Editorials
‘Misery’ at 30: The Destructive Co-Dependency Between an Author and His Number One Fan
Misery ranks high among the upper echelon of Stephen King adaptations. It holds a firm spot among the top-grossing King films, captured the hearts of critics and audiences alike, and boasts a powerhouse, Oscar-winning performance by Kathy Bates as psychotic nurse Annie Wilkes. Wilkes’ iconic and chilling portrayal marked Bates’ breakout role, a virtual unknown before getting recommended to play the part by screenwriter William Goldman (Magic). Released in theaters on November 30, 1990, Misery managed to hold a respectable place at the box office, taking second place to holiday season juggernaut Home Alone. Thirty years later, Misery remains a top tier King adaptation and has been credited as a prescient dissection of modern toxic fans. However, its journey from book to screen proves a far more layered and timeless relationship with fandom.
The idea behind the novel came to King in a dream on a flight to England. It was intended to be a short story or novella, but its characters became too big to be contained, and a full-blown novel ensued. Like many King stories, Misery was a personal one. The author’s attempt to branch out of horror with the high fantasy novel The Eyes of the Dragon was met with contempt and backlash from fans. He was deep in the throes of alcohol and cocaine addiction and no stranger to bizarre fan behavior at this stage in his career. Then, while writing Misery with the intent to release it under the pen name Richard Bachman, a book store clerk noticed similarities between Bachman’s work and King’s, did some sleuthing, and eventually exposed King’s shadow writer identity.

The book’s title is a double entendre; Misery refers to the heroine of protagonist Paul Sheldon’s most successful book series and his state of being throughout the story. More acutely, it’s King’s state of being during its writing. At the beginning of the book, in a drug-induced fog, Paul wakes to the unnerving sight of Annie Wilkes. She’s rescued him from a car wreck caused by Paul’s drunken state of mind. Still, instead of getting him proper help, she holds him captive and proceeds to inflict psychological, emotional, and physical torture throughout the book’s pages. There’s no pretense of Annie’s psychosis here, and she acts as both the drug that feeds his addiction and the tumultuous relationship between editor and writer. On a broader scale, Annie – Paul’s number one fan- acts as a stand-in for toxic fans that demand far too much from their idols. As such, Paul may hate Annie, but he needs her to survive, both literally and figuratively.
Because Misery hit very close to home for King and that other adaptations of his work failed miserably, he became too conservative when granting rights. Misery wasn’t for sale, not until Rob Reiner put in a request. Having been pleased by Reiner’s Stand by Me, based on another profoundly personal story, King granted Castle Rock Entertainment rights on the sole condition that Reiner produce or direct.
Reiner tapped Goldman to pen the screenplay and initially intended to hand the directorial reigns over to George Roy Hill and Barry Levinson. When they backed out, Reiner decided to direct it himself and set about studying every Alfred Hitchcock and thriller movie he could get his hands on to develop the visual language.
Bringing King’s novel to life on the big screen meant changes to the story. The film removes Annie’s duality as symbolism, dropping the drug addiction component entirely to focus on the relationship between a flawed author and his intensely toxic fans. In the novel, Annie intentionally gets Paul addicted to fictional painkiller Novril, ensuring that he’s dependent upon her. In the film, Paul (James Caan) tucks his doses of Novril in his mattress to stockpile for an escape attempt.
The adaptation speeds up the ticking clock to layer in immense suspense by introducing local sheriff Buster (Richard Farnsworth) almost straightaway when Paul’s agent (Lauren Bacall) realizes he’s missing very soon after his crash. Conversely, this version of Annie isn’t nearly as vicious up front; the longer it takes for Paul to be found, the more Annie’s pleasant veneer cracks to expose her deranged, murderous side. That slow-coiling escalation, combined with Reiner’s employment of wide angles and Dutch tilts, demonstrated that the director’s in-depth study of thrillers paid dividends in mounting tension.

