We Who WILL Watch: The Mist (2017)

Aaron: Well, the roll-out of exciting Stephen King news continues, with the release earlier this week of a full trailer for Spike's serialized adaptation of King's 1980 novella, The Mist, and it looks like there might be a bit to talk about in there.

For years The Mist topped the list of most wanted King adaptations, the one title that would pop up again and again when I had conversations with people about Stephen King movies. It seemed like such an obvious choice that it's a little bizarre to think that 27 years passed between the novella's publication date and the eventual Frank Darabont adaptation. Perhaps Hollywood just needed to get wise to what the rest of King's constant readers had known for years, that The Mist is a gut-punch of a story with a multitude of monsters fans would love to see on screen, and great potential for filmed interpretations. And now here we are, a mere decade later, with a new version of The Mist heading to our televisions.

Take a look at the full trailer below, then keep scrolling to read our initial thoughts...

Right off the bat, I can admit that my enthusiasm for this project is not nearly as high as some of the other upcoming projects. The idea of doing The Mist as a television series is actually a pretty great one, because the novella is open-ended enough to allow for not only continuation, but a wide variety of stories set within its world. The trailer seems to suggest a few major changes to the novella, most notably the idea that the mist seems to have a malevolent presence beyond just the monsters that hide in it. In fact, looking at the trailer more closely, are we sure there even will be monsters in it? Everything we see implies that the only monsters are human. There's a quick shot that at first looks like a monster bursting through a car's windshield, but look carefully and you'll see it's actually a moose someone crashes into while driving. I'm not opposed to anything I see in the trailer, but I also see nothing in it that really excites me in the way the It trailer did. I also have nothing by which to judge the behind-the-camera talent, as the show was developed by Christian Thorpe, who seems to have had a healthy career in Danish television, but whose work I have not heard of previously.

The show seems to have an interesting look, the cool grey-blue of the mist and the warmer yellow tones of what could either be flashbacks or merely just interior shots. The series seems to be changing a lot, and inventing a lot of new characters, which is a necessity when adapting such a short story into an ongoing series. I know some people are going to be upset by the changes, that's just the nature of these things. Myself, I'm a fan of diverging from the source material. If a movie or TV show is too faithful, I start to wonder what the point of it was, because I could always just read the book again if I wanted the exact same story. 

Rik: And yet, we often gripe if an adaptation adds too many new characters and ignores the original ones, or veers away too, too far from the source material, or (and this seems to be the worst offender for many people) doesn't include their very favorite scenes or dialogue in the final product (even if those "very favorite scenes or dialogue" were extraneous to the actual plot of the story or were throwaway lines meant to fill space). Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

I agree with you that I don't mind veering from the original, but the approach has to feel organic to me, like it could have been included in the original product if the author had seen fit to turn that direction with the characters. Just creating new characters and locations for the sake of creating new characters and locations makes me wonder why they purchased the rights to such a property in the first place. Why not just create an entire new story (apart from the obvious marketing possibilities of using a name brand like Stephen King)?

I am going to say that I am as excited for the new series for The Mist as I am the new It adaptation or the upcoming Castle Rock series. That is, it is still too early to tell much of anything from a mere trailer that isn't roughly the length of the one for that stupid looking movie about the lonely teen boy who lives on Mars coming back to Earth to get busy with a girl (though in a completely wholesome way, of course). You know, the sort of trailer that lays out the entire story to you in strictly chronological fashion, with every beat of the script hit along the way. Here, with The Mist trailer, we don't get that, thankfully, as it is but a taste of what potentially lies within the show. As a result, I am going to withhold judgment on the characters that may be in the new series (honestly, I last read the novella over 25 years ago, and don't really remember anyone in it either, just the mist itself). 

I am also going to not comment on the look of things either, because scenes in trailers are often shown in altered or (more often) incomplete form from the finished product, whether due to effects shots or post-production not being completed, or cut scenes or scrapped footage being added to flesh out the trailer a bit, or filters being overlaid on the product as well. Trailers are often the very worst way to judge a finished film or series because of all these factors. 

The main question for any trailer is this: Did it pique my interest in the property, even a tad? Yes, a tad. I really enjoyed the Darabont version of the story (reminding you yet again that I had not read the story recently even then), and for all I didn't remember about the original work, it really didn't matter because the film was constantly engaging, frightening, and thrilling by turns. That is really what you want from such a film, whether it is adapted from a popular novella or not, and I got that result. Does it look like I will get it from The Mist series? Too soon to tell. I would rather get a couple of episodes into the series, and then maybe we should have a discussion about where we think it will take us from that point. 

Until then, It... Castle Rock... The Mist... even The Dark Tower adaptation... I am eagerly awaiting them all equally, but they will each have to do some heavy lifting to win me over ultimately.

Aaron: I think we're in general agreement about this: intrigued but withholding judgment until we actually get to see the show. I will reiterate that I'm less excited for this than I am the other upcoming projects. Castle Rock is exciting for its mystery and J.J. Abrams pedigree; the show at this point could be anything, and it comes from someone with a proven track record in this arena. It is exciting because, not to jump ahead too far, the source novel is one of my all-time favorites. The Dark Tower is interesting because it seemed like such an impossibility for so long that I'm curious to see how they'll tackle the sprawling series of novels (and, if you have read the books and have read any news about the movies, some really exciting and intriguing changes have already been teased). The Dark Tower series eventually ties in to almost everything Stephen King has written, and one of the aspects I'm wondering about is how they'll handle that. With the various novels of Stephen King licensed to various competing studios, will The Dark Tower films be allowed to cross over into the world of The Stand (which is pretty integral to the plot for awhile)? The Mist, on the other hand, just doesn't inspire the same curiosity. Perhaps it's Stephen King overload in 2017 (perish the thought!), perhaps it's the fact that some of the changes in the trailer (the implication that the mist itself is sentient) don't fill me with wonder, or perhaps it's just that the movie is so recent and was itself such a solid adaptation. 

But let's not kid ourselves here, I will no doubt be watching this once the series premieres on Spike on June 22nd. Or, to be honest, once it makes its way to Hulu or some other streaming service.

We Who WILL Watch: It (2017)

Aaron: Despite the lack of visible activity on this blog (we're working on it, we swear!), 2017 continues to promise a veritable smörgåsbord of high quality Stephen King adaptations. On the television front, we not only have the mysterious Castle Rock project for Hulu (previously discussed on this very site) but we can also look forward to Mr. Mercedes, a series based on the first book in a trilogy following retired police detective Bill Hodges, and a television adaptation of The Mist, previously brought to the big screen (and fairly successfully at that) by Frank Darabont. Yet the big news still belongs to the big screen, as two of Stephen King's most high profile titles and most long awaited adaptations are nearing their release dates in theatres: The Dark Tower, and It. And, uhm, something called C.U.J.O.: Canine Unit Joint Operations, which is a title I don't even want to begin to parse at this time.

