Connect with us

Editorials

The Puny Human Doors of Perception: Revisiting The Mist‘s Horrific Twist Ending, And The Clashing Philosophies Between Source and Adaptation

Published

on

Major spoilers ahead for The Mist. It’s a masterpiece, so if you haven’t seen it, watch it, then come back.

If you were to ask horror fans to call on a twist ending more harrowing than the ending of Frank Darabont’s The Mist, I would bet hand over fist that they would be hard-pressed to find one.

Watching it alone at night, I remember it clear as day. The car running on empty finally peters out. It’s just the slate grey fog of death outside, and all too clearly on the inside our survivors. As the horrors whisper outside, the car’s occupants all carefully exchange looks, practically looking back at you as you watch, forcing you to become part of this horrible exit strategy. David shows the revolver, then counts out the bullets. Four. It’s not a scene of many words, but the ones Amanda says are louder than any screams could be.

“But there’s five of us.”

The last shot we get is of Billy looking up at his father. Eyes wide, before—

Advertisement

A low-to-the-ground exterior shot of the car. Staggered muzzle flares and muffled gunshot noises. And the silence after is only broken by staggered wails of pain from the surviving David. Back inside, he tries to finish himself off, spinning the empty chamber with the quiet clicks of the gun aimed at his own. When I first saw this scene, I almost got nauseous seeing that shot. Which is why it only gets worse; with no other way to die, he exits the car and calls for the mist’s denizens to take him…only to be greeted by the military, driving caravans of heavily armed soldiers and rescued civilians.

After the second wave of jaw-dropping shock washed over me, I felt David’s collapse to his knees in my legs, and as the credits rolled, I was left mulling over the experience in abject horror for the next few days. And so began a long-running entanglement with the story. The Mist is my favorite Stephen King adaptation of all time, and it’s in no small part for how its final scene is so brilliantly orchestrated by both the cast, Rohn Schmidt, and director Frank Darabont. And the way my love of The Mist originally spurred me to learn more about Stephen King’s expanded universe and got me into The Dark Tower series, a rewatch of the film spurred me into finally reading the novella.

So, I came to discover that the ending of The Mist is drastically different from its source material.

Those who have read the novella know it ends in a way that outright rejects the film’s conclusion. As David writes his final journal entries in a motel with his son, and the other survivors who escaped, things look just as bleak. Navigation in the mist means gambling on infrastructure still being intact, with a close call on a possibly collapsing bridge having already been evaded. The supplies are running low, and with their car out of gas, it means venturing out to refuel. He notes:

“But you mustn’t expect some neat conclusion. There is no And they escaped from the mist into the good sunshine of a new day; or When we awoke the National Guard had finally arrived; […] It is, I suppose, what my father always frowningly called “an Alfred Hitchcock ending,” by which he meant a conclusion in ambiguity that allowed the reader or viewer to make up his own mind about how things ended.”

Advertisement

Technically both things happen in the film’s finale, to a much bleaker extent in the wake of what David has done to spare his son and friends. But book David ends up sitting by a crackling radio awaiting some sign of life as he’s all out of options. The only things he hears are two words, which he whispers into the ears of his dreaming son: ‘Hartford’, and ‘hope.’

Truly, for a film that is so accurate up until that point, with so many scenes lifted whole cloth and recreated perfectly from the text (the spider-silk scene still makes me shiver in both film and on the page), it begs the question: Why change the ending?

Well, there’s the obvious answer of it simply being the best choice on a technical level. Darabont has mentioned in previous interviews that the movies many alternate endings didn’t resonate on an emotional level (even King thinks it hits harder than his penning). And the fact that one of them involved a cut to black and a gunshot after Billy says “Daddy?”  makes me thankful the iron hand of studio interference didn’t force them to choose one. The Mist is one of those movies of a perfect length, no dragging, no rushing, and the delicate balancing act of editing the rest of the film sets you up on makes for the greatest gut punch when it all comes tumbling down in that final scene.

The movie is the most memorable version because its ending shows the primary horror of the mist is what happens when the fog is lifted, and you’re forced to confront the reality of the things. The question then is what happens once you get what you’re craving? Can you go back to life as usual having seen what you’ve seen? Can those “puny doors of human perception,” as David puts it, tolerate it having seen what they’ve seen?

