The Curious case of The Dark (1978) Novelization

Written by Max Franklin (aka Richard Deming). Based on the 1979 film written by Stanford Whitmore and directed by John 'Bud' Cardos. It starred William Devane, Cathy Lee Crosby, Richard Jaeckel and Keenan Wynn.

This is an odd one. The behind-the-scenes story of this film is definitely more interesting than the film itself. The film began with Tobe Hooper directing. However, Hooper was fired after only a few days, with journeyman director John 'Bud' Cardos taking over. Cardos is not a stylist and did what he was hired to do: finish the film on time, whatever it took. 

Where it becomes interesting is that the filmmakers decided to alter the story after filming was completed to inject a science fiction aspect into the story. Namely, they made the monster an alien that can shoot lasers from his eyes. Exactly what the original story was is...complicated.

There are reports that the story at that point was about an autistic person who had been locked away for most of their life, going on a murder spree when they are freed by a house fire. This info seems to originate with an interview with Cardos that was in the May 1984 issue of Cinefantasique. This was later repeated in the commentary that Cardos participated in for the 2017 Code Red Blu-Ray release.  

Which brings us to this novelization. The only screenwriter ever credited on The Dark was Stanford Whitmore. The novelization claims to be based on his screenplay, but it is NOT about an autistic person killing people. It tells the story of a 100-year-old Zombie that cuts off the heads of his victims with a scimitar and then eats them. The father of the first victim and a newscaster band together to investigate what is going on. In all ways, the novelization reads like an episode of the Night Stalker TV series, without Carl Kolchak. This is not a bad thing.  A still in the photo section includes a scene of a death BEFORE the alien was added, strengthening the case that the alien was a very late addition.

Let's try to unpack this. The final film matches the zombie plot mentioned above, save for the lasers. The characters all talk about the monster being a zombie, and never reference that the victims have been "blown up" by lasers. The monster, when finally shown, is wearing contemporary clothes and does not really match the description of the zombie in the book.  The autistic angle of the plot bears some similarity to Hooper's later THE FUNHOUSE, so perhaps he made that film to get the idea out of his head.

The changes were talked about in issue 12 of Starburst Magazine: 

"Okay, so it was a gamble," admits Larry [Fredericks], the Cinema Shares president. "But after doing our market research...we decided to shift the emphasis from conventional horror to a sci-fi image, which the plot allowed us to do. We re-thought the publicity campaign completely and really put some hours into getting the new art just right. With our experience of selling across the whole range of world markets, we figured we could make the film really work." 

Note, nowhere in the above is the idea of making the film better mentioned. I think the changes were made because the filmmakers had a film that wasn't very good. According to producer Igo Kantor in the above-mentioned 2017 Blu-ray commentary, the switch to the alien occurred after filming was complete. So switching to an alien was a last-ditch effort to salvage the investment when it became clear the film wasn't very good. 

Watching the film objectively, I think about a minute of alterations were done to support the alien plot-change:

• A prologue that explains that the alien came from the stars was added.
• The scenes of carnage stop before the zombie does anything, with lasers and explosions being overlaid on top of the original footage.
• Some insert shots showing the monster's hands as claw-like and decidedly non-human.
• The climax, which involves the alien battling a slew of police officers, appears to have some new footage to better support the laser angle.  Some full face shots of the alien shooting lasers, some pyrotechnic effects showing the effects of the laser hits.

That's it. I don't see anything else that was added. Of course, based on the novelization, we can see that things were removed or changed. But it is clear, at least to me, that the book used the same screenplay for the film that was shot, at least in part. Most of the names are the same, and the basic plot follows the same beats.  The fact that the monster is wearing regular clothes in the film makes me lean toward the autistic person as explaining the monster (inasmuch as that really explains how he could take so many gunshots and still be alive) . I think the film had a rushed filming schedule that resulted in something that has a couple of good scare scenes but not much coherence.  The producers tried to jazz it up with lasers to try to get their money back. 

So where did the story in the novelization come from?  Given that the filmmakers have repeatedly stated that the monster was an autistic person, I have to conclude that either the author worked from an earlier script that was ultimately changed to what Cardos described, or he took it upon himself to improve things with a story of his own. Cardos came on board about a week into filming, so perhaps there was an earlier script without the autistic person. This could have been what was provided to the author of the book.  I am not sure we will ever know for sure. 

Which is all too bad because this is a good novelization! The author really spends time with things and makes it a satisfying read. Considering that the basic plot does not make complete sense (what is the significance of the blind guy, anyway?), the author does a very good job of trying to make it clear.  If nothing else, the book describes a movie I'd much rather watch than the actual film made.

Excerpt:

At five-thirty in the afternoon Randy Morse had just finished making love to his latest conquest for the sixth time that day. She was a lovely Eurasian girl of eighteen named Camille Quam, whom he had met at an actors' workshop a week before. Since then they had been out of each other's sight for only brief periods, even making the rounds of TV studios to read the call-boards together. A good deal of the time, both day and night, they spent in bed together, always at his apartment, because she still lived with her parents. 

Sitting up in bed, naked, Camille leaned over the side of the bed to reach into her purse on the floor. She drew out a marijuana cigarette, a marijuana clip, and a packet of matches. Lighting the joint, she took a deep drag, held it, and passed the joint over to Randy, using the clip. 

Exhaling, she said, "Get it on, lover." 

Randy took a drag and handed back the clip. The phone on a bedside stand rang. Exhaling, he lifted the phone. 

"Hello," he said. 

"Randy?" a mature female voice said. 

"Oh, hi, Marge." 

"Busy tonight?" Marge Madison asked seductively. 

He glanced at Camille. "Why?" he asked. 

"His nibs flew to New York this morning. He's flying back again late tonight, but meantime, I thought perhaps we could discuss that part." 

"Sure," he said instantly. "I'm free." 

THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974)

Directed by John Guillermin.  Written by Stirling Silliphant

Starring Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Richard Chamberlain, Robert Wagner, Fred Astaire, Susan Blakely, Jennifer Jones, O.J. Simpson
1974, 165 minutes, Color, Rated PG, 2.35:1
20th Century Fox Blu-Ray, released 2009

Background

The disaster film became a prominent genre in the 1970's, but films about disasters have been around almost since the beginning of Hollywood.  This is because the crucial elements of the disaster film naturally align with the tenets of dramatic storytelling.  Need conflict?  Tense situations can certainly bring the worst out in people.  Need spectacle?  How about scenes of mass destruction?  Need romance?  Well, you may be out of luck in a disaster film, but there is still usually the element of a loved one in peril.  They may not satisfy on all levels, but generally, you can find something to like in a typical disaster film.  Even bad disaster films are still watchable on some of the above levels.

Irwin Allen, Man Of Refined Tastes

So why did disaster movies become prominent in the 1970's?  Primarily it was due to the success of two films, THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE (1972) and THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974).  Both films were produced by Irwin Allen, a producer and director who was perhaps best known prior to the above-mentioned films for the television shows Lost In Space and Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea. He had also produced and directed a number of feature films, notably THE LOST WORLD (1960), VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA (1961) and FIVE WEEKS IN A BALLOON (1962). He was able to ride out the 1970's and part of the 1980's on the strength of the success of POSEIDON and INFERNO, but the quality of the films he produced after INFERNO dropped off precipitously.  Almost all of his films post-INFERNO are disaster films--and some are in fact "disasters".

Some of the other films Allen produced after INFERNO include: Adventures of the Queen (1975, TV), Flood! (1976, TV), Fire! (1977, TV), THE SWARM (1978), Hanging By A Thread (1979, TV), BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE (1979), WHEN TIME RAN OUT (1980), The Night The Bridge Fell Down (1983, TV) and Cave In! (1983, TV).  These titles all range from just okay to downright bad, although I must confess to being  possessing nostalgic feelings for both THE SWARM and BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE.

Hollywood, however, took note of the success of THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE and INFERNO and brought out their own disaster films.  The first big disaster movie not produced by Allen was Universal's EARTHQUAKE (1974) which followed the Allen formula by including a large cast (Charlton Heston, George Kennedy, and the incomparable Marjoe Gortner) and killing off a fair number of them.  Universal followed EARTHQUAKE up with AIRPORT 1975, AIRPORT 1977, AIRPORT 1979, as well as ROLLERCOASTER (1977), THE HINDENBURG (1975), and GRAY LADY DOWN (1978).  Other entries in the 70's disaster bonanza were METEOR (1979), THE CASSANDRA CROSSING (1977), AVALANCHE (1978), and CITY ON FIRE (1979).

The Cast

Say what you will about Allen and his films, but he was generally able to assemble a good cast. For casting alone it's hard to beat POSEIDON ADVENTURE--Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, Shelley Winters, Stella Stevens, Roddy McDowall and Carol Lynley.  However, INFERNO's cast is even better, impressively including two of the biggest box office stars of the day in Paul Newman and Steve McQueen, as well as Faye Dunaway, William Holden, and a host of lesser names such as Fred Astaire, Susan Blakely, Richard Chamberlain, Jennifer Jones, O.J. Simpson, Robert Vaughn, and Robert Wagner.  THE SWARM had Michael Caine, Richard Widmark, Henry Fonda and Katharine Ross, as well as a veritable sea of past their prime and B-level actors such as Richard Chamberlain, Olivia de Havilland, Ben Johnson, Lee Grant, Patty Duke, Bradford Dillman, and Fred MacMurray.  BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE had Michael Caine, Sally Field, Telly Savalas, Peter Boyle, Jack Warden, Shirley Knight, Shirley Jones, Karl Malden, and Slim Pickens.  Even the lowly WHEN TIME RAN OUT had Paul Newman, Jacqueline Bisset, and William Holden, with Edward Albert, Red Buttons, James Franciscus and Ernest Borgnine among the rest of the cast.  Even his television movies boasted better than average casts.  Flood! had Robert Culp, Richard Basehart, and Roddy McDowall.  Fire! had Ernest Borgnine, Vera Miles, and Patty Duke.

It's worth repeating that at the time the movie was made Paul Newman and Steve McQueen were perhaps the top two male actors in the world.  If not the world, then at least the United States. McQueen was coming off PAPILLON (1973) and THE GETAWAY (1972), Newman was coming off  THE STING (1973).  The story goes that both Newman and McQueen demanded top billing and the producers accommodated this by arranging the names in a way that gave both top billing based on how you read it.  If you read from left to right then you'd hit McQueen's name, if you read top to bottom you would see Newman's name first.

Faye Dunaway hadn't been in a big hit since BONNIE AND CLYDE but she was in CHINATOWN which opened a couple of months before INFERNO.  She would go on to win an Oscar for CHINATOWN but that didn't really help INFERNO.  From there the cast descends into familiar faces but not necessarily stars.

The Film

Warning Spoilers below!

Synopsis:
The world's tallest building is gearing up for a dedication ceremony that promises to host all of the important people of San Francisco.  During the ceremony, a small fire breaks out and despite efforts to quickly extinguish it the fire grows out of control.  Soon, the guests partying in the ballroom at the top of the building are trapped up there, and the fire department tries desperately to save them.  In the nick of time, the fire department detonates several huge water tanks at the top of the building to douse the fire.

THE TOWERING INFERNO was initially to be based on the book The Glass Inferno by Thomas N. Scortia and Frank M. Robinson and was to be produced at 20th Century Fox.  Warner Brothers also had a burning high rise movie in production at the same time that was based on The Tower by Richard Martin Stern.  The studios understood that there was room for only one movie about a burning high rise in the market, so in what was billed as a first at the time the two studios teamed up to produce the movie together.  The film had a budget of $15 million and this allowed Allen to gather the impressive cast as well as produce high-quality visual effects.

So is INFERNO a good movie?  As in most things in life, it depends.  In this case, it depends on what you expect to get out of a movie.  If you want realism, realistic character arcs, or meaningful interpersonal relationships...well, you probably will not enjoy INFERNO too much.  However, if you approach it as spectacle only then there is a lot to enjoy.  It LOOKS great, with big expansive sets, great widescreen photography and special effects that consistently keep things interesting.  In fact, all things considered, INFERNO probably should not work as well as it does.  The screenplay by Stirling Silliphant is comprised of one melodramatic set piece after another.  The acting is generally decent but hardly stellar (with one exception perhaps, but more on that later).  The plot overall never escapes the soap opera level, although the high budget does a decent job of disguising it.

The reasons why the film is as enjoyable as it is are not that difficult to understand.  The film is chock full of top-tier Hollywood stars and that keeps things watchable even when it shouldn't be.  The freshness inherent in its early placement in the 70's disaster film cycle also helps, as the formula hadn't quite become as obvious as it would be in, say, THE SWARM.  The film creates an impressive reality with both optical and practical effects¹.   The early shots of the tower amidst the San Francisco skyline are just about perfectly realized--there is shot of the helicopter flying in front of the tower in the opening minutes of the film and you really can't tell that it is an optical effect.  Across the board, the visual effects effectively sell the setting, which makes the human drama easier to follow.  Lastly, the basic premise of a building that tall being on fire is undeniably gripping, perhaps more gripping now than it was then in fact.

Perhaps INFERNO'S greatest success story-wise is the unease created by not knowing who will live or die.  This was the formula that Irwin Allen hit upon with THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE and it is repeated here with more subtlety.  As the film progresses and more of the character are killed off, the audience starts to wonder if the film will be audacious enough to knock off Paul Newman or Steve McQueen.²  Of course not, but the possibility remains, and that makes the film all the more gripping.   A large part of why this aspect of the film works so well is the strength of the cast and the time the movie takes to get to know the characters.   When Jennifer Jones falls to her death, it is affecting precisely because we have spent so much time with her.

It goes without saying that while certain aspects of the film are very realistic, other aspects are not.  The nuts and bolts of actually fighting a fire are covered well, the actual putting out of the fire strains credibility almost past the breaking point.  I say "almost" purely because the actual mechanics of the climax appears to have put major cast members in actual danger, and the spectacle of that helps sell what is being sold.

From a quality standpoint, INFERNO was the pinnacle of Allen's artistic success.  Never before or again would he have as good a cast to work with³, as much money at his disposal, and most importantly as good a good director to handle the non-action scenes.   Allen made no secret of his displeasure at not receiving his due recognition at having directed the action scenes in THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, and for INFERNO he insisted on an opening credit as director of "action sequences".

All that said, for me, there is one reason and one reason only I keep coming back to the movie, and that's Steve McQueen.  He doesn't make an appearance until well after the fire has started, but once he does the movie instantly becomes better.  It's not that he does anything exceptional from an acting standpoint--he doesn't really.  But he possesses such an impressive presence that his role as the fire chief becomes larger than the movie itself.  No-nonsense and hard-working, he can't help but make the audience believe that he can fix this.  For a film that supposedly pitted McQueen and Newman against each other as leading men, McQueen won hands down.  By comparison, Newman's character seems whiny and weak next to McQueen.

The Blu-Ray transfer looks wonderful, looking very much like film.  Indeed, if there is any image manipulation going on it is handled discreetly.  There are several soundtracks on hand, from a new DTS-HD Master 5.1 track to 4.0 and 2.0 lossy tracks.  Extras include 3 commentaries, 44 minutes (roughly) of footage included in the TV version, and numerous documentaries.  It's a great package that can usually be picked up fairly cheaply.

1. Sure, one can gripe that there is no smoke to speak of as the tower burns, but in the midst of the drama, it is easy to overlook.

2. EARTHQUAKE, Universal's big entry into the disaster film sweepstakes, beat INFERNO to theaters by about a month.  It has many of the same components as INFERNO but is clearly the inferior movie.  First off, the cast of EARTHQUAKE can't hold a candle to INFERNO--once you get past Charlton Heston and George Kennedy the talent drops off dramatically and is filled in with stock Universal television actors.  Second, whereas INFERNO is confined to a single area, EARTHQUAKE spreads across all of Los Angeles.  This lends itself to more expansive scenes of destruction but is less involving overall.

3. Perhaps.  On paper, THE SWARM has a good cast: Michael Caine, Katherine Ross, Richard Widmark, Henry Fonda, Richard Chamberlain, Bradford Dillman, Slim Pickens, Lee Grant, Ben Johnson, Fred MacMurray, Olivia de Havilland, José Ferrer, Patty Duke and Cameron Mitchell.  Likewise, WHEN TIME RAN OUT also has a good cast: Paul Newman, Jacqueline Bisset, William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, Burgess Meredith.

THE FINAL PROGRAMME

Directed by Robert Fuest.  Written by Robert Fuest
Starring Jon Finch, Jenny Runacre, Sterling Hayden
1973, 89 minutes (original US running time was 81 minutes), Color, Rated R, 1.77:1

Based on the book by Michael Moorcock, this film concerns itself with a microfilm containing a blueprint for the perfect human, or the "final programme" as it is known in the story.  Jerry Cornelius (Finch) plays the son of the man who developed the programme, and spends much of the film trying to find it.  Along the way he meets many strange characters, and it all takes place in a future where society is in the process of falling apart.

This was released in the US as THE LAST DAYS OF MAN ON EARTH.  It is a very, very strange movie, but full of great ideas that may get lost in the shuffle due to the constant disorienting flow of action, colors and oddball characters.  I found the US version nigh incomprehensible but the UK version released on DVD is 8 minutes longer, so I was hoping for better results.  It's still incomprehensible but it definitely flows better.  Sterling Hayden appears in a scene completely cut out of the US version.

I have read the book this is based on, so I had a pretty good idea of the plot, but, well, it's still hard to follow.  Definite cult possibilities, however, as it is never boring and now features R-rated language and nudity.  Perhaps this gets better and better the more times you watch it, but so far I've only noticed nominal gains in repeat viewings.  Still, it says something that I am still watching it from time to time.

Ninth Configuration

Written and Directed by William Peter Blatty.  Stars Stacy Keach, Scott Wilson, Jason Miller.
1980, 118 minutes, Color, Rated R.
Also exists in 99 minute, 112 minute and 140 minute variants.

This is a worthwhile film, but pretty idiosyncratic--almost fatally so.  It takes a LONG time to make clear what is actually going on, but it's pretty effective if you stick with it.  Lots of ideas on the nature of good and evil, and in many ways it's a more effective expression of the same core ideas found in THE EXORCIST.   Interesting cast.

This was apparently released in a couple of versions.  The DVD I initially saw was Blatty's preferred cut, though it was in non-anamorphic widescreen. The quality was pretty rough overall.