It was previously filmed in 1990 as an ABC mini-series that not surprisingly lost a lot of the depth and history of the novel, while The Dark Tower has long been considered a fan's pipe dream: something that no studio in their right mind would ever greenlight in a way that would adequately convey seven books (along with several novellas and spinoff novels) into a feature film, or series of films. The Dark Tower has been in some form of production for a few years now, with Ron Howard moving the ball forward with an ambitious plan to release a series of tentpole feature films with a television series to fill in the gaps between theatrical releases. I think everyone pretty quickly assumed that would never happen, and I know for myself I immediately assumed the project would fade back into development hell. And yet here it is 2017, and The Dark Tower is now in post-production, featuring a pretty exciting looking cast and a fairly eye-catching poster:

Today's big news, probably already known by people visiting this site, is the release of a teaser trailer for It. This is news that was actually announced yesterday, with a short "teaser for the teaser," because that's how advertising for a movie works on the internet these days. The teaser doesn't offer much, but it is full of all the classic It signifiers: the sewer, the talk of clowns, "we all float down here".

Promptly this morning the full trailer was released to the world, and it's full of everything you could possibly want from an It trailer: 

It's hard to imagine many people being disappointed by what's on display here, as it looks to be a supremely faithful, and supremely creepy, adaptation. I understand many fans were upset about the updating of events for the movie, changing the two settings from the 1950s and 1980s to the '80s and present day, but for several reasons that doesn't bother me. I know '80s nostalgia is all the rage these days (as it has been for, seemingly, three decades), and it could seem like cheap nostalgia, but that's pretty much the same argument that could have been made about the '50s when the novel first came out. Beyond that, it allows the segments following the characters as adults to take place firmly in the recognizable present.

Rik: I will say that I was not aware previously that there are supposedly going to be two separate films – one focusing on the kids experience in the '80s and the other based on their adult selves dealing in the present day – but watching the trailer, I noticed how it was all kids, all the time. Made me wonder where the adults were, and the notion that maybe they were doing two films crossed my mind. Their omission from the trailer does not automatically mean that the adult versions of the children are not in the film itself, and it is also likely that the producers were just attempting to cash in on the current success of Stranger Things. But also likely is the fact that the grown-up versions of the kids will mostly be played by some recognizable name talent, to help put butts in seats beyond the King crowd, and so if it were nothing but a self-contained, single story film, anything more than a brief glimpse of the second half of the book would have the trailer speed-flashing through a series of worried adult faces somewhere deep in its running time.

The problem is that I am having trouble finding a more current article than summer 2016 (Variety) and a couple of also not current mentions on the Wikipedia pages for both the film and the book that the two-film production is still a thing. To be fair, I have not dug really deep into my normal research style, because the truth is that I have a lot of bigger fish to fry right now (which is part of the problem of why this website has not updated as frequently as we would wish, including the last couple parts of the ALL CARRIE coverage we promised back in October).

One other thing... about that poster for The Dark Tower... all I can think about when seeing it is... Inception. But then again, that is what I was thinking when I first saw the trailer for Doctor Strange.

Aaron: I also flashed on Inception when I saw that poster, but what quickly replaced my initial feeling of familiarity was enjoyment at how the negative space in the poster makes an image of the Tower itself. That, and if you look closely you can see a tiny Matthew McConaughey walking upside down. 

I was also unaware of the two film plan, though I think I, too, read something about it awhile back. I tend to not read a lot of press materials these days, or read casting announcements or interviews detailing plots. Not that I'm worried about spoilers, I just prefer to discover these things as I watch the film, and then go back later to find out the behind the scenes details if I'm still interested. What I did find most amusing about the time frame is that Finn Wolfhard (who played Mike in Stranger Things and will play the young Richie Tozier in It) is apparently having trouble escaping the '80s.

One more note, because we really should save this for when we actually cover the book and movie, is my initial thoughts on Pennywise. Pennywise isn't actually shown very much in this trailer, beyond a couple quick glimpses, a white glove with claws coming out, and that jump-scare shot at the end, but here's a full image of what he's going to look like:

It took me awhile to come around on the costume, and I'm still not entirely sold on it. I'm also still not sold on Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise, who I primarily know from his work on Hemlock Grove. That may not be the best work to judge his abilities on, though, as I imagine it would have been impossible for even the greatest actors to make that show compelling. But this trailer has gone a long way towards allaying my fears about the tone of this film, so I'm willing to go with it and say that I am solidly optimistic about this film.

Rik: I must say, having avoided Hemlock Grove on your advice (which doesn't mean I will necessarily avoid it in the future if I am bored, and other friends take note... Aaron is one of the few people in the world from whom I take movie or television recommendations. At least, seriously...), I have looked into Mr. Skarsgård's fairly short filmography and found that I am severely lacking in having seen anything he has ever done. This is something I cannot say of either his father Stellan or his brothers Alexander and Gustaf, though I can say it of his other brothers Sam and Valter. (But not of his brother Darrell or his other brother Darrell...) As a result, I have nothing on which to base an opinion of him, though as you mentioned, he is barely seen in the trailer.

As to the costume, I rather like it. It has an older European circus aesthetic to it, and may be a good choice since our country is littered with fake (and potentially real) evil clowns dressed in what has become acceptable as de rigueur in American clown cosplay. Pennywise is fine and all (and the only reason I even like Pennywise from the merely decent to only OK mini-series is the fact that Tim Curry played him), but what I am more interested in anyway – being a non-human monster guy – is what the spider will look like. Give me a call when that is revealed...

I will say that this trailer has me excited about the finished product. I am not the biggest fan of the book, mostly owing to the creepy and tone-deaf child orgy scene (my opinion, but it is what took me out of the book for the remainder of the story, though I did finish it). As a result, I was only slightly excited to see the mini-series. I remember that I almost missed out on recording it at the time of its airing but one of my friends reminded me of it the hour before it aired. And as I mentioned in the last paragraph, my opinion of the TV version runs pretty lukewarm except for a couple of excellent performances in it. I am looking forward to giving the book another shot, this time with even more mature eyes and brain, and think it is pretty swell they are (potentially) breaking the film up into two parts to give the story and characters room to breathe and grow.

