- Joined
- Sep 8, 2024
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 209
- Awards
- 1
'Tis the season! And so I recently sat through the newest film adaptation of Stephen King's vampire classic, 'Salem's Lot. There were better ways to spend two hours...
In fairness, there were worse ways too. This isn't a bad film, its central performance (Lewis Pullman) is good and there is one scene of stunning cinematography (a sort of Night of the Hunter meets Lotte Reiniger fairytale bit as two children walk through a forest - genuinely chilling). However, its problems are those that come with trying to condense a 500 page novel into under two hours of screen time. One of the most powerful parts of King's story, the idea that the doorway to vampirism is opened through antinomianism or "corruption", is entirely absent from the film. King's story, and all of its adaptions, have, what I would call, an uninitiated image of the vampire. There is no contemplation of what the vampiric condition qualitatively means but the perspective is entirely human. That is, a vampire is a monster, a frightening thing that violates. Added to this is that the story is very thin on folklore so there's nothing added that could be used as a prop in magic.
Still, if you're a fan of King, you may enjoy but you'll be selling yourself short if you watch this without first reading the novel or seeking out the 1979 mini-series.
In fairness, there were worse ways too. This isn't a bad film, its central performance (Lewis Pullman) is good and there is one scene of stunning cinematography (a sort of Night of the Hunter meets Lotte Reiniger fairytale bit as two children walk through a forest - genuinely chilling). However, its problems are those that come with trying to condense a 500 page novel into under two hours of screen time. One of the most powerful parts of King's story, the idea that the doorway to vampirism is opened through antinomianism or "corruption", is entirely absent from the film. King's story, and all of its adaptions, have, what I would call, an uninitiated image of the vampire. There is no contemplation of what the vampiric condition qualitatively means but the perspective is entirely human. That is, a vampire is a monster, a frightening thing that violates. Added to this is that the story is very thin on folklore so there's nothing added that could be used as a prop in magic.
Still, if you're a fan of King, you may enjoy but you'll be selling yourself short if you watch this without first reading the novel or seeking out the 1979 mini-series.
