1922
- Ibrahim Wahla
- Oct 23, 2017
- 3 min read
Rating 5/10
Directed by Zak Hilditch
Starring
Thomas Jane as Wilfred James
Molly Parker as Arlette James
Dylan Schmid as Henry James
1922 is the latest in a long line of Stephen King film adaptations this year. Following box office smashes like It and the excellent Gerald’s Game to TV show adaptations of The Mist, 1922 is the last entry into the Stephen King visual universe this year – and perhaps also the most forgettable. Based on a novella that’s barely 130 pages long, the thinness of the source material reflects on the content in 1922.
The film tells the story of one farmer named Wilfred James in 1922, played by Thomas Jane with a most interesting accent, a southern drawl that eventually grows on the viewer and becomes Wilfred’s unique characteristic. He’s a proud man who loves his land and his teenage son, Henry – his wife, Arlette? Not so much. She wants to sell the land and move out to Omaha, an idea treated as nothing less than sacrilege by the weathered old farmer.
While Henry falls in love with a girl named Shannon Cotterie, Wilfred decides to exploit his son’s affection and do the only reasonable thing in these circumstances; kill his wife with the aid of his child. Convincing him that Arlette will tear the two lovers apart by moving to the city, Wilfred’s reasons for wanting to get rid of his wife are never clearly solidified, or explained. Henry’s acceptance of the plan is just as ineffable.
Since Wilfred’s the one narrating the story from a point further in time than 1922, he’s clearly an unreliable narrator. Yet the film rarely ever takes advantage of all the possibilities that could come from such an implication. It’s very straightforward and while Wilfred’s character appears to be complex and layered, we hardly get to see or truly understand his emotions. We know he’s a troubled old man, plagued by his memories, but we’re never shown it. It’s as if the film wants to go there, yet refrains for no particular reason. We see glints of the man that he is but we don’t unravel him.
Yet Thomas Jane gives this performance his all, physically and verbally. It’s just that there’s not much else going on besides his stand-out performance. As viewers, we lack clarity about what’s real and what’s a figment of Wilfred’s imagination as he slowly loses his mind, making for a taut tense atmosphere. Yet we also lack clarity about any of the motivations these characters have.
Henry is particularly boring, never having any comment on the committed matricide. The script doesn’t particularly stand out, which makes it all the more remarkable that Thomas Jane manages to wring out an effective performance somehow.
1922 becomes a drag to sit through eventually, saved only through some wonderful imagery and spooky visuals peppered throughout the film. At the end of the day, it just feels as if it doesn’t have that much to offer, other than one strong performance and some interesting graphics.
If you were interested in 1922, check out 2013’s Stoker, a film about a young girl whose father has just passed away. As her mysterious uncle comes to live with her and her unstable mother, she begins to explore all the odd facets of her personality.
Comments