Folks, I have this love/hate relationship with the works of Stephen King.
No, this isn’t political, though I do loathe the man’s politics. And, no, this isn’t a matter of envy over the fact that he’s widely successful because I’d never ever argue that he doesn’t deserve the rewards he’s earned. The man is a pure dynamo when it comes to crafting some of the most highly regarding fiction since pen was ever put to paper; and I genuinely mean that. I’ve read enough of his works to know that not all of it is for me, but that’s never stopped me from picking up the occasional paperback and rummaging through it for whatever goodness (and badness) I can find. Like a juggernaut, the author just keeps going – against all odds – and continues to produce stories to keep us up at night; so, kudos are warmly extended to him as we’ll likely never see another one like that in our lifetime.
But … here’s the thing …
What works on page – in words – doesn’t always translate well to visuals … and vice versa. There are some very, very, very good novels that work chiefly by getting inside your head, making you think about things on a level that frightens in ways that seeing it up in light and shadows defies; and I’m not convinced any storyteller in filmdom has done a truly respectful job in translating that to celluloid. Is that the filmmaker’s fault? Well, as I said, no, it isn’t; and that’s owed to the fact that what chills us to the bone via our imagination doesn’t work anywhere near the same level as what accomplishes the same in scenes constructed, staged, acted, and edited for consumption. They are two different mediums; and – while there’s certainly solid crossover potential – something has to change in order to make for a good flick.
As a result, I think there’s a good number of filmed entries from King’s library that wind up being a bit exploitative and gratuitous when the source material couldn’t be further from that. Arguably, some filmmakers avoided that – 1980’s The Shining from Stanley Kubrick comes to mind (a product that King rabidly hates); 1983’s The Dead Zone from David Cronenberg succeeds as a character study as much as it does a Horror Fantasy (another outing the author despises); and 1994’s poorly received miniseries adaptation of The Stand – and I think they did so by finding narrative hooks with which to make some iteration stand on its own despite ignoring a good deal of what made the books special. See what I mean? Novels and films are decidedly different – both work on their own magic – and perhaps King’s best stuff will always be a bit elusive when it comes from script-to-screen.
No, this isn’t political, though I do loathe the man’s politics. And, no, this isn’t a matter of envy over the fact that he’s widely successful because I’d never ever argue that he doesn’t deserve the rewards he’s earned. The man is a pure dynamo when it comes to crafting some of the most highly regarding fiction since pen was ever put to paper; and I genuinely mean that. I’ve read enough of his works to know that not all of it is for me, but that’s never stopped me from picking up the occasional paperback and rummaging through it for whatever goodness (and badness) I can find. Like a juggernaut, the author just keeps going – against all odds – and continues to produce stories to keep us up at night; so, kudos are warmly extended to him as we’ll likely never see another one like that in our lifetime.
But … here’s the thing …
What works on page – in words – doesn’t always translate well to visuals … and vice versa. There are some very, very, very good novels that work chiefly by getting inside your head, making you think about things on a level that frightens in ways that seeing it up in light and shadows defies; and I’m not convinced any storyteller in filmdom has done a truly respectful job in translating that to celluloid. Is that the filmmaker’s fault? Well, as I said, no, it isn’t; and that’s owed to the fact that what chills us to the bone via our imagination doesn’t work anywhere near the same level as what accomplishes the same in scenes constructed, staged, acted, and edited for consumption. They are two different mediums; and – while there’s certainly solid crossover potential – something has to change in order to make for a good flick.
As a result, I think there’s a good number of filmed entries from King’s library that wind up being a bit exploitative and gratuitous when the source material couldn’t be further from that. Arguably, some filmmakers avoided that – 1980’s The Shining from Stanley Kubrick comes to mind (a product that King rabidly hates); 1983’s The Dead Zone from David Cronenberg succeeds as a character study as much as it does a Horror Fantasy (another outing the author despises); and 1994’s poorly received miniseries adaptation of The Stand – and I think they did so by finding narrative hooks with which to make some iteration stand on its own despite ignoring a good deal of what made the books special. See what I mean? Novels and films are decidedly different – both work on their own magic – and perhaps King’s best stuff will always be a bit elusive when it comes from script-to-screen.
All of this brings me to Salem’s Lot, a 1979 televised miniseries adaptation of the King novel of the same name. (Tidbit: I have read online that the author is quite fond of this one.) Tobe Hooper directed both installments from an adaptation crafted by Paul Monash. The effort starred David Soul, Bonnie Bedelia, Lew Ayres, Lance Kerwin, and James Mason in big roles; and it’s a work that’s been fairly universally praised – both back in its day and even in the present – though I’ll admit that I’m honestly at a loss to understand why. Despite some winning atmosphere and a few good scenes, I found the whole 180-plus minutes to suffer an incredible amount of bloat, along with a lack of character motivations so much so that I just never game a damn about their world, their identities, or their shared circumstances.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the miniseries’ IMDB.com page citation:
“A novelist and a young horror fan attempt to save a small New England town which has been invaded by vampires.”
In order for Horror to work as a genre – even with its most casual fans – there must be a means with which all of a film’s elements come together to not only create a current of tension but also it must raise even the most obvious stakes.
Most times, storytellers accomplish this by establishing an atmosphere of dread; and – while that’s well and good – they forget to sometimes cleverly and calculatingly push that up another notch when everyone’s watching. (Spinal Tap would remind you that this one goes up to eleven and for a good reason.) In chillers (of which Salem’s Lot certainly qualifies), this tends to be done with heady visuals – dark corners, a wealth of cobwebs signaling a space that hasn’t been frequented, a busted open shipping crate with no explanation for what’s happened, etc. Director Tobe Hooper – of 1974’s groundbreaking Horror feature The Texas Chain Saw Massacre – clearly knew a thing or two about delivering the look and mood required here; and, yet, somewhere along the way I think a few things got overlooked.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the miniseries’ IMDB.com page citation:
“A novelist and a young horror fan attempt to save a small New England town which has been invaded by vampires.”
In order for Horror to work as a genre – even with its most casual fans – there must be a means with which all of a film’s elements come together to not only create a current of tension but also it must raise even the most obvious stakes.
Most times, storytellers accomplish this by establishing an atmosphere of dread; and – while that’s well and good – they forget to sometimes cleverly and calculatingly push that up another notch when everyone’s watching. (Spinal Tap would remind you that this one goes up to eleven and for a good reason.) In chillers (of which Salem’s Lot certainly qualifies), this tends to be done with heady visuals – dark corners, a wealth of cobwebs signaling a space that hasn’t been frequented, a busted open shipping crate with no explanation for what’s happened, etc. Director Tobe Hooper – of 1974’s groundbreaking Horror feature The Texas Chain Saw Massacre – clearly knew a thing or two about delivering the look and mood required here; and, yet, somewhere along the way I think a few things got overlooked.
Successful author Ben Mears (played by David Soul) returns to the town of his past – Salem’s Lot, Maine – the kind of quaint little village that still had boarding houses for lovers hoping to escape to its modestly scenic New England wiles. While the man does find a bit of romance in the arms of the lovely local single Susan Norton (the deliriously fetching Bonnie Bedelia), he’s also aware that the cozy town maintains the old Marsten House, a manor Mears intends to expose as a kinda/sorta ‘source of all things evil’ in his next volume. As the dreary place – a definite stand-in for the Norman Bates’ house featured in 1960’s Psycho – has fallen under control of the never-present man of mystery – Richard Straker – and his (ahem) live-in companion-style manservant, antiques dealer Kurt Barlow (James Mason), Mears will have to work his way into the home secretly if he’s to find out what villainy takes place upon its grim roof.
As Fate would have it, the writer just happens to be in the right place at the right time: Barlow has paved way for Straker’s arrival in Salem’s Lot, and the master vampire apparently has built up quite an appetite. It isn’t a hunger that’s being restricted to him, though, as what appears to be his Master Plan is to transform the municipality into, basically, a haven for bloodsuckers who will all be from his design. Of course, it doesn’t take long for Mears to recognize that some dire agenda is underway. He’s eventually joined with a few other concerned citizens – retired teacher Jason Burke (Lew Ayres), town physician Bill Norton (Ed Flanders), Susan, and teenage monster aficionado and drama student Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin) – and they’ll all have to work together if they’re to stop the dreaded infection from taking over the property.
Sometimes – as a critic – I don’t feel the need to get all that deep into why a particular film or television show doesn’t work for me.
As Fate would have it, the writer just happens to be in the right place at the right time: Barlow has paved way for Straker’s arrival in Salem’s Lot, and the master vampire apparently has built up quite an appetite. It isn’t a hunger that’s being restricted to him, though, as what appears to be his Master Plan is to transform the municipality into, basically, a haven for bloodsuckers who will all be from his design. Of course, it doesn’t take long for Mears to recognize that some dire agenda is underway. He’s eventually joined with a few other concerned citizens – retired teacher Jason Burke (Lew Ayres), town physician Bill Norton (Ed Flanders), Susan, and teenage monster aficionado and drama student Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin) – and they’ll all have to work together if they’re to stop the dreaded infection from taking over the property.
Sometimes – as a critic – I don’t feel the need to get all that deep into why a particular film or television show doesn’t work for me.
Salem’s Lot – while expertly made and even a bit formulaic – kinda/sorta drags in place it needn’t; and I never get enough meat on the bones of these various characters to care all that much about them, their town, or their survival. Soul – always a good actor – carries the weight of the tale on his shoulders, appearing chiefly as a crusading do-gooder who just wants to bring an end to evil; but I found myself continually questioning why he’d commit this much of his life to essentially exploring a local legend in a small town not really on anyone’s map of significance. A bit more was required, but the characterization comes up bland. Bedelia makes the most of her few scenes – frankly, I would like to have seen a more organic relationship blossom between her and Mears as this one felt too convenient – and the best she gets for her troubles here is a great inclusion in the miniseries’ framework ending. (I won’t spoil it, so let’s just say it ain’t all sunshine and roses.) Kerwin, too, is pretty interesting here and there, but all too often he feels like the typical King creation: a brighter-than-average kid who just happens to be interested in monsters because that’s what the story needs and how the author perhaps saw himself in this yarn.
Still, scenes drag on far longer than necessary, and Lot slows down far too often to revel in its own atmosphere. While I can accept a bit of deliberate pacing if there’s a significant pay-off for my patience, that doesn’t happen enough for me to feel as if director Hooper and screenwriter Paul Monash were in sympatico on how to shift all of these minorly-moving pieces into a cohesive whole. About the best that can be said here is that the vampires – even the fledgling ones – are terrifically creepy – especially for TV scale – and the old Marsten House lives up to its legend once we get inside. I’d still say a few of those hallway scenes could’ve used a trimming, but if these were the only rewards then waiting over two hours – in a three-hour cut – to get to them asks a great deal of the watchers.
Now, some of my disappointment with Lot might be the way in which it was constructed. Generally speaking, I’m a fan of opening flashbacks because I think when used properly they can help both set the stage for what’s about to unfold via jumping backward in time as well as framing the whole experience in a way that helps contain the narrative, keeping it from jumping to and fro unnecessarily. Here, however, it really deflates the central story because – from the outset – the audience has been assured that the two big characters – Mears and Petrie – are truly in no danger from anything that takes place in the flashback. Why? Well, because you showed us that they survive! Consequently, when we see them appear in any jeopardy, there’s no resulting tension – something every chiller requires to be effective – as we’ve already seen that they survive. So … what’s all this about then? Structurally, it just killed the primary reason most of us tune in to watch Horror.
Still, scenes drag on far longer than necessary, and Lot slows down far too often to revel in its own atmosphere. While I can accept a bit of deliberate pacing if there’s a significant pay-off for my patience, that doesn’t happen enough for me to feel as if director Hooper and screenwriter Paul Monash were in sympatico on how to shift all of these minorly-moving pieces into a cohesive whole. About the best that can be said here is that the vampires – even the fledgling ones – are terrifically creepy – especially for TV scale – and the old Marsten House lives up to its legend once we get inside. I’d still say a few of those hallway scenes could’ve used a trimming, but if these were the only rewards then waiting over two hours – in a three-hour cut – to get to them asks a great deal of the watchers.
Now, some of my disappointment with Lot might be the way in which it was constructed. Generally speaking, I’m a fan of opening flashbacks because I think when used properly they can help both set the stage for what’s about to unfold via jumping backward in time as well as framing the whole experience in a way that helps contain the narrative, keeping it from jumping to and fro unnecessarily. Here, however, it really deflates the central story because – from the outset – the audience has been assured that the two big characters – Mears and Petrie – are truly in no danger from anything that takes place in the flashback. Why? Well, because you showed us that they survive! Consequently, when we see them appear in any jeopardy, there’s no resulting tension – something every chiller requires to be effective – as we’ve already seen that they survive. So … what’s all this about then? Structurally, it just killed the primary reason most of us tune in to watch Horror.
Salem’s Lot (1979) was produced by Warner Bros. Television. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still attest that the provided sights and sounds are quite good across the story’s run time. There are some effects sequences which represent some of the best that was available at the time, though they don’t exactly hold up all that well today. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, you’ll have to look elsewhere as there’s absolutely nada provided on this disc. Disappointing, but it is what it is.
Alas … this one is only Mildly Recommended.
Frankly, I can remember the last time I was this bored with a vampire story, but – sorry, folks – Salem’s Lot was a painfully slow experience. I don’t doubt that there was a good central story somewhere wrapped up in all of this, but at an inconceivable 180-plus minutes I’ll argue this one was definitely in need of a good trimming. As it is? It sucked the blood right outta me. Perhaps an impressive two-hour flick? I’ve read such a cut exists; and maybe – just maybe – that would’ve been the better way to go. This miniseries is obviously a product of its day – what with some very dated and rather obvious effects work – so those going in knowing these modest reservations might have more luck with it than I did. It’s another one of those yarns that ends but doesn’t (you’ll understand when you see it), and I’m also not sure that was the closure I deserved for waiting so long in the process.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Allied Vaughn provided me with a complimentary DVD of Salem’s Lot (1979) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Alas … this one is only Mildly Recommended.
Frankly, I can remember the last time I was this bored with a vampire story, but – sorry, folks – Salem’s Lot was a painfully slow experience. I don’t doubt that there was a good central story somewhere wrapped up in all of this, but at an inconceivable 180-plus minutes I’ll argue this one was definitely in need of a good trimming. As it is? It sucked the blood right outta me. Perhaps an impressive two-hour flick? I’ve read such a cut exists; and maybe – just maybe – that would’ve been the better way to go. This miniseries is obviously a product of its day – what with some very dated and rather obvious effects work – so those going in knowing these modest reservations might have more luck with it than I did. It’s another one of those yarns that ends but doesn’t (you’ll understand when you see it), and I’m also not sure that was the closure I deserved for waiting so long in the process.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Allied Vaughn provided me with a complimentary DVD of Salem’s Lot (1979) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed