As film adaptations of Stephen King from page to screen, no one is as adept as writer/director Frank Darabont. His adaptations of “The Green Mile” and “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” are pitch perfect. His adaptation of King’s short story, “The Mist,” unfortunately, has a flaw in it that keeps it from sharing company with his previous hits. It is a missed opportunity that could have been avoided…relatively easily. In spite of the flaw, 95% of the movie is on target, capturing both the substance and tone of the short story. The ending, however, doesn’t work intellectually or emotionally.

In this analysis I will explore what went right, what went wrong, and how a little Dramatica insight shows what it needs to turn “The Mist” into a story hit.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Overall, I enjoyed the movie in spite of the ending. Like the best “monster” movies, “The Mist” hovers back and forth between A-movie spectacle and B-movie melodrama. It follows the events in the short story faithfully, and fleshes-out the characters well, keeping the tone and texture intact. The short story has an open ending, meaning it does not resolve the character, theme, or plot development. Therein lies the pitfall into which the movie drops precipitously.

WHAT HAPPENS:

The story is about several dozen small town folk trapped inside a food market after a military experiment to open a “window” into another dimension accidentally turns into a “door” and lets a dense “mist” and lots of nasty, man-eating critters into the neighborhood. Among the locals trapped in the market are a father, David Drayton, and his son, Billy. David is the Main Character and protagonist of the survival effort. One by one the monsters on the outside kill the hapless survivors. David makes a heavily portentous promise to Billy that he will not let the monsters get Billy. Unfortunately for David, Billy, and a small band of “sane” folk, a religious zealot among those in the market shows how monstrous people can be. It soon becomes safer with the “monsters” in the mist than with the “human monsters” in the grocery store.

Of those escaping with David and Billy, only three others make it into his SUV alive. The group drives away and stops by David’s home where they find his wife a victim of giant spiders. They head south and find even scarier, and bigger, creatures in the mist, but manage to steer clear of them all. They narrowly escape being crushed by a behemoth from another dimension.

All is fine until they run out of gas. It is then they decide it’s better to kill themselves than to be eaten alive. Unfortunately, there are five of them and their gun only has four bullets. “Compelled” to live up to his promise, David shoots and kills Billy and the three other adults, then steps into the mist crying out for something to take him. The irony occurs when the mist clears and reveals the arrival of the armed forces. David screams in emotional torment as trucks move survivors by him to safety.

WHAT IS WRONG:

The short story ends with the unseen behemoth shaking the ground as it approaches David and group in the car. The movie works well up until that point. It’s after the behemoth passes and they run out of gas that the story fumbles. It makes no sense for these survivors to kill themselves without any immediate threat. They are sitting in a relatively safe vehicle without any monsters around them. They’re not hungry. Heck, they don’t even need to go to the bathroom. David has gone through hell to protect his kid, AND he has the additional guilt of failing to protect his wife. Why would he kill his son—voluntarily—under those circumstances? The answer is he wouldn’t, so the end plays false. Instead of a tragic irony, the end is unbelievable, melodramatic, and emotionally disconnected.

I believe a key reason the story ends like it does is because it does not have a solid storyform. The story does not have a clear Impact Character providing an alternative perspective to that of the Main Character. What does David believe in? An Impact Character would challenge that belief, even if it has the effect of strengthening the Main Character’s resolve.

WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED:

In order to have the tragic irony of the ending work, David would have to go through a major transformation from someone willing to do everything necessary to protect his son to someone who willingly kills his son. It’s doable, but you have got to provide a compelling argument why killing his son is the best and ONLY option available to him. To do this, you need the following:

• Some personal backstory where David was unable to provide similar protection, which had horrific results for the person under protection.

• An Impact Character who confronts David with the reality of the situation and forces David to consider the possibility of a tragic ending.

• Evidence that David’s ability to protect Billy from the monsters is eroding.

• Make David a Change main character.

• Provide an imminent threat to Billy that forces David to make a decision and adopt the position of the Impact Character.

By way of example, David’s wife’s death could have been portrayed in more horrific ways. As it is in the film, she is dead but appears to have died quietly and calmly—almost like she fell asleep and did not wake up.

At the end, David could misinterpret the sound of the approaching armed forces. He could think the car is under imminent attack (or have it under attack from monsters fleeing the oncoming tanks). Perhaps a monster cracks a window, or breaks it, which triggers David’s new response causing him to shoot Billy to “protect” him.

The ending then would be truly tragic and ironic, his pain and horror genuine, and the audience would believe it and be bummed by its sad ending.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED:

Personally, I think the story should NOT have had such a tragic ending. I think the story is designed to be ironic but not so bleak. As a character, David is strong, likeable, and positive. He is a hero. I believe David was not killed in the short story because it would have broken the vague storyform hidden within the text, translated into the screenplay, and captured on the screen. Here’s what I believe should have happened in the film:

1. Turn one of the existing characters into the Impact Character. Amanda, the “stand-in mother” for Billy in the group, seems like the natural choice. Give her the tragic backstory and let her argue for the need for a backup plan (a euphemism for euthanizing Billy).

2. Make David a Steadfast main character.

3. After they run out of gas and discuss the idea of killing four out of the five with the remaining bullets, have David still resistant to the idea.

4. Have the sound of the approaching tanks sound like monsters and shake the ground. A group of giant spiders and other nasties swarm PAST the car as they run from the approaching tanks. Amanda and the other two adults are convinced they are attacking and plead to be shot.

5. David refuses to kill his son, or anyone. The noises and rumbles grow but the monsters are no longer outside the car.

6. A scuffle ensues. The gun is knocked from David’s grip and Amanda grabs it.

7. David drags Billy out of the car with him and shields Billy with his body. Amanda pulls the door closed from the inside. She mouths good-bye to David then shoots and kills the other passengers and herself.

8. David and Billy stumble into the mist waiting for the inevitable attack when the mist clears with help on the way.

This is hardly a “happy” ending, but it is one that is consistent in tone and intent with the film and short story. If the relationship throughline between David and Amanda was developed as it should have been, her death would give the story the tragic depth I believe the filmmakers intended.