Faith in Film, Week 5

There is always going to be something lost in the translation of a book into a film, no matter how dedicated the team adapting in. But some lose more than others. When you take an 800-page book, one full of a lot of character introspection and back story, and try to adapt it into a two-hour film, you lose a lot of the story.

And that's certainly the case with "Needful Things," which is one of King's great novels that turns into a paltry movie that leaves you scratching your head. Sure, the basic germs of the narrative are there, but the film is missing the depth and heart earned from the story, which is rich and complex, something no one would say of the film.

The novel was published in 1991, and was the first King released after going through rehab for drug and alcohol addiction. It was also billed as the final novel set in Castle Rock, and for those that have read it and are familiar with his work, he makes many references throughout to people from other books and events and locations from other books set in Castle Rock. It, of course, did not end up being his final story set in Castle Rock. The other inspiration for the story—which wasn’t well received by critics—were the excesses in the 1980s that King found interesting and amusing.

On his official site, he says of his inspiration for the story, “I guess I was one of the few people in the United States who thought the eighties were really funny. It was a decade in which people decided, for awhile, at least, that greed was good and that hypocrisy was simply another tool for getting along. It was the last hurrah for cigarettes, unsafe sex, and all sorts of drugs. It was the final corruption of the Love and Peace Generation--The Big Cop-out--and I thought it was a case of having to laugh. It was either that, or cry. I was thinking about all this one night while driving home from a basketball game, and my thoughts centered on Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, of the PTL Club. It occurred to me that in the eighties, everything had come with a price tag, that the decade quite literally was the sale of the century. The final items up on the block had been honor, integrity, self-respect, and innocence. By the time I got home that night, I had decided to turn the eighties into a small-town curio shop called Needful Things and see what happened. I told myself to keep it light and surreal; that if I just kept in mind the Bakkers' doghouse, which had been equipped with heaters and running water, I would be okay. And that's what I did. The book didn't review well. Either a lot of critics didn't get the joke or didn't appreciate it. The readers liked it, though, and that's what matters to me.”

And if the novel wasn’t well received, it looked like the greatest award winner compared to what happened with the movie. It is near impossible to take a novel of this length and depth and turn it into a satisfying two-hour film, and of course that doesn’t happen here. This is actually a longer version of the film that was shown on TNT that is more than three hours, that has never been made available for home viewing. It is rumored to have included more of the story and been able to capture more of the narrative from the book.

The film was directed by Fraser C. Heston. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because he is the son of Charelton Heston. Needful Things was one of his first big theatrical films. He later made the 1996 film Alaska and hasn’t really done much since. And the critical appreciation of Needful Things probably didn’t help that. The film opened in late summer to $5.2 million, and made only $15 million total during its theatrical run, which even in 1993 was pretty mediocre. It had just a 32 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, which is bad, and was frequently savaged by film critics.

Roger Ebert gave it 1.5 out of 4 stars, saying the film "only has one note, which it plays over and over, sort of a Satanic water torture. It's not funny and it's not scary and it's all sort of depressing.” Janet Maslin, film and literary critic for The New York Times, gave the film a resoundingly negative review, saying that "though this is by no means the grisliest or most witless film made from one of Mr. King's horrific fantasies, it can lay claim to being the most unpleasant."

And yet this is a story with some rich themes to consider, which we'll dive into Wednesday night.

Discussion Questions:

1. Did this movie work for you, why or why not?

2. In the film, Leland Gaunt is able to turn people by tapping into their deepest desires, and deepest secrets. How do the things we hide in our heart make us vulnerable to the appeal of evil?

3. In the film, a big part of the conflict is the theological battle between the Catholics and Baptists, fueled by rival ministers. In what ways do we allow in-fighting in the church to derail its larger message?