1922

So, this is pretty incredible.  In early September, we get the very impressive It, then Gerald’s Game later that month as a Netflix original movie, now here we are with another Netflix film…Stephen King’s 1922.  Along with the couple of television series and The Dark Tower film adaptation (which I’ve yet to see), 2017 continues to be an excellent year for Stephen King. 

Another impressive aspect of this latest film is the starring actor, Thomas Jane, and his history with Stephen King.  In 2003, he starred in the disappointing Dreamcatcher and in 2007 The Mist.  It’s good to see an actor frequenting Stephen King films as Jane now joins the ranks of Kathy Bates and Jeffrey DeMunn as being featured in multiple outings.

The announcement of 1922 took me by surprise and I had to figure out from what book this movie was adapted.  I was pretty sure it was a short story and was right when I finally discovered it in the Stephen King collection, “Full Dark, No Stars,” published in 2010.  I’ve had it sitting on my bookshelf since I’d purchased it after its release and hadn’t read it since, so I pulled it from my shelf and dove into the first story right away.  It was a lengthy short story—more of a novella—clocking in at 131 pages, but I found myself immersed in it and had a hard time putting it down.  One thing to note, I’m a stickler when it comes to Stephen King films and have to read the book before seeing the movie.

So…just a day before October 20^th, I’d finished the story, being very impressed with it, and waited patiently for the film to be released on Netflix. 

What did I think of 1922?  First, the synopsis...

In the year 1922, a simple yet proud rancher, Wilfred James (Thomas Jane), conspires to murder his wife, Arlette (Molly Parker), for financial gain, convincing his teenage son, Henry (Dylan Schmid), to participate.

The misgivings I’d had with the story, and what made me a little nervous about watching the adaptation, was the few animal deaths described in the book.  My first thought, after reading the details of one of the first animals to die, was about how the film would depict this or if it would be shown at all...or maybe happen off-screen (my preference).  Although filmmakers these days wouldn’t actually film an animal death for the purpose of entertainment—though, in the past, some have done just that (i.e., Cannibal Holocaust, Apocalypse Now)—the realistic special effects that movies display are pretty detailed and hard to accept as fakery.  So I was thinking I may take umbrage with the scenes I’d read in the book if I see them brought to the screen.

However, what I’d been looking forward to was how well the filmmakers were going to show the period that this movie takes place—the 1920s.  The descriptions of the vehicles used by the characters—the Model T, for instance, owned by the main character, Wilfred James—was going to be interesting to see it in the film.

Now, when comparing what I was expecting to see and what I actually did see, this film delivered.  What I had pictured in my head as I’d read the novella had vividly come to life on my television screen as it was presented on Netflix.  The James family farm, the vehicles, the buildings in town, the corn fields…the setting was done perfectly.  Although the cast was stellar and gave great performances, especially Thomas Jane (more on him later), I felt the casting could’ve been done a bit better with a few of the characters.  For example, Sheriff Jones was described as an old man, a little overweight and ready to retire, but still had his wits about him for the job he’d held for so long.  In the film, however, he was a bit younger, played by Brian d’Arcy James, and didn’t have that seasoned look about him as described in the book.

As for Thomas Jane, I’ve always liked him as an actor and felt he brings a sense of levity to any scene he’s featured in.  Even the terrible Dreamcatcher—the first Stephen King adaptation Jane has starred in—was a flick to which he added some depth and brought a character you can relate to and cheer for as he goes through whatever plight he faces.  But Thomas Jane is always himself and never really diverts from his own persona.  Here, in 1922, he completely transformed himself in both his speech patterns and his physical appearance. Gone is his tough guy image as he seemed to have slimmed down for this role, looking very lean and much older than he usually appears.  Also, he must’ve really studied the speech and lingo of midwesterners, as he really passes for a seasoned farmer of the early 20^th century.  If I hadn’t known he was to star in this film, I might’ve thought he was some other actor—Jane is almost unrecognizable here, yet gives a hell of a performance.

Another familiar actor you’ll see in this film is Neal McDonough as Harlan Cotterie.  It was important to feature him as he’s the father of Shannon (Kaitlyn Bernard), girlfriend of Wilfred’s son, Henry.  McDonough doesn’t do much throughout this film until he emotes a bit towards the climax of the film, with his part in 1922 feeling a bit wasted.  But his scenes were needed in this story and that’s how they were written in the book, so his character was adapted as intended.

Zak Hilditch wrote and directed this film, and though he’s no Frank Darabont, the story seems to be depicted like something he’d film.  Hilditch certainly brought this to screen much like the story is presented in the novella, with the narrator, Wilfred James, starting off the story as a written confession in some hotel room.  He also keeps the story moving and gives each situation the characters face a feeling of dread at every turn.

Overal, the point of this story may not be so transparent once you begin watching this.  But by the time the film is done you’ll see that the one bad action the main character commits, results in bad karma, guilt and a domino effect that leads to a bitter end.  It’s a great message and a well-written plot by the great Stephen King.

My final “bit” on 1922?

I really applaud Netflix for taking a chance on these obscure titles by Stephen king, such as 2014's A Good Marriage and this year's Gerald’s Game.  Most major studios won’t gamble on original stories like 1922, choosing instead to churn out remake after remake.  Yes, It was a remake of a television film that should have never been attempted in the first place (though it does have its merits), but King has so many stories that can be developed—it’s a limitless well that can entertain moviegoers until the end of time.  Taking this little-known story from the “Full Dark, No Stars” collection of short stories was ballsy and paid off in spades.  It keeps you captivated throughout, featuring some awesome performances, and will keep you thinking about it long after you watch it.  And if you're a diehard fan of Stephen King, you're going to want to watch 1922.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.