 |
| Credit: Pixabay |
Warning: This review may contain spoilers.
I apologise for missing last week. It was a rough one; I got very little sleep throughout it and so had gotten behind on other things. I was almost totally worn out which took out my creativity for blogging. But now things are back to normal, somewhat. Well, at least they’re back to normal in time for this fourth weekend, the weekend of our monthly Book-To-Movie. In a Book-To- Movie, we review a work of prose fiction and its movie adaptation. This post we are reviewing Stephen King's short story, "Children of the Corn" and its 1984 movie adaptation. When compared to the short story, the movie adaptation is much more comical.
The Short Story
Published in 1976, “Children of the Corn” concerns Burt and Vicky, a married couple whose relationship is on the brink of divorce and who get stranded in a small Nebraska town. They discover that all the adults of the town have disappeared and only the children are there who have formed a religious fertility cult that worships a monstrous entity called “God”. The cult doesn’t allow anyone in its town to live past the age of 18. Even though they aren’t residents, this is bad news for Burt and Vicky.
So, this is a story that suggests the late 1960s/early ‘70s’ social issues. The era was one of youth rebellion, which in the case of “Children” is as youthful as it can get, and the older generations’ fear that came from it. The story also shows influences from the time’s rapidly increasing divorce rate and anxieties over the rise of religious cults. These are all conveyed well through the evil ambience of the story’s setting and the good character development and interaction. So “Children” is a tale rooted in true '70s horror.
The Movie
The film adaptation of "Children of the Corn" was released in 1984, in a decade when movie adaptations of Stephen King's fiction was rising in number. "Children" was one of the earliest of that surge. As terrifying as king's movie adaptations were known to be, this one was actually quite comical compared to the short story.
When I say "comical", I'm not exclusively talking about humour, though there was that too. By the way, the humour did not overweigh the horror but provided sufficient comic relief from the traumatic events in the film. When I say "comical" I'm talking in terms of the more literary use of the word rather than the cinematic or television definition of it (which is humour). The literary use has to do with a story that’s events work out in a relatively orderly way culminating in a happy ending. The movie adaptation of “Children” culminates in that happy ending unlike the short story which does not end well for Burt and Vicky.
All humour aside, because of its comic elements the movie is not as dark and terrifying as the short story. This is seen almost at the beginning with Burt and Vicky’s happy relationship. Unlike in the short story where they were completely on their own to deal with the deadly menace of the children, in this movie they are helped by two children who are trying to escape the cult. Also, many of the kids come to their senses and depart from the cult after the couple reason with them.
But don't get me wrong. This movie still has sufficient suspense, chills and an ambience of horror like the short story. Also, the cinematography and character interaction work good. The movie just doesn't carry the dark and dooming atmosphere of the short story. Yet, it stays true to the original plot.
The movie adaptation of "Children of the Corn" plays really good on the cinematic level. However, the horror and darkness are conveyed much better in the short story it's based on.Still, both short story and movie are "Logan's Run" meets "Village of the Damned". They’re “Logan’s Run” because of an occultic rite of preventing people from living beyond a certain age, and “Village of the Damned” because of a terrifying fear of children. Afterall, the movie’s tagline is “An adult nightmare.”
Join me here Wednesday for another Insecurity Writer’s Support Group post. Have you read Stephen King’s “Children of the Corn” or seen the 1984 movie adaptation?
Until next time . . .
Neat topic. I like this idea of comparing source material and the adaptations. I know I read Children of the Corn, but it's been too many years for me to remember it well. I watched the movie far more recently with my horror-fan kiddo, and it had some great moments . . .and some unintentional humor.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Yes, there was some good humour in the movie while maintaining the suspense and scares. I'm glad to hear that you like comparing source material to their adaptations. I do a Book-To-Movie review every fourth weekend of the month, so feel free to join in here for the next one in three weeks.
Delete