A Tale of Two Christines: Comparing Stephen King’s Novel To John Carpenter’s Film
I’m not the only one who thinks that cars are inherently scary, right? I mean, at the end of the day, there are only a couple of inches of curb and a few two-dimensional lines on the asphalt keeping these metal death machines from mowing down pedestrians like fragile little blades of grass. That’s why I find it surprising that Stephen King is the only master of horror known for stories about supernaturally fueled murder cars. And while Trucks/Maximum Overdrive is worth discussing as an absurdist parable about modern society’s dependence on the fossil fuel industry, I’ve always been fascinated by the more human thrills of Christine and its film adaptation.
Despite being one of only two King adaptations that the author has called out as “boring” (the other being Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining), John Carpenter’s Christine is mostly remembered as both a critical and financial success, with the flick miraculously translating the metaphysical terror of a Stephen King novel to the big screen by streamlining the source material for a new medium.
Of course, these two different beasts are worth experiencing for very different reasons. That’s why I’d like to invite you to read on as we take a peek under the hood of both the novel and the movie in order to compare their distinct yet complementary takes on paranormal road rage.
In order to properly explain the changes made to the book, it helps to have some context regarding the original story. First published in April 1983, when the author was already a household name, Stephen King’s Christine was expected to be a hit before it was even published. Inspired by the 9s on his car’s odometer turning to 0s as he reached 10,000 miles (and borrowing a name from actress/movie producer Christine Forrest, wife of George Romero), King came up with a unique spin on the classic coming-of-age story about lifelong friends being driven apart by their feelings for a girl. Only this time, the girl would be a creepy old car.
While the story is technically about Arnie Cunningham, a nerdy teenager who begins to undergo severe personality changes after purchasing a battered old Plymouth Fury from a detestable man named Roland LeBay, the book is actually told from the perspective of Arnie’s best friend and classmate, Dennis Guilder. In fact, while Christine is widely known as the “book about the killer car”, the first half of the story only depicts the Fury as having bad vibes. The majority of the tension comes from the boys’ deteriorating friendship as Arnie is slowly possessed by LeBay’s spirit.
This surprisingly honest and poignant take on male friendship (with Dennis openly admitting his fraternal love for Arnie to the reader on more than one occasion) is the real heart of the story, with Christine being a mere catalyst in what ultimately amounts to a tragedy about losing your loved ones as you grow up. Naturally, this wouldn’t be the case when the time came to adapt the novel to the big screen. The studio was much more interested in producing what they perceived to be a slasher where the masked killer happened to be a vehicle.
Having already worked on CBS’s Salem’s Lot adaptation, producer Richard Kobritz jumped on the opportunity to adapt Christine before it was even officially released, receiving a manuscript directly from Stephen King. John Carpenter was actually the first choice for directing duties, with Kobritz having already worked with him on Someone’s Watching Me! Unfortunately, Carpenter didn’t think that King’s book was particularly scary, with his criticism leading screenwriter Bill Phillips to revise the story for the big screen.
The general plot remained the same, albeit at an accelerated pace, with Arnie (brilliantly played by Keith Gordon) and Dennis’ (John Stockwell) friendship being torn apart by a cursed car. However, the narrative revisions turned the film into a very different experience. Obviously, the biggest difference is in Christine herself, with the cursed car being changed into an inexplicably evil entity rather than a mere tool used by the vengeful spirit of LeBay. And since films are inherently better suited to visual storytelling rather than the lengthy internal monologues that characterize King’s books, I actually think that turning this into more of a mechanical creature feature than a ghostly possession story was the right call.
In this version of the tale, Arnie isn’t so much turning into someone else as he’s giving in to his own worst instincts, making the film more of a commentary on aging (and addiction) than being consumed by the past. Hell, you could even make a connection between Arnie’s transformation and the modern-day incel movement, with Christine taking on the role of a mechanical facilitator that radicalizes its owner through isolation and obsession.
That being said, the film also shies away from the novel’s musings on friendship. We may never know if this was merely another way of streamlining the story or a fear of alienating audiences through what could be construed as homoerotic subtext, but it’s still a real shame. Not only because horror has a lack of three-dimensional “final boys”, but also because the story’s themes of excessive nostalgia and the cost of growing up simply aren’t as impactful without the added context of Arnie and Dennis’ Saturday morning adventures and their relationships with each other’s parents. That being said, I can’t bring myself to criticize Keith Gordon’s take on Arnie, with the actor simply knocking it out of the park with his character’s gradual transformation into a James-Dean-inspired bad boy.
There are a few other changes, too, such as the lack of Leigh and Dennis’ budding romance and having Arnie actually behind the wheel for the final confrontation (which should have been the case in the book). But in general, the film is just way more concerned with the vehicular carnage of it all—something that I think makes it way more entertaining than a mere truncated translation of the novel.
Sure, the emotional core of the book is more effective, but the film is a lot more thrilling. I mean, that scene where the flaming Fury chases down Buddy Repperton is one of the coolest things ever captured on film, and I’m not even mentioning the killer soundtrack that accompanies it. The idea of Christine already rolling off the assembly line with an urge to kill is also way ahead of its time when you consider that this was way before inanimate horrors like those of the SCP foundation.
At the end of the day, I understand why Stephen King would reject Carpenter and Phillips’ interpretation of his story. But I disagree with the sentiment that they somehow made it “boring”. Both versions of Christine are equally valid, and I think it’s possible to enjoy both in different ways. And until we hear more about that proposed remake written by Hannibal’s Bryan Fuller, I’ll continue to think back on the first two versions of this tale of vehicular tragedy every time I’m behind the wheel and find myself listening to a rock’n’roll tune from the booming 1950s.
Categorized:Editorials