Aaron: I have plenty to say in response to your revelations within those last two paragraphs, but I think they'll have to wait for now. What I will point out is that Entertainment Weekly ran an interview with Janie Bryant, the designer of the new costume, and she goes into great detail about her intentions in designing the new look. You can click here for the link, but be warned that the EW website is a huge mess. One takeaway I enjoyed was the idea that a lot of choices in the profile of the costume are to suggest the shape of an insect's cephalothorax. I do have to admit that some of my uncertainty about the look comes from how... bizarre and wrong it all feels. Our collective thoughts on the two It films will certainly be shared later this year when the film hits theatres; we wouldn't want to get ahead of ourselves. And yet all these announcements have us pretty excited for at least one aspect of 2017. We hope you'll stick with us as we bring this site back up to speed and join us on all the creepy good times ahead.

[One final note: It, directed by Andrés Muschietti (who previously helmed the Guillermo Del Toro-produced Mama in 2013) will arrive in American theatres on September 8th.]

The Woman in the Room [Pt. 2]

Aaron: Welcome back to We Who Watch Behind the Rows, and our discussion of The Woman in the Room. This time we delve into the 1983 short film based on that story, adapted by one Frank Darabont. The film is available on YouTube in its entirety, in two separate videos. Both of those videos are embedded below for your convenience:

The Woman in the Room (1983)

Written and directed by Frank Darabont

VHS Cover

Aaron: Stephen King started making deals with student filmmakers allowing them to adapt his shorter works in 1977, which means Frank Darabont is a few years away from being the first official Dollar Baby, although he is part of what we can consider the first wave, and he’s definitely the most successful graduate of that program. To hear Darabont himself tell it, though, he was unaware of King’s policy when, as a twenty-year-old with no movie industry experience, working various odd jobs, he wrote King a letter asking if he could make a short film based on The Woman in the Room. Three years later, the film was released, and was successful enough that Darabont submitted it for consideration at the Academy Awards (it did not get nominated, but was reportedly on the short list). It was also one of the very few Dollar Babies to be officially released on a home video format, and no less an authority than King called it “clearly the best of the short films” made from his work.

Time will tell if it actually is the best (and certainly there was a much less crowded field of competition for that title in 1983), but one thing is certain: Darabont’s film is the most professional Dollar Baby we’ve watched so far, and it’s easy to see why it was given a VHS release in the ‘80s. Even if it’s not the type of thing I’m normally drawn to, and not something I see myself returning to time and again, I can appreciate the skill that went into making this film on a minuscule budget, with very little experience. The film could easily stand alongside more professional releases from that same time period. I kept thinking back to the nonexistent Stephen King television series you speculated about in our Night Surf piece. The Woman in the Room is the best argument I’ve seen so far for an anthology series based on King’s work, a series that would allow aspiring and established filmmakers adapt the stories to their own strengths, as Darabont has clearly done here.

I said in the first part of the discussion that I don’t find King to be a very emotional writer. Certainly he gets us invested in his characters so that we feel concern for their outcomes, but I’ve never been really moved by his love stories or his more intimate moments. That was clearly not the case for The Woman in the Room, which is the most nakedly, affectingly emotional King has ever been. It makes sense, then, that Darabont would be drawn to this story for his first film. Darabont has, through his three feature length King adaptations, proven that he is at least as concerned in the emotional subtext of the source material as he is in the more fantastic elements on display. The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile are melodramatic and heartwarming in a way that King films don’t normally attempt (though to be fair, those elements are present in the original stories as well), to the point that many people don’t actually realize King had a hand in writing them. Even Darabont’s adaptation of The Mist added a gut punch of grief to the gory bleakness of King’s original novella, so there is a very clear through-line in the stories that Darabont has adapted, and the elements to which he seems drawn.

Rik: And if they ever did make that Stephen King anthology show, how about Frank Darabont direct every single episode? Look, Darabont clearly gets King. A few directors have done a great job of adapting King to the big screen, but there have been far more misses than hits as far as quality overall, and even more misses as far as capturing what was so entrancing on the written page in the first place. But Darabont has yet to really make a misstep, even if I am not quite so enamored with The Green Mile as many people are. (The film is still pretty good, I just didn’t connect with King’s story either at the time. But that was one of those rare spots in the late ‘90s where I sneaked back in for a peak at King’s writing, and then slipped back out because what I found was lacking.) There is a clear artistic connection between the two that I am surprised hasn’t been developed even further than it has.

I know that, just between ourselves, I displayed some reticence in tackling the Dollar Baby films at first; in fact, we both wrestled over it. It was mostly because finding a lot of the films is really hard, if not downright impossible in many cases. And then there is the quality factor. It is one thing to criticize a bigger budget, Hollywood feature film adaptation of a King story that has been produced by a professional crew and actors, with the intent of global distribution in theatres and on home video or on television. Those things are fair game for critics and the public alike to rip apart or praise as they see fit. Once art is in the public eye, have at it. But Dollar Babies are student films, and while, as art, they should be prone to the same critical measures as anything else, you really don’t want to pound someone too hard who made a ten minute film for about $127 with amateur actors and his best friend Andy holding a rented boom mike with shaky hands. You don’t want want to shatter the dreams of the next Spielberg (unless, of course, you would prefer that you did) with a blistering review of a short he created simply to pass his film studies class.

Then we knuckled down and watched the five films we could locate for our piece on Night Surf, and I was fairly astounded by the wide variety of stances based on the same exact material. None of them were great, most of them were wildly off the mark as far as I was concerned, but a couple were fairly entertaining, and all of them (even the worst) seemed to capture at least a little snippet of the original story – whether in mood or fully captured scene – within their generally clumsy attempts at adapting a major writer to the screen on the cheap. While there were a couple of versions that I never wish to revisit again (at least, not in the low quality scrubs available on YouTube or elsewhere), I found the experience enlightening overall.

Frank Darabont

Enter Frank Darabont and his version of The Woman in the Room. Aaron, I am sure you’ve done a bit more research into the background of the making of this film than I have. From its very first frame, The Woman in the Room shows a higher degree of craftsmanship than the Dollar Babies we have watched thus far, and even if it is still a student short, the feel of the film at least approaches the standard look of television programming at the time of its release (1983). Frankly, it almost looks good enough that one could convince me that it was an episode of the 1985 revival of The Twilight Zone, that ran on CBS for a few years in that decade. However, I had only seen this one a long time ago on video, and apart from remembering that I had seen it at some point, had rather forgotten that it was actually pretty well done. What about you? 

