avclub.com's Emily L. Stephens posted an article titled, " 1994’s The Stand does not stand the test of time."
I'll list Stephen's concerns in a simple list format, as her article is long and pretty detailed. The quotes are from the article:
1. The Stand is locked in the time it was filmed in.
"Everything from casting choices to wardrobe to musical cues cements The Stand firmly in the mid-’90s, sacrificing any timelessness in favor of an already dated sensibility. It’s not the self-aware frolic of Clueless or the drab naturalism of Office Space. This is 1994 as an ’80s hangover, complete with former members of the Brat Pack and an 8-year-old Top 10 hit already milked for nostalgia."2. The acting is bad.
"It doesn’t help that the performances are so flat." She specifically picks on Ruby Dee, who is "hampered by King's tics of dialogue." And Jamey Sheridan's portrayal of Randall Flagg, who she finds far too affable.
Wait -- she ain't done. There is discussion on Rob Low (who I thought was great in this film), but she calls "inept at expressing inner life through gesture and expression."
Of course, she gives kuddos to Gary Sinise's portral of Stu and is silent -- and then moves on to Frannie; who mostly gets knocks for her wardrobe. "Frannie’s endless assortment of distinctively ’90s floral dresses highly unsuitable for a post-apocalyptic road trip--" I didn't notice!3. The miniseries took the book to literal:
In the miniseries, this metaphorical hand of God becomes literal, its massive glowing fingers wrapping themselves around the A-bomb to spark the obliteration of the city, to kill Flagg and his disciples, and to dismantle all the stakes established in the story so far. This burst of micromanaging by God undermines the gravity and compassion of the protagonists by making their path a sure and holy one, rather than a journey of agonizing doubt.Wait a minute. . . in the book it was not a "metaphorical hand of God" -- it was literal. And I know the script got it right, because King wrote the script.
4. The Stand fails to make the needed point:
Stephen King’s script wipes out the point he built up so potently in the book: that ordinary people might gravitate toward Flagg for complex, even sympathetic reasons—a craving for order in the post-plague chaos, the lure of structured society that values their skills and dedication, the belief that they’re helping to re-establish discipline and law—and that, once having found their place in that well-ordered society, they’re resistant to challenge or change. It’s an unsubtle but trenchant critique of middle-class comforts and the seductive ease of hypocrisy.Oh -- that was the point? I've been reading the Stand wrong all these years. I thought the point was: Faith must be tested. Evil is real, and good is real; but good cannot simply count on God to fight evil, as moral beings we must also be willing to take our stand against wickedness. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. But honestly, her description of The Stand's purpose reads more like Needful Things.
Two quotes from A Face Among The Masters:
King might not have angels and demons duking it out, like in This Present Darkness, but the spiritual warfare is still very real in The Stand. (Gardner, Brighton, Stephen King A Face Among The Masters)
In 2008, King told novelist John Marks in Salon magazine that The Stand was his attempt to give God his due. “Too often, in novels that are speculative, God is a kind of kryptonite, and that’s about all that it is, and it goes back to Dracula, where someone dumps a crucifix in Count Dracula’s face, and he pulls away and runs back into his house. That’s not religion,” King told Marks. “That’s some kind of juju, like a talisman. I wanted to do more than that. I wanted to explore what that means to be able to rise above adversity by faith, because it’s something most of us do every day.” He then said that he wanted The Stand to “be a God trip.”
