It’s not an easy thing adapting a short story into a workable screenplay. Some writers find themselves at a loss trying to transmogrify 20-30 pages into a two hour movie; others have no problem finding the material necessary to fill in the blanks and come out with a wonderfully meaningful story. Unfortunately it seems that Frank Darabont was more the former when it came to adapting Stephen King’s short story The Mist for the big screen. With bold confidence he managed to take a delightfully scary story and turn it into a disturbing piece of propaganda.

I knew this film was going to be a stinker from the moment I first saw the trailer.

There has been a recent trend in the last couple of years of presenting stories that explore the thematic elements of fear and allowing such an emotion to dictate our actions (usually, in a negative and destructive manner). I understand the need to present an allegory for our times, but the repetitive nature of exploring the same themes movie after movie and essentially providing us with the same argument grows old over time.

It’s not to say that I don’t agree with the ideas being presented; just that I’ve grown tired of them.

So it was that I came to this film with a bit more trepidation than usual.

Where I’m Coming From

A couple more things you should know when it comes to reading this analysis: I consider Frank Darabont’s first major film, The Shawshank Redemption, to be the greatest movie of all time. I absolutely love the film and have no problem watching it over and over and over again¹. I think it’s an inspired interpretation of King’s original novella as there isn’t one single frame I’d change. So I often come to Darabont’s films expecting quite a bit, hoping they’ll be every bit as lovely as the first.

Unfortunately, that has yet to happen.

This was a particular bummer for me on this film because I used to love listening to the 3D audiobook version of The Mist way back when I was a little kid. The idea that you could put on headphones and be transported into a Stephen King story was exhilarating for this young story fanatic. Unfortunately the 3D effect was so good that I never got farther than 8 minutes into the story. I never found out what was really in The Mist!

It is also worth mentioning that I’m a father of four and therefore have a very difficult time accepting the ending as presented. While I can understand and appreciate not wanting to watch your own child suffer in such a situation, I found it an incredible emotional leap for David Drayton to shoot his only son, ESPECIALLY when no specific threat was bearing down on them at that exact moment. Maybe, just maybe I would have bought it if there were other-world monsters clawing at the door of his jeep, but that’s a big maybe.

However regardless of my personal baggage as a father, as an audience member and as a lover of great stories, I don’t feel that Drayton’s emotional growth was such that he would’ve made such a drastic change in the way he sees things. This is a major problem inherent within the structure of the screenplay and the focus of the remainder of this article.

The Lack of an Emotional Argument

Put simply, The Mist lacks that external point-of-view necessary for David’s character to change his way of seeing things. In the Dramatica theory of story, this external point-of-view is embodied within the Impact Character. The Impact Character is the one person in a story who presents the Main Character with the strongest reason to change. They often have such a unique, yet in some ways, similar way of seeing things that the Main Character can’t help but be influenced by them.

In The Mist, this role is fulfilled by the cranky and litigious Brent Norton (Andre Braugher). Norton represents the voice of reason in the story and is a welcome relief to much of the overreaction within the supermarket. Norton’s primary purpose in the story is to present David Drayton a reason to confront his own personal problems and bring him to that climactic moment where he must decide to continue doing things the way he always has, or change and adopt Norton’s way of seeing things.

Regretfully, and I have no idea why, his character disappears extremely early on in the second act, never to return. Why in the world would you introduce this character, spend all this time setting up the relationship between him and the Main Character (an essential element of a rounded meaningful story), fulfill his role with a truly great actor, and then have him disappear for the last 3/4 of the film?! It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and serves more to harm the central argument of the story than to help it.

No Reason for Drayton to Do What He Did

Without the constant pressure from Norton, there is no emotional reason for Drayton to grow and therefore no believable reason for him to shoot his only son. A successful screenplay would’ve kept Norton close at hand to influence Drayton’s emotional journey. There would’ve been a constant back and forth between them as each argued his point within the greater context of a small town under attack from monsters. As the situation changed, so would’ve Drayton’s character as he grew closer to Norton’s way of seeing things. In much the same way that Andy Dufresne influenced Red to change in Shawshank, Norton’s rational viewpoint would’ve been there to influence Drayton.

Of course, with such an influence, he would’ve come to the conclusion that the idea of shooting his son was an irrational one based on unconfirmed fears, but we know that that is not how the movie ended. With this is mind, the ending itself seems confused and illogical as the structure of the screenplay was not headed towards this conclusion.

It will always be a complete mystery to me as to why Norton disappeared so early, and why, at the very least, he wasn’t brought back at the end. Which brings us to…

A Confused and Pointless Ending

What was The Mist really saying with that shocker ending? If you take as given that a filmmaker or storyteller is trying to present an audience with meaning then there must be some point to how the film ended.

It should easily be accepted as a given that the crazy religious fanatic Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) was the Villain of the piece. Her amped up, beyond stereotypical characterization was presented as a significantly negative influence on the characters around her. The simple townsfolk, driven by her fundamentalist rantings, became so consumed with bloodlust that they repeatedly stabbed an innocent soldier and threw him out into the parking lot; a ritual sacrifice for the relentless monsters in the mist.

Obviously, her way of seeing things was not seen as a good thing by the filmmakers.

So it’s strange that her very unlikable point-of-view is somehow redeemed by the ending. Why? Because for the simple fact that the monsters were proven to be real.

It Was All A Dream

My one hope for this piece was that monsters in the mist were really just manifestations of the character’s own irrational fears; that in the end we would come to find that the hysteria caused by the unknown was more deadlier than the unknown itself.

It seemed perfectly set up for it. In fact, as the mist cleared and the tanks and military vehicles drove past I felt for certain that we were about to learn that the whole tragic situation was the result of some new military weapon based on fear.² I even smiled triumphantly to myself as I saw the speakers on top of the tanks - Of course! That’s where those monster noises were coming from. It was the big bad military all the time!

But then I saw real dead monsters; spiders, flipped onto their backs, roasting under the fire from what seemed to be alien disposal teams.

Blech.

Certain that Darabont had misinterpreted Stephen King, I rushed to the bookstore quickly after the final credits rolled by((The lack of a soundtrack during the end credits gave one last final moment of hope that there would be some great stinger at the end of the credits. Surely Darabont would redeem himself by flipping the story on us one last time…but alas, there was nothing. Only the sound effects of helicopters and jeeps rolling by.)) and bought Skeleton Crew, the book containing the original short story of The Mist.

Seems King himself would’ve hated my idea as he explains near the end of his novella:

That is what happened. Or nearly all — there is one final thing I’ll get to in a moment. 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; or even that great old standby: It was all a dream.

OK. So I’m a hack, what can I say?! I still feel the dream explanation would’ve worked better with the other thematic issues that were in place (which I’ll explain shortly), but it’s clear that the original story was working for something more nebulous:

It is, I supposed, 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. My father had nothing but contempt for such stories, saying they were “cheap shots.”

The characters drive off into the mist and the story ends with a nod towards that undying human element: hope.

But The Mist as presented to us in film form does not provide us with this Hitchcock-ian ending. The National Guard does arrive, Drayton is left with blood on his hands, and we as an audience are left with the notion that the filmmaker was trying to say something by all of this….

..but what exactly?

The Disgust Arising From an Unclear Message

When we find that these monsters from another dimension are real, we come to realize that Drayton was somewhat justified in killing his son. Sure he might have jumped the gun a bit, but he didn’t know how close the monsters were or if he would have any other chance to save his son from such an awful fate. This is what makes his climactic decision so disturbing; on some subconscious level we must agree with his decision - it’s the meaning behind the story presented to us. None of us would want to admit it, but if those monsters were bearing down on us and our only fate was to be used as hosts for spider eggs, then yeah, you can see where he could get the idea to kill his son and the other three passengers in the jeep.

Darabont adds injury to this story insult by having the “cavalry” arrive moments after Drayton’s dastardly deed (and not having them be responsible, see above). By doing this in concordance with the reality of the trans-dimensional aliens, the film presents the argument that “your irrational fears are worthy to have (they’re not irrational after all - the monsters are real), but if you could just employ a little patience, everything will work out fine (the government/army will save you).”

Really? We’re supposed to wait it out in hopes that someone or some entity will come and save us? Wasn’t there another character who was proposing this way of thinking?

Of course there was — the crazy religious woman. By ending the argument the way they did in the film, the filmmakers managed to give credence to the crazy religious lady’s argument — something I don’t believe they intended to do.

Was her point of view not to sit tight in the grocery store and wait for someone to save them? She added to it by praying to God for help, but essentially her argument was the same: wait for help and someone will save you. If this wasn’t the central argument of the story as presented to us, I’m not sure what is. All the problems the characters experienced were as a result of trying to leave, of trying to escape and do something about it. Sitting tight was proven to be the right choice.

I think that is what makes Drayton’s act so reprehensible. The fact that the monsters were real gives him slight justification in murdering his son, and the arrival of the army to save the day gives power to the message of hold out, let God save you.

But this seems discordant with the rest of the piece. It should come as no surprise that there is an obvious anti-religious argument that permeates the whole film. Why would you then want to nullify all that work that went into proving that point-of-view in the first place? Why prove her right? Sure, she went about it a bit enthusiastically, but essentially her way of going about things was shown to be most advantageous. The more rational variant of that way of thinking would have been provided by Norton, but again, he was nowhere to be found.

And speaking of all that work that went into proving how awful religious-based thinking is, could there have been a way to demonstrate that perspective with a bit more subtly?

Arguing an Issue Effectively and Clearly

Marcia Gay Harden’s scary performance drives the point home: religious fundamentalist thinking is bad. Whether or not that particular viewpoint is correct is NOT the point of this analysis, but if you’re going to prove to an audience that that is true you need to balance it out by showing the positive effects of religion as well.

This was a problem as well with the commentary that was being made in the scene where the young box boy was violently dragged out into the mist. This scene of the old guys manipulating this teenager to go out and do their dirty work was so obviously an allusion towards sending our own young men to fight in foreign wars that is was uncomfortably painful. There were so many references, both in what was said and what was shown³, that it’s hard not to say that statements were being made about the events of the last decade.

But in this scene in particular, the dialogue the old men were using was so stinted and so one-sided that it came off as silly. As with the anti-religious argument, its OK to want to make this argument but you need to balance it out by providing both sides of the issue. When you only show one side of the argument and leave other parts out, you are essentially engaging in propaganda. Audiences will have a hard time buying it.

It’s easier to convince someone if you show both sides of an issue

By showing both the positive and negative aspects of an issue you build up in the audience a sum total of where the author stands. You show good, then you show some bad, and then maybe some more bad, and then maybe another touch of good, and then end with a big heaping pile of bad. In this way the audience themselves are responsible for the final step in appreciating the meaning of a story by adding all the negatives and positives together and arriving at a conclusion. You have then effectively communicated your message without beating them over the head. It’s far more easier to convince someone of your argument when you present them both sides of the issue.

But The Mist does not do this. Worse still, in the drive to create some shocking ending to draw audiences into the theater they end up muddling their own message.

What Exactly Were You Trying to Say?

And that was why the And it all ended up being a dream ending would have been better for all the parties involved.

If you’re trying to prove that irrational fears inspire disastrous results then their fears of being killed by monsters, and especially Drayton’s, HAD to have been not based in actuality. The mist should have lifted and it should have been revealed as some psycho-tropic fear based weapon the military was evaluating and testing on the residents of that town. Braugher’s Norton should have been the one emerging from the mist to look upon the pathetic Drayton and let him know in no uncertain terms See, you had nothing to fear…these “monsters” were all in you head.

Now of course the deaths themselves would’ve had to have been more cleverly devised to work with this reality, but if that was what the filmmakers were trying to say, then why not say it with conviction and clarity?

In the end you would have had a group of unwitting townspeople, driven by a hysterical religious fervor to kill their own, find out that they had nothing to fear but themselves.

And I believe this was what Darabont was working towards. It’s obviously an attempt at an allegory for our times and the dangers involved in such fundamentalist thinking, but there were so many missteps in the structure and thematic exploration of this story that the audience is left feeling empty and cheated. It’s why they never went back to see it again and why they didn’t tell their friends and family to go see it.⁴

Clarity would’ve saved the film from its illogical and meaningless ending and consequently would’ve saved its poor performance at the box office.

In Conclusion

I heard someone mention recently that if a movie is worth thinking about the next day then it must have been a good movie. I would say that only applies if you write for a story analysis website! I spent an extra day or two going over the structure of this film (and even more writing up this analysis!), but found little redeeming about it. The movie gave me great ideas on what NOT to do in a story, but I certainly would never qualify it as a great movie.

Footnotes for this article

1. Thank you, TBS!↩
2. Sorry, I was a huge X-Files fan!!↩
3. The scene outside in the parking lot, with the mist bearing down on the townspeople almost seemed like it was taken directly out of 9/11 footage of the towers falling.↩
4. Worldwide, as of Dec. 24, 2007, The Mist has made a paltry $28 million.↩

Share This

Somewhat related to this article

• facelift→

• even the fluffy get a chance→

• The Best of StoryFanatic in 2007→

• User Group Analysis for Next Week→

• Shakespeare used Dramatica→