My fellow classmates weren't interested in reading. As soon as she gave the assignment, most of the students started looking at the end of each chapter, looking for books that sounded short or easy to read. In the hopes of getting dibs on something interesting, I started at the back of the textbook. A few chapters from the end, one of the recommendations was "The Stand" by Stephen King.
I didn't look any further. I quickly claimed it before anyone else could, though given that it's over 1,000 pages, I probably wasn't in any danger of someone else wanting it. It was the first full-length Stephen King novel I read, though I'd read a lot of his short stories in "Night Shift" and "Skeleton Crew".
If you haven't read The Stand, here's a quick summary. A highly-infectious deadly disease (informally called "Captain Trips") escapes from a military base, and quickly spreads across the world. A tiny percentage of humans are immune, and these few survivors start gathering together to rebuild society. But there's also supernatural forces of good and evil at play, and survivors start having dreams and visions directing them to gather in certain cities. Good people are called to Boulder, CO, while bad people are compelled to settle in Las Vegas. But the evil entity drawing people to Vegas has plans to eliminate the Colorado citizens.
When it came time to give the oral report, we were allowed to write as much as we wanted on a 3x5 index card. Other students wrote out their entire reports in tiny letters on their cards. On my card, I wrote a single quote I wanted to remember:
“Show me a man or a woman alone and I’ll show you a saint. Give me two and they’ll fall in love. Give me three and they’ll invent the charming thing we call ‘society’. Give me four and they’ll build a pyramid. Give me five and they’ll make one an outcast. Give me six and they’ll reinvent prejudice. Give me seven and in seven years they’ll reinvent warfare. Man may have been made in the image of God, but human society was made in the image of His opposite number, and is always trying to get back home.” - Glen Bateman
Beyond that, I didn't prepare for the report at all. I had enjoyed the book so much, that I was able to just treat it like I was describing the book to a friend. I usually hated giving oral reports, but this was one of the few times I actually enjoyed it. Not to brag, but I'm pretty sure my report was one of the best in the class, simply because I actually cared about the book I'd read.
A few years later, I read the unabridged version. Then in 1994, there was a TV miniseries based on it. I really enjoyed that miniseries. Parts of it were cheesy (especially Randall Flagg's demon forms), but it was well cast (for the most part) and did a great job of telling the story. We've since owned the miniseries on VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray, and we've watched it many times.
We're currently watching the new version on CBS All Access. We're four episodes into it, and for the most part, I like it. But it's not getting very good reviews. Here's the thing... I think this version is made specifically for people like me.
If the new version has one flaw, it's the way it jumps back and forth in time. It's already such a long story with so many characters that it can be hard to keep everyone straight. If I wasn't already so familiar with the story, I'm pretty sure I would be lost. It's presented well, but it just bombards you with so much information, I just can't imagine newbies keeping up.
Honestly, I'm not sure how good a job it's doing in presenting all the relevant information, because I keep filling in the gaps with my own knowledge. Do I know a certain thing because they showed it on the screen, or because I remember it from the other versions? Sometimes I don't even know.
The casting is pretty good, though I miss some of the 1994 cast. Like, I just can't imagine a better Glen than the late Ray Walston. The original Harold Lauder (Corin Nemec) struck me as "Hollywood Homely", and never really felt like the social outcast presented in the book. But the new Harold (Owen Teague) is a big improvement. He has a creepy quality that really suits the character. The 1994 Harold was just a jealous nerd-turned-sociopath, but 2020 Harold is a true incel.
I'm not sold on the new Tom Cullen, it feels like such a different interpretation of the character. Not bad, just hard to get used to. The new Randall Flagg is a lot scarier than the last one, but he hasn't had a lot of screen time yet. I like the new Larry Underwood better than the old one. Whoopi Goldberg is a pretty good Mother Abigail, and I haven't made up my mind about Nick Andros.
James Marsden (I can never remember which one is Marsden and which one is Marsters) is fantastic as Stu Redman. He has an "everyman" quality that works for the character. I don't think he's as good an actor as Gary Sinise (who played Stu in the 1994 version), but Marsden is perfect for this role. Unfortunately, he feels mismatched with love interest Frannie Goldsmith (played by Odessa Young).
The new cast is also more diverse than the original. In fact, looking back at the original, I almost wonder if only white people had the gene that resists the disease. I love Stephen King, and for the most part he is a very progressive individual. But a lot of his most well-known works only feature minorities as magical beings. It's one of those tropes that looks "woke" at first - after all, the most righteous character in the book is black, how can that be racist? But it's still a type of "othering" that keeps the races divided. But I digress.
Overall, I think it's a great interpretation of the novel. But again, the presentation is confusing. I don't mind it jumping back and forth some, but I wish they'd divided it by season. Have the first season all take place before everyone gets to Boulder, jumping back and forth as much as they want within those months. Then let the second season take place after people start reforming society.
I wish they would make a re-edited version with the events in the right order. But since that won't happen, I highly recommend reading the book before watching the CBS series. It's worth your time.
Update:
We've now watched the rest of the episodes. Overall, I didn't like as much as the 1994 version. It started out strong, but each episode was just a little bit worse than the previous one.
One problem is, despite having more overall screen time than the 1994 version, it never really gave the audience time to fall in love with certain characters. So when those characters end up in danger later, you don't really feel anything for them.
This is partly a side effect of the way it jumps back in forth in time. You see how each character started their journey, and how they finished their journey in Boulder, but you don't see enough of the journey itself. And that's when we learned to love them.
The only place it drastically deviates from the novel is the final episode. Note that the climax of the series happens in episode eight, so the ninth episode feels like a bonus short story. Think of it as getting to spend a little more time with the characters you love. Except they weren't developed enough to love them in this version. There's some good tension in that episode, but the tension goes on so long that I wanted to shout "Get on with it!"
Bottom line: While the 2020 version is less cheesy than the 1994 version, it's just not as entertaining. I love comparing and contrasting remakes, so I'm glad I got to see this. But when I get in the mood to watch the Stand again (as I do every couple of years), it will still be the 1994 version I pick.
No comments:
Post a Comment