Played to perfection, Bates imbues Annie with far more sympathy than ever afforded the character in the novel. Her plucky simpleton and eager-to-please persona masking terrible darkness glimpsed in her violent rage every time Paul steps on a hidden landmine of her short temper. To offset her sympathetic nature, the film makes the scrapbook reveal of her serial killing ways far more nefarious- instead of giving an overview of her lifelong serial killing ways, the movie cuts right to the chase of her maternity ward baby-killing spree for brevity’s sake. It’s the lowest of lows when it comes to taboo breaking monstrosities, making it an easy choice for Reiner to convey Annie’s darkness all within the span of a single newspaper clipping.
In perhaps the most glaring departure from the novel, Reiner infuses hope. Instead of losing a limb via ax, Reiner switched it out for the infamous hobbling scene by a sledgehammer. He wanted his protagonist to make it out whole and undefeated. That’s also why Paul manages to successfully publish his first novel outside of his Misery series in the end, instead of publishing Misery Returns once he’s finally free from Annie’s clutches- the novel’s coda for Paul. The movie’s author succeeds in breaking free from fandom’s-imposed limitations, where the novel’s author finds renewed interest in his famous book series after finding more comfortable footing- pun intended- with his relationship toward the fans that fuel his career.
Whereas the central, antagonistic relationship between Paul and Annie in King’s source material offers layers of meaning, Reiner cuts straight to the chase with a thrilling examination of the co-dependency between fans and creators. The director hit it out of the park, and King has often cited Misery to be among his favorite film adaptations of his work.
In the social media age, where fan access to creators is easier than ever before, it’s easy to refer back to Misery as a predictive commentary on where fandom was headed. The truth is that fans had always taken ownership of their most beloved stories, well before King came along. The novel is as much about the author’s lack of control, thanks to addiction, as it is about his very personal experiences with fandom. Even when the book was published in 1987, he faced a backlash from fans over its vicious takedown of fandom’s darkest impulses. Never mind that Paul Sheldon was no prize himself, or that he needed Annie just as much.
Reiner honed in on that co-dependency and crafted a gripping, award-winning thriller around it. Where there’s an ugliness to both characters from the novel’s beginning, the film treats them with humanity and empathy. There’s a timelessness to the central theme. It’s bolstered by the thought and care put into every facet of the adaptation. From the writing to Reiner’s direction and smart changes to the casting choices that introduced the world to Kathy Bates, Misery firmly holds its own as one of the best King adaptations. As the mutual need between fans and storytellers only speeds up and grows louder in the digital age, Misery holds just as much relevancy now as it did thirty years ago. Perhaps even more.
Editorials
How Marina de Van Uses Body Horror and Pain to Explore Trauma in ‘In My Skin’ and ‘Dark Touch’
Pain is the language of New French Extremity.
Known for excruciating violence and gore, what often distinguishes these visceral films is the depiction of emotional turmoil manifested as the destruction of human flesh. Few filmmakers make this comparison so literally as Marina de Van.
The French writer/director burst onto the scene in 2002 with her shocking In My Skin, a tale of self-discovery via grisly self-harm. Eleven years later, she would write and direct Dark Touch, the harrowing story of a traumatized girl who expresses her pain through telekinetic force.
Though they differ wildly in tone and subject, both In My Skin and Dark Touch deal with the horror of unexpressed agony and its tendency to break the skin, ripping and shredding through anything in its path.
In My Skin (2002): Self-Harm as a Response to Emotional Repression

This intensely personal film stars de Van as Esther, a corporate analyst on the verge of having it all. Her adoring boyfriend Vincent (Laurent Lucas) is poised to move in, and she’s been targeted for promotion thanks to her diligent work. During a high-pressure networking party, Esther wanders outside and trips over an open construction site, ripping her pants on an abandoned tool. It’s only later that she notices blood on the floor and realizes that she’s torn the skin of her calf as well. Surprisingly, Esther has not felt a thing.
The surgeon who stitches up the wound marvels at this lack of sensitivity, wondering if the problem is not her shredded flesh — she’s still able to feel the lightest touch — but a misalignment in her head. This wound unlocks a disturbing pattern of dissociative self-mutilation as Esther begins cutting and gouging her skin to cope with moments of emotional stress.
Her first intentional act of self-harm follows a minor mistake in a document. After noticing that she’s misused a word, Esther fixes the error, then sneaks away to slice her thigh with a stray piece of metal. Though she has caught the mistake herself, Esther anticipates punishment for imperfection. The subsequent wound on her thigh is proof that she has paid for her transgression and can now return to solid ground, having completed the cycle of shameful correction.
As we peel back the layers of Esther’s life, we’re aghast at the toxicity of her environment. The inciting fall happens shortly after she politely declines a dinner invitation from her older colleague, an inappropriate sexual advance dressed up as an offer for mentorship. At another party, her male coworkers drag her towards the pool, threatening to pull off her pants when she screams that she’s not wearing a bathing suit.
Esther flees this disturbing scene, but not because of the men’s aggressiveness. She’s disturbed to find that her struggle to break free has reopened the still-healing wound on her leg, causing unsightly blood to seep through her pants. Like many women in the corporate world, she’s been conditioned to view her presence as an optional privilege and to create comfort for her male colleagues. Should she negatively react to their atrocious behavior, they may deem her “too emotional” and take away her hard-earned position.

But this toxic environment only exacerbates Esther’s need to self-harm. At a working dinner, a wealthy client pressures her to drink expensive wine, then continues to refill her glass. Increasingly unmoored, Esther finds her hand creeping onto her dinner plate. After repeatedly dragging it out of her food, she notices the appendage lying limp on the table, completely disconnected from her upper arm. This surrealist moment in an otherwise grounded film is a turning point in her violent journey. Esther sees how desensitized her body has become and the lengths she will go to perform unobtrusive compliance.
Desperate to regain control, Esther gouges her forearm with a steak knife stolen from the table, hiding the carnage under a napkin. Humiliated, she concludes the evening in a nearby hotel, where she indulges this dangerous new compulsion. For hours, Esther lovingly slices her arms and legs, gnawing on loose flesh and suckling blood from extensive wounds. She seems enamored with her ability to feel again without being perceived by anyone else.
Disturbed by her scars, Vincent offers shaky support while contributing to Esther’s unexpressed pain. During an intense discussion about buying their first home, Esther forgets her PIN at an ATM and bursts into tears on the street. Vincent offers an easy solution, only showing his frustration behind closed doors. He lashes out at his stunned girlfriend, conflating her emotional stress with his own inadequacy.
Clearly destabilized by her tears, Vincent baits Esther into soothing him, an echo of the cycle she performs at work. We see that even at home, her emotional needs come second to men who are unequipped to handle their own feelings. Esther has internalized the responsibility of managing Vincent alongside the message that any break in her calm demeanor will lead to more suffering later on.

In the wake of this argument and a rebuke from her boss, Esther suffers a panic attack while walking to work. In a daze, she buys another knife, then takes a hotel room for the day. Blood runs over Esther’s face as she again luxuriates in self-mutilation. De Van finds an uneasy juxtaposition between gruesome carnage and euphoric escape. Alone again with her exquisite pain, Esther seductively runs the knife over her face, digging into the skin around her eye. She chemically preserves a severed piece of flesh then lovingly tucks it inside her bra, a keepsake to honor this violent vacation.
The next day, Esther prepares for work, pulling office attire over her blood-stained skin. De Van does not follow her out the door, leaving us to imagine how she will be received by the men in her life. Will they finally see what they’ve put her through, or will life continue as before, with Esther pretending that nothing is wrong and performing perfection until her body gives out? De Van ends the film with the striking image of Esther lying on the hotel bed, fixing the audience with a knowing stare. Though she carefully hides her fragility, we alone have seen the true cost of survival in this destructive world.
Dark Touch (2013): Trauma, Abuse, and Supernatural Revenge

In many ways, this shocking story of catharsis through violence feels like a thematic response to In My Skin and Esther’s unexpressed pain. Also written and directed by de Van, Dark Touch follows an Irish girl named Niamh (Missy Keating) who becomes the sole survivor of a massacre.
We first meet this little girl screaming from her bedroom window, then running through the stormy night to the house of family friends Nat (Marcella Plunkett) and Lucas Galin (Pádraic Delaney). Niamh’s parents smooth over the incident, presenting the illusion of a happy home. It’s only when the doors are closed that we realize something is dreadfully wrong. De Van implies the worst as the sinister couple creeps into their daughter’s room, commanding her to be a “good girl.” But Niamh is saved from horrific abuse by furniture that seems to move on its own.
De Van leans into her French Extremity roots in what will become a gruesome execution. Niamh’s mother is crushed by a splintering bureau, a loose screw driving itself into her face. Her father watches his wife’s grisly death, then falls on the blades of an ultra-modern light fixture. Flames spread through the house as Niamh cradles her infant brother in a tiny cupboard. When rescuers arrive on the scene, we learn that the baby boy has died, mysteriously smothered by an inhuman force. Now an orphan, Niamh goes to stay with Nat and Lucas, who struggle to meet her emotional needs. Unable to explain her traumatic past, Niamh finds that things move whenever she cries, an outward manifestation of her silenced rage.

Though Nat and Lucas offer support, they only seem to make things worse. Lucas volunteers to stay in Niamh’s room when she has a bad dream, oblivious to the discomfort his presence might cause. Growing impatient when she can’t fall asleep, a snide comment betrays his empty concern. Niamh finally finds solace in photos of the couple’s older daughter, who died from cancer years ago. She clings to an image of the little girl blowing out birthday candles while covered in bruises, drawn to the familiar juxtaposition of a child suffering through visible pain while going about life as if nothing is wrong.
But this too enrages Lucas. When he finds the pictures under her bed, the weeping father shakes Niamh and demands to know what gives her the right to bring up such a devastating memory. While perhaps understandable, Lucas’ reaction tells the traumatized girl that his comfort is the true priority, and she is not allowed to soothe herself.
Niamh’s only friends in the tiny town are young siblings from a similarly violent home. Whistling to them in the night, Niamh uses her emerging telekinesis to kill their abusive mother in an attack similar to the one that destroyed her own family. When Nat arranges for Niamh to attend a birthday party, she bristles at the other girls’ treatment of their baby dolls. They slap and rip at their faux children’s hair, seeming to process their own quasi-abusive upbringing. As she bursts into tears, Niamh spreads fire through the party and melts the faces of the mistreated dolls. That night, she lures the children to school and then destroys the building, violently disrupting what she interprets as a continuous cycle of child abuse.

Next, Niamh turns her attention to her foster parents, telepathically trapping them in her former home. For hours, she puts them through a series of torturous humiliations we assume she endured at her own parents’ hands. Now, Nat and Lucas must suffer in silence as Niamh finally reveals the extent of her misery. Forced to sit with their tormentor at a dinner table, Nat and Lucas quietly weep as flames spread throughout the home. Like Naimh once did, they go through the motions of a happy family, unable to protect themselves. Their foster daughter smiles as the fire consumes them all, finally putting an end to her tragic life.
Despite this murderous conclusion, Niamh is not a traditional villain. She’s a horrifically abused little girl who can’t find a way to express her pain. Though she’s managed to remove herself from immediate danger, every attempt to heal is met with stigma, resentment, or the burden of caring for someone else. When her trauma becomes too uncomfortable, she’s advised to simply stay out of sight.
Like Esther, Niamh exists in a world that expects her to create comfort for everyone else, regardless of the suffering it causes her. But Niamh’s agony can no longer be contained. Abandoning all hope for a happy life, she channels her rage and destroys anyone who crosses her path. Perhaps this is not fair to Nat and Lucas or the children of this tiny town. But what happened to Niamh is also unfair, and her trauma can no longer be ignored.
Though they do not narratively connect, Dark Touch feels like a spiritual successor to In My Skin. Both Esther and Niamh try to swallow their pain, but find it too great to be contained. We leave Esther struggling to stay afloat in a world of male toxicity. Picking up Niamh’s story at a similar moment, we watch the child escape her own abuse only to find that the world doesn’t really care. Her community will only offer support if it doesn’t disrupt their own lives.
Though de Van does not offer us hopeful endings, there’s grim satisfaction in revealing the world as it is, one built on the expectation that women will suffer in silence. Both In My Skin and Dark Touch seem to argue that a society built on women’s pain does not deserve a second chance.

You must be logged in to post a comment.