Movie - 3 Stars
No comments:
Post a Comment