In the book however, we never see that Mist lift. There’s the very Lovecraftian possibility that the time of man came and went without much ceremony from the powers that destroyed it. It might never come back. So, what do you have when it doesn’t pass, and the monsters aren’t killed? The only thing that’s left when Pandora’s box has been emptied: hope. And how much is hope worth?

Advertisement

So beyond the practical difference, I would posit a philosophical difference in the endings, or at the very least an inversion of the theme. Both iterations of The Mist are fundamentally about hope, but in two very different regards: hope is given up in the film, and the cosmic irony almost immediately punishes David for only needing to stay hopeful for a few more moments. In the other, David’s hopefulness, though uncertain, still stands up to the insurmountable odds ahead, possibly leading to doom.

There’s certainly room for the ending to mean the death of David and his crew. Depending on how you interpret the novella, David is shaded as having already gone mad. He emits loud, uncontrollable laughter in moments of crisis, such as the death of the bagboy, sometimes seeming to have already succumbed to the mist and its unreality.

This makes him a stronger parallel to Miss Carmody. One of Stephen King’s quintessential villains, Carmody’s madness is uncontained and outwardly hysterical, harassing and assailing whomever she sees as being due for judgment by the wrath of God. But as composed as David is, there are cracks in his composure that suggest the mist could equally pollute his mind; after all, nobody is immune. By the end of the book, is David just as deluded as Miss Carmody? Were their chances ever any better on their own? Does his misplaced hope let him walk off into the mist to risk it all?

The book’s ending is scary in its own right, simply because of the common ground the two versions share. Both share themes of hope, more specifically, the danger of hope and either losing it, or losing yourself to it. Which fate is more painful is still up for debate.

Advertisement

Luis Pomales-Diaz is a freelance writer and lover of fantasy, sci-fi, and of course, horror. When he isn't working on a new article or short story, he can usually be found watching schlocky movies and forgotten television shows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Editorials

Finding Gender Freedom in ‘The Curse of the Cat People’ (1944)

Published

on

“I’m going to make a deer hunter out of you,” my father told me right after I was born. This was by way of my mother, of course. I had just popped into the world, and already, I was slapped with gender stereotypes of what it means to be a “man.” My father would become woefully disappointed when he later learned I hate hunting. Instead, I played with Barbie dolls, choreographed dances to Britney Spears, and generally did everything a boy or man wasn’t supposed to do. Although I don’t mind fishing and love camping/hiking, the point still stands: I didn’t turn out the way my father (or society) wanted me to. That’s perhaps why I gravitate so much to 1942’s Cat People and its genre-swerving sequel, The Curse of the Cat People (1944).

Exploring Gender Roles in The Curse of the Cat People

Far more drama than horror, The Curse of the Cat People picks up a few short years after its predecessor. Where Cat People explored queerness, the follow-up dove deeper into gender roles and how one little girl learned to embrace herself despite her father’s demands that she be more like the other kids. Irena’s (Simone Simon) tragic death behind them, Oliver (Kent Smith) and Alice (Jane Randolph) move into a posh suburb of Tarrytown, New York, with their adoring daughter Amy (Ann Carter).

Amy is an outsider, ostracized by the other girls, and turns to animals and insects for companionship. Her peculiar behavior not only draws attention from the teacher but her father, who, as we’ve learned already, adheres to strict societal expectations. A young girl should be happy, skipping down the street–gleeful and popular–not detached and “strange.”

One afternoon, Amy wanders down the street and stumbles upon a looming three-story house. Inside are aging socialite Julia Farren (Julia Dean), whom the local kids claim is a witch, and her daughter Barbara (Elizabeth Russell). Julia is just so different, much like Amy. That’s why Amy accepts Julia’s gift of a handkerchief and a wishing ring, on which Amy wishes simply for a friend. Her wish comes true through the manifestation of Irena as a cloaked woman who appears in Amy’s backyard garden. No one else can see her, and Amy finally has the human connection she’s so desperately needed. Through their relationship, Amy comes to understand that self-acceptance is her gateway to personal freedom. She breaks those shackles that have long tied her to Oliver and society’s archaic gender roles.

Growing Up Different: My Own Gender Identity Journey

It took time for me to come to such a realization. I grew up in your typical country town where machismo and camo were rewarded, while femininity was frowned upon. My friends were predominantly girls, and our play-pretend frequently saw me taking on roles of female characters, including Kelly from Saved by the Bell and T-Boz from TLC. I no longer have shame in that. But I also played with trucks, cars, and Power Rangers. There’s a duality that’s always been integral to who I’ve been. Much like Amy, I didn’t fit what society expected of me. My father never had a sit-down with me about how I was acting–except one summer, he forced me to play baseball, where I was bullied by a kid named Chance. The godawful experience taught me who I wasn’t and that there were shades to my identity.

The two decades that followed proved to be tricky. In 2006, when I first came out as a gay man, we didn’t have terms like non-binary. I accepted what society told me about identity; I’ve always landed somewhere in between male and female. I’ve felt a strong sense that my slider scale, so to speak, pushed tightly on the side of womanhood. It wasn’t until 2015 that I began questioning my transness, after seeing the controversial film, The Danish Girl, starring Eddie Redmayne. The way he caressed fabric, an electricity rocketed through my body. “That’s me!” I said to myself. It wasn’t exactly accurate, but I felt a certain type of way.

I was living in New York City at the time, and I can recall every single detail about that night – the way the street smelled on the walk home, the crispness in the winter hair, and the suffocating inner tension that nearly snapped in half. My body, once broken, felt renewal wash over my bones and flesh. The blurriness of my self-portrait became crisper, more detailed, and less fuzzy. 

Advertisement

Finding My Truth: The Power of Queer Representation

But my journey was far from over. In 2017, I was doomscrolling on Twitter when I stumbled upon a piece actor/producer Natalie Morales had written for Amy Poehler’s Smart Girls, in which Morales came out as queer. “I don’t like labeling myself, or anyone else, but if it’s easier for you to understand me, what I’m saying is that I’m queer,” she wrote. “What queer means to me is just simply that I’m not straight. That’s all. It’s not scary, even though that word used to be really, really scary to me.”

Queerness comes in fractured neons. Each ray scatters a million particles, and all you can do is collect up the pieces that fit and move on. Much like Morales, “I thought I was sick. I know I thought something was really wrong with me,” she continued. “I was ashamed, and I thought I was dirty. I knew that the church said it was wrong and that God said it was wrong (even though I couldn’t exactly figure out why, if it wasn’t hurting anyone).”

I was practically in tears after reading such brutal, self-exposing honesty. It shattered me. Society’s skin-cutting chains rusted through and fell to the ground in that moment. Morales’ queer confession then sent me down a long, winding rabbit hole until I came across the term, genderqueer, or non-binary as it’s also called. There it is, I thought. That’s what I am. I’m both genders at once, existing in a once-non-existent space between the two that has now opened up like a gushing waterfall. All of it, my entire life, came crashing down upon my head, and everything I had ever felt made sense.

Lessons from Amy: Self-Love and Breaking Gender Norms

I suppose that’s the journey Amy took, too. In defying her father, who described her as having “too many fancies and too few friends” and how that wasn’t “normal,” worried that she’d turn out just like Irena, Amy forged a new path forward. With ghost Irena’s help, she learned that not only was she normal, but it was the new frontier. Self-love and acceptance are beautiful things. I’d like to think Amy lived the life Irena wasn’t able to, one step closer to completely decimating society’s backward belief system that’s killed more people than not.

Every time I watch The Curse of the Cat People, I’m always reminded that my identity journey is never really over. I’m just happier now than I was yesterday. Baby steps. Like Amy, I’ve stepped into the sunlight for the first time. My face grows warm by the soft, golden radiance, and I can finally discard everything society has ever had to say about gender. I no longer need those misguided, harmful words filling up my heart and mind. In their place, I’ve fit new puzzle pieces together – gratitude, hope, compassion, love, and freedom – and each day offers exciting possibilities. Dear Amy, I hope you’ve lived a life you had only dreamed of, and that you’re happy. We all deserve to be.