Aaron: One quick clarification: This was not technically a student film, this was an independently produced short film from someone who would go on to become a highly successful director and screenwriter. A minor distinction, considering Darabont’s youth and means at the time, but an important one. Frank Darabont made this film without the benefit of school backing, meaning he had to scrounge together the money to get it made, and he spent several years filming it on borrowed or rented equipment, editing it himself in his bedroom. For Darabont, who had not yet had a job in the film industry when he began the project, this was more than just a means to a passing college grade, this was his shot to prove himself, and to adapt an author who clearly meant a lot to him. I want to make the distinction because I mostly agree with you; I think this is at least as good as a lot of the stuff that made it into The Twilight Zone remake, and surpasses the quality of many of the other anthology shows of the time, like Tales from the Darkside.

Each of the Dollar Babies we’ve seen so far has shown, at the very least, glimpses of talent. The Woman in the Room is the first one to show equal amounts of skill, passion, and an innate understanding of the source material. That understanding doesn’t mean the source material went untouched, of course, as The Woman in the Room makes a few excisions, and one major addition, to the story it was based on. Frankly, I’m OK with that. I’ve never been one of those people who negatively compares a filmed entertainment to its written origins because of what it changes or omits. I want a movie to change things around a bit, otherwise, what’s the point? I know we criticized some of the Night Surf shorts for the way they seemed to miss the point of the original story, or for how far afield they strayed from the events as written, but there is a difference here. A work of art has to have some resonance to the artist, or there will be no resonance for the audience. When it came to some of the Night Surf shorts I had trouble understanding, through their alterations, why they chose to adapt that particular story. I didn’t get the impression, even from the best of the bunch, that the story held any real significance to the filmmakers. With Darabont, on the other hand, it’s blindingly obvious that the story struck a chord in him, that it has some special meaning. Why else would he choose to adapt Stephen King, and then stay away from the monsters, the gore, or the spookiness?

Brian Libby as The Prisoner

The biggest change Darabont makes is with the addition of a character known only as Prisoner (played by Brian Libby, a prolific character actor who has had small roles in each of Darabont’s King adaptations). In the short film, John (Michael Cornelison) is a lawyer, and we see a short scene where he consults with his client, who is on death row, and asks him conversationally about what it’s like to kill a person. This character, a grizzled Vietnam vet who channeled his experience of the atrocity of the war into a career as a hitman once he got back home, seems like a character type King himself might have written. The scene itself is probably a bit too on the nose, as Brian Libby’s every line of dialogue is meant to subconsciously reverberate with the decision John has to make. It’s so directly addressing him that the character never feels like a real character, but instead feels like a totem, an oracle that John needs to hear from. But of course, that’s exactly what he’s meant to be in this story, and both actors (who would were in the midst of, or the beginnings of, healthy careers) are good enough to sell the scene.

Rik, I feel like this scene is the most obvious focal point for most discussions based around the short story and the short film. How did it sit with you?

Rik: It’s funny, you mention that both actors were in the midst of or at the beginnings of healthy careers, but when I watched The Woman in the Room again, I couldn’t place either actor at all and had to look them up. Sure enough, they have been acting a long time, and Cornelison has had a lot of stage success. But I could probably only pick Libby out of a police lineup and that is just because he is large and imposing. When I look at their credits, it turns out that I have seen a lot of their films and television shows, but it’s for a lot of parts like “Perimeter Guy” and “Employee #1” and “Embalmer”; even in films that I remember seeing, I cannot remember who they were.

And this is not to say that they are not both very good in their roles in this short. They do a fine job, and I have to say Libby is particularly appealing in his part as the convict. I agree with you: I don’t mind when a director or a screenwriter veers from the original work being adapted as long as the divergence adds something to the story that adds what you termed resonance to the work at hand. I think we both agree that it was what was so frustrating about the Night Surf shorts. They each took a different tack with the same material, but all of the shorts, even the barely best ones, really missed the point of the material, missed the painful, nostalgic soul at the center, the dying of the light, the slowly vanishing heartbeat of humanity. When I saw that this film was a half hour, I was really wondering just how Darabont would be able to carry what is rather slight material that far. Certainly it would be hard to make a feature film out of this story without greatly expanding it by giving both the son and the mother full backstories. And maybe Darabont felt that summing the slim story up in just fifteen minutes was just too brief a visit with these characters, like maybe to feel the real punch in the gut of the situation he had to draw it out at least a little bit. So maybe that is part of why he felt he needed to stretch it out and add an extra scene. But I really like the extra scene he did add.

I like the familiarity between the client and the lawyer. There is certainly a level of trust that has been established, the light smiles in jokes about courtroom attire that are easily accepted between the two, and there is a definite air of relaxation in even the lighting of a cigarette that signifies these two have spent a good deal of time together. Even when the Prisoner gets riled up about something, he is able to be defused by a steady gaze or a smirk. I enjoyed their interplay, and it would be interesting to see if these two would ever be friends “on the outside,” as it were. (Of course, he is telling the lawyer the story of how he killed a buddy of his, a guy who saved his life at one point in Vietnam, so you may not want to know him on the outside.) 

Michael Cornelison as John

When they do get to the meat of that discussion, about whether killing someone ever meant anything to the Prisoner, I feel like the relationship between the two characters serves to make the scene perhaps not quite as maudlin as it might have been in lesser hands, even hands as inexperienced as Darabont’s at that age. You say it is perhaps too on the nose; I agree, yes, but it does allow us to see another side of John that we otherwise would either not have gotten to see (we get to understand, in short order, both his professionalism and his basic humanity in one scene) without perhaps plunging into a series of all too obvious flashback sequences. And as such, I think it is a wise addition to the story.

Aaron: Although I do find the Prisoner scene a bit too obvious, that’s not as much of a complaint here as it would be in, as you say, lesser hands. Because you’re right; Frank Darabont “gets” Stephen King, but more than that, he also “gets” the mechanics of storytelling in much the same way that King does. The Prisoner sequence is essential in this story as Darabont tells it, because it humanizes Johnny and addresses his dilemma directly without having him break into tears and wail that he doesn’t want to kill his mother. It’s also, as you point out, important to get an outsider’s look at this character, to show us something outside of Johnny’s own head or perceptions. And it is, admittedly, entertainingly written. Much more gratifying than a series of generic flashbacks.

Stephen King’s short story is largely plotless, achronological, and full of impressions rather than concrete incident. That sort would be impossible to translate to film, unless you wanted to make an avant-garde, experimental film, which Darabont clearly was not interested in. Looking back over Darabont’s career, many of his scripts have been for potentially nostalgia-riddled movies like the remake of The Blob, the sequel to David Cronenberg’s version of The Fly, an unproduced Doc Savage film, and the script for Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, as well as various episodes of Tales from the Crypt and Young Indiana Jones. Of the four movies Darabont has directed, three of them are set in the fifties, and one of them takes its cues from the creature-feature monster films of that era. Frank Darabont is a man clearly enamored of the films of Hollywood’s “golden age”, and as such uninterested in making impressionistic arthouse fare.

