Interview with Joseph Maddrey, author of ADAPTING STEPHEN KING, VOL. 1
Everyone knows Stephen King, whether they’ve read his books or watched one of the many movies based on his fiction. Hollywood has adapted King more than any other living author, and over half a century since his earliest work, continue to reinvent, reimagine, remake, and reboot his stories. Author Joseph Maddrey, in the first volume in a series, examines the various screen adaptations of King’s first three novels: Carrie, Salem’s Lot, and The Shining, charting the development of each individual adaptation from first option to final cut. Through old and new interviews with the writers, producers, and directors of these films, the book illuminates the adaptation process as an intricately collaborative endeavor. Rather than merely synopsize the resulting stories, its goal is to compare, contrast, and contextualize each of these adaptations as the products of their creators. Below is an interview I conducted with the author via email.
What inspired you to write an in-depth study of adapting Stephen King for the screen?
A few years ago, I wrote a book about the 1983 film Brainstorm, for which I compared and contrasted many different drafts of the script and interviewed the writers about the changes. I really enjoyed getting into the heads of the screenwriters so I wanted to do more of that. I’ve always been obsessed with King’s work and books about King adaptations, and one day I realized there have been plenty of books about directorial visions applied to King’s work but none about the screenplays and the writers—so I got to work.
It’s been difficult for most filmmakers to capture King’s spirit from the page to the screen. What do you believe is the secret to adapting his work? Also, do you have a favorite adaptation?
I believe King’s strength as an author is his narrative voice and the voices of his characters. Many times, adapters (including King himself) try to import that strength directly to the screen, which results in films that do more telling than showing. I think it’s important for filmmakers to thoroughly reimagine the material, to worry less about fidelity and “capturing King’s spirit” and focus instead on making the story work for the new medium. In the end, the strength of the film is all about the storytelling strength of the filmmaker. A filmmaker can’t just shoot what’s on the page. Even Stand By Me made some big changes to King’s source material.
My favorite King adaptations are probably the obvious ones: Carrie, The Shining, The Dead Zone, Cujo, Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption. Please don’t make me pick just one.
The first section of your book deals with adapting King’s first published novel, Carrie. Not only do you cover DePalma’s masterpiece, but you also cover the sequel, the made-for-tv version, the stage musical, and the 2013 remake. Tell us how you conducted your intense research for this volume.
For all titles, the first thing I do is try to track down as many drafts of the screenplay as I can. Next, I re-read the novel and all the scripts and break them down to understand how the story has been told in the past, what has changed from draft to draft. At that point, the big question is: Why? Why did King write the story the way he did and why did the screenwriter(s) change / not change / remove / add details? To answer those questions, I research as many interviews as I can find with the writer(s), producer(s), and director(s). Finally, I request a new interview with the screenwriter(s) to address any remaining questions.
The Shining, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is one of my favorite movies. During his lifetime Kubrick was very secretive regarding his filmmaking process, including screenwriting. How did you convince Diane Johnson, the co-writer of the screenplay, to discuss her work on the film?
Diane Johnson has always been more forthcoming than Kubrick about the making of The Shining, so I found a few preexisting sources of information—including a detailed interview with Catriona McAvoy, a Kubrick scholar. I think I convinced her that I knew as much about King as McAvoy knew about Kubrick and then she decided that would make for an interesting conversation. I also studied Diane Johnson’s papers related to The Shining (including hundreds of script pages and handwritten notes from her sessions with Kubrick), which are collected in the Harry Ransom Center in Texas, so she knew I’d done my homework.
Why do you think King disliked Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining? And do you think Kubrick ever watched the King mini-series, and if so, what do you think he thought of it?
King has been very vocal about why he dislikes Kubrick’s adaptation. His criticisms basically boil down to “it’s not my story.” Early on, he also tried to convince interviewers that Kubrick didn’t know how to stage a scare scene… but he was obviously wrong. Kubrick avoided “jump scares,” but ultimately he didn’t need them.
King’s version of the story is more sentimental and generates more sympathy for the characters. The horror in Kubrick’s adaptation emanates from the storyteller’s lack of sentiment and sympathy for the characters. Several famous horror directors have said that their first goal is to convince the audience that the director is crazy and might go “too far” in their storytelling. Kubrick does that subtly and effectively in The Shining.
I would be very surprised to learn that Kubrick ever watched The Shining miniseries. King said in an early interview that he thought Kubrick only saw his novel only as raw material that could be re-shaped, and that he didn’t care much about the novel itself. I think that’s probably accurate. Once Kubrick made his own vision, I doubt he ever gave another thought to King’s version of the story, on the page or on the screen.
What was the most exciting fact you uncovered from your research? Was there a “lightning bolt” moment?
What was exciting for me was constructing a chronology of the development process and studying how the screen story evolved over the years, as Kubrick and Johnson analyzed the basic plot elements (and the horror genre in general) from every possible angle. They were prepared to radically reinvent the source story—and often did so for somewhat abstract reasons. The addition of the Grady twins is a fascinating example.
What surprised me was how much improvising was still being done during the production of the film. The screenplay was just a template and almost everything was subject to change. To me, it seems like the production was at times more of a “happening” than a carefully planned event. The fact that so many of the improvisations have become iconic pieces of cinema history—and, in the minds of many horror fans, indistinguishable from King’s source novel—is mind-boggling.
Can you tell us what you will cover in Adapting Stephen King: Vol. 2?
Vol. 2 will examine all of the commercially-released film and TV adaptations of King’s short stories from the Night Shift collection, which includes segments of Creepshow, Cat’s Eye, and Nightmares & Dreamscapes, as well as Children of the Corn, Maximum Overdrive, Graveyard Shift, Sometimes They Come Back, The Mangler, and Chapelwaite. I’ll also explore some unproduced(and mostly unknown) scripts. That book should be available in the fall.
Where can people find out more about you?
I have a sorely-neglected blog with years’ worth of ramblings about films, filmmakers, and filming locations (Maddrey.blogspot.com). I’m also active on Goodreads and always happy to interact with people there.
Great! Thanks so much for your time!
Thanks for your interest in the books!