| Review | 1922 (2017) | Director | Zak Hilditch |
|---|---|
| Writer | Zak Hilditch – Based on the novella by Stephen King |
| Cast | Thomas Jane, Molly Parker, Dylan Schmid, Kaitlyn Bernard, Neal McDonough, Tanya Champoux, Brian d’Arcy James and Bob Frazer |
“I discovered something that most people never have to learn. Murder is sin. Murder is damnation. But murder is also work” – Wilfred
I read the odd novel here and there and when I do I mostly read Stephen King. My latest tale of his is the novella-length “1922”. It’s utterly fantastic. I subscribe to Netflix and knew that the tale had been adapted as a Netflix original so I decided to check it out.
It’s the year 1922; Farmer Wilfred James (Jane) works the land in Hemingford, Nebraska with his son Henry (Schmid) and is proud of his way of life. His wife Arlette (Parker) has never taken to the farming life and she’s the owner of the land and intends to sell it for a large amount of money. Wilfred then plans to murder Arlette and convinces his son to aid him in this deed.
Throughout the years I have read quite a few novels by different authors but no one comes close to King when creating authentic and believable characters who find themselves in very unorthodox situations. “1922” is no exception there and Wilfred is a fascinating character that captivates the reader from beginning to end. I wasn’t sure how Wilfred would turn out on the screen but the film wisely displays his inner dialogue that’s essential to understanding his plight. And while he performs a truly heinous deed the reader somehow feels for him and pities him as the story progresses. And it’s not just Wilfred who’s a standout character here but also Henry; the son who gets manipulated into helping kill his mother. They’re both very well realized and their journey together is nothing short of a tragedy of epic proportions but mixed with King’s knack for tossing in the supernatural element, a great subtext and gory highlights.
“1922” sticks close to the source material and is all the better for it. This is a handsomely mounted production and the farming life in the 1920’s is well displayed with the odd frame here and there (mostly grand scenic shots) looking a bit too digitally created but overall the look here is very good. Director and screenwriter Hilditch very ably creates the desired atmosphere and is well assisted by his crew in the technical department. There really aren’t that many suspense- or set-pieces per say as the film is mostly a slow-burn account of damnation and vengeance from beyond. Some gory highlights pop up, for sure, and some imagery is really eye-popping and stays with the viewer.
The acting is terrific and top honors go to Jane who completely inhabits the part of Wilfred. The way he looks and sounds displays total commitment to the role and, while I’ve always thought Jane was very capable, he’s never been as effective as here. Schmid is also really good as Henry and the youngster holds in own in harrowing scenes with Jane. Henry isn’t as well defined in the novella as Wilfred but Schmid completely wins over the viewer with a very effective performance. Parker does well as Arlette and McDonough is solid in his handful of scenes.
Stephen King can be tricky to adapt but recent adaptations have been really successful (particularly Netflix’s “Geralds Game” (2017), “It” Parts 1 and 2 (2017 and 2019) and “Doctor Sleep” (2019)) so it seems filmmakers are on a roll with the author’s material (although I must admit I wasn’t very keen on 2019’s reworking of “Pet Sematary”). Upcoming is a new stab at “Salem’s Lot” so it’ll be curious to see if momentum can be sustained.
“1922” easily slips into the top tier of King adaptations and is highly recommended.
Physical Copy
In my standard text under “Why physical copy?” I’ve always noted that I would mention specifically if I reviewed something from streaming services. While I am a collector at heart I do watch quite a bit on Netflix (and I also subscribe to Disney +) and some original material there I do find quite good; Netflix in particular does produce some quality horror stuff. “1922” is a title I would add to my physical library if possible; particularly if some enticing special features were thrown in. As is; the film looks very good in streaming quality.
Why physical copy?
I always encourage the acquisition of physical copies as I dread the day when films will only exist as files on computers and through streaming services. The companies that put the effort into making the discs, create new artwork or reproduce the originals, issue booklets and much more deserve all the financial support they can. Therefore I will always mention the Blu-rays or DVD’s (and yes; also if I review something streamed through Netflix or the like) even though I gain nothing from it personally.
