The 1970s saw an explosion of TV-movies, and a number of these small-screen features were based on novels. The two examples here, which are some of the most memorable of their day, sit on opposite ends of the adaptation spectrum. While Bad Ronald (1974) took liberties with its source material, Are You in the House […]
The 1970s saw an explosion of TV-movies, and a number of these small-screen features were based on novels. The two examples here, which are some of the most memorable of their day, sit on opposite ends of the adaptation spectrum. While Bad Ronald (1974) took liberties with its source material, Are You in the House Alone? (1978) stays somewhat true to the spirit of the novel. Both features also teeter on the edge of horror, a recurring genre in the “golden age” of made-for-television movies.
Jack Vance was not a horror-only author, so Bad Ronald (1973) is an anomaly in his overall body of work. ABC quickly acted on the success of the novel, with the network ultimately airing its adaptation a week before Halloween. However, Andrew Peter Marin’s screenplay is different from what Vance had penned. Anyone who has read the original novel would understand — maybe even appreciate — the changes in director Buzz Kulik’s version.
The basic pitch of Bad Ronald is always a profitable one in horror: someone hides in a person’s house without their knowledge. The TV translation of Ronald Wilby’s badness, though, greatly dials back his sociopathy. Yes, Scott Jacoby’s character indeed commits a heinous crime in the beginning of the telefilm, but his literary parallel’s actions are far more contemptible. Vance drummed up a disturbed teen who doesn’t just stop at murder. No, this Ronald is a repeat molester.
Vance’s novel is not an easy read, despite the author’s talent. The 17-year-old boy depicted here is an irredeemable villain who doesn’t see the wrong in his behaviors. Having a mother like Elaine (played on screen by Kim Hunter) does not help matters; she enables her son, and is partly to blame for what later happens to the new tenants of hers and Ronald’s former home. After Elaine’s sudden passing, Ronald haunts the Wood Family like a ghost. He first steals their food before he steals their daughters. One by one, the Wood girls succumb to a grisly fate before someone figures out Ronald is hiding within the walls of 572 Orchard Street.
Either interpretation of Bad Ronald — in addition there is a French movie from 1992 called Méchant garçon — is an effective and fresh take on the haunted house genre. The TV-movie has a visual advantage to consider; the American Gothicness of the story comes out in waves. Although, the TV-movie makes an attempt to humanize Ronald, a boy whose father gave him up legally and a mother who also abandoned him, albeit unintentionally. Through his creepy peephole Ronald spies on the kind of life he could have led had he grown up differently.
Vance’s Bad Ronald makes the skin crawl for a good 200 or so pages before the titular character gets his much deserved comeuppance. What a sight it would have been had the TV-movie allowed the Wood matriarch (Pippa Scott on screen) to light Ronald on fire like in the book. Nevertheless, what Kulik made of Marin’s script remains influential to this day. There is no doubt that movies made since then have been affected, directly or otherwise, by Bad Ronald.
Pictured: Scott Jacoby and Ted Eccles in Bad Ronald (1974).
Richard Peck’s Are You in the House Alone? (1976) was, in those days, a momentous novel in the world of teen fiction. The frankness toward its subject matter and sympathy toward the victim were both appreciated. And in ways, Walter Grauman’s TV-movie does a respectable job of bringing Peck’s story to life without losing the essence. Writer Judith Parker can’t be overlooked either; her script balances the drama and horror elements quite well. Readers and viewers might hesitate to classify the screen version as strictly horror, yet they can agree Gail Osborne’s ordeal is terrifying.
The 16-year-old at the heart of CBS’ Are You in the House Alone? is played by Kathleen Beller, a veteran of retro television. Connoisseurs of classic TV horror would recognize her face from No Place to Hide and Deadly Messages. Here she plays a San Francisco transplant — a former New Yorker in the book — named Gail who has caught the unwanted attention of a peer. First it’s increasingly obscene notes in her locker, then phone calls ranging from uncomfortable silence to deranged threats. Eventually the anonymous stalker shows his face and rapes Gail. The victim’s terror, however, doesn’t end there.
Are You in the House Alone? grasps the basics of Peck’s novel, but it lacks the lengthier discussions of classism and elitism. Gail’s rapist, her best friend Alison’s boyfriend Phil (Dennis Quaidon screen), is the poster boy for rich and white privilege in this fictional Connecticut town; his pull around these parts keeps him safe for too long. That is then combined with straightforward talk of then-current rape culture and legislation. While the TV rendition doesn’t dwell on these topics as much as they could have, it does make for a good conversation starter.
Something else the TV-movie let slide was the characters. Specifically the men, who television historian Amanda Reyes said in her book, Are You in the House Alone?: A TV Movie Compendium 1964–1999, “are given the short end of the stick.” Reyes went on to say most of the men “are either depicted as rapists or sleazebags, or are shown as emasculated by their inabilities to provide for their family.” The women are treated better from a writing standpoint, yet Alison (Robin Mattson) isn’t afforded the same redeeming moment from the novel, and Gail’s mother (Blythe Danner) never seems as enlightened after constantly criticizing her daughter’s townie boyfriend Steve (Scott Colomby).
Pictured: Kathleen Beller in Are You in the House Alone? (1978).
Are You in the House Alone? was billed as a pure chiller back then — one certain print ad reads more like an ad for the forthcoming When a Stranger Calls (1979) — so imagine the audience’s surprise when they tuned in for a drama. A frightening and often realistic one, but a drama nonetheless. The horror labeling was probably based upon the genre’s success on TV; CBS saw how well horror was doing on other networks and wanted to further explore its own opportunities.
To feel more like horror, Grauman and Parker’s Are You in the House Alone? plays up the stranger danger aspect. A male teacher becomes a red herring for the stalker, as does Gail’s ex-boyfriend, and the suspenseful (and rushed) conclusion greatly differs from that of the novel. Whereas Peck ended on a gloomy and imprecise note reflecting the state of the world, the TV-movie instead settles on a more definitive ending that gives Gail as well as viewers a sense of closure.
Going by just their television reworkings, Bad Ronald and Are You in the House Alone? don’t have a great deal in common other than their mostly teenage cast, domestic dread, and suburban backdrops. Their literary bases, on the other hand, bear more obvious similarities. Unpleasant and sad as they may be, both novels are worthwhile reads that supplement — or in some cases, surpass — their screen adaptations.