Continue Reading

Editorials

The Evolution of Female Cannibals in Horror Films and TV

Published

on

[This article contains spoilers]

Prior to the disestablishment of the Hays’ Code, filmmakers had to make depictions of cannibalism more palatable, diluting the depravity of the act with humor by concealing body parts in pies. Cannibal horror didn’t truly emerge as a subgenre until 1972’s Man From The Deep River drew controversy and intrigue alike. This film jumpstarted the trend of cannibal films centering on your so-called “civilized man” venturing into desolate, often foreign landscapes, only to be cannibalized by the natives. Modern cannibal media has pushed beyond this cliché narrative, depicting sophisticated cannibals that cook their food like fine dining or turn the horror of the act into something frighteningly sexy. But the kinds of cannibalism we see in film differs significantly depending on the cannibal’s sex.

Evolution of Cannibalism in Horror Media

From Grotesque to Sophisticated Cannibals

Cannibalism media used to be a genre divided into extremes. Your cannibal either had a grotesque, animalistic habit like Leatherface or a deviously delicious and sophisticated palate like Hannibal Lecter; however, as we’ve entered the 21st century, this binary has become more of a spectrum. Audiences don’t want to watch the same reveals of flesh furniture or dinner parties that serve human flesh to unknowing guests. They want cannibalism as metaphors, cannibalism as erotic fixation, and even cannibalism as a connection to the supernatural.

Male Cannibals: Power and Brutality

Be it Hannibal Lecter, Alfred Packer, or a member of the Sawyer family, the first cannibal you think of is likely a man. While most cannibal media has departed from stereotypical portrayals of cannibalism as indicative of some non-Christian barbarity, sterilized, almost surgical cannibalism has become more common but not the norm. Wes Cravens The Hills Have Eyes (1977) present cannibals as inbred savages, trapping and tearing apart whoever comes across their path, yet films like Antonia Bird’s Ravenous (1999) and Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs (1991) portray cannibals as calculated, intelligent, and capable of seizing power despite their brutal actions. The sheer number of cannibal films centering male cannibals has allowed more opportunity to test the boundaries of the genre, but that doesn’t mean we should discount the more recent wave of female-centered cannibal movies.

Rise of Female Cannibals in Modern Media

Female Cannibals in Yellowjackets

Female cannibalism is just now hitting the mainstream as Yellowjackets (2021-present) captivates its audience as it tells the story of what happened to a girls’ soccer team lost in the wilderness. However, while Yellowjackets lets its female protagonists be ravenous and brutal, female cannibals in film are often portrayed as sympathetic and less monstrous than their male counterparts.

Advertisement

Sympathetic Portrayals in The Hills Have Eyes

In Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes (1977), a family of desert-dwelling cannibals feed off stranded tourists with the male family members brutally attacking, assaulting, and defiling the bodies of their victims; however, Ruby (Janus Blythe), the young daughter of the clan, is characterized as kind and having an aversion to her family’s violent ways, even going as far as opposing her family’s attack and sacrificing herself to protect the tourists’ baby.  Female cannibals like Ruby are often portrayed as self-loathing and disgusted by their actions, unlike their unsympathetic male peers.

Cannibalism as Metaphor in 21st-Century Film

Raw: Cannibalism and Sexual Awakening

As we enter the 21st century, cannibalism in literature and film has evolved, often being a stand-in for sex as a character consumes the flesh of another to satisfy a deep, carnal appetite. Julia Ducournau’s Raw (2016) tells the story of a first-year veterinary student and long-time vegetarian Justine (Garance Marillier), who finds herself with an insatiable hunger for meat after a hazing incident gone wrong.

As she navigates the sexual and ritualistic traditions of the program, Justine often finds her new cravings for flesh, coinciding with sexual pleasure as she attempts to consume her sexual partners. The version of cannibalism created by Raw is sympathetic, humanizing Justine by creating parallels between an obscene act and one that is normalized and commonplace in our society.

Jennifer’s Body: Cannibalism as Revenge

Karyn Kusama’s Jennifer’s Body (2009) takes a supernatural approach, recounting the tragic story of Jennifer (Megan Fox), a teen girl who is sacrificed to a demonic entity only to be resurrected as a man-hungry succubus. When Jennifer rises from the dead, her acts of cannibalism invert the power dynamic imposed on her human body earlier in the film when a band drugs and sacrifices her body to gain a deal with a demonic entity.

Jennifer then seeks revenge on the male sex, consuming them in ways that are just as destructive as the way they imposed themselves upon her. Her cannibalism is an inversion of the violence she suffered as the band overpowered, bound, and sacrificed her to reach musical fame.

