“Salem’s Lot” (1979)

Salem’s Lot

Grade: B+

Directed by Tobe Hooper (of Texas Chainsaw Massacre fame) and based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, Salem’s Lot is a surprisingly chilling made-for-TV miniseries that never feels cheap and remains entertaining throughout its three-hour runtime.

Directing:

Tobe Hooper’s artistic ambition is a big reason why Salem’s Lot has earned the status of cinematic cult classic. The entire film has a strangely relaxing and dreamlike vibe, even when Hooper is deliberately trying to scare us — his use of bright, overexposed lighting amplifies the story’s paranoia without relying on manufactured thrills. Hooper’s simple special effects (e.g., gusts of wind, billowing smoke, crepuscular silhouettes) are effective at crafting a slow-burn storyline that gets under the skin.

Acting:

Salem’s Lot benefits from a competent cast. They may not be movie stars, but the likes of David Soul, Bonnie Bedelia, Fred Willard and Lance Kerwin do a great job at making the film’s many characters a memorable bunch. And, of course, the presence of one movie star goes a long way: a 70-year-old James Mason delivers a vintage performance as a snarky yet sinister vampire’s familiar named Richard Straker.

Writing:

As a two-episode miniseries, Salem’s Lot suffers from a slow start. But as a three-hour film, Salem’s Lot is a well-paced slow burn that patiently establishes its dark atmosphere. Even if some plot elements feel incomplete, the movie crafts a consistent supernatural tone and a fully inhabited setting. The storyline is an effective, understated horror.

Music:

Harry Sukman’s orchestral score follows in the Gothic B-movie tradition of The Terror and House of Wax. It’s a stereotypical horror soundtrack, with the occasional cue that feels out of place. Sukman’s symphony is convincing yet suffers from lazy editing: when you’re watching Salem’s Lot without commercials, the suspenseful music sometimes feels ill-timed.

Ending (SPOILERS):

One of the biggest changes in Hooper’s adaptation is turning master-vampire Kurt Barlow from a cultured villain to a speechless, Nosferatu-like monster. As frightening (i.e., cool) as his costume design is, Barlow’s lack of personality makes the final showdown feel like a bit of a letdown. Furthermore, the epilogue in Guatemala feels like a tacked-on invitation for a sequel. The saga is compelling overall, but the emotional stakes are lacking in the final act.

“Throw away the cross. Face the master.” — Richard Straker

Why Salem’s Lot gets a B+

King’s story is captivating by itself — certainly worth a read. When coupled with Hooper’s subtle direction, the made-for-TV cheapness is elevated to cinematic quality. The natural shortcomings of the medium make Salem’s Lot a little disjointed, but the plot is interesting enough to keep us entertained. For horror fans, King fans, Hooper fans and movie fans, it’s well worth watching.

---