So how, then, do you go about filming an impressionistic story while also delivering a clear, audience-friendly, narratively simple film? Well, in this case, you whittle the story down to two or three important events, add a character to make external some of the internal struggles John is going through, and add a brief dream sequence. If I’m being honest, the dream sequence is probably cheesier and more on-the-nose than the Prisoner sequence, but we’re speaking comparatively, here. Although now that I’m nitpicking the film, I realize the obviousness of these aspects, but as I was watching it they didn’t bother me at all. More importantly, in the film as it exists, these two scenes are necessary.

One of the joys I’ve been getting out of this series of discussions with you lies in how deeply we delve into tiny moments. Some of our pieces so far have rivaled the original short stories in terms of length, and that’s allowed us to really explore different aspects of them. I’m not going to claim that our casual discussions here are encyclopedic, exhaustive, or even very academic, but it is a level of critical evaluation I don’t normally indulge in, outside of the odd college course. What I said up there about how Darabont “gets” how stories operate is true, because at this young age, with no formal training, he was able to distill Stephen King’s story to its elements, and then mold them to his own personal vision, and the resulting film is structurally satisfying and emotionally powerful. I wouldn’t say I’ve always been a fan of Darabont (I’m both looking forward to and dreading the day when we cover The Green Mile), but he has an eye for crowd-pleasing entertainments.

Darabont deploys the Prisoner scene at the right time in his film, turning it into the centerpiece of his short. It sheds light on the main character and adds shading to his emotional state, while also breaking up what could have become monotonous. Even the dream sequence serves a similar purpose, so who cares if it’s a bit more obvious than I normally like? Darabont had a limited amount of time with which to tell his story, and very limited means and experience. Things have to be more direct in a short film like this, where we don’t have time to get fully acquainted with the characters and their histories.

The Wrap-Up

Rik: I would say that I am neither a huge Darabont fan or a detractor. His greatest work is obvious, I greatly admire his take on The Mist though I dislike a couple of casting choices, I am cool on (not cool with) The Green Mile (I need to do a rewatch, but neither am I a fan of the story), and I have never fully seen The Majestic. That pretty much evens things out as far as his directorial efforts go for me.We started this piece ages ago and much has happened in our lives since we started it. I feel it is time we put this thing to bed. I think this is a pretty terrific short film that has held up marvelously over time. I don’t think it is great, but it’s pretty damn good considering its origins and the fact it was made for about a buck-thirty-seven. Like the story, I will plan to revisit it again in the future, and perhaps not wait quite so long the next time. But it is such a downer, that that “not wait quite so long” is still going to be a few years if I can help it.

Aaron: I believe we are in agreement on Frank Darabont (although I would be much harsher in my estimation of The Green Mile, but I’ll save that for whenever we actually focus on that film); he is a talented filmmaker who has created some works I love, some I modestly enjoy, and then some I just don’t care for. I figure I’ll always have a fondness for him, if only for his part in bringing forth the 1988 remake of The Blob, which is a pretty fun film that, while probably not underrated, still deserves to be seen. If I’m being honest, Darabont skews a little too much towards the emotional side of the spectrum, veering often into cheap sentimentality and schmaltz, but I think he acquits himself quite nicely here. The Woman in the Room never gets too maudlin, although it has every reason to.We also seem to be in agreement on this film, and while I enjoy it, I don’t see myself revisiting it, or the story that inspired it, anytime soon. It was a revelation, to be reminded of an aspect of King’s writing that I had forgotten (or, more likely, ignored), and it was interesting to see the humble beginnings of an Oscar winning director. I appreciate the ways in which the story affected me now that I’m older and, maybe, a little wiser (very little), but neither the story nor the film are the sorts of entertainments I normally seek out, so it may be awhile before I head this way again.

The Woman in the Room [Pt. 1]

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it is finally time for another edition of We Who Watch Behind the Rows: Stephen King Print Vs. Film, an ongoing and exhaustive exploration of the works of Stephen King and the films derived from them. As always, Rik and I are here to discuss our reactions, thoughts, emotions, critiques, praises, musings, and, of course, our personal histories with the stories in question. For those wishing to read along at home and join the discussion, we are currently working through the short stories that make up Stephen King’s first collection, Night Shift. We have previously covered Graveyard Shift, Night Surf, and The Mangler, and this time we jump ahead a bit for a slight change of pace with The Woman in the Room.

The Story: The Woman in the Room
[Night Shift, 1978; Original to the publication]

Aaron: I said in the brief intro to this piece that The Woman in the Room represents a slight change of pace for our young blog, but now that I think about it, this is a larger gearshift than I initially thought. Not only are we skipping all the way to the end of the Night Shift collection (up until this point we had been more or less going in published order), but also we’re covering our first story to not feature any sign of the supernatural or fantastic. There are no demonic machines in The Woman in the Room, no rabid mutant vermin, and no apocalypses, unless you count the deeply personal, emotional kind. The tone here skews closest to the mood-piece that was Night Surf, but it lacks a hook as splashy as a humanity-destroying plague. Despite his evident love of the genre, not everything Stephen King has written has fit under the horror banner, and this stands out as an early example of his more conventional fiction.

At this point I’d normally begin talking about when I first read this story, and what memories I have associated with it, but right now any tale I told would be a lie, because I literally have no memory of reading this story. I know I did read it, I know that for a fact, but as I was reading along nothing stirred my memory. For everything we’ve covered so far, events would unfold in my memory slightly ahead of me reading them, and yet everything in this story was brand new. That’s not entirely surprising, because once again we need to take into account the age at which I first read these stories. As I said in an earlier piece, I was around thirteen or fourteen years old at the time, and so the stories that really stuck with me were the more outrageous, gory, macabre, and vicious tales. I wasn’t really in the market for more mature meditations on death and loss, and so The Woman in the Room failed to make a huge impression on my younger self, and I just never revisited it over the years in the way I did with some of the other stories in this collection. I think that’s for the best, actually; I think I’ve rediscovered this story at an age where I can now fully appreciate its style and themes.

Before I go too much further, Rik, I’d like to hear your history with this story, if you have one. Did this one make any sort of impression on you when you first read it as a much younger man? Have you had occasion to revisit it over the years?

Rik: As I mentioned in our previous pieces on the stories that make up Night Shift, I have not read the collection in well over 25 years. So the answer would be, no, I have not revisited it at all. And frankly, apart from having seen Frank Darabont’s student film version of The Woman in the Room many years ago and keeping a nudging awareness of that short film’s presence in my more cinema-oriented mindset (despite my also not having seen in it in over a quarter century), I would have quite forgotten the story altogether.

This is not a critique of the King’s story, mind you; this is more of an admittance of my lack of interest in the subject at hand at the time of its publication. As an older teenager-slash-young adult, you feel immortal to a certain extent. Everything is ahead of you, and the common concerns of older people are simply not your worry. You, at such an age, bounce back from every type of pain, physical, mental, or emotional, and a big part of bouncing back seemingly scot-free is the ability to block out the drama around you. For me, this included what I considered to be “straight” drama, whether it was on TV, on the movie screen, or on the printed page. I had almost no interest in an Oscar-winning dramatic film like Robert Redford’s Ordinary People at the time, and a fully vested, 100% interest in a surrealistic nightmare like David Lynch’s Eraserhead.

In other words, a rather straight story that sinks deeply into the mind of a man obsessed with his mother’s impending death from cancer was just not in my wheelhouse at the time, and so it left little impression on me. Just as I then disdained what I considered to be normal dramatics, so I also chose the targets of my attention for their very weirdness in comparison to such normalcy. And I was definitely NOT reading King for depth of thought or the excellence he maintained in practicing his craft. No, I was reading him solely because he told better, scarier stories than anyone else that I had read at the time. He had the monsters that I craved, and the gruesomeness. I wanted sick, violent stories with last second twists or darkly comedic moments. While the notion of a man slowly feeding his mother an overdose of painkillers certainly ambles into “sick” territory on the measure of an episode of the old Alfred Hitchcock Presents show, it was not enough to capture my attention at the time that I read The Woman in the Room.

Thus, apart from the title (due to Darabont’s film), I had forgotten completely what the short story was even about, and it was only upon reading the opening paragraphs that the story and its style – as have other Night Shift stories – sprang back into my consciousness.

Before we continue to the story itself, I want to mention the title of the story briefly. The title The Woman in the Room never really struck me until I picked up the story to revisit recently. The starkness of the title suddenly revealed itself to me as efficiently cold; it suddenly became a description uttered by someone who is too numbed by tragic circumstances that wishes to distance oneself from the darkening and slowly tightening reality of such an unbearable situation.

Aaron: I’m right there with you on the title. The Woman in the Room. It’s evocative, to be sure, but it’s also nondescript and vague enough to give the reader no idea of what to expect. It certainly did me no favors as I tried to recall the plot of the story in advance of this piece. But then, in context of what the story actually is, the title becomes heartbreaking. The woman in the room, turns out to be Johnny’s mother, dying slowly and painfully of cancer in a hospital bed. That simple, impersonal noun in reference to the man’s clearly beloved mother is telling, as it reflects both the state “the woman” finds herself in, and the mental distancing the man goes through in order to do something he is deeply conflicted about. Johnny’s mother is no longer the mother he knew, she’s little more than a shell with periodic moments of lucidity, a shadow of her former self, and at times a near stranger. Johnny, in order to end her suffering, tries to redefine her as something other than the person who gave him life, and of course he can never be entirely successful in that regard.

The Woman in the Room is one of the most personal fictions I’ve ever read from Stephen King. The only other one that comes close, that I can recall, was Duma Key, in which a man’s recovery from a near-fatal vehicular accident through the aid of his art was intimately informed by King’s own recovery from the 1999 traffic accident that nearly killed him. I think he cuts a bit closer to the bone with this story, which was clearly inspired by the cancer-related death of King’s own mother in 1973. This story was never published anywhere prior to Night Shift in 1978, but it’s safe to assume the emotion was still fresh in King’s mind while he wrote this tale. While Stephen King may not have lovingly fed his mother an overdose of pain medication, it’s hard to read this story without imagining the flights of fancy King must have indulged in during, and after, his mother’s death.

One of the reasons you can tell this was a deeply personal story is the way King absolutely nails, through both words and technique, the way time passes when facing the imminent death of a loved one. The dazed manner in which events are processed, so that your life enters a dreamlike state, where scenes bleed into each other, punctuated by moments of clarity. I said up above that I rediscovered this story at the right age, because as a young teen I was completely unfamiliar with death as anything beyond a vague concept. Now, two decades on, I’ve lost a few friends, a few family members, and I’ve watched friends and family deal with the shocking fact of death. Several years ago, one of my uncles passed away from cancer, and it was impossible to not think of him while I read this story. 

When I say one of my uncles, it should also be said that I grew up in constant contact with all of my aunts and uncles, as we all shared a large house with my grandparents for most of my childhood, and even when people moved away it was still within a near enough distance that we saw each other several times a week. And so we were all very close as I grew up, although that changed a bit over time, as my teenage years kicked in and people started families of their own.  When my uncle got sick he was already fading out of my life, though I still saw him frequently. I remember visiting him, though, on the night he passed away, and being shocked at what I saw before me. This man, who had been such a huge part of my life, who had been a captain for a highly successful charter tour company that he started, who had taken me camping several times every summer of my childhood, who had taken me skiing and sledding and fishing countless times, and tried his best to impress a love of nature on his odd, bookworm nephew, was entirely unrecognizable. He was, almost literally, a skeleton, shrunken down to such a body mass that seems inconceivable that he could still be living, even with the expensive row of medical equipment aiding him in most bodily functions. He was more than just physically different, and it was hard to see him as the same man who had introduced me to Bruce Lee and Die Hard.

The other great insight Stephen King had in this story is the way that death can become, paradoxically, really fairly boring. When someone close to you is dying, there always comes a time when part of you just wants the horrible final act to just happen already. It’s maybe not the nicest thing to say, but it can be so much worse waiting for the other shoe to drop that you get the urge to tear the band-aid off and get into the business of grieving and moving on. The endless flow of incidents and events in your life become heightened in the mundanity, a string of awkward silences and interchangeable waiting rooms and repeated platitudes. The effect is numbing, and it can seem appealing to just get it over with, to get past the hard part. Because death is easy, it’s dying that’s hard. Especially on the living.

But hey, I fear I may have brought the tone down in a small wave of despair, allowing my often-maudlin nature to seep into my writing here (a cumulative side effect of my many sleepless nights recently), so I’ll throw it over to you. I’m assuming this story had it’s own newfound associations for you, as you revisited it as an adult with an entirely different set of priorities and emotional connections. How did you find the experience of revisiting this tale?

Rik: Wow. Given the heartache at the center of this story and the more obvious heartache which must have overwhelmed King during its writing, your reflections are entirely apt. For myself, the story doesn’t hit home quite as precisely for me, even a quarter of a century later. Now that I have slipped over to the farther side of middle age, and wrestled hard with the issue of my own self-destruction in recent years, the subject of mortality seems to be a recurring one in my life. I made the realization a couple of years ago that my life has been blessedly free of major tragedy. A grandparent dies of old age or the parents of close friends go a bit earlier than expected here and there. My wife (then my girlfriend) had a bout with cancer early on in our relationship, but that ship righted itself in short order (though I did lose a first cousin to cancer not long ago as well). Otherwise, all of my nearest, dearest, and closest are still kicking about in the world.

And that is the catch of making such a realization about the good fortune of your friends and family (and thus, yourself)… when does the onslaught of misery begin? When does life become an endless procession of funeral service after funeral service, or relentless visits to hospitals, or tragic phone calls in the middle of the night? Truthfully, while some might believe that my life has been largely blessed by avoiding major tragedy to this point, I see nothing but pain and woe ahead, and because I have not had to deal very harshly with the realities of life in this area, I am terribly unprepared for it. I had a hard enough time when my beloved dog died a while back, enough so that it added to my suicidal ideation and need for medical guidance and therapy.

Such concerns are the chief reason why I dove into fantasy, science fiction, and horror in the first place. While there may be real situations that inspired some of the stories, the element of the fantastical is so strong that one can divorce oneself from the reality behind it and just enjoy the tale being told. You may be well aware of the metaphorical thrust of the writing, but there is usually enough fantasy coating the proceedings that you can choose to ignore any of the more dramatic elements built into the piece.

Which is why The Woman in the Room is so hard-hitting today. I must have discounted it back then as unnecessary to my enjoyment of Night Shift, and thereby forgot about it in the process. I know that I read it, but because The Woman in the Room wasn’t all bloody and extreme in violence or had a serial killer hiding in a closet or a malevolent force hiding behind cornrows or a ravenous monster somewhere or other, I accepted it as too much of real life and not worthy of true attention at the time. 

Reading it now, while it certainly doesn’t hit as close to home for me as it does for you (and is really not something I want to read even now, especially given that someone in my own life is going in for surgery soon, so I really want it to hit even further away from home than it already does), the story is staggering in its quiet intensity. The Woman in the Room is a gut-puncher. King really makes you wonder how you will do in such a situation (and odds are, such a situation will greet most of us in the future, near or far). The answer is, most of us will do OK, and we are going to make some small mistakes, and we will have some regrets of not saying this or that when we possibly should have, but in the end, it will be about making our loved one as comfortable in their exit as we can. I doubt most of us would ever go to the lengths as Johnny does in The Woman in the Room, and I would hope that I never have to do so.

When I first started reading the story on the Kindle on my iPhone, there was a strange break early on where the text leaves off after the word “She” and picks up again a few lines down with “is in the Central Maine Hospital”. At first, because Kindle does strange things with page layout -- I have had books with photos where the text completely realigns when going back and forth a few times -- I thought maybe it was just a problem with the file. But then I realized (because it had been so long since I actually held the book version) that it was a stylistic thing that King was attempting, providing short breaks in his story (almost like chapters) while reinforcing the feeling, at least for me, that because of the tragedy of the situation, Johnny was possibly having blackouts in his memory, or losing track of time or meaning in his life, or was simply blocking out as much as possibly to keep carrying forward. The abrupt breaks in the middle of the sentence were meant to amplify this mood, one of being utterly lost in one’s own circumstances, quite at sea as to what he should do. How do you feel about this?

Aaron: Before I answer your question, I feel the need to address something you said up above. You mention your reaction to the death of your dog as some sort of indicator that you will not handle loss well, and yet I beg to differ. Of all the losses in my life, I have never cried harder or mourned more deeply than when I had to put both of my cats, who I’d raised from kittenhood sixteen years earlier, to sleep within the same week. In fact, as callow as this may sound, I’ve never cried at the death of any person, no matter how deep the connection or close the relation. But my pets? Uncontrollable sobbing for hours, and a deep depression for weeks. But that makes sense in a way, as well. Animals are blank slates, in a way, informed more by the personalities we read into their actions or the bonds we impose upon them. The love and companionship is pure and unsullied, which can never be true for a human being, no matter how beloved they are. I think King acknowledges this in the story, where the only memory Johnny indulges in of his mother before her illness is one where he was punished fairly severely (at least by today’s standards of child-rearing). Our relationships with our families are so complicated by moments of comfort and joy and instances of profound anger and hurt. It’s a lot of emotion to process at once, and I’ve found that I have a pretty delayed reaction to the losses I’ve experienced; I feel saddened, but not shattered, and it’s only over time that the magnitude of what is missing reveals itself. My uncle and I had not been on good terms when he passed, and I never took the chance to make proper amends, although plenty of chances I was definitely given. At the time of his death I felt sad, but more for the people around me who were so clearly grieving. (As I said up above; death is hardest for the living.) But over the years I’ve had several dreams about him, and often I’ll say something in a tone of voice that I immediately recognize as his, and it’s at these times that I realize he’s gone, and, perhaps a bit selfishly, so is that part of my life.

I used to feel guilty about this lack of overwhelming sadness when faced with the death of a loved one. When my grandfather was killed by a drunk driver (again, he had been a constant presence in my life) I couldn’t get away from my family fast enough, and ran off to spend the day with friends. That I do feel bad about, but I was terrified of spending the day with people I would feel incapable of connecting with. All that grief, and me with no hope of mirroring it or easing it. I don’t want to give the impression that I am uncaring, because that couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s taken me a few years, but I’ve come to understand my reaction to these circumstances a bit better. I, personally, find nothing to be sad about for the person who has passed. Whatever your personal belief structure, I think we can agree that whatever their problems had been, they’re over now. Instead I see grief at someone’s death not about the fact that they’ve died, but about the loss we will experience in our life. The dead are beyond it all, while the living will carry the memory. And I think that’s lovely. I see no reason to be sad when a person has died, beyond knowing that I won’t be able to hang out with them anymore. But the astronomical odds against two specific people occupying the same space and time in this universe make the simple fact of knowing and loving someone a cause for celebration. To spend my time depressed that it’s over seems… vain, somehow.