Exploring Cannibalism in Yellowjackets

Season 1: Power Dynamics and Survival

As Yellowjackets has completed its third season, the show has attempted to explore cannibalism in relation to queerness, psychology, and pack dynamics. In the show’s first season, we see the formation and shifting of power dynamics within the social structure of the girls’ soccer team, as captain Jackie (Ella Purnell) finds herself ousted from the group’s cabin by Shauna (Sophie Nélisse), resulting in her death. As the Yellowjackets begin to starve, cannibalism is thrust upon them as Jackie’s corpse becomes engulfed in flames, breaking the animal part of the teams’ brains and causing them to feast on their teammates’ flesh. After this shocking finale, the group finds themselves at a crossroads, having to choose their humanity or their survival, with most choosing the latter.

However, Assistant Coach Ben (Steven Krueger) refuses the ritual consumption of Jackie’s flesh, putting him at odds against Shauna and the other Yellowjackets. In this case, cannibalism becomes a rite of passage, drawing a line between those who are willing to survive by any means necessary and those who would rather die than commit such an act.

Advertisement

Seasons 2 and 3: Guilt and Pack Dynamics

Yellowjackets’ second and third seasons lean further into the sort of Lord of the Flies-esque nature of the show’s premise, exploring the relationship each of the adult characters and their teen equivalents have to the cannibalistic events of the first season. Shauna internalizes and hardens around the guilt surrounding Jackie’s death, displaying a clear crack in her composure as she finds herself tormented by illusions of Jackie.

In some ways, the consumption of Jackie serves as a means of keeping her at the forefront of Shauna’s attention, her guilt corrupting and turning her into a more cruel, violent version of herself to align with how she is portrayed in the show’s adult timeline. In some ways, this psychological effect of cannibalism mirrors that seen by more sophisticated cannibals such as Hannibal Lecter in the TV series Hannibal.

While Shauna isolates, the group finds themselves battling with the nature of their survival, with the other girls conspiring to create a method for fairly determining who they’ll have to cannibalize next. The group settles on a game of cards, where one unlikely drawer will be hunted for sport by the group, either ending up the groups’ next meal or successfully escaping into the freezing wilderness.

This kind of organized game displays a unique example in the context of female cannibalism, marrying the more cerebral decision-making seen in other female cannibals with the pack dynamics seen in movies like Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

Queerness and Cannibalism in Season 3

The show’s third season dives deeper into the inherent queerness of cannibalism in the Yellowjackets universe, as Taissa (Tawny Cypress), an ousted politician who struggles to hold her family together as the events of the wilderness impact her behavior, re-explores her relationship with fellow lover and Yellowjacket Van (Lauren Ambrose).

As Van struggles with a cancer battle, Taissa finds her mind drawn back to the wilderness, wondering if a sacrifice of blood is what is needed to prevent the nebulous entity known as the Wilderness from claiming Van’s life; however, while this theory proves at least somewhat correct, Van dies by another Yellowjackets’ hand, but the grief-stricken Taissa performs one last sickening act, consuming one of Van’s raw organs in almost a means to remain ever close with her now lost love. 

Redefining Female Cannibals in Horror

Justified Violence and Human Complexity

Female cannibals in film are often justified in their violence, slicked in gore, but excused of the filth of the act. They don’t often get to keep heads on plates in their freezers or wear a necklace of their victims’ ears. The brutality of their acts can’t be reduced to shock value, because these films acknowledge that there is a human component to their violence. They aren’t animals reduced to eating human flesh for the sake of it. They make the decision to do so.

Advertisement

While there aren’t many female cannibals that lean into the filth of the act, maybe it is better that way. This archetype of a disgusting, subhuman cannibal who savors the act and displays heads on sticks is one based in historical assumptions of what it meant to be a cannibal. There is a racial component to attributing cannibalism to a foreign savagery, contradictory to the fact that many classic cannibal movies like The Hills Have Eyes are based on American or European accounts of cannibalism. Reducing cannibals to caricatures turns them trope-y and repetitive.

Modern cannibal stories, especially those centering on female characters, push the boundaries of the genre. Cannibalism can also be a trauma response, a devastating outcome to an unfortunate circumstance, or something that empowers and flips power structures. While the cannibal subgenre may be looked down upon due to its history, modern filmmakers continue proving that cannibalism isn’t as simple as eating human flesh. 

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement