Famed screenwriter Dan O’Brannon returned to the director’s chair, seven years after giving the world The Return of the Living Dead, a comedic rendition of George Romero’s nihilistic trilogy. Irrefutably, The Resurrected, a.k.a. Scatterbrain, is the most faithful adaptation of famed American gothic writer H. P. Lovecraft to date. Yet, the question now stands, does the author’s work possess the ability to capture its audience’s attention without the aide of black humor like so many of its successful predecessors? The answer is solely dependent upon what mindset the viewer approaches the work.
Chemical engineer Charles Dexter Ward (Chris Sarandon), has escaped his confinement in a mental asylum, leaving behind a perplexing murder scene. Ward’s wife, Claire (Jane Sibbett), enlists John March (John Terry), a hard-boiled private detective, to find her estranged husband of a little over a year. Shortly into the case, John and his assistant, Lonnie Peck (Robert Romanus), discover the labyrinthine nature of the case: Ward’s history extends five generations and includes pagan rituals, new age science, and folklore. What the detectives and Claire ultimately find out about Charles is beyond human imagination.
Considering the history of the film–it is little known outside the readers of Lovecraft–I will explore O’Branon’s film with this factoid in mind.
Many have stated that O’Bannon’s depiction of Lovecraft’s tale is the most faithful adaptation of the author to the screen to date and I concur. Many ponder, considering The Resurrected remains relatively anonymous while the author is highly popular, why the writer’s works aren’t as successful without the addendum of black humor, i.e. Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator, a trait which is virtually absent from the writer’s canon. My reply–being fairly well versed in Lovecraft’s writings–is that he, like a handful of other authors, knew which medium would best convey his vision and selected thusly. Not to insinuate an analogy in skill, but this is the impetus for Fyodor Dostoevsky or James Joyce not having justice done to their writings after a multitude of attempts have been made to translate them from page to screen. The problem herein lies in that the manner in which Lovecraft’s lexicon and structure function do not possess a cinematic equivalent. Nonetheless, O’Brannon tried and, considering his artistic handicap, did as much as can be expected in this regard.
However, before delving into the film proper, there are a few quibbles that need to be voiced beforehand. First of all, screenwriter Brent Friedman sets the piece in present day. I will consent, considering the frequency of this artistic liberty with most every Lovecraft adaptation to date, that he more than likely did so due to production company pressure in an attempt to garner more than Lovecraft aficionados and to appease a modern horror audience. Secondly, the writer is known for either writing vastly daunting, masterful tales of grand scope, intellect, and imagination or penning insipid, daft ditties which are poorly structured and executed. The Case of Charles Dexter Ward is highly reminiscent of Edgar Allan Poe’s William Wilson with the added twist of positing a mad scientist as its antagonist (a Lovecraft favorite, the author even stating, “But Poe was my God of Fiction”). In this regard, O’Brannon can be criticized for having selected a less-than-admirable piece from a vast cannon of writings which offer more potent visions of terror. Lastly, the film is overlong and, when it was sheared, editor Russell Livingstone spliced in all the wrong places. For instance, at one point we see Claire being hefted away by John without the m. o. for why she needed a lift. So on and so forth.
To his credit, O’Brannon retains the Lovecraftian signature first-person POV. (Unfortunately, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward was written in third person.) O’Brannon presents his first-person perspective via a voiceover which, as the film ambles forward, tends to wear thin to the point of irritation. If the impetus for the making of the film was to stay true to the writer’s work as much as possible, there is also the question of why the main character’s name was changed as well as the film’s incorporation of flashbacks when the story is told chronologically (outside the framed narrative, which O’Brannon honors). Once again, I offer the thesis that this might be a sign that Lovecraft isn’t cinematically compatible. A facet of the writer’s style which the director successfully translates is unbearable dread. Unlike his directorial peers, O’Brannon is patient as he spends a large portion of the narrative mounting the suspense as he guides his audience through a noirish investigation in tone, atmosphere, and pacing (all three echoing Terence Young’s Wait Until Dark). His efforts are returned two-fold when the tale abruptly, but justifiably, shifts from mystery to horror as the characters descend into ancient catacombs and enter Ward’s hidden laboratory before discovering its contents.
I commend Dan O’Brannon for having the courage and fortitude to attempt to present Lovecraft in his essence and not succumbing to the potential almighty dollar by parodying the work. Is the work successful? As successful as a highly untranslatable author can be given the shift from the written page, which demands the reader to create his or her own visions of terror, to the absolute image of the big screen. Would O’Brannon have been better off following Stuart Gordon’s lead in vivisecting the plot and buffering the skeletal storyline with the director’s vision as opposed to the author’s? That is up to the viewer to decide. However, from my humble vantage point, the work was enjoyable as an exercise in a stricter rendition of Lovecraft on film (I know I’m skirting the big question). Fine, the question now stands of whether or not The Resurrected functions outside its peers. Having read Lovecraft, perhaps I’m not the epitome of a tabula rasa perspective but, that said, I will admit the work retained my interest and I looked forward to the cleverly crafted resolution.
Trivia tidbit. Dan O’Brannon wasn’t the first to bring The Case of Charles Dexter Ward to the screen. Roger Corman beat him to the punch in 1963 with The Haunted Palace, starring Vincent Price.
-Egregious Gurnow
- Interview with J.R. Bookwalter - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Andrew J. Rausch - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Rick Popko and Dan West - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Director Stevan Mena (Malevolence) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Screenwriter Jeffery Reddick (Day of the Dead 2007) - January 22, 2015
- Teleconference interview with Mick Garris (Masters of Horror) - January 22, 2015
- A Day at the Morgue with Corri English (Unrest) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Writer/Director Nacho Cerda (The Abandoned, Aftermath) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actress Thora Birch (Dark Corners, The Hole, American Beauty) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actor Jason Behr, Plus Skinwalkers Press Coverage - January 22, 2015