But to answer your question, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I wouldn’t quite use the term “blackout” to describe what Johnny is going through. I think the elliptical nature of the passages, how each one leads into the next, while also starting and stopping in mid-sentence, letting paragraphs trail off unfinished, highlights the emotionally stunned headspace Johnny finds himself in. Johnny’s life is now a string of obligatory hospital visits, dutifully and lovingly made but unpleasant and depressing. There’s no real defining moment in his life right now beyond the approaching death of his mother, and everything else becomes a dissociated blur. But look then at what does make it through the haze: the way IV bags hang down, the water fountain in the hallway, the way the doctor looks at the ceiling tiles while he thinks. Utter mundanity. The things you’d normally ignore become bright and crystal clear, burned into your memory. Perhap that is just a coping mechanism, a way to focus on smaller things in order to avoid the larger issue at hand. Or perhaps it’s a way of preserving the moment, of taking in everything that you normally overlook and storing it away. It could be Johnny’s mind creating a sort of personal file for this experience, segmenting and compartmentalizing this moment away from the rest of his life while storing everything in this event in crystal clarity. THIS is important stuff. THIS is what you will remember for the rest of your life.

That story structure really impressed me on my first read through (technically second, but we’ll say first because I had no memory of the earlier reading), and then blew me away on my second. First, we have the elliptical nature of the segments, which combine two different statements and sentiments and still remain coherent, but then you have the combined effect of the segments themselves. Nothing in this story is presented in a strictly chronological order, and there’s really no attempt made to ground the reader in a specific time, or to delineate between the visits. Johnny arrives at the hospital room a couple of times, leaves a few more, and we’re never sure which visit is the climactic one and which were earlier on before the fateful decision was made. An oblique non sequitur will occur, and then a few pages later we’ll see the explanation for the reference. The reader is as untethered as Johnny, and yet the story still makes complete sense, and nothing is confusing or inscrutable by the end of the tale.

What makes this even more striking for me is the emotion at play in the story (though clearly I bring a lot of that emotion to the table myself). If I were to single out one complaint about Stephen King’s writing in general, it’s that he is not a very emotional writer. Not that he’s a callow robot; I believe he’s a warm and emotional person in his personal life, but in his books he never really succeeds at conveying the mystifying effects of love, loss, sadness, or joy. Needless to say, I did not find that the case with The Woman in the Room, which had such a depth of emotion in it that I find the prospect of picking it up again a little daunting. Despite its focus on the dull and commonplace, King was writing from a place of deep personal feeling, and that informed every page, paragraph, and sentence. 

What say you? Am I alone in thinking King does not normally handle emotion with the skill he displays here?

Rik: First, some unfinished business. You differed with me on how I might handle personal loss in regards to my reaction when my dog died, believing that I might be OK, since you have cried more at the loss of pets over people in your experience. That’s the catch: your opinion on how I may handle such loss is based on your own reactions, and not on mine. In my sentence about my dog’s death, this is the key phrase: “that it added to my suicidal ideation and need for medical guidance and therapy.” Losing Isabelle didn’t cause my depression, anxiousness, eventual nervous breakdown, and urge towards self destruction. Her loss merely amplified my already long-existing depressive state and anxiety to a point where hospitalization was an eventuality. At no point in my previous text did I speak of my own physical reactions to the deaths of others, i.e. humans, in my personal circle. I just expressed my fear of them. Assuredly, I have cried quite robustly many times over the deaths of grandparents, my cousin, parents of friends with whom I had a close relationship, and even a few celebrities of whom I had no personal acquaintance at all, just deep worship of their talents. I am a veritable waterworks. I am a fountain for hire, if the pay is decent. (Hell, I can be rented cheaply these days.) In my spousal relationship, I am the emotional one. Compared to me, Jen is practically a Vulcan. 

What I am saying is that I handle these things as poorly with humans as I do with animals. Sure, I cried rivers of tears over losing three dogs and a cat in the past decade or so, but what I really fear is losing my family and friends. And because my life to this point has been largely tragedy free, especially given how large my circle of friends is, it makes that fear almost untenable at times for me. I actually have sleepless nights mulling over it. As an example, Jen’s cancer scare was at the very beginning of our relationship; were it to occur now, I don’t know what I would do. Thankfully, she has been clear of further problems with it over the fifteen years since, but were it to reoccur, my world would be rocked. I am fairly certain that on most days, she is all that holds me from spinning out altogether.

Once more getting back to the point of this article (not that all of this musing on the morbidity of death isn’t the point), and to answer your question, I agree that this is probably is the most emotional I remember King being on paper. This is not to say that he is not emotional in other writings. It is hard, as a horror writer, to sell the terror of a situation if you not keyed in somehow to the feelings of your characters. But The Woman in the Room, as you stated in reference to the basis for the story, is probably the most nakedly emotional he has been. It is clear that this raw nerve that has been uncovered in the form of Johnny is really his raw nerve. Every thought, though perhaps altered for a fictional narrative, is drawn from a form of thought he probably had sitting up late nights bleary-eyed in an uncomfortable chair in the corner of a hospital room, hearing the repetitive click-clack-wheezing and blip-blip-bleeping of mechanical devices meant to prolong the life of someone who would rather just let go of the constant pain already.

I have to say, this story, while exceedingly intriguing and well-written, is a bit too painful to really for me to carry on about it much more. I would prefer that we skip over to Frank Darabont’s filmed Dollar Baby version of the story at this juncture. 

Aaron: I certainly did not mean to imply that your emotional reactions are somehow “wrong” while mine are somehow “right”. Nobody reacts to anything the same way, and we all process emotions differently. Rather I meant to explain my viewpoint, and possibly a few words of support or comfort to anyone who has dealt with, or is currently dealing with, loss. In fact, for many years I felt there was something wrong in the way I reacted to the death of loved ones, and it left me feeling lonely, guilty, and excluded when I found myself unable to join in the healing, natural mourning process. This attitude I have today is the result of years of thought and emotional searching, and I’ve reached a place where I feel comfortable with the fact of death (though, like you, I am not immune to sleepless, worried nights, often related to my status as a father of two). If, through my words here, I can help someone in some small ways come to grips with this most universal, and most intensely personal of human experiences, then I would be overjoyed. Certainly that was part of what the original intention behind The Woman In The Room was; to work through grief while also, hopefully, helping readers to connect with the emotion in the story and in turn exorcise some of their own pain.

I’m with you; I think it may be time to move forward in our coverage. It’s funny, actually. I chose to cover this story as a way to bang out a quick edition of We Who Watch while we both deal with unpredictably busy summers, and yet it turned out to be a deeper commitment than I had expected. Certainly we’ve both gone deeper in our personal disclosures than ever before on this blog, and while I wouldn’t say it’s been draining or trying, I would say I’m ready to close the book (pun only partially intended) on this one.

So what say we pick this back up in a couple of days, with a discussion of Frank Darabont’s student film version of the story, and the birth of the Dollar Baby?

[To be continued in Part II on Friday, August 26...]