Tracing The Trails Of The King : Different Seasons

FAIR WARNING – if you have not read this book, there will likely be spoilers contained within this piece. This is the tenth essay in my ongoing series on Stephen King, and is intended to be a free discussion of the book. I cannot be held responsible if I inadvertently ruin the ending for you, so if you think this might apply to you, I would encourage you to turn back now.

.

“It’s a little place on the Pacific Ocean. You know what the Mexicans say about the Pacific? They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory.”

― Stephen King, Different Seasons

 .

As I have stated previously in this series, I am generally going to be staying away from the film adaptations. This is because the two mediums are essentially different and as such, because King’s strongest abilities don’t necessarily translate into film. I am frequently disappointed by the movies inspired by his books as they generally feel flat, by comparison. In this case, however, I am going to break from this and focus mostly on the amazing cinema that was created, thanks to this book.

To say that this book is a monster would be an understatement. It consists of four novellas, three of which would go on to be adapted into major motion pictures. Apt Pupil, The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me. Apt Pupil was successful enough, but the other two have achieved such massive success and are so far reaching in their scope that many fans of the films are surprised to find out that they were based on stories by Stephen King. I haven’t actually investigated this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I found out that this book was one of the highest earners in terms of the box office dollars it has generated. Stand By Me and Shawshank were huge movies for me throughout my life. The four friends in Stand By Me became my friends and, even as a twelve year old the film managed to make me feel a nostalgia that I was way to young to even understand in the first place.

.

RITA HAYWORTH & THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION

This is probably one of the few examples of Stephen King’s works where I really felt like the movie surpassed the book. One very common complaint regarding Stephen King’s movies are how they often disappoint when they are adapted into film. My opinion on this phenomenon has to do with the type of story-teller that King is. His books are often told from an omniscient point of view, which means that the narrator has the ability to show what any character is thinking, at any time. So much of King’s stories are told within the internal dialog and mechanisms of the characters. We get to see their thoughts and fears, we get to experience it along with them and the problem is that it is very hard to pull off a device like this in a movie without it seeming cheesy or silly. It just doesn’t work. Also, with a book, King has the luxury of taking however much time and space to tell as much of the story as he wants. Characters who have relatively minor roles are given huge amounts of back-story and attention where, in a two hour movie, you really have to strip a story down to its essential core. As a result, a lot of the story ends up falling by the wayside. It is the reason why I often have a hard time enjoying a movie if I have already read the book.

The point is that I believe that King’s short stories and novellas make for better adaptations because there is less ground to cover and it is easier to represent the book as a whole. Often, there is even room left over for the writer and director to add complexities from what was originally in the book. For me, this is the case for the Shawshank Redemption.

The Shawshank Redemption is one of those films that I have often found people to be shocked when they discover that it is based on a story by Stephen King. Let’s be honest, it isn’t the kind of thing that people generally associate with him. There’s no blood, no guts, no gore or supernatural. The story of what happens to Andy Dufresne is horrific enough, in its own right, but not in the sense that anyone would categorize as being actually of the horror genre.

As I loved the film, I was eager to read the book that it was based on. I was excited but once I read it, I actually felt a little let down. I think that anyone who was a big fan of the movie who seeks out the book would likely find it lacking, a pale shadow of the greatness that the film blossomed into.

First, and foremost, the film has one huge advantage, namely an incredibly beautiful score, courtesy of Thomas Newman. People don’t give composers enough credit for what they bring to the table but Newman’s music is so unbelievably gorgeous that you would probably be content watching someone replace a roll of toilet paper, if it was accompanied by this music. The score is an incredibly powerful and potent asset in the film director’s toolbox that often, the viewer is completely unaware of it being present. And if you have any doubt of that, check out the video linked here and see what the end of Star Wars looks like without the iconic John Williams score. See how awkward it makes you feel. Go ahead. Seriously, I’ll wait here for you to get back.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-GZJhfBmI

.

So the movie has the ability to evoke a ton of emotion that isn’t going to be as present while reading the book, which is going to rely more on the readers ability to connect with the words emotionally, on their own. I’m not saying that this isn’t possible, just that the writer of the written word kind of has the deck stacked against him or her.

