Stephen King occupies a strange place in the contemporary literary landscape – he’s still objectively one of the most popular authors, and his books tend to be widely anticipated by audiences. Yet, his work is also viewed as slightly passé, particularly because it seems to lack the kind of spark that defined his earliest novels and short stories (many have theories as to why this is the case, but that’s a matter to be speculated about in private), and instead follows a very clear rubric that doesn’t feel like the same writer we knew in the past. This is made clear by the fact that there was once a time when his novels were adapted into major feature films and television shows helmed by some of the greatest filmmakers of their generation, and audiences would come out in droves to witness whatever work of horrifyingly entertaining perversion that had now been brought to life on screen. One of the more peculiar, but not any less impressive, is The Dead Zone, in which David Cronenberg, during a decade in which he was undeniably at his peak as an artist, set out to adapt the story of a mild-mannered schoolteacher awakening from years he spent in a coma after an accident, only to be confronted with the fact that he now possesses some kind of psychokinetic skill that allows him to see the past, present and future of anyone he touches, leading to an existential crisis. One of King’s most challenging books,  but one that is perfectly captured on screen by Cronenberg, who is one of the few filmmakers that could not only elevate these incredible books to the place where they feel genuinely complex, but also add his own bespoke elements that allow the film to be just as much an indicator of his immense skills as a director as it did King’s ability to weave together such an enigmatic and compelling narrative.

One of the reasons The Dead Zone is often cited as one of King’s stronger works is the simplicity. It is not a mistake that his most cherished works earlier in his career are those that take a straightforward concept and develop on these ideas without needing to go into too much detail or be overlong (this mostly shifted with It, which was built entirely on being a very dense, detailed narrative delivered in the form of an intimidating tome), but instead just meditate on some very simple ideas. Someone waking up from a coma and realising they have the power to see the future is certainly a concept that is not too difficult to execute, and with the added caveat of this skill essentially causing him to decline and become weaker, it gives the story some necessary stakes to prevent it from becoming repetitive. Cronenberg makes his first clear move away from the kind of body horror that would go on to define his career (the fact that this was released only months after Videodrome, the film most consider to be one of the director’s greatest and most perverse achievements, is absolutely staggering), and instead focuses on something more psychological, which would also factor into the work he would do later, but just not quite in as controlled a form as we saw here. They are such wildly different creative minds when it comes to instilling terror in their audiences, its astonishing that King and Cronenberg proved to be so compatible, and The Dead Zone proves to be quite an intriguing experiment that helped set the foundation for a directorial career that already had a strong following, but provided all the evidence we needed to show that Cronenberg could mount a slightly bigger, Hollywood-backed production without losing that streak of ingenuity and subversion that had previously been so integral to establishing him as such a promising voice in the genre.

As a whole, Hollywood has never quite known what to do with Christopher Walken, or at least into which category they could place him. His talents are as bespoke as his speaking voice, and as a result he has never quite been compatible with the idea of what makes a Hollywood star – but yet, he’s one of the most instantly recognizable actors of his generation, and a genuine talent that has done some astonishing work and become an icon in his own right. By the time the early 1980s had come along, he had quite a career already – he had been the breakout star of The Deer Hunter, and proved his versatility in films like Pennies from Heaven and Next Stop, Greenwich Village, stealing the show in both. He was also one of the few people to walk away from the notorious disaster Heaven’s Gate entirely unscathed. The Dead Zone was one of his first major leading roles, and it is absolutely one of his greatest performances. Playing the mild-mannered protagonist who finds himself burdened with the gift of being able to see the past, present and future with just a touch, he has to navigate these challenges, ultimately realising that he needs to do what is right, rather than what is easy, a decision that becomes increasingly difficult as time progresses. Walken is incredible – he is able to play the character as an everyman in the first part, but convince us of his growing mental and physical instability as the story progresses, and it’s difficult to imagine anyone else being able to play the part with such conviction and off-kilter charm. Martin Sheen is terrific as the maniacal villain, and Brooke Adams is given quite a strong showcase as the main love interest. However, everything about The Dead Zone circles back to Walken, who delivers a tremendous and complex performance that is far better than it ought to have been.

However, the reality of this film is that audiences are not as receptive to it as they were works like Carrie and The Shining, which is primarily because it isn’t fashioned as a horror, and while it was not the first psychological thriller based on one of King’s novels, it was one that only marginally utilized the genuinely terrifying imagery, and instead focused on the deeply psychological aspects of the narrative, rather than just being a cavalcade of horror. It also is not layered with allegory and deeper meaning, at least not in the sense where we are constantly searching for some meaning behind this film. There is commentary on political corruption, but it’s not at all subtle and occupies the final act of the film, with the story making sure to emphasise this point, almost as if it felt like the audience needed to know exactly what was being conveyed. Cronenberg is aware of these qualities, and does what was necessary to deviate from them as far as possible, particularly in how he takes the raw material and finds unique ways, whether in terms of how the narrative transpires (done in collaboration with screenwriter Jeffrey Boam, one of the more reliable journeyman scribes working at the time), or the visual details that accompany the story. There are some fantastic shots in this film that only someone with as distinct a viewpoint as Cronenberg could have achieved. The film has its flaws – the ending (which is faithful to the novel) is abrupt and unsatisfying, and the journey to get there is slightly meandering, with slightly too much detail put in places where it isn’t all that necessary. Yet, they’re all ultimately remedied by Cronenberg’s very strong sense of direction that places the viewer in something of a trance, which is a common quality of many of his films, and perhaps the ideal way to approach any of his work.

As far as King adaptations go, The Dead Zone is certainly one of the better ones, trailing just behind The Shining and Carrie in representing just how beautifully complex these novels can be when they are brought to life on screen by a strong cast and crew. Much like Stanley Kubrick and Brian de Palma, this film benefits from having an auteur at the helm, dedicated to capturing every intricate nuance in vivid, complex detail. It may be slightly conventional in comparison to some of his later work, but it’s undeniable that what Cronenberg is doing here is still a considerable step forward for him, at least in terms of working on a bigger scale. We can see many of the traits that would come to be definitive of his career embedded deep within this film, particularly in the quieter moments in between the terror and suspense. Driven by a very foreboding atmosphere that is harsh and quite unsettling, the film is a fascinating examination of the fickle boundary between life and death, which the director explores with a combination of horrifying imagery, tense tonal shifts and a sense of danger and despair that adds to the overall experience in fascinating ways. The Dead Zone, while still quite a simple film, is a layered psychological thriller that looks at a complex character and makes some profound statements in the process. It may not be a peak for Cronenberg, but it was a vital step forward for him, and there are many elements embedded in this film that are simultaneously appealing and repulsive, which is exactly what we expect from the director.