So why else does the story fall flat, when held up against the movie? Well, to put it bluntly, there’s just a ton of story from the film that isn’t present in the book. The basic core, Andy’s story is still there and the story is still told in the first person, from the perspective of Red, Andy’s closest friend in lockup. However, from there, the book pretty much loses most of the similarities to the film. There are still a lot of the notable lines from the movie but in the book, they often seem to come in dramatically different points in the story. Also, almost all of the secondary characters from the film are either not present at all, or only appear peripherally. Brooks Hatlen is one of the most notable characters from the film. How could we forget, “Brooks was here”? He’s barely in the book. He’s mentioned, but only to identify him as being in charge of the prison library before Andy takes over. Tommy, the young car thief who gives Andy some essential information is in the book but his character is dramatically different and reduced. He provides his information to Andy and just sort of disappears from the story. There are allusions made to abuses and corruption within the prison, but the head guard, Byron Hadley and wardon Norton are barely present, simply one among many other prison authorities that appear throughout the book. The revenge angle that I loved so much in the movie in terms of Andy’s redemption simply isn’t there.

I don’t want to give the impression that I don’t like the book. I think that it is very well written and obviously there has to be something of merit, otherwise the film wouldn’t have been made in the first place. I like that you get a slightly better picture of Red as a character and he comes off as a bit more sinister in the book, especially as you get more details regarding the crime that landed him in Shawshank in the first place. I like that, while the book ends with the exact same lines as the movie, it leaves things a little more open ended for the reader. I simply think that this is a perfect example of how movies and books are inherently better at some things and not so good at others.

.

THE BODY

To say that Stand By Me was a huge part of my childhood would be massively understating it. I find it interesting that even though the movie is depicting childhood of a far different era from the one in which I was a child, the characters in the film still managed to resonate with me deeply, as if they were not just characters in a movie but my friends as well. It is a film that I would come back to many times throughout various stages of my life and I found myself loving it just as much, if not more, pretty much every time.

While, unlike with the Shawshank Redemption, this book bears much more similarity to the movie, there is one notable exception. Ace Merrill is possibly one of the more memorable Stephen King villains. Certainly, the role proved to be one of Kiefer Sutherland’s most popular, but in the book, he is largely absent. He is referenced several times but makes very little actual “face time” throughout the story. As the book is written in the first person, we are only privy to whatever Gordie was physically present to see himself. So while the movie can take certain luxuries and move away to other characters, when reading the book Ace’s absence is something you take notice of. Again, this doesn’t negatively affect the book, but you do feel the reduction of such an enduring cinematic character.

I think that Stand By Me also affected me in my desire to be a writer. Here, on the screen was a character who was about my age and who also had a passion for story-telling. It gave me a connection to writers through a shared desire to create something, to bring something into existence through our words that hadn’t been there before. It was helpful to see someone else with the same passions and interests, even if it was a fictional character. While I loved all four of the main characters, I felt a special connection with Gordie and his desire to make it in the world as a novelist.

I also liked how the book gave a slightly dark, more realistic take on the ending of the story. I don’t want to spoil it but I liked how many of the characters had narrative arcs that ended on a darker note than it seemed in the film. It reminded me of the very end of American Graffiti, the reminder that despite what happened in the course of the movie, real life still intrudes.

.

.

So at this point, I think I’m going to take an unprecedented move in terms of the other pieces I have written in this series. I would like to say more about the other stories in this book but I have already passed what I consider to be an acceptable length and I’ve only covered half of the book. In the interests of efficiency and brevity, I am going to extend this essay into next week, splitting my thoughts into two parts. I honestly didn’t expect this when I started but it’s just the way it goes.

I guess then that I will sign off for now. I will look forward to getting into The Breathing Method as well as Apt Pupil with you next week. Until then, be well and enjoy yourselves. And I would probably be remiss in not pointing out that in addition to the normally scheduled stories on Wednesday and the weekend, keep an eye out for the next story in my countdown of the top five stories to appear on the blog. That will be posted Tuesday morning. Also, all this week, check out my daily essays on my favorite Stephen King characters for the April Blogging Challenge.

My name is Chad Clark, and I am proud to be a Constant Reader.

.

.

.

